All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:40
June 9, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I told you folks, just wait a day.
Just wait a day and a left and the drive-by media will fall right in line as they have.
Oh man, oh man, what a day this is going to be.
I wonder if Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murthy and Howard Dean will be leading the U.S. delegation over to Zarkawi's funeral.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And by the way, before we get into Open Line Friday details, it is day nine and all is not quiet on the hurricane front.
A tropical disturbance out there just off the Yucatan Peninsula.
And they're watching it.
It hasn't formed yet.
There's a lot of sheer northeasterly wind clipping the top off the lower level, the circular flow of the low.
But if that shear goes away in two days, we could have a tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico by Sunday or Monday.
All not quiet on day nine of hurricane season.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you with us.
Broadcast Excellence ready to take you into the weekend here on Open Line Friday.
Remember, Monday through Thursday, the program is devoted exclusively to things I care about.
On Friday, when we go to the phones, it's your show.
You can bring up whatever you want.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
National Weather Service not saying anything.
The National Hurricane Center is not saying anything about this low-pressure area off the Yucatan.
It's actually in the, looks like the northwestern Caribbean Sea near the Bay of Campiche.
And it's being sheared right now with heavily traveled winds, northeasterly winds are clipping the tops off the circulation.
And if those sheer winds subside, as they're expected to, then ACUWETHER, Joe Bestardi and the boys are suggesting there could be a tropical depression form late this weekend or perhaps early next week.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, it is fascinating to see what is happening now out there in the drive-by media.
And I know that some of you who've seen this today are a little bit probably upset about it.
Drive-by media has just learned, they learned earlier today, that Zarkawi was still alive after the two bombs pummeled his safe house.
And that led to all kinds of probing questions of Major General William Caldwell, the spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq, in Baghdad.
We have a montage of some of those questions.
You can confirm that U.S. troops themselves saw that Zarkawi was alive.
Would you describe that as an attempt to escape at that point?
Was he strong enough for anyone to have to re-secure him?
Did U.S. troops try and render medical assistance?
Could you give us the rationale for choosing to take Zarkawi out, kill him outright rather than try to capture him?
Will there be an autopsy performed?
Was Zarkawi able to speak?
Did he say anything either to the Iraqi police or the American soldiers?
How possibly could he have survived after two 500-pound bombs were dropped on that facility?
Was he thrown clear?
Is there any visibility on why he was able to survive those two bombs?
What's going to happen to Zarkawi's body after the autopsy?
Does he get returned to his family?
In the planning that went into this, was there any going-in assumption that you would try to take Zarkawi alive rather than kill him?
How can you be sure that Zarkawi died as a result of the wounds without a formal autopsy?
When you were cleaning him up, did you have to photoshop his face or did you have to digitally enhance the photos at all to clean him up, to show him to the world?
How long, how many minutes was Zarkowi alive after the bombing and before he eventually expired?
And had he been shot?
Had he been shot?
And I was hoping that we would get in this news conference the question from the drive-by media, was he tortured?
But we didn't get that.
We got close to it, but we didn't get that.
Here is what Major Caldwell said in response.
Actually, the question, if you would explain to us the condition of Mr. Zakawi when forces arrived at the scene.
We were not aware yesterday that, in fact, Zarkowi was alive when U.S. forces arrived on the site.
The Iraqi police had arrived first.
They had found him in the rubble.
They had put him on a gurney of some type, stretcher kind of thing.
And about that time, the first U.S. forces, part of the coalition effort, arrived on the ground and actually did identify him as Zarkowi, but he died shortly thereafter.
All right.
Now, I'm going to tell you what I hope happened in this circumstance, folks.
If the scenario here that Major Caldwell has described is accurate, what happened is the bombs blew up the building and injured Zarkawi and the others in the building, the safe house, but Zarkowi was still alive.
Now, this all got started last night, by the way, because there were questions running around rumors that Zarkawi had been taken alive, and the statement was misleading.
Apparently, according to what the Army is saying, Zarkowi was actually found alive.
Now, he had to be in pretty rough shape.
You have two 500-pound bombs dropped on your head.
You're probably going to be in pretty rough shape.
So they go in there and they find him and probably has some internal bleeding.
And I'll bet you the guy was in dire need of medical assistance.
Here is what I hope happened, ladies and gentlemen.
I hope that our guys on the ground were in no big hurry to call in any kind of medical attention to rush this piece of human debris to the nearest hospital so he could be saved by America's best and brightest battlefield surgeons.
Because if that were the case, he'd only end up being put on trial where he could rant and rave about the great Satan and killing the infidels and become Masawi Jr., blah, So what I am hoping is, and yes, I have glee in saying this, I am hoping, I mean, I normally don't take any joy in the suffering of another human being, folks.
And I want to stress this, as you well know, I'm a highly compassionate, sensitive figure.
But I hope this guy was in a great deal of pain, and I hope he was pleading.
I hope he was begging.
I hope he was screaming.
I hope he was just begging for life and help and assistance.
And I hope that the last vision he saw was looking up from that gurney and seeing the uniformed special forces of the United States military.
In fact, I'm told that that was the case because when he looked up and saw it was on the gurney and they're dragging him out of there, and he looked up and he saw that it was the Americans that got him.
He tried to roll off the gurney and get away, but he doesn't have the energy to do it.
So I hope he was conscious and I hope he was begging for his life and I hope he was crying and I hope he was pleading.
And I hope the last vision he has had as a human being was of the United States Special Forces on the ground.
Here, by the way, we have intercepted.
We have sources everywhere.
We got spies everywhere.
Here is, you got to hear this, Mr. Snerdley.
Here is the latest from moveon.org.
How low will Bush go to bring his poll numbers up?
All the way to the bottom.
The bottom.
George Bush was willing to kill the alleged terrorist Al Zarkawi on charges never proven in a court of law.
The law.
With no environmental impact study before dropping two 500-pound bombs on a perfectly good house.
And George W. Bush showed no concern for innocent terrorists who might be inside us.
Now, it's leaked out detainees loyal to al-Qaeda broke their sacred oath to turn Zarkawi in under pressure from George W. Bush.
Pressure.
George W. Bush recklessly acted as judge, jury, and executioner.
Are you next?
Paid for by George Soros and Democratic friends of Abu Musabau Zarkawi, who paid full price to see Outdoor's movie.
Doing the work that the mainstream American media just won't do.
Rush on the EIB Network.
Ah, yes, America's real anchorman, the cuddly, harmless, lovable little fuzzball, El Rushball.
All-knowing, all-caring, all-concerned.
Here on Open Line Friday.
Don't be upset at the drive-by media.
I keep telling you this.
Folks, they're just getting revved up here.
Was he shot?
Was there evidence of a bullet hole?
Are you doing an autopsy?
Did you photoshop his face?
You can see where they're going.
The template remains the same in the drive-by media.
We have lost this war.
Bush is the criminal.
Our objective is to see to it that whatever happens, it redounds negatively to Bush.
I would encourage the drive-by media to continue this advanced skepticism and curiosity about the goodness of our country and our mission because it will only inspire rank-and-file Democrats to get on board with them.
It didn't take the Democrats long, for example, after their 2002 resolution supporting the use of force in Iraq.
Didn't take them long to pretend they never voted that way and to accuse Bush of lying to them and so forth.
So the same pattern will repeat itself here.
It's already started.
I'm sure you heard what Fortney Pete Stark, Democrat congressman from California, said.
This, this is just to cover Bush's rear end so we don't have to answer for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers.
Iraq's still a mess.
Get out.
Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarkawi is a small part of a growing anti-American insurgency and that it's time to get out.
We're there for all the wrong reasons.
And when you point out that, you know, point out to Democrat commentators what Pete Stark said, Kucinich, oh, come on, why would you focus on two Democrats?
The vast majority of Democrats are saying it's a great mission and so forth and so on.
Why would you?
Well, one of them's a former Democratic presidential candidate and the other is a ranking leader in the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives, Forteny Pete Stark.
And they represent quite a humongous number of Democrat opinion, Democrats' views, as well as members of the Democrat base.
Try this.
Reuters, Zarkowi found bin Laden still eludes U.S.
Yeah, good.
Good thing we got Zarkawi.
But we didn't get bin Laden.
He still eludes the United States.
You know, the real truth about this is Zarkawi was a guy out in the field.
Zarkawi was a guy recruiting.
Zarkowi was the guy beheading people.
They found 17 heads, a lot of them children, beheaded in cardboard boxes near his safe house.
This guy was a human monster.
He was a shred of human debris.
He was a piece of garbage.
Even if the drive-by media wants to suggest that somehow foul play occurred, we murdered Zarkawi.
Yeah, after dropping bombs and he's barely alive, let's say hypothetically that we finished the job and somehow we have committed murder.
The moral equivalence in these pieces of coverage that we have seen since this event is typical, predictable, still striking, however.
This guy is a leader in the theater.
He's a recruiter.
Bin Laden's a symbol.
Bin Laden's holed up on a dialysis machine somewhere.
We don't even know.
Bin Laden's a figurehead, ladies, and this guy's out there actually committing the atrocities.
And to say, Zarkawi found, but bin Laden still eludes U.S. Is this Reuters-Allreuters attempt to diminish what we did?
Los Angeles Times, he was more symbol than sweeping leader.
Oh, now Zarkawi was just a symbol.
And bin Laden's leading from a cave.
Oh, yeah, Zarkawi.
Well, he already commanded a couple hundred people.
I mean, it wasn't really the big guy out there.
I mean, come on, let's not start puffing ourselves up over this.
This is really no big deal.
There's this.
I don't believe this.
I mean, this is.
They had a new poll out there that says if Bush caught bin Laden, it wouldn't help his poll numbers.
The capture of Osama bin Laden likely would do little to help President Bush's approval ratings, according to a new poll.
Same goes for the death of Wednesday of Iraqi al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, insofar as a Bush boost in popularity.
Polster John Zoghbi says of the 1,500 respondents in the Zogbi interactive survey, most said it was important to catch bin Laden, but felt it wouldn't help the president's overall sagging job status of 42%.
What is this?
42%, the Zagbi poll?
So it doesn't matter.
We got Zarkawi.
He's just a figurehead.
He's nothing but a symbol.
But even if we got the big guy bin Laden, none of this would matter to Bush's poll numbers.
So you see, the template is what I've said it is, the lens, the prism.
Every one of these stories is looked at not for the substance and the meaning that it transfers.
And in terms of the actual event and the war, it's all being judged and written about in the drive-by media as it impacts Bush's politics and political fortunes.
A couple more soundbites here from Major General William Caldwell, military spokesman in Baghdad.
Brian Kilmead followed up with this question.
Was Zarkawi conscious?
He was conscious initially.
According to the U.S. forces that physically saw him, he obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was U.S. military.
Aha.
Aha.
Expect this one to be followed up on in a short period of time.
Here's a guy who just dropped two 500-pound bombs on his head.
He's on a gurney.
He's on a stretcher.
He looks up, fulfilling one of my dreams, and recognizes that it is U.S. special forces that nailed him.
And he tries to roll off the stretcher and get away.
So the logical follow-up, well, how bad could he be hurt then?
I mean, we had to kill him.
We had to do him harm.
We had to violate his human rights.
We had to violate his.
He was tortured by our bombs.
And then we, I can just hear this stuff coming.
If he was capable enough of trying to roll off the gurney and get away, then clearly he Does not thick enough that he was going to die on his own, right?
And then, this, Brian Killmead, just let me ask you about the informant himself.
What could you tell me about the person?
And is that person free today?
And will that person be collecting the 25 million?
Well, here's what you need to understand: the results of that raid, when we brought that F-16 in and dropped those two bombs, was a result of a painstaking intelligence collection effort that was very focused over the last three weeks before this attack occurred.
The information we get from each and every person is a part of the puzzle.
If you look at a 100-piece puzzle, everybody adds little parts and pieces to that puzzle.
It wasn't like somebody said, in that house, at this time, you will find Zarkowi.
That did not occur.
Well, here's what I have been able to piece together that did happen.
The detainee reports were crucial.
The Jordanians were prominent in this.
The king of Jordan, King Abdullah, blew his stack when Zarkawi recently put out contracts on him, his wife, and their kids.
And he instructed that every rock in the Middle East be turned upside down to find this guy.
So they were motivated.
And we had an on-the-ground intelligence team of special ops, green berets, and SEALs teams, or a SEALs team.
And those bombs ended up being laser guided from the second F-16 into that safe house.
They had established visual identification on Al-Rahman, the number two in command.
They were following him around because it was assumed he would eventually lead them to Zarkawi.
And that's what happened.
They're not going to get into too much detail about how they did this and give it away.
But folks, this may be, in terms of recent warfare, this may be one of the most profound successful counterintelligence operations in the history of the U.S. military.
Michael in Ventura, California, up first you are today on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Yeah, I was going to say it's really great that Zarkawi has been killed.
He deserved everything he got.
But the fact is that the United States military had plans before the Bush administration three times prior to the beginning of the war to kill Zarkowi and eliminate his then much smaller organization in northern Iraq.
Those plans were rejected by Bush to keep him alive as a cause for starting the war.
You know, I'm so glad you called out there, Michael.
It's just a thrill to have the tenfoil hat call to lead off the program.
If you'll sit tight, I'm going to decimate every conspiratorial notion in your theory.
I'm going to blow it to kingdom come.
I'm going to blow it sky high.
You have this is a theme that's out there on liberal blogs, five or six of them, even some responsible, well, quote-unquote, responsible liberal journalists.
Bush could have gotten him sooner.
Bush, the theory is what these conspiracy theorists are saying, what the point of Michael's call is that Bush purposely let Zarkowi live.
They knew what Zarkawi was capable of, and they purposely let Zarkawi live so that Zarkawi would lead them into Iraq and give Bush the reason, the excuse to go to Iraq and abandon Afghanistan on the war on terror.
You guys are just priceless.
I don't know what my program would be without the left-fringe kook.
Stand by out there, Michael, and I'll, well, I doubt it'll make much impact on you, but we'll straighten all this out.
And uncover another interesting fact the New York Times mistakenly made today: a man, a legend, a way of life.
Topenline Friday on the EIB network, telephone number 800-282-2882.
Okay, we just had what was the guy's name, the last caller's name?
What was his name?
Yeah, Mike.
Called in to share with us a sort of the left-wing conspiracy theory that is all over the place out there.
I first learned of it at Front Page Magazine today, frontpagemagazine.com, David Horowitz's website, story written by Ben Johnson.
And here are the roots of this conspiracy.
David Korn at the Nation is charging President Bush with inventing Zarkawi's threat and insists that Bush played into al-Qaeda's hands by killing him.
The two people most satisfied by Zarkawi's death, writes David Korn, are bin Laden and his number two, Al-Zawahiri.
For now, they have been spared a competitor for attention and they've been handed a martyr.
He surmised that Zarkawi's death is welcomed, but it remains part of a larger and tragic story of miscalculation.
He then lays out the left's current wisdom on the bombing.
Bush did not mention that it was his invasion of Iraq that fully allied Zarkawi with al-Qaeda.
Prior to the war, terrorism experts considered Zarkawi more of a rival than a partner.
And he did not mention that four years ago, before Zarkawi had become a major terrorist figure and before he had become responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, the Bush White House chose not to take him out when it could.
In the summer of 2002, the administration put off attacking Zarkawi because it wanted to invade Iraq.
This is what our caller just said.
So the left-wingers out there reading their blogs, getting their marching orders, the true mind-numbed robots.
Bush purposely didn't kill Zarkawi so that Zarkawi could get further entrenched in Iraq, giving us the excuse to go into Iraq.
Now, as Mr. Johnson writes, Korn makes two mutually exclusive arguments.
One, that Zarkawi was not fully allied with bin Laden before the Iraq invasion, and that the president needlessly allowed him to inflict hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths on innocent Iraqis and Americans to secure an American occupation.
Or as Democrats.com put it, Bush refused to kill Zarkawi because he needed to keep Zarkawi alive to sell his illegal and insane invasion.
As a result of Bush's insanity, hundreds needlessly were murdered by Zarkawi.
Impeach Bush now.
There are libs actually suggesting Bush needs to be impeached after this because had Bush not used Zarkowi almost like Zarkawi was an unawares tool of a dastardly and deceitful Bush conspiracy.
In addition to all this being logically untenable, it's also ridiculous.
In the summer of 2002, Zarkawi led an organization that in time became Ansar al-Islam.
And we've talked about Ansar al-Islam on this program.
It was an al-Qaeda affiliate.
It was based in northern Iraq, named its hideout Little Tora Bora in solidarity with bin Laden long before the invasion of Iraq.
His group forcibly took its base of operations on September 11, 2001.
And in fact, speaking of all of this, for you leftist tenhoy fat hat wearers out there, try this.
There's a little gem in the New York Times today tucked in the middle of John Burns' report on Zarkawi.
Here it is.
Major General William Caldwell IV told reporters at a briefing that United States commanders had identified the man most likely to take over as al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, an Egyptian militant who uses the nom de guerre Abu al-Masri.
General Caldwell said that Mr. Masri had been in Iraq since 2002, had played a major role in organizing suicide bombings around Baghdad.
Now, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
I thought that you guys at the New York Times said there were no terrorists in Iraq until the Americans brought them there.
Now we have an example of two terrorists, al-Qaeda to boot, in Iraq before we went there.
One is Zarkawi, and the other is Abu al-Masri.
You know, the editors of the New York Times had to be asleep at the switch on this one.
This is a major screw-up on the part of Little Pinch's gang for letting this one out.
And this makes it a good time to recall for everybody that there were long-standing ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda long before we invaded in 2003, and that Zarkawi himself was in Iraq and had contacts with Iraqi intelligence well in advance of our invasion.
Stephen Hayes, who's done some great work on this at the Weekly Standard, summarized some of the intelligence in his book, The Connection.
And he wrote, drawing from a CIA senior executive memo dated February 21, 2003, quote, close al-Qaeda associate Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials as of October 2002.
Al-Zarqawi maintained contacts with the Iraqi intelligence service to provide and procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an intelligence service, Iraqi intelligence service official in Baghdad.
Zarkawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city.
So for you libs out there following the little crumbs put down in front of you by your supposed brilliant thinkers out there in the drive-by media, not only are you following an absenine, ridiculous, absurd conspiracy theory that Bush knew Zarkawi was there and purposely refused to hit him because he wanted Zarkawi to dig in deep and get big so we could go into Iraq.
Not only is that a bunch of BS, it is also true that Zarkawi and al-Masri were in Iraq before we got there.
So your whole theory that we created terrorists, that we created a country where terrorists around the world flowed in, and had we not gone there, none of this would have been going on is blown smack dab right out of the water by your very own Bible.
The New York Times.
Ron in Traverse City, Michigan, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, I'm really glad to hear those reporters asking all those questions.
Yeah.
Staying tough, keeping on topic here, because wouldn't it have been fabulous if we'd had more time for that on the WMD intelligence that brought us to this point?
Well, you probably won't agree with my premise, but I'll tell you that I think it's...
No, no, no, I'm trying to figure out how best to answer this and remain calm, cool, collected, and composed.
Thank you, Ty.
Thank you.
Let me exhale here deeply.
Bill Clinton first announced, along with Madden Albright and John Kerry and Tom Daschell, the threat exposed by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 1998.
The United Nations had a number of resolutions starting in 1991.
U.N. inspectors went over, found evidence of it.
Worldwide intelligence sources also found evidence.
So from 1998 until 2003, we didn't do diddly squat about it, giving Saddam many years to get rid of whatever it was everybody knew that he had.
Do you think waiting five years was not waiting long enough?
Well, I know that all the estimates that his production capabilities at the time prior to the war were off, false, misleading, wrong.
And I just, I don't think the American people were in for a 10-year stint on the freedom of the Iraqi people.
Or, you know, more likely the case, a beachhead in the Middle East to project force for a global fight on terror.
I think a lot of people would be in favor of that.
I don't think too many of you people on the left would, knowing how you despise and revoil, recoil at the very mention of the U.S. military.
But I'm trying to still get the connection here.
Notice my friends being compassionate, understanding, polite, temperate.
All these very difficult things to do when confronted with sheer stupidity.
Sorry.
If we had, we're supposed to keep asking these questions.
The media is supposed to keep asking General Colwell these questions.
What really happened is Arkowi, because if we take the time to ask these questions, if we would have taken the time to ask questions about WMD, why we may never have even been there, and then this wouldn't have happened.
We wouldn't have these questions about Zarkawi, and we wouldn't be building a beachhead to expand military operations in the Middle East from that base.
You know, I actually think I got a new mantra for you, Libs.
Why not the worst?
Why not the worst?
The Liberal Democrats, when you're putting together your presidential campaign for 2008, I want the motto and the slogan to be, why not the worst?
Why not put everybody in the worst horse manure cars you can put them in?
Why not make people live in the worst squalid conditions possible?
Why not make the U.S. military absolutely worthless and impotent?
Why not let's go out and make sure that every American has a free right to an abortion card and can pick one up at the neighborhood 7-Eleven or any other convenience.
Why don't you guys finally just throw open the doors and tell us who you really are and your slogan for America?
Why not the worst?
Vote for us.
Back in just a second.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh with talent on lawn from a god on Open Line Friday.
I got some emails.
Rush, I don't quite fully understand why is the tinfoil hat crowd on the left.
Why is their theory crazy?
I'm sorry, let me explain it a little further.
The tinfoil hat crowd's theory is that Bush knew Zarkawi was in Iraq in 2002.
Now, let's leave aside for a moment that the tinfoil hat crowd said there were no al-Qaeda in Iraq until we went there.
All right, the New York Times even says Zarkawi was in Iraq in 2002.
That's before we went there.
So the left is willing to have one of their long-held theories blown through the smoke and water in order to establish this new conspiracy theory.
In June of 2007, and here are the facts.
U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarkawi and other members of al-Qaeda had set up a weapons lab in northern Iraq producing ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon did draft plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes, and they sent that to the White House, where the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst with the Brookings Institution, said, here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties or risk casualties after 9-11, and we still didn't do it.
Now, the story points out that the military had drawn up strike plans three different times to take out Zarkawi's lab, but they were blocked each time by a White House who believed that any military action would undercut their efforts to build a coalition to take out Saddam's whole rotten regime.
So the White House said, no, we're not going to go in there.
We're not going to do a Clinton.
We're not going to send cruise missiles into a camp when we're not even sure who's there, especially if it's Iraq where we hope to build a coalition at the UN to take these guys out, the whole Iraqi regime.
Now, the left, still spinning furiously out there, has advanced the theory that Bush's rush to war prevented us from killing Zarkawi in 2002.
Now, as I just said, if you leave aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any or more successful than Clinton's effort to kill bin Laden with a cruise missile at his Afghanistan training camp, you have to notice here, folks, the flip-flop by the left immediately.
If Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible for us to miss anybody?
How is Zarkawi there working with Iraqi intelligence services, making ricin and cyanide as a member of al-Qaeda with Saddam's people in northern Iraq in 2002 if Saddam had nothing to do with al-Qaeda?
If Saddam had nothing to do.
Well, of course, Saddam did.
We've got evidence of al-Qaeda operatives, bin Laden emissaries, talking to Saddam as way back as the middle 90s, far back as middle 90s.
Tariq Aziz has said the same thing.
But nobody's suggesting that Iraq was operationally involved with Al-Qaeda on 9-11.
But the left is out there saying Bush made the terrorists.
Why there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Saddam may have been a bad guy, but there was no al-Qaeda there.
Now the left has come up with their own conspiracy theory, which bolts one of their other theories out of the water.
This is just too rich.
This is just too good.
If Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how could we have missed Zarkawi in 2002?
And if he did have ties to terrorist groups, then doesn't that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?
If al-Qaeda was there and the left is now placing Zarqawi in Iraq before 2002 or before 2003 when we went in, then doesn't it justify what we did by going into Iraq?
Because it meant emissaries and associates of bin Laden's were in Iraq before we went in, because the left is now out there saying, yep, that's true, and Bush could have killed Zarqawi and he didn't.
So the left is nailing itself, folks.
The left has just built their own cross and they're nailing themselves to it.
I mean, if you mention this to a liberal, if you can keep track of all this, in fact, I'll tell you what, I'm going to, what is this?
There's a pretty good explanation of all this at theamericanthinker.com.
Coco, I want you to put that up there right now.
I'll send you the link here in just a second.
We'll go to the break.
Spinning their way to defeat with theamericanthinker.com.
And this is a piece that's put together by Rick Moran, who runs a right-wing nuthouse, a conservative blog.
Because I would love for you people to be armed with this as you head into the weekend, because if you're going to confront liberals with this theory here that Bush knew Zarqawi was in Iraq and he tried, he didn't want him.
Three times they had a chance to take Zarqawi out, and they didn't take Zarkawi out.
If it had taken Zarqawi out, then we wouldn't have had any of this mess.
But he waited because he wants Zarqawi to build up his movement in Iraq, justifying our move into Iraq.
They have just spun themselves into total, incomprehensible insanity here, folks, because now they are placing al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to our going in in 2003.
They're placing Zarqawi there.
And if you read this and become familiar enough with the timeline and you run into your friendly liberal who wants to run this theory by you, you respond properly, I guarantee you the liberals' head will explode right in front of them.
Okay, the first hour of broadcast excellence is in the can.
There's lots of other stuff out there today.
You can continue to call about this or anything else.
I think, ladies and gentlemen, what's happening to Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, at the hands of Nancy Pelosi and her team, Steny Hoyer, is extremely dangerous.
I don't care what happened to delay.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
And in this case, I side with the Congressional Black Caucus in their defense of Congressman William Jefferson of Democrat Louisiana.
It's a case of the Democrats throwing a black guy out of the bus once he's no longer useful to them.
▲
Export Selection