All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:59
September 6, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, been listening to more of the President's speech.
It's really good.
We're going to jip more of it here in just a second, but I just need to tell you that he is going through the evidence.
What we've learned, the success of the various programs.
And he's giving detail after detail after detail in the hopes of explaining to people just exactly what we face.
One of the 14 prisoners, by the way, he'll be transferred from the secret CIA prisons to uh Club Gitmo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who we've had in custody, he was the actual mastermind along with Ramza Youssef of the Concept 9-11.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network, and let's listen to a little bit more of the president.
Which established the legal standards for treatment of detainees wherever they are held.
Geneva Convention.
I support this act.
Oh, good.
And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.
The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorists at any given time.
And once we have determined that the terrorists held by the CAA have little or no additional intelligence value.
Many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments.
Others have been accused of terrible crimes against the American people, and we have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice.
So we intend to prosecute these men as appropriate for their crimes.
Soon after the war on terror began, I authorized a system of military commissions to try foreign terrorists accused of war crimes.
Military commissions have been used by presidents from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt to prosecute war criminals.
This ought to be good.
Because the rules for trying enemy combatants in a time of conflict must be different from those for trying common criminals or militar or members of our own military.
Damn right.
One of the first suspected terrorists to be put on trial by military commission was one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, a man named Hamden.
His lawyers challenged the legality of the military commission system.
It took more than two years for this case to make its way through the courts.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the military commissions we had designed.
But this past June, the Supreme Court overturned that decision.
The Supreme Court determined that military commissions are an appropriate venue for trying terrorists.
But ruled that military commissions needed to be explicitly authorized by the United States Congress.
So today I'm sending Congress legislation.
All right, I know it's to specifically authorize the creation of military commissions to try terrorists for war crimes.
My administration has been working with members of both parties in the House and Senate on this legislation.
Democrats don't remember.
We put forward a bill that ensures these commissions are established in a way that protects our national security.
Democrats will say they were left out.
And ensures a full and fair trial for those accused.
The procedures in the bill I am sending to Congress today reflect the reality that we are a nation at war.
And that it is essential for us to use all reliable evidence to bring these people to justice.
We're now approaching the five-year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks.
And the families of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice.
Some of the families are with us today.
They should have to wait no longer.
So I'm announcing today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Sheib, and 11 other terrorists in CIA custody have been transferred to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.
Paul Gitmo again.
Yes.
They are being held in the country.
custody of the Department of Defense.
By the way, we're not safer, are we, Democrats?
As soon as Congress acts to authorize the military commissions I have proposed.
The men, our intelligence officials, believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September the 11th, 2001, can face justice.
Yes.
And the Democrats say we're not safer.
The Bush hasn't done anything, and he's an incompetent cowboy patrician.
Club Gitma.
Yes.
Standing ovation in the White House now.
Watch the path to 9-11.
You'll find out who Khalik Shay Mohammed is.
Ramsa Youssef and others.
We will also seek to prosecute those believed to be responsible for the attack on the USS COA.
About time.
And an operative believed to be involved in the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
With these prosecutions, we will send a clear message to those who kill Americans, no longer how long it takes.
We will find you and we will bring you to justice.
Who knows?
Well, these men will be held in a high security facility at Guantanamo.
The International Committee of the Red Cross is being advised of their detention and will have the opportunity to meet with them.
Those charged with crimes will be given access to attorneys who will help them prepare their defense and they will be presumed innocent.
From the ACLU, no doubt.
While at Guantanamo, they will have access to the same food, clothing, medical care, and opportunities for worship as other detainees.
Yeah, it's damn good.
They will be questioned subject to the new U.S. Army Field Manual, which the Department of Defense is issuing today.
And they will continue to be treated with humanity that they denied others.
As we move forward with the prosecutions, we will continue to urge nations across the world to take back their nationals at Guantanamo, who will not be prosecuted by our military commissions.
America has no interest in being the world's jailer.
But one of the reasons we have not been able to close Guantanamo is that many countries have refused to take back their nationals held at the facility.
Well, well, you blame them.
Other countries have not provided adequate assurances that their nationals will not be mistreated.
Why do we care about that?
Or they will not return to the battlefield.
more than a dozen people released from Guantanamo already have.
We will continue working to transfer individuals held at Guantanamo and ask other countries to work with us in this process.
Send them to France.
And we will move toward the day when we can eventually close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
I know Americans have heard conflicting information about Guantanamo.
Let me give you some facts.
Of the thousands of terrorists captured across the world, only about 770 have ever been sent to Guantanamo.
Not enough.
Of these, about 315 have been returned to other countries so far, and about 455 remain in our custody.
Yeah, but how many retorted?
They are provided the same quality of medical care as the American service members who guard them.
Probably better than what you get in Canada.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has the opportunity to meet privately with all who were held there.
Plan their escapes.
The facility has been visited by government officials from more than 30 countries.
And delegations from international organizations as well.
After the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe came to visit, one of its delegation members called called Guantanamo a model prison.
It's a club where people are treated better than than in prisons in his own country.
Our troops can take great pride in the work they do at Guantanamo Bay, and so can the American people.
As we prosecute suspected terrorist leaders and operatives who have now been transferred to Guantanamo, we'll continue searching for those who have stepped forward to take their places.
This nation is going to stay on the offense to protect the American people.
We will continue to bring the world's most dangerous terrorists to justice.
And we will continue working to collect the vital intelligence we need to protect our country.
The current transfers mean that there are now no terrorists in the CIA program.
That's probably smart.
But as more high-ranking terrorists are captured.
The need to obtain intelligence from them will remain critical.
And having a CIA program for questioning terrorists will continue to be crucial to getting life-saving information.
Some ask why are you acknowledging this program?
There are two reasons why I'm making these limited disclosures today.
First, we have largely completed our questioning of the men, and to start the process for bringing them to trial, we must bring them into the open.
Second, the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions.
And has put in question the future of the CIA program.
In its ruling on military commissions, the court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions, known as Common Article III, applies to our war with Al-Qaeda.
This article includes provisions that prohibit prohibit outrages upon personal dignity and humiliating and degree and degrading treatment.
Yeah, like underwear on the head.
The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article III are vague and undefined.
And each could be interpreted in different ways by an American or foreign judges.
And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.
This is unacceptable.
Our military and intelligence personnel go face to face with the world's most dangerous men every day.
They have risked their lives to capture some of the most brutal terrorists on earth.
And they have worked day and night to find out what the terrorists know so we can stop new attacks.
America owes our brave men and women some things in return that we owe them their thanks for saving lives and keeping America safe.
And we owe them clear rules so they can continue to do their jobs and protect our people.
So I'm today I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror.
First, I am asking Congress to list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the war crimes act.
So our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.
Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the detainee treatment act, our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under common Article III of the Geneva Conventions.
Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts.
In U.S. courts.
The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.
The need for this legislation is urgent.
We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives.
My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted.
But time is of the essence.
It is, and we that's that's exactly right, folks.
I have to be able to pay my property tax bill where I live, so we've got to take a brief time out.
We'll be back.
Gives him some analysis, and if this is still going on, we'll jip it when we get back.
Stay with us.
Okay, we're back.
Speeches over.
Uh we bumped out right before the God bless America portion and the uh pledge to keep America safe.
So you heard the uh the lion's share of it.
Welcome back at Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
Now, let me be honest with you about some things here.
Uh the speech attitudinally home run.
And I've been checking email uh from some of you, and I and you love it, and it was focused, and it was uh attitudinally, it was it was uh spirit raising.
Uh there's no question about that.
But I'll tell you some of the things that he said or had to say really kind of shook me.
Uh the sum total of this, folks, is that we have just moved part of the war into courtrooms, thanks to the Supreme Court and thanks to liberals.
It may end up being military tribunals if the Congress gets get gets in gear, but courts nevertheless.
Uh the the this this firmly establishes here that the uh that the courts are running the war on terror.
And the president's trying to gain some of that control back, and he was defiant in his uh in his mentioning of the courts here.
But he talked about the Supreme Court uh took two years in the Hamdi decision, and they said uh you know, gave him half of the verdict that he wanted, half the decision, but said Congress needs to authorize this.
You don't have the power as president to do this on your own, i.e., military tribunals, even though every president prior to him has had the option to do so and has used them from George Washington to FDR.
So the courts have interceded, they've moved in and are running the show now.
And we're having to go to Congress and get this, and who knows how long it's gonna take in order to satisfy the Supreme Court.
By moving prisoners from the CIA prisons to Club Gitmo, uh, they're gonna get lawyers.
They're gonna get ACLU ACLU lawyers.
There's no question that's who's gonna represent them.
The same people that went before the court in Eastern Michigan to try to get the NSA foreign surveillance program declared unconstitutional and did all ACLU types.
The judge may as well have been one.
And it's not just the lawyers, the likes of Lindsey Graham from South Carolina have been pushing for this.
Because, you know, he he loves he loves the Jag Corps.
He wants, he wants the uh the courts of the military to have a role in this.
The president talked a lot about common Article III of the Geneva Conventions.
Well, let me let you in on something.
Common Article III never applied to unlawful enemy combatants, i.e., terrorists.
But now the court says that it does.
So the president, and I can tell he's frustrated, he's gonna ask Congress for specific definitions of common Article III because it's vague.
How do you define what insults somebody's dignity, for example?
In a way, the press conference was a little weird.
Folks, it struck me a little bit like a pep rally, and I know that everybody likes pep rallies, and in fact, uh uh some on our side need a pep rally.
Uh but people in the audience there were applauding actions that are being forced on the president because the Supreme Court said so.
Uh, I think what they're doing is applauding the president's defiance and commitment to do this despite the courts, but he can't go around them.
I mean, this is unprecedented for the courts, the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary, to get involved to the extent that it has, exercising what our commander-in-chief powers.
The Supreme Court did this.
They forced the setting up of procedures like this so that the lawyers for the enemy can now raise issues about the procedures when their clients object to their detention, and the court shall now be involved all the way in this, and it's gonna gum up the works and it's gonna slow things down.
What we have here is process, process, process.
We have turned the war on terror in part over to the process that takes place in the courts.
And something rubs me wrong about giving the enemy standing to challenge their detention and treatment.
This is a war.
They're enemy combatants.
The president was forced into this by the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
I hope it helps us win the war.
He's, I think, doing everything he can to accommodate the rulings of the court, but still act as commander in chief.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Talent on loan from God.
You know, it's sort of funny, Democrats uh got this telethon going today on MSNBC to uh cure the uh the disease known as the Republican majority.
It's really been amazing to watch.
I know nobody watches NBC, but we have it on in here.
It actually looks like a telethon to defeat the Republican majority.
And right in the middle of it comes Bush's speech.
Yes.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, the following promo is running in selected markets across the country today, and actually gonna run tomorrow, I think.
People have been waiting patiently to appear on this program.
We are gonna get to your calls after I just got to pass on one more story here before we go to the phones.
Pittsburgh Tribune Review commissioned a national poll conducted by the Susquehanna polling and research group shows that five years after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Americans are more aware of people from foreign countries and believe illegal immigrants pose a threat to the U.S., particularly as terrorists.
The poll found that 71% of people believe illegal immigration poses a threat to the country.
31% of those people think the biggest threat from illegal immigrants is terrorism.
Fifty-six percent said that they are more aware of people from foreign countries.
I'm not surprised.
I've been I've been uh offering this opinion for quite a while, and I wanted to follow up yesterday's program.
If you know that the it's it's the one issue that neither party has the guts to deal with, and it is the borders open borders is one of the things that is most on the minds of the American people, and poll after poll shows it.
Uh, but some reason the the parties, especially after the news that there hasn't been any massive uptake uh in the uh increased Hispanic voter registration.
Can you imagine the sadness at McCain's house?
Uh uh when he uh heard about that.
Kevin in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Is Kevin from Mount Laurel, New Jersey there?
Kevin from Mount Laurel, New Jersey apparently got tired of waiting, which he's only been waiting since uh twelve noon.
Just I I people are impatient.
It's just it's just amazing how impatient we've become.
Robert in Madison, uh, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Sunshine State Ditto's Rush.
You're a great American.
Thank you.
Thanks for all.
You're welcome, sir.
I detect, I think, and it's not, I don't think a happy circumstance, um, a change in the political win nationally, and I wanted to get your take.
You see poll tightening uh in Pennsylvania with St. Forum and Casey.
Callan has taken the lead in Missouri, polls in Arizona with Kyle, he's brought in his lead.
Tennessee, the Republican nominee has broadened his lead against Ford.
And while I'm just a private citizen, I'm no expert, um, and I don't have the national perspective on the House.
You know, I I I seem to detect a change in the political wind.
Maybe the uh American people are starting to look at a Nancy Pelosi and a Harry Reed.
Uh maybe uh the president's starting to get uh credit for the economy.
Gas prices are down, though.
You and I both know there's no direct correlation there, but that is a you know, to many Americans that somehow connected to a thriving economy.
Well, I have a I have a different theory about this.
I don't think that the this is that seismic a shift.
I don't think, for example, that six months ago, three months ago, the bulk of the American people just said, you know what?
I am tired of these Republicans, and I want to vote Democrat.
And now all of a sudden, three, six months later, I changed my mind.
I have never bought into the conventional wisdom that the Republicans are doomed, destined to lose.
But I th I think what's happening, I think why you're sensing a shift in the wind is because you saw Santorum or you heard him go out and cream Bob Casey, cleaned his clock.
One of the worst performances by politician and public I have ever seen.
Stood by the president, stood by the war on terror.
Other Republicans who are beginning to speak up forcefully that way are conveying it.
The president, two days in a row, has been out making detailed and tough speeches about the success of the efforts that we have made to capture and interrogate terrorists on the battlefield and to prevent further attacks.
And I think this is uh you know, I I called it a pep rally earlier, and in a sense it was.
The speech today and yesterday were pep rallies.
And everybody that's that's uh on our side of the aisle that's heard the speeches are going, yay, rah-rah-rah, love it, love it, love it.
And I don't mean to diminish any of that.
I think it's important attitudinally, uh, the president's attitude and the attitude of uh voters to hear this.
Uh because the voters are faced uh countless times every day with stories of doom and gloom and and uh and the apocalypse.
We're losing in Iraq, we're losing in a war on terror, the economy is going to hell in a handbasket, global warming is gonna call us to cause us a sweat to death.
It's just horrible out there.
And and uh when there is any kind of focused effort on positive optimism and a hopeful future, uh everybody's gonna respond to that.
I keep trying to tell you people that a negative drumbeat of pessimism and fear is not infectious.
It does not attract people.
It might affect them, but it doesn't attract them to the people's side who are exercising it.
For example, all of these polls that we have seen from the mortgage moms to the security moms to whoever losing faith in the Republicans.
If you dig deep in those stories, you'll find out, even according to those polls, the Democrats aren't picking them up.
Now, why is that?
How many of you, when you're around somebody constantly griping, want to join them?
How long does it take before you get fed up, you can't stand it anymore, and you want to tell them to shut up?
Well, I predict to you that that's what's happening throughout this country.
Every time a Biden or a Harry Reed or a Pelosi or anybody in a member goes on television with these constant negative rants, at some point, people paying attention long enough are gonna say, Shut up, I don't want to hear it.
It's not attractive, it's not a it's not infectious, it's not magnetic.
It is not how you build movements, it's not how you exude leadership.
To constantly whine and moan and complain, predict the worst.
Do you actually think that the vice president, former vice president going on producing a movie on how we, not him, we are destroying the planet.
Is something is going to attract people?
Do you think Gore going to the MTV music awards and showing a couple slides from this stupid movie is what the kids at that award show wanted to see?
I guarantee MTU, most of get the hell off the stage.
I want to see Beyonce stripped naked.
Give me P. Diddy any day to this guy, even if he does have a gun.
Just take it and look at in your personal life.
You know, how many people do you know at work or at home or play, wherever you go, that are just constantly, no matter what it is, negative take, whining, moaning, and complaining.
Shut up, you're saying.
I'm telling you that the Democrats thinking they're gonna take back the House because Howard Dean's leading the way and all of this, you know, there's a man that may need to be institutionalized, as I think about it, uh, and the next couple of elections may succeed in doing that, uh, as far as Howard Dean's concerned.
I'm just telling you, I under I understand human nature.
While while you may be sensing a shift here, I'm not so sure that the shift is anything new.
I just I think it's an attitude uh that that you're seeing, but not an uh not a reflection reflection of actual new opinions.
Livermore, California, this is Sean.
You're next.
It's great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Rush, huge Oakland Raider Ditto.
Thank you, sir.
Been a listener since 91.
In fact, uh the the Lord used you to to form my young skull full of mush back in 1991.
You formed my entire political views for my whole life.
Uh my point is this on the Liberals.
Um the negotiation thing that you did last week.
You did a synopsis where they were where they you were negotiating with the terrorists and they said.
Hold on just a second.
Hold on, hold on just a second.
I'm just looking at NBC and they're running the following graphic.
Thirty-eight percent of the American people think that we're on the wrong track with the war in Iraq.
Thirty-eight percent.
Last time I looked, it's a minority.
Why don't they run what the opposite of that is?
Because it's a telethon to destroy the evil disease, the Republican majority.
Okay, continue on with what you were saying, Sean.
I didn't mean to interrupt, but I had to before they lost that graphic.
That's okay.
Um that the Liberals uh you were doing that negotiation uh thing.
It was a couple of weeks ago, uh uh simulating a negotiation with a terrorist, and they said, no, no, no, we want to kill you.
And then you said, Well, we'll give you this contract, we'll give you this side.
You said, no, no, no.
We want to kill you, and we want to kill your family.
Well, here's the deal with the Liberals.
It's it's it's identical.
In a deep seated r thirst for power, back when they wanted Rumsfeld.
If Bush would have given Rumsfeld, they would have said, okay, we want Connelly Rice.
And if Bush would have said, okay, we'll get rid of Connellisa Rice.
No, no, no.
Now we want Cheney.
They are identical in the way they go about acquiring power.
That's exactly right.
You no matter you can give liberals everything they asked for, and it's not enough.
By the way, that's already been the case.
First they wanted Rove.
And they wanted Fitzmas.
They wanted Fitzgerald to get Rove.
Then when that didn't happen, they had to settle for uh Liddy uh Libby, and then they then they wanted Cheney, and they've been after Rumsfeld, they've been after Rice, they've been after Bush.
Uh uh it's just uh uh you're right.
Uh there they well, I've made the point over the years that uh the Democrats have been trying to say everybody in this administration stinks.
Rumsfeld stinks, Rice stinks.
The only guy they liked was Colin Powell, and now they love Richard Armitage.
The French pronunciation preferred by Senator Biden, by the way, Richard Armitage.
Um did you hear by the way that Rumsfeld uh uh had uh shoulder surgery, uh rotator cuff surgery?
Old sports injury, they said.
Made me wonder how many Democrats have injuries from old sports activities back in just a second.
Serving humanity.
Simply by showing up.
Rush Limbaugh all across the fruited playing.
Ronnie in Houston, you're next.
I'm glad you waited.
Hey Rush Ditto's from uh somebody who considers you to be her wise uncle at whose knee I have learned a just an unbelievable amount of stuff.
My comment is about the um the uh telethon that they're having on MSNBC.
I'm hoping that this is going to backfire on them and scare all of us as Republicans and make us get motivated to go out and vote.
Well, Ronnie, I hate to tell you, I don't think there are enough people that watched that network.
Well, that's the other thing.
I don't think there are enough of us that watch MSNB.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, half half of me was watching that and half of me was listening to you.
Well, I'm sure I increased their audience a little bit today.
Uh but even at that, there aren't enough Republicans that are gonna watch this network, much less total bodies, to cause there to be a stampede of any significance anywhere.
But it sure scared me.
Uh well, I mean I know it scared you because everybody's scared of the drive-by media.
I keep telling people, and I I understand it.
I I really do.
I just I I think that uh and they're still formidable foe out there.
There's a big big time force.
But uh and farce, but they're not unbeatable, and their power is diminishing.
It's slow and it's taking time.
But uh uh there are all kinds of reasons for optimism out there.
I mean, this this network is it's been out there trying for I don't know how long.
It just can't it just can't get any traction.
And is it um um it's just what it is.
But don't worry about uh about this.
It's it's not the the people watching MSNBC for the most part, you know, already believe what MSNBC is is uh uh uh selling, so it's it's not winning any converts.
Uh George in the South Windsor, Connecticut.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you.
Hey Russia, I just wanted to bring your attention back to the Rockefeller memo.
And the reason I wanted to is because everything the liberals do is calculated.
It's not about the troops and about the country making it safer.
They use things like that memo where they were just ready to ready to pull out an investigation.
This whole war whenever they need to pull the plug.
And they use it it's just amazing how they get a free pass by the mainstream media, not on this show, but their game plan.
It's out there, people know it, and then the mainstream media doesn't report.
Get a free pass, it's coordinated.
It's a game, it's it's a it's a game plan that's coordinated between the Democrats and many in the drive-by media.
They're the same people.
Don't you get fed up?
I mean, if you did if you just landed here from Pluto, and by the way, somebody's got to stick up for Pluto.
I mean, to be disrespected like this, been out there as a planet, and now they're saying it's just a rock free-floating on the way.
You lived on Pluto and you just landed here, and you turn on the television any day or night, you would assume that the Democrats ran the House and ran the Senate, because that's who the drive-by media goes to for reaction.
That's whose press conferences they televise.
Uh, I I it is just what it is.
There's an alliance there, and it's it's always been the case.
Now the Rockefeller memo, we've talked about the Rockefeller memo.
It's Jay Rockefeller, Senator from West Virginia, November 6, 2003, point three, uh, in his memo, prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear that we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority, the Republicans.
We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time, but we can only do so once and uh be successful and and and get away with it.
So it is you're you're right.
I mean, the everything they do is the result of a strategy.
It is uh and it's a political strategy designed to defeat enemies uh in this country.
But as far as Democrats concerned, there aren't any enemies outside the country.
Biggest enemy they face and terrorist is George W. Bush.
Uh, let's see.
Kevin in Chesterton, Indiana.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Yeah, megadiddos, Rush.
You were talking about Khrushchev, and I uh he also said that uh they would get you from within.
So they always wanted to get through the courts, get you through the courts, and the media and the Democrats.
It's more of a triangulation than anything else.
Yeah.
Yeah, the uh the Khrushchev was uh uh predicting the demise of the United States and said that we'll get you from within.
We're not gonna have to fire shot.
We'll subvert you.
We'll get our guys running your universities, we're gonna guys in charge of your education system.
Um we'll get our guys in the media.
Uh, and uh, we'll get our guys at various levels of government, and we'll just subvert you.
We we'll just take you over that way.
And you know what?
Um, no, you don't know where I'm going.
Snurley's saying don't go there.
They were successful uh in uh well, my gosh, there were all kinds of communists from Alger Hiss, they're all over the place out there.
Uh and had there not been a Ronald Reagan come along, uh you you telling me that what do you half the black caucus wants to get in line for Castro's funeral.
Or if he comes to the United States to want to go to the party.
Half the Hispanic caucus does too.
Anyway, well we're out of time.
Snugley saying, thankfully, we'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Well, another busy broadcast has run out of precious broadcast minutes, ladies and gentlemen, and down to a few seconds remaining.
NFL opening night tomorrow night.
The Steelers hosting the Dolphins will have an environmentalist wacko pick tomorrow.
Sit tight.
We'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection