All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:24
September 5, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, yes, yes, yes, I know.
It's time to start, ladies and gentlemen.
Second hour, fastest three hours in media.
And I am the harmless, lovable little fuzzball, the general all-around good guy, well-known radio racon tour, Rush Limbaugh, emitting vocal vibrations, coast to coast, changing minds and hearts by the hour.
Telephone number, if you'd like to join us, 800-282-2882.
And the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I'm really mystified.
I watched Dingy Harry and Pelosi go out there.
The Democratic strategy is to now say that we're not safer.
The Bush strategery does not make us any safer.
What do you call no attacks in five years?
What do you call thwarted attacks in five years?
But look at their ideas.
Killing the Patriot Act, fighting a fast response by the National Security Agency, commingling citizens and terrorists.
And by that I mean granting terrorists constitutional rights in court.
You know, the Justice Department has put out some numbers.
The left is criticizing the numbers.
Prosecution of terrorists is down.
And so the left is harping all over this.
Prosecution of terrorists is down.
That means that we're not safer.
Prosecutions of terrorists?
Who wants to prosecute them?
Isn't the objective to kill them?
We are in a war.
Who cares about prosecuting them?
That's been the problem all along.
These people are trying to kill us just because we're alive and don't agree with them on their beliefs.
And of course, it was the Democrats who gave us their trademark wall between the CIA and the FBI.
The idea that we're nuts, I don't understand them.
I think these people are so out of touch that it makes me nearly breathless.
Now, on to, I finished watching The Path to 9-11.
And as I told you last week, when they previewed this film in Washington, now I it's, I, well, my copy of it's five hours, and that was that's without commercials.
And I assumed with commercials, it would probably be six-hour presentation.
ABC is going to run this without spots with no commercials on September 10th and September 11th, two nights.
Really well, well done.
Cyrus Norasta wrote it.
And the cinematography here is blazing.
It's a lot of it, all of it shut with handhelds.
It looks like live action.
Not videotaped.
It looks like live action.
The lighting is done in an incredible way, sets moods properly.
It's just tremendous in that regard.
We also heard last week, after they screened it in Washington, Richard Benvenist and a number of Democrats who were at the screening were just outraged at the way the Clinton administration is portrayed.
And they were going to do everything they could to raise hell about it.
In fact, the liberal blogosphere is going nuts over it.
They're countering it with all these truths they say they have about how hard Clinton fought terrorists and so forth.
We even heard last week that Bill Clinton was going to call Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, and ask that there be some edits or cuts in the way he and his administration are portrayed.
The Lewinsky situation is referred to three or four times in this piece.
Ladies and gentlemen, have found, we came across this, came in over the transom, don't know who gave it to us, but we have found a little bit of a, I guess it's a segment of what Bill Clinton was going to present to Bob Iger if he did talk to him about changing some of the scenes in which Clinton and his administration officials are portrayed.
These are some of the suggested edits that Clinton was going to present to Iger.
As I say, I don't know if Clinton even called Iger.
And I'll tell you, if he did, I can't imagine Disney changing this thing, given all this attention.
Plus, they had to pre-approve it in order to get it done.
They had to see the script.
After it was done and finished, they had to clear it for air.
So I think there'd be a real storm if Democrats were able to get this thing changed.
I think the thing that struck me the most about the film, and by the way, I should tell you, Cyrus Norasta, who wrote it, says he bases this on the 9-11 Commission report.
And in the opening credits, it mentions this.
And quite a lot of the movie does come from the 9-11 report, the 9-11 Commission report.
The thing that struck me was the people I disliked the most are the enemy.
And that's as it should be.
The people that come under the most harsh criticism, the people that are made to look really evil and bad are the ones who should.
And that is al-Qaeda terrorists and their supporters.
The run-up to the movie starts in the early 1990s with plots hatched in the Philippines to blow up airliners over the Pacific Ocean.
It goes through every, well, actually opens with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
This movie makes it abundantly clear, and you know how people in this country are conditioned now to believe pictures.
You see it, you think it's true.
This movie makes it unarguable that all during the 90s, we didn't do diddly squat, that nobody took this seriously.
That there were some people trying to.
John O'Neill, who was with the FBI, who later got fired, a number of agents in the CIA, a lot of people were doing their damnedest to get this taken seriously, and they were ignored or they were opposed by various branches of government, various people in government.
And it runs a gamut from the administration to the National Security Council to the CIA and the FBI.
George Tennant is portrayed here alternately good and pathetic.
Richard Clark, as portrayed in this movie, comes across as one voice trying to get everybody to pay attention here.
Sandy Berger comes across as gutless in this one episode where Bin Laden in 1998 is surrounded in his digs over in Afghanistan.
The Northern Alliance and the CIA team have the house surrounded.
They know exactly what building in this complex he's in.
They are ready to go in and either kill him or capture him.
And they don't get the approval from Washington.
Berger says, nope, can't do it.
If you guys do it, you're going to do it on your own.
And if it falls apart, you'll get to blame.
In another incident similar to this, where it was possible to take out bin Laden and perhaps other terrorists who were in, and this is before 9-11, who were planning 9-11, Madeline Albright and Berger both refused to allow the CIA and the military to take any action whatsoever.
Albright says the president is deeply involved in peace talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
And if there is an attack on any Muslim or Islamic people right now, it'll set that back.
And I'm sitting watching this and I'm in stunned disbelief because those negotiations have never led to anything.
It was all about fear.
That administration was afraid of failure and what it would mean to their approval ratings, but there were problems throughout.
All of the information that the FBI offices in Phoenix and in Minneapolis had that were transferred to New York FBI office and in the CIA, but they couldn't share the information.
The Zacharias Masawi case is well gone into.
They have his computer.
He was the 20th hijacker.
His computer had the data on the plans, didn't have the date, but had the plans.
The Justice Department said, nope, we can't open the computer.
We don't have a warrant.
We're not going to get a warrant.
We're not going to violate this man's rights this way, so forth and so on.
It makes it clear that nobody was serious about dealing with this prior to 9-11.
As for the Bush administration, they don't get off the hook here.
They're not let off the hook.
They too are portrayed as, well, they're caught up sort of hamstrung by the existing procedures that are in place.
They haven't had a chance to change them, such as getting rid of the wall and this sort of thing.
The Presidential Daily Brief of August 6th, which the 9-11 Commission and Ben Venice made such a big deal out of, trying to prove that Bush knew something was coming and wasn't going to pay attention to it and wasn't serious about it.
Condoleezza Rice is portrayed as diligently studying this and being very, very, very concerned about it.
And the scene where she dispatches Richard Clark and transfers him out of terrorism into something else.
I think it's probably adheres pretty well to the 9-11 Commission report.
But after you watch it, you don't just blame a particular administration or two or three people.
You really are hit with the idea that we've got such a bloated bureaucracy that can't communicate with itself.
And we have people who were unwilling to deal with this because it was hard.
And what happened happened.
9-11 happened.
And in the hindsight, in the aftermath, when you watch the movie, you ask yourself, does some of this stuff still go on?
Well, we know it does.
There's a whole party, the Democratic Party, which doesn't want to take this threat seriously at all.
They're doing everything they can to sabotage any victory over this enemy for purely political purposes.
They are acting exactly as you will see government officials throughout the 90s in this movie act.
Unconcerned, gun-shy, afraid, political correctness ruling the day.
Some of the CIA agents in this movie are really portrayed as frustrated and just beyond belief.
Great intelligence came in from the leader of the Northern Alliance, and he had pretty good data on the major attack happening in this country within 30, 40 days from the time he gave it.
Didn't know what it was going to be or where it was going to be.
And nobody in government wanted to take it seriously.
Tenant, none of them wanted to believe it because there weren't dates, there weren't times, there weren't names.
And so until that, I can't take it anywhere.
I can't take this to the president.
I can't take this anywhere else.
You've got to get me names.
This is our best ally.
This is a guy who has told us everything that's happened is going to happen, has happened.
Nobody wanted to deal with it.
Nobody wanted to deal with it.
Hitting the aspirin factory in Sudan is covered.
Hitting the empty terrorist camp where bin Laden was supposed to be.
Clinton administration moves here.
Both of those are covered.
But you really come away from watching this with the idea that we face an evil enemy that hates our guts, and that's who you end up disliking the most.
It's a tough call because when you see portrayals of inaction and obfuscation and cowardice and indecision, that's infuriating as well.
Now, we watch this with hindsight, knowing full well what terrorists are capable of.
Quick timeout.
We'll log in this segment.
Be back and continue in mere moments.
President's making a speech on terrorism right now at the Military Officers Association of America.
Knowing that Dingy Harry went out and the Democrats had a press conference on national security earlier today in an attempt to get a heads up on Bush's speech today.
Pelosi was not there.
But listen to a little bit here of what Dingy Harry had to say.
Every day, I'm so thankful that we have not had a terrorist attack of significance in the United States since 9-11.
But the fact of the matter is, as indicated in the 9-11 report, the administration has failed to enact even those recommendations.
We know that the amendments that we've offered for port security, for chemical plant security, for nuclear power plant security, for doing something about the first responders have been turned down on straight party-like votes.
So we're all fortunate and happy that there have been no major incidents here in the United States, but we're not as safe as we should be.
Boy, how disingenuous can the guy get?
Tried to shut down the Patriot Act, tried to shut down the National Security Agency's foreign surveillance program.
And you know what the purpose of that is?
The purpose of the foreign surveillance program is to find out when and how those who want to kill us plan on doing it.
These are also the people that tried to besmirch a few incidents at Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo.
They wanted to punish their own country far more than they wanted to deal with those who want to kill us.
And they come out and say the 9-11 Commission panel's recommendations haven't been accepted.
Some of them have.
They deal with this in the movie, The Path to 9-11, in graphics at the end of the movie.
And it mentions that the 9-11 Commission has rated and graded the administration on how many of its recommendations have been accepted and implemented.
They get five Fs and 12 Ds.
There are something 41 recommendations, and they got one A.
The one grade A or A grade was on disrupting terrorist financing.
Well, guess who blew that sky high?
The New York Times.
That was a program that was judged to be especially effective in 9-11 Commission.
The gods on that commission thought it was fabulous, thought it was wonderful that the Bush administration had come up with this plan, and somebody leaked it to the New York Times, and it got broadcast all over the world, and who knows what the status of that program is now.
Democrats were celebrating that leak and taking every opportunity they could to go out and say the Bush administration continues to violate American civil rights and human rights, and this is just horrible, and we've got to do something about it.
They have not lifted a finger when it comes to safety.
They've done just the opposite.
And at the same time, they want to be called patriotic.
Well, in my book, what they're doing is not patriotic, and the things they're saying is not patriotic.
This administration's had incredible battles.
We now know there's only one way to say what happened to the Bush administration with the plane incident.
They were framed.
They were framed by Richard Armitage and Colin Powell.
Do you know that Patrick Fitzgerald knew on the first day of his investigation that the quote-unquote leaker was Richard Armitage and still proceeded for two and a half years on this investigation or two years, whatever it was.
Knew on the first day.
Armitage knew, Powell knew, they stood mute.
They didn't say a word.
They allowed this frame-up of administration officials destroying a CIA agent's career.
None of it was true.
Not one shred of it.
You know, this needs to be the biggest apology drive-by media in Washington should ever make.
They won't.
They'll nowhere near apologize for it.
It'll never happen.
Powell and Armitage need to apologize for all the ruckus that they caused.
Fitzgerald needs to drop the case.
That won't happen either.
But it's just, it is amazing.
And this kind of thing, to one degree or another, has been plaguing this administration since they were inaugurated.
People in it trying to undermine them for a host of different reasons.
But for Dingy Harry to come out and suggest that we're not safer because the 9-11 Commission's recommendations have not been implemented.
Anybody stop to think that maybe the president and people in his administration looked at the recommendations and yeah, some of these are good, but some of these are unworkable, some we can't do?
You ever stop to think that maybe the 9-11 Commission makes these recommendations, knowing full well they won't have to implement them.
They won't have to pay for them.
Anybody ever stop to think that members of the 9-11 Commission are like members of any other blue ribbon commission, and at the end of the day, all they want is to look good and to have great reputations and great legacies?
Anybody thinks that ego and personal reputations have nothing to do with all this is missing the point.
And this will be abundantly clear, too, about most of government officials when you watch the movie that passed to 9-11 next week.
We'll be right back.
I know, and thank you.
And we're back serving humanity simply by showing up.
One more thing about this movie.
Because everybody who knows, I've seen it says, does Clinton, the Clinton administration get blamed for this?
Not directly.
But when you watch this, there is no escaping the fact that all during the 90s and all during his administration, the Kobar Towers, the USS Coal, oh, that one really comes up.
The administration wouldn't do diddly squat about that.
They were just afraid.
I think that might have been the incident that Albright refused to do anything about because of the Israeli Palestinian peace talks going on.
I'm not quite sure.
But from the 1993 World Trade Center explosion and bombing to the Kobar Towers to the embassies that were blown up in Africa to the USS Coal, it is abundantly clear this country didn't do anything in retaliation and was hamstrung anytime an opportunity was presented to take out the people who had done this, hunting down,
for example, Ramzi bin al-Shib and Ramzi Youssef and so forth.
And they did get Youssef.
And that required an effort like you can't believe.
It had an informant, but the administration was barely able to pull the trigger.
But on that one, he and his buddies were sentenced to 240 years in jail.
We didn't even have the death penalty for them.
And they're still in jail.
But in terms of retaliation for any of it, there was none.
Zip, zero, NADA, for all of those attacks in the 90s.
Nothing.
And you know full well that after 9-11, we have been mobilized and we have been on the march, not only retaliating, but trying to wipe these people out to prevent further attacks in a mixture of other foreign policy objectives as well, such as Iraq and democracy and freedom for these nations and so forth.
And guess who's been opposed to it at every stretch other than when they first voted for it?
And that's been the Democrats.
So if you watch this from an informed position, as those of you who are regular listeners of this program will be doing, you'll be able to see immediately.
You can't escape the conclusion that the administration did nothing in the 90s to retaliate for any of this.
So when you say, could you blame Clinton for it, the Clinton administration, you're going to see a lot of things like the terrorists living under their real names in San Diego going to flight school, not picking them up, even though there were suspicions all over the place.
FBI was told, my God, these guys are learning to fly planes.
They don't care about landing or taking off.
It's crazy.
Masawi's computer not being opened and so forth.
That was in mid-August of 2001.
If somebody would have gotten a warrant or just to hell with it, opened the computer, they would have found the plans.
They would have found the exact plans for what 9-11 was.
They would have found everything but the date.
But we couldn't share information.
We couldn't violate civil rights, law, human rights, and so forth.
There was not one, not one effort at retaliation.
If you want to take it that that means you can blame the Clinton administration, feel free.
But you should know that there were people in the Clinton administration urging a hard line, at least as portrayed by the movie, and they just weren't listened to.
Lewinsky's circumstance is brought up three or four times, not dwelled upon, but mentioned.
There are tapes of Clinton's, in fact, when Clinton said, I want to tell you, I never once had sexual relations with that woman.
I never lied.
I never asked anybody to lie.
Not a single time.
That part is in the movie.
As is his grand jury testimony trying to explain that a BJ is not sexual relations in the context in which he's already always understood it.
And I can see why.
And Berger is portrayed as hapless and worthless.
And Albright not much better.
George Tenet doesn't come off too well either.
I mean, it's not a pretty picture.
It's not going to make you proud, regardless of the players.
All right, to the phones.
People have been waiting patiently.
This is Kathy in Buffalo, and I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
This is actually Kathy in Williamsville.
It's close to Buffalo.
I read the 911 Commission.
I also just finished Journey into the Mind of an Islamic Terrorist.
And it brings on the point that we have to elect Republicans that are Republicans and not liberals.
And if they don't, if the Republican leaderships in this state and in Washington don't offer Republicans a person that's willing to vote Republican, we'll stay home.
And that's the threat, I think, with this upcoming election with these Mandy Pandy Republicans that are in there.
Let me play the game.
Let me play the game with you.
The real problem has been this.
Most Republicans, other than the Northeastern liberal Republicans, campaign as conservatives.
And you go, rah, rah, rah, rah.
Then they get to Washington and uh-oh.
Then the bottom falls out.
And we start spending money like crazy.
And we start letting liberals write the education bills and all this sort of stuff.
So that's on the one side.
You're being I totally agree with you that we need conservatives.
I mean, I would be the first to say so.
And we certainly need a conservative presidential nominee.
We really do.
But I want to hearken back to something I said because I'm starting to get more and more.
Even some friends of mine, you know, it might be kind of interesting if the Democrats won the House.
Might be kind of interesting.
Somebody even said to me, you know, Rush, I was hearing you talk about how the Republicans in the House are kind of lost because there's no elected conservative leadership in Washington, and the president doesn't provide that.
He's a Republican, and he's conservative on some things, but he's not a conservative.
And I've heard you say that, Rush.
And I've heard you say that the House Republicans really can't go against their own president.
So the things he wants are the things they have to give him legislatively.
Maybe it would be better, Rush, if there were a Democrat Congress so that the Republicans in the House could finally start asserting their conservative values and arguing with them and not disagreeing with the president.
Anytime I hear an argument that advocates losing, even if it is a long-sighted version, if we lose, we win later.
Even if it is one of those, I cringe because I've never thought there's anything valuable about losing, nor have I ever thought there was anything redeeming about quitting.
And if you're going to lose, if you're going to advocate defeat, you're advocating quitting.
And I can't join you in that.
I also, do you know what's going to happen if the Democrats get control of the House?
I have run this by you countless times: impeachment, impeachment, impeachment, investigations, investigations, investigations.
They may not be able to get much legislation signed into law.
They will not have in the House enough to override a presidential veto if they start going nuts on all kinds of things, but they can certainly sabotage whatever the president's agenda is for the past two years.
But they are strictly right now interested in impeachment and investigations.
They want to have all these committee hearings with subpoena power, trying to criminalize everything this administration has done.
Now, if you don't take the war on terror seriously, and if you're not really of the mind that we have a national security threat, then you probably wouldn't mind Democrats being in charge and being in power.
But to me, it is simply a risk that is unacceptable.
These people have not demonstrated at all the fact that they take this seriously, that they have the wherewithal to know how to deal with it.
Every time I hear we got to talk to them, we need diplomacy.
We need to rebuild our image around the world.
I hear from these people that they are just clueless.
They have the foggiest idea what we face because they don't want to admit it.
And it's just too risky, folks.
Especially if you go down the line to 2008 and say, well, let's let the Democrats win the White House too, because, you know, that would make life more interesting.
And the Republicans could really come alive.
We're talking four, maybe eight years.
I'm sorry.
I just don't subscribe to the notion that if I don't get exactly what I want in a candidate, I'm sitting out.
Because you never get exactly what you want in anything, ever.
And to demand it of a business like politics is a little short-sighted.
Here's Mac in Presque Isle, Nebraska.
It's great to have you with us, sir.
Welcome.
Actually, it's Matt.
Oh, Maine.
I'm sorry.
I don't have my glasses on.
The M look like an M. That's Matt, actually, not Mac.
How are you doing?
Wait a minute.
Did you say Matt, not Mac?
Yes, Matt.
Okay, well, that's not my fault.
That's the call screener's fault for putting your name up there incorrectly.
I'm not going to take the hit for that.
Okay.
How are you doing today?
I'm doing great.
Couldn't be better.
Hubba hubba.
I just actually kind of touched upon a little bit what I was going to say.
You know, obviously I'd like to see the Republicans win this fall, but I think if the Democrats did take the House, I think they would just pretty much shut down Congress.
And after those two years, people would be so riled up and upset, I think it would be a huge advantage for us in the 08 presidential elections because we can say, look, we gave them a chance to look what they've done the past three years.
Well, there is that.
I mean, it's possible that if the Democrats win the House and they start all these investigations, it would infuriate the American people.
Because there's no personal dislike for George W. Bush out there.
And much of his disapproval numbers come from Republicans who are upset about immigration and the lack of shock and awe when it comes to military operations.
There's some Democrat disaffectionists because they hate his guts, but he's not, and most people's not personally disliked other than by the wackos that are out there.
But, you know, to me, this is all bigger than domestic politics.
We're not talking about such things as Social Security reform or Medicare reform or tax cuts being made permanent or any of that.
I mean, that's the normal ebb and flow domestic politics.
We're talking about our survival.
I still don't think people get it.
If I'll give a little hint, this is what the subject matter is of my commentary on the CBS Evening News on Thursday night.
I'll tell you how it opens.
It's time to face a hard, cold fact.
There are people who want to kill us simply because we're alive and don't agree with their worldview.
And there just aren't enough Americans willing to face this.
And the Democratic Party sure doesn't.
They think they go out and embrace these guys and become kumbaya friends.
Find out why they hate us and we can stop it.
We know why they hate us.
But not enough people want to admit it.
That's another thing, by the way, in this movie.
You see the planes hitting the Twin Towers.
You see this all over again.
It is going to be a fabulous reminder to people of what happened and how horrific it was.
A lot of people have put it out of their minds.
So horrible to have to deal with.
The families are not able to.
Surviving members of the families are not able to do it.
But it is just, it's, you know, it's haunting.
And I don't think enough people understand the full scope of the threat that we face.
Some people say that the United States is at war, and we are, but actually we aren't.
The military is at war.
The Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines are at war, but the Democratic Party isn't.
And a lot of people in the country aren't.
It's not affecting their way of life like previous wars have.
So this is going to be an excellent reminder.
But any way you calculate a defeat so as to further educate the American people on how rotten the Democrats are so we'll never elect them again, it's never played out.
I heard people say that in 1992, go ahead and let Clinton win, Rush.
And by 1996, we'll be back in there.
Well, you saw what happened.
It doesn't work out that way.
It just doesn't.
I don't understand why we want to lose.
Why we want to quit.
It doesn't compute.
Somebody's going to have to explain.
Well, you can't explain it.
You can try, but you will fall on deaf ears and you will fail miserably.
Back in a sec.
Let me give you another way to look at this snatching victory or defeat from the jaws of victory.
Remember the Democrats led by Paul Hackett, midterm race in Ohio, loses by four points.
Democrats out there claiming a moral victory.
Yeah, this puts the Republicans on notice.
They've lost the house.
Same thing in San Diego, Duke Cunningham's seat.
Well, yeah, we are real close out there.
That's a moral victory.
Since when is losing said to be a win?
And isn't that what those who suggest we lose here to really set up a victory later on are saying?
That we're winning by losing?
I'm sorry, I believe in the dictionary as well as the Bible.
And the dictionary does not define losing as winning.
It takes odd thinking to do that.
Here is Mary in Houston.
Mary, welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you, Rush.
You bet.
One of my main concerns about having the Democrats back in power is that the Democrats see the courts and the legal system and the attorneys as part of the solution when, in fact, they have been part of the problem.
It was an attorney, I mean, a judge who allowed them to shut down looking at Masawi's laptop.
It was attorneys at the Pentagon who put the lid on Abel Danger when they had used the technique of mining the telephones to turn up Mohamed Atta's name and ID and photo and everything one year before 9-11.
And so they shut it down.
They didn't want any bad PR like Waco.
It was an attorney at SIPCOM in Florida who put the kibosh on taking down Ula Omar when they found it.
Hold it.
Hold it.
You just reminded me of something else in the movie.
When it's time to take out bin Laden in 98 and the CIA and the Northern Alliance haven't surrounded, I think Albright and Berger are just, nope, we're not going to do it.
Berger ends up hanging up on the CIA agent in the field, ends up hanging up on him after he's asked for an answer.
And then somebody might be George Tennett, might be somebody in the meeting.
So the National Security Council says, oh, I say, well, I knew what happened.
You call Janet Reno, and I find out when Waco happened, they passed the buck.
I'm not going to have the buck passed to me on this if this doesn't go right.
What they were saying is if it didn't go right, Clinton would blame everybody but himself.
And so as a result of Clinton being unwilling to make the decision himself and punish anybody else who did if it went bad, nobody was willing to take the gamble.
And that's apparently in the 9-11 Commission report because this movie is based on it.
Every turn, even when they prosecuted Ramsey Youssef in New York, White, what was she, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, she said in her remarks that everything got locked up in grand jury testimony and could not be shared with the CIA or the FBI, therefore.
And it meant that they didn't have critical information to a national threat.
And even the national, the U.S. attorneys herself said, this is a grave danger to us.
We should stop this.
But they want to treat everything as a criminal action and not as a war action.
And it is putting this country in great danger.
Well, the last thing we need is more court oversight.
Oh, exactly.
But that's what the Libs want.
In fact, I mentioned earlier today that the Justice Department's getting some heat.
They've just released a report, and it says that prosecution of terrorists is down, and the liberals are up in arms.
And isn't that missing the point?
Prosecution of terrorists.
Do we actually think we're going to win the war on terror by catching them all and bringing them here for trial?
Isn't the objective in a war to kill the enemy?
Yep, because they're trying to kill us.
They've already brought us before their so-called judge and jury, and they're now meting out the sentence.
I mean, it's a total waste of time.
That's why they can't be trusted running this stuff, folks.
And people continue to ask of me, how does he know all that he knows?
I'll never tell, folks.
▲
Export Selection