All Episodes
Previous Next
June 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
June 27, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
How are you?
Rush Limbaugh back in the saddle at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am America's real anchor man.
America's truth detector, the Doctor of Democracy.
Here serving humanity with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
Looking forward to speaking to you as the program progresses this afternoon.
800-282-2882, if you'd like to be on the program, Mr. Snerdley screening calls.
You've been screening calls since when?
Last Friday, right?
Mr. Oh, you haven't that much fun?
You can't keep track of how long you've been doing it, huh?
Ha ha.
Yes, Bull Sturdley back in the call screener saddle.
He is.
He's one of the best that we have ever had, but everybody gets promoted here.
It's not a demotion.
He's just filling in for others who are on vacation out of the country, presumingly, presumably also having a great time, just as I did down in the Dominican Republic over the weekend.
What?
No, no, no, no, no.
The people at Customs were nice as they could be.
They just didn't believe me when I told them that I got those pills at the Clinton Library gift shop.
And they told me that the Clinton Library gift shop that there was just blue MMs.
Customs didn't believe me when I told them that.
800 282.
2882 is.
I know a lot of people don't even I mean, don't need Viagra, just look at themselves in the mirror.
And the problem's taking many of them in Washington.
Many of them Republicans, too.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's a there's a piece today by Virginia Buckingham.
She's a columnist at the Boston Herald.
And uh she echoes a sentiment and a theme that I have been advising uh many of you to adopt over these many years.
I know when Libs, Democrats, drive-by media do something outrageous, you say we've got to fight back.
We've got to destroy these people, we've got to take them out.
We gotta And I say, you know, I understand that emotion.
Understand the desire.
I mean, I've I've faced it professionally since 1988.
What to do with all these critics when they're, you know, being personally critical and it's it's uh uh unjustified and wrong and so forth.
Uh and I've taken you through the lessons I learned about that.
And when it comes to issues or institutions that we hold dear and they're under assault or people seem to be uh over the edge, I've said, folks, let them speak up more.
Let them keep doing what they're doing.
Let them self-destruct, let them implode, let them illustrate to people exactly who they are.
One of the great things about the liberals today is despite their efforts to keep who they are hidden, they are failing at this.
Not when Mertha runs around saying that the United States poses a top threat to world peace.
Um, the liberals that have in these Democrats have in these meetings behind closed doors to come up with their agenda.
Uh, and of course, the reason you haven't a meeting to come up with the agenda is because you want to put out a phoning agenda that doesn't really represent what you think, but will sell, nevertheless.
Well, in the process of trying to keep the agenda secret, there are enough people on the left in the Democratic Party and in the drive-by media that are going out there and telling the world who they are.
The New York Times has made it perfectly clear that they are not interested in U.S. national security at all.
I have told you people, I have warned you several times, that there is uh an ongoing effort by many on the left to sabotage victory over this particular enemy.
Uh documented it.
The New York Times here uh actually acting as though terror cells and uh people that have these uh these terrorist safe houses and Al-Qaeda members are their most valued subscribers.
They're doing more to inform those people of what we're doing to try to find anything out about them than anybody in the world is the New York Times is a greater source of intelligence for Al-Qaeda than they probably have themselves.
Well, the world sees this, and the country sees this.
You got Peter King out there saying this these people need to be tried for treason.
You know, freedom of the press does not extend beyond all common sense.
When it comes to nationality, did the founding fathers mean that the freedom of the press extends to active attempts To sabotage United States foreign policy or war against an enemy that has attacked us.
As uh Andy McCarthy points out, uh just three years ago, the New York Times was decrying and criticizing the military effort and suggesting, you know, interrupt their their money flows.
This is what we need to do.
It's it's the money flows that uh could shut them down if we could find it.
Now we've doing that, and somebody, and this, you know, there's another thing, the shadow government somewhere.
I don't know if they're Clinton holdovers or who they are, just career libs that are it's state, CIA, Pentagon, uh, who are clearly leaking this stuff.
We don't have a right to know anything about that.
The terrorists have a right to know, according to the New York Times, everything we're doing to try to combat them.
But readers of the New York Times do not have the right to know who it is that's leaking this information that Peter King, Congressman from Long Island and New York, uh has accurately called treason.
So this takes us now to Virginia Buckingham in the Boston Herald today.
Prosecute the New York Times, censure Mertha, and I have a better idea.
Sit back and watch him self-destruct.
Mirtha and the New York Times have done more to aid the fight for Republicans to retain their House and Senate majorities in the last couple of days than Ken Melman, the Republican National Committee could do all year.
But no one, not even the guys who are so devoted to the GOP that they wear elephants on their ties, should be cheering.
What's been lost by Mertha's rantings and the Times irresponsibility can never be regained by electoral victory in the fall.
Uh, nor will they regain what they've lost by their own words and actions, and that's the moral high ground.
Let's start with the New York Times.
We're less safe today from terrorist attack than we were before the Times disclosed the existence of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program.
We are more in danger today because the New York Times and other outlets disclose that American intelligence has access to foreign banking transactions.
Combined, these two programs gave American officials tools they didn't have before September 11th to track and disrupt terrorist plots before thousands die.
By the time's own admission, the penetration into international banking networks helped track down the ballet bombers.
How many more innocent young lives were saved as a result from a similar fate in other discos in other terrorist strongholds or as possible in a nightclub in New York?
Before the Times revealed these two security programs literally in black and white, Al Qaeda and its allies didn't know, couldn't know for sure how best to avoid detection, but they do now.
Peter King, no Bush administration, Tody said it best, nobody elected the New York Times to do anything.
The New York Times is putting its own arrogant elitist left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people.
The time has come for the American people to realize, and the New York Times to realize we're at war, and they can't be just on their own deciding what to declassify and what to release.
But they did.
They did exactly that in violation of law.
Yet, prosecuting them will allow Bill Keller and his Democratic defenders to change the subject from their disregard for American safety to their stewardship of the First Amendment.
Bush administration ought to keep this escape hatch firmly closed.
She goes on to make the point, let them keep doing what they're doing, since they've already blown it this way, they're just going to self-destruct.
Mertha as well, any other Democrats and media institutions who join them will just be demonstrating to.
And by the way, let me interject that you know that everybody in in politics, I do not happen to subscribe to this theory as much as others, but they still have this theory that the great unwash, the great middle, the uh the great independence, the uh the moderates uh out there, the people that are not ideologues, people that don't run around with their minds made up all the time, they're open-minded, they're waiting for all data.
They're waiting for all information to make up their intelligent minds.
That's how they're portrayed.
Uh I disagree with that characterization, but that's not the point.
Point is if there are such people, even they are outraged by this.
Even they instinctively understand the danger that this poses and the uh anti-American activity that it represents.
And even they will remember it and understand it.
And if people on the left who care so much about reaching these people, don't get a handle on what their press organs and members are doing when it comes to this ongoing effort to sabotage victory over this enemy, then they are going to pay the price.
They're gonna lose the moral high ground, which they I don't think they have it anymore anyway, but they claim they do, they think they do.
They operate as though they think they do, and credibility.
So on one hand, I know it's frustrating.
Come on, Rush, we've got to do something about, but if you take them to take him to court, just be like taking Massaui to trial.
You end up letting him change the subject and a whole bunch of stuff that's not even up for grabs is going to become the focus.
First amendment, this or that, and the other thing, not the actions of the New York Times.
Let the left continue to show people clearly who they are and what they do.
Now, not for the sake of electing Republicans, but I'm not I'm not suggesting that, but as a means of um destroying their own credibility down the road.
Which believe me is happening.
Back in just a sec here.
John Fund uh Wall Street Journal, Opinion Journal.com actually is their uh website uh yesterday piece calling uh titled uh worst of all worlds.
He's a m about Mertha.
He's a uh male Cindy Sheehan, a one-man wrecking crew on ethics is Mertha the man to lead the Democrats.
He wants the gig if they uh win back the House.
I think I'm gonna tell you something, folks.
Jack Mertha and John Kerry, uh who served in Vietnam.
Do you know that, Brian?
John Kerry served in Vietnam.
Those those two guys personify uh, ladies and gentlemen, what happens to the mentality of a Democrat who serves in the military?
I mean, just something gets in there and starts to the brain starts rotting away.
Like a poison it gets in there.
The military had poisoned these guys.
Anyway, the last item in uh in John Funn's piece today is this.
A poll taken last month by Democrat consultants James Carville and Stan Greenberg found that a Democrats are underperforming, and that the current measures of democratic turnout and enthusiasm are not impressive.
They conclude that their party must show voters something more than they already have, or they, along with Republicans, could see a stay-at-home protest this uh this fall.
Uh by pushing forward Mertha as a fresh leader for their party, Democrats are reinforcing the worst stereotype many swing voters have of a congressional Democrat, a big spender tarnished by scandal who holds wacky foreign policy views.
And don't forget, we pointed out to you that he, you know, Mertha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the ab scam scandal.
We even have the tape of him being offered a $50,000 bribery says, not interested at this point.
Anyway, I want to hear what President Bush had to say.
This was uh uh yesterday, delivered a statement to the press, then took some questions unidentified female reporterette, said, sir, several news organizations have reported about a program that allows administrations to look into bank records of certain suspected terrorists.
My question is one, why have you not gotten Congress to ask for authorization for this program five years after it started?
And two, with respect, if neither the court nor the legislature is allowed to know about these programs, how can you feel confident that the tech and balance system worked?
Congress was briefed.
And what we did was fully authorized under the law.
And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful.
We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America.
And for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.
What we were doing was the right thing.
The 9-11 Commission recommended that the government be robust and tracing money.
If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money.
And that's exactly what we're doing.
And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.
He sounds royally ticked off, does he not, ladies and gentlemen?
As well he should be.
I mean, because this is the same bunch.
How come the 9-11 Commission recommendations haven't been enacted?
Why Bush doesn't care?
It was just a sham.
Well, something that they're doing that follows the 9-11 recommendations, and it's blown sky high.
The terrorist surveillance program's blown sky high.
Now this is blown sky high.
And whatever else is is uh is come up with to do if somebody leaks it.
Uh somebody and then what I there's no conclusion is a shadow government out there in this government that's trying to undermine this administration and the process undermine the ability to achieve victory over this enemy.
They'll just leak it again.
Let's go back, let's listen to some more Bill Keller, the uh executive editor of the New York Times.
We played this earlier.
We'll we'll start with this again.
Blitzer last night on CNN interviewing by phone, Bill Keller asked him a question.
He said the Treasury Secretary, John Snow says not only Bush administration officials, but others appealed to you at the New York Times not to disclose this information, including some Democrats and members of the 9-11 Commission, including the chairman and a co-chairman, as well as members of Congress on the Intelligence Committee.
Is that true?
Three people outside of the administration were uh asked by the administration to call us.
Uh all of them spoke they thought in confidence, and uh and I don't think I'll breach the confidence of what they said, uh, although uh I will say that not all of them uh urged us not to publish.
Who are the three people outside of the administration Tom Kane, Lee Hamilton, and Congressman Jack Martha.
I'm still trying to figure out who in the administration would call the New York Times or call Jack Murphy and say, would you would you call Keller at the New York Times and tell him not to run this stuff?
I'm sorry, folks, it just doesn't compute.
Not even with some of the crazy things this administration has reportedly have done in reaching out to its uh enemies.
I don't know who I don't know, I don't know what to believe.
I'm not calling anybody a liar.
I'm just I just that that that stuns me.
Next question from Wolf.
Let me read to you also from the Snow letter, the John Snow letter to Bill Keller.
Quote The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works.
Those are strong and biting words, Bill Keller.
Arrogant.
With all due respect, I think it would be arrogant for us to preempt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding on our own that these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof.
We spent weeks uh listening to the administration case.
I personally spent a long time in Secretary Snow's office and spoke on the phone to John Negraponte.
Uh others at the paper spoke to other officials.
Uh I believe they genuinely did not want us to publish this.
Uh but I I think it's not responsible of us to just take them at their word.
You notice what he said here.
I mean, that that's offensive, that right there.
But that that that'll tell you that what one of the guiding principles of uh drive-by media is that no government official ever tells the truth.
When it's a Republican administration.
What, Mr. Snittley?
What?
Right.
Right.
That's right.
He says, that's a good point.
Uh he says, Well, the administration was print half-hearted.
They didn't even they didn't let me talk to Bush.
Bush didn't even talk to us at the New York Times about that.
It was pretty half-hearted, yet.
He just says that they spent weeks, weeks talking with the administration half-heartedly.
The administration was talking with them for weeks.
Arrogant, with all due respect, I think it would be arrogant for us to preempt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding on our own these programs are perfectly legal.
That is a slap.
This this tells me exactly why they did.
They hate this administration, and I think Bush is out there destroying the Constitution.
And abusing executive authority, and they don't like executive authority being abused except when Democrats are doing it.
Then they love it.
Then it gets fabulous.
They don't like it here.
Yet the president said Congress was briefed.
Uh we have time for this next one.
Yes.
Wolf then says, Well, when you say that their efforts to convince you were half-hearted, what do you mean?
One of the several arguments that they made struck me as as half-hearted.
And that was the argument that was this really a secondary argument that they made against publishing, which was that the publication of this information would lead terrorists to change their tactics.
The main argument that they made to the Wait a minute, stop the tape.
What's half-hearted about that?
What in the world is half-hearted about that?
The publishing this would endanger the program was that bankers who are involved in it would be spooked by the publicity and would withdraw their cooperation.
We got a similar Argument last year on the NSA eavesdropping case that if we published it, telecommunications companies would be embarrassed by the disclosure that they were doing this, and they would be uh, you know, browbeaten by their shareholders into withdrawing their cooperation.
To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened, and so far there's no sign that the banks are withdrawing their support.
Well, it's only been a couple of days.
To the best of your knowledge, that's never happened, withdrawing their cooper.
Uh I guess they think they know everything.
At the New York Times, but you'll note the attitude, hey, we're the final arbiters.
We're the final arbiters of what's legal and what's not, what's right, what's wrong, and what this administration is guilty of and not guilty of.
We're the final arbiters on that.
Whatever they say to us, this is this is B.S., it's half-hearted.
No banks have quit.
This is not gonna happen.
Maybe not yet.
Mr. Keller.
Yes.
All right.
Bill Keller, all upset, with all due respect, he said, I think it would be arrogant for us to preempt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding on our own that these programs are perfectly legal and abuse proof, uh, thereby attacking uh the administration for his belief that they're just act there acting as lone warriors and renegades.
But the president said Congress was briefed.
When when is the last time Congress briefed the president before they do something?
You know, this is uh seems uh to me here to be a a one-way street.
When was the last time uh the judiciary branch checked with the president before interfering with the president's commander-in-chief powers?
When they decide the status of uh prisoners at Club Gitmo.
Why is it that the executive alone among the three branches has to check with the others in advance of carrying out his constitutional duties?
Where is that in the Constitution?
Why does this have to happen?
Well, we know the reason.
He's a Republican.
And I hate his guts.
That's why.
Also, this if Bill Keller were living during the Civil War, you know what would have happened to him.
This I've fantasized about Bush imitating Abraham Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln, almost everybody's favorite president all the time, would have had Bill Keller forcibly removed from the New York Times building and thrown in prison.
He did that.
He had politicians removed from their homes and sent down to Jefferson Davis in the South, who also didn't want this particular politician.
And you know what?
Lincoln would have done this without consulting Congress or the judiciary.
And you might say, well, but Russ, that was so long ago, and that was a real war.
That was a civil war.
Yeah, but everybody loves Lincoln today, great president, preserved the Union.
That's what Lincoln did.
That's his legacy.
He preserved the Union.
Can you say the New York Times is interested in that?
At the end of the day, can you?
You can't.
Now I ask you, well, we gotta see.
We got uh a couple, well, one more Bill Keller comment, and I just ask you as we listen to it.
Who is arrogant?
And who's abusing power here?
Who is conducting himself outside of American traditions?
It's our old buddy Bill Keller at the New York Times.
Here's a um here's a question from Wolf Blitzer last night.
The Wolfster says the administration insists that some terrorists, in particular, including uh Hambali, one of the top terrorists in Southeast Asia, was picked up largely as a result of this secret uh wire transfer program, the SWIFT program.
And that by disclosing the program, other terrorists may be able to go forth and be free and do their work, whatever they want to do.
Was that true that Humbali was picked up as a result of this uh Swift program?
No who he's asking.
So the administration says this, this, and they go out and ask the New York Times editor, is the administration telling us the truth?
We said at a number of sources saying that that is true in our original story, uh, and cited some other examples of where they believe this program has been useful.
We're not passing judgment on the usefulness of this program.
Uh that's not our job to do.
Uh there are, uh, as with the NSA uh case, people who are expert and involved in the program who have questions both about its legality uh and about the way in their view uh what was supposed to be a stopgap measure has become something permanent.
But uh, our original story did not uh quarrel with their assertion that this has been uh a useful program.
Well, that's even worse.
That that that that's even worse.
Uh yeah, uh we're not passing judgment on the usefulness of this program, Balder Dash.
Of course you are.
You're trying to undermine it.
If you're gonna run out there and say that it's illegal, and this little notion, and we're we're concerned that it it might not just be stopgap that once it's in place it might last forever.
Well, you mean like a toll on the Golden Gate Bridge, or Al Gore's phone tax to pay for phone service in rural America, or all kinds of examples I could give you where programs get put into place to stop gaps, and lo and behold, they end up as permanent.
Wasn't the war on poverty supposed to end at some point.
I mean, theoretically it was supposed to end the way they sold it.
Uh all these programs have a start and stop here, but they seem never to stop.
Yeah, we're gonna hold this one to a uh a different set of uh of standards.
Here's Peter King.
This is Sunday.
I want you to hear this.
Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, who asked him, from what you know, do you have any problems with the SWIFT program, this tracking of financial records?
The real question here is the conduct of the New York Times by disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America's anti-terrorist uh uh policies.
Uh this is a very effective policy.
They have compromised it.
This is the second time the New York Times has done this.
No one elected the New York Times to do anything.
And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant elitist left-wing agenda before the interest of the American people.
I'm calling on the Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation and uh prosecution of the New York Times.
It's reporters, the editors that worked on this, and the publisher.
We're in time of war, Chris, and what they've done here is absolutely disgraceful.
I believe they're violated the espionage act, the Comint Act.
This is absolutely disgraceful.
Yeah, he's fired up about it, and uh you know, we've had our quarrels with Pete King over the uh uh months, past months, particularly about the Dubai Ports deal.
Still love saying those words.
The Dubai Ports deal, he accused me of being a flack for the White House.
But nevertheless, he's right on the money about this.
He is exactly right.
Let's go back to the phones to Albany.
This is Steve.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
I appreciate your patience.
I would have waited until my phone line scroed to talk to you.
I I think you're great.
Um I think uh that China is a country that tells the press what they can print and what they can't print.
And I think that uh China is a country that monitors their citizens' emails.
It's un-American, and you only have to go back thirty years to the Nixon administration to look at where this goes.
He was spying on his political enemies using all the same tools infiltrating anti-war organizations, which they have done at my university, the SUNY uh Albany University.
They have intercepted our emails and they have sent moles in to intercept our groups.
It is not American, and you know what?
They've already expanded this war on terror to the drug war.
They said drugs finance terror.
What are you gonna do when they expand it to, say, sex tourism in the Dominican Republic?
They're actually doing a pretty good damn good job here on the uh on the drug war to get all kinds of people coming through customs here with Viagra.
Uh but uh let me tell you something, uh Steve.
It's a nice try, but what you're you're sadly doing is uh making a series of mistakes that conform exactly to what I think is on the minds of the left today.
You look at this administration as Nixon and Watergate, you look at this war as Vietnam.
Uh you compare this administration to the ChICOMs.
Now that's offensive.
I mean, I'm I'm worn out.
I'm literally worn out with with this kind of thinking.
I you have to be smarter than this.
The Chinese spy on their people.
We're not spying on Americans in the NSA program.
We're not tracking the financial transactions of Americans unless there is a terrorist connection.
And it is working.
Uh the New York Times was not commanded not to publish.
The administration asked them not to publish.
They spent weeks trying to explain to them the uh program, and Bill Keller just admitted, hey, we're not judging the success of the program.
A lot of people have told us it's a successful program.
Uh we're we're just concerned about whether or not it's legal and uh blah, blah, blah, blah.
That's the arrogance.
Uh this is a time of war.
You know, to to equate this with Nixon spying On the guys in the Democratic National Committee at Watergate is uh is ridiculous.
And I have to think, I just have to think you know better.
Uh your I mean, we all have partisan leanings, and yours are obvious, so much so that you're willing to overlook some facts, I mean some realities here that uh that make this make this dangerous.
And I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you, we you know, when I was when I had this great weekend down in the Dominican Republic, and we had a lot of conversations, and I will tell you that one of the guys is a reforming liberal, but he's a liberal.
And he's moving to the center, not quite to the right yet.
Uh but he was talking about some things, and and I asked him a question.
You know, I like to uh I like to spawn discussion.
And I said, Well what do you think the political reaction would be?
Who is hurt and who is harmed politically?
This is a favorite media question.
I knew this guy would like the question the way I framed it.
If we get hit again, if Al Qaeda hits us big again during the next two and a half years when George W. Bush is still in office.
Tell me who do you think gets hurt the most by it politically?
Because it is a it will be a factor in the drive-by media will make that the whole point.
Tell me, would it be George W. Bush or the Democrats?
And this reforming liberal said, no question be the Democrats.
I said, Why?
Why would the Democrats be the one most affected negatively politically?
He said, Because I don't remember, I can't remember one Democrat who's actually acting like we're at war, that this is a serious thing.
Uh most of what I hear the Democrats saying is is that it's not this as bad as Bush is saying, that we don't need to be doing all of this, that uh uh it is not that serious.
We don't need these programs to find these terrorists, we don't need all of this.
Uh I said, okay, good.
Who who who do you hear talking about the seriousness of of what we face?
Who do you think constantly refer to this war on terror, and who do you think is the one guy, and I was leading question, obviously, who's the one guy that has never wavered and made it clear that his number one objective is to defend and protect the people of this country, the national security of this country, and the Constitution?
There's no questions Bush.
So you guys on the left are going to have to do some serious things.
The odds of us getting hit again, uh they got to be pretty good.
They have to be.
People are wondering, well, what will uh what will they do next?
Who knows what it'll do next?
Well, will they go, will they kill uh hundred people, or will they try to kill another three thousand?
Will they use airplanes?
They're not going to use airplanes again.
It's one thing we can be pretty sure.
I'm not going to try that again.
They'll do something else.
Have you ever stopped to think, folks, and I don't want to jinx anything here.
Have you ever stopped to think what a single homicide or suicide bomber in a shopping mall could do to the psyche of this country?
Let's assume that the London bombing happens here.
Let's say that some nutcase wraps himself up in explosives, explosives who goes into the New York subway or gets on a New York bus or something, blows himself up with enough collateral damage, didn't kill 3,000 people, but ruins a subway line for a length of time and or a period of time and kills a hundred people or so, wounds a whole bunch of.
What do you think the reaction in New York City, security-wise, is going to be?
You think it's going to be easy to get around New York after that?
Do you think that uh that'll just be a self-contain?
My point is, what kind of unrest and disruption to normalcy could something as comparatively small as that do.
Why haven't we seen suicide bombers in this country?
I do not know the answer.
But all I'm telling you is it wouldn't take many of them to cause as much havoc and panic as the World Trade Center detonations uh or explosions and this destruction cause in the Pentagon.
Uh and when if if if it does happen, you guys on the left who are out there saying that this isn't a big deal, and we don't need to be vigilant in trying to stop these kinds of attacks in the future are going to pay a huge political price with your credibility.
We'll be back in just a second.
Just a little side note uh here, ladies and gentlemen, uh, we'll get back to your phone calls in just a second.
This is uh from all AP.
Uh Dubai's state-run port operator, DP World, DP Ports World, uh uh Dubai uh Ports World has been anything but hamstrung By the Congress scuttling of the ports deal to run the six terminals here.
The company, uh, that would be DP World, has stepped up acquisitions of global shipping terminals growing at a furious pace.
Also seems that they've gained some sympathy within the uh the terminal and port industry for its handling of the dispute, which some viewed as prompted by anti-Arab bias.
Katie Aldrich, analyst with the London-based Drury Shipping Consultants, said the industry feels that DP World has been treated badly and has a great deal of sympathy for them.
DP World acted with dignity throughout.
And they just I just we had a story last week that uh the Dubai Outfit bought some ports in Peru, uh, which have direct shipping channels to our ports.
So the ports deal has resulted in the worldwide eruption of sympathy for DP World, much industry cooperation with them around the world because they were shut out of six terminals here in the United States by the U.S. Congress.
Dick in Gardnerville, Nevada, you're next on the Rush Lindball program.
Hi.
Yep, Nevada Ditto's too, and uh we're sorry about uh Harry.
We apologize.
First, I want to thank you for the miraculous conversion of my wife.
She has gone from a liberal to one who quotes you.
It is truly remarkable.
And before I take on the times as an old timer, can I take a shot at Mertha?
Uh yeah, by all means.
Thank you.
It's axiomatic in the Marine Corps that once you are a Marine, you're always one.
You've probably heard it.
There are exceptions.
Uh Jack Murphy is the exception, and his motto is once a moron, always a moron.
Thank you for letting me get that out.
I'm glad you did.
I love being uh uh uh shall we say backed up by intelligent members of the audience.
I'm really excited about the uh conversion of your wife.
Uh at what age, if you don't mind my asking, you don't have to answer, but at what age, her age did she convert.
We're not allowed to say those things.
You gotta be kidding.
Let's uh I think she's uh thirty-nine was the last time she admitted.
But at any rate, I am so grateful you can't believe it.
It's wonderful to chat with her and and have her listen to you with me.
Uh the thing safe to say that your marriage has an has new vistas now and it uh may have been not not uh matrimonially safe, but uh uh certainly saved from a companionship standpoint.
Yeah, it is.
We have uh a lot more fun chatting since she has listened and and and been educated by you and says, you know, it's an extraordinary thing if folks would just listen to them.
I said it takes a little bit of time to catch on.
And uh a lot of people afraid to listen to this program for that very reason.
Well, I think uh that that you're responsible for the Republicans having the power that they've got.
There's very question.
No question.
Oh, good.
Anyway, with the Times, I think that while it might be great fun to watch them uh the liberals scuttle themselves, I don't think that the government has any option.
Uh it ex it's so egregious that they should be brought in, uh, they should be forced to say who their sources are, if for nothing else but to send a message on to the people that are doing the leaking.
If they fail to do it, how are you gonna have equal application of the law for people that do other things not even as egregious?
I understand what you're saying.
That is a frustrating thing.
The New York Times sources are more sacrosanct, the whole drive-by media, all their sources are more sacrosanct and valued and protected than the security of the country.
Well, I have you know, I'm a doctor, so I can tell you in our parlance, and I talk to my wife.
I don't really call them that, and I think you've nailed them.
I call them the midstream, your uh the midstream media because if you hear them chatting with each other, Dan, and this matter, what is your analysis?
And that's exactly what you get back.
Only it's pure, and if you list, it would be piss.
So you have them driving around.
I have them going back to the midstream, you know, media Mecca, where they hang out and talk with each other and where they don't know a thing about the rest of us.
Yeah, well, that's that's how this stuff all starts.
I mean, they do sit around and chat amongst themselves.
That's where they all end up will you uh uh it will all end up using the same phrase on every network in every newspaper to describe, say, Cheney.
Uh he brings Gravitals to the ticket.
It must have been two hundred drive-by media people around the country that describe Cheney in that way.
And that's you're right, exactly how it happens.
Well, I understand the need legally to perhaps prosecute.
I just don't know if it'll happen.
Uh I don't know if if if there are moles in the Justice Department for it.
I heard Gonzalez, he was on the show yesterday, but not really that keen to the idea, so I wouldn't hold out much hope.
Back in just a second.
Hey, let's not forget the New York Times is not just the SWIFT program, they also leak some stuff from a General Casey report on troop movements uh in Iraq over the weekend.
That and much more.
▲
Export Selection