All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
September 7, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, time for all opposers to step aside.
America's real anchorman here.
Three hours of broadcast excellence from the EIB Southern Command behind the golden EIB microphone, a living legend serving humanity simply by showing up.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
I warned you people about this.
I told you this was going to happen.
Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party are just a bunch of thin-skinned bullies now trying to pressure ABC and the Disney CEO Robert Iger into dropping the miniseries of Path to 9-11.
The entire Democratic establishment is now involved.
They are essentially demanding censorship.
I told you that this was going to happen.
And I warned you about it.
And I don't know how this is going to end up.
I really don't.
And I don't want to talk about how this is going to end up because I don't know.
I don't know what ABC is going to do.
But a couple things I want to focus on here, folks.
This illustrates just how flimsy the surface on which the Clinton legacy is built.
This illustrates the desire that they have to get this whole thing not shown.
You know, I've always told you, when somebody says something about you and you scream the loudest, that's when the indication, our man, they must have hit gold, must have hit the bullseye with the criticism.
The Clinton administration and all of its members have tried for years now to build a legacy where one does not exist.
We had a president in the 90s who did not tackle big issues, preferring instead to score phenomenally high approval ratings, creating the image that we had a happy-go-lucky, carefree decade of rampant economic expansion, no threats anywhere, while Americans are being bombed and killed all over the world, and not a single act of retaliation that had any substance was taken to avenge any of it.
Now, as to this movie, The Path to 9-11, I have seen it.
I have talked about it on numerous occasions.
And I want to repeat to you what I said about it in our most recent discussion.
While this movie does, it can't help it.
It focuses on the path to 9-11, starting with the 1993 World Trade Center attacks.
It then goes on through 9-11.
I'm sorry, the bulk of that time, Bill Clinton was president.
What happened happened?
What didn't happen didn't happen.
Now, they've even enlisted Richard Clark to get involved in this.
Let me tell you something about this movie.
Richard Clark comes across as a hero.
Richard Clark comes across as the only guy with any common sense and guts in this movie.
Now, you tell me that that's conservative slant.
Most conservatives think Richard Clark is a doofus, that he's nothing more than another Clinton, self-protecting, himself first kind of guy.
In this movie, Richard Clark makes more sense, has some of the best lines, and is shown to be one of the most fervent anti-terrorist hunters that the country's ever had.
And yet they've enlisted him to join the Democrats to try to say that some elements of this movie are factually incorrect, made up, and all of that.
And I'll tell you the thing that is stunning to me.
When you compare Bill Clinton the man and other presidents, George Bush the man, how many times did George Bush or any in the Republican administration demand that 911 Fahrenheit 911, that stupid lying so-called documentary by Michael Moore not be shown in theaters?
Republicans were even going to the premieres of those things.
Republicans appeared in it.
Even though they may have been sandbagged by Moore, they were in it.
But the president nor his administration said a word about it.
I'll tell you something else.
Sandy Burglar is all upset about the way he's portrayed in this movie.
Sandy Burglar gets a major break.
This movie does not portray Sandy Burglar stealing documents in his pants and his socks from the National Archives.
Now, I'm going to tell you something.
They can talk about all they want about how Sandy Burglar has been misrepresented, but we know that the Clinton administration tried to stack the deck.
And why do we believe their denials?
This is an administration that got by obfuscating the truth.
This is an administration that did its best to cover up the truth, especially about Bill Clinton himself.
Why in the world are we just prepared to say that their denials are factually incorrect?
How do we know?
The 9-11 Commission report, for example, says, well, some of these things didn't happen the way they are portrayed in the movie.
How do they know that?
Are they relying on Clinton administration people to tell them?
And if so, were the Clinton administration people lying then?
At what point did we stop having doubt about the honesty of people in that administration and all of a sudden start accepting that they are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow?
When in fact, their arguments about this and their effort, the effort is more powerful than the argument, that they want this movie pulled and the whole Democratic Party establishment is part of it.
They want this movie pulled.
What are they afraid of?
Some of the Democrats are, well, you can't do this going right before the election.
They're worried about how this is going to affect the election.
Let me tell you something, Democrat friends of mine.
If you think this movie is going to worry you and affect your electoral chances in November, you better understand that you've been talking this way and acting this way for five years or four or three, depending on when you want to target the beginning of the war on terror.
I mean, to say that a movie is going to affect your electoral chances, this country's not fooled by who you are each and every day.
Your reaction to the president's proposal yesterday, we've got some of it on tape here from Jane Harmon and others to get congressional authorization and a new piece of legislation, actually, for military tribunals.
When you hear that, if you think that it is a secret that you're on the wrong side in America's war on terror and this movie is going to expose you, you are dumber and blinder than I have ever thought.
You made it clear who you are.
This movie's not going to surprise anybody.
But let me tell you what you're missing, Clinton, people.
It ain't about you.
This movie is not about you.
And it's not about George W. Bush.
The movie is about America.
The movie is about the country.
The movie's number one enemy is al-Qaeda.
The number one enemy in this movie is not Bill Clinton.
It's not Sandy Bergler.
It is not Richard Clark.
And it is not Madeline Albright.
And it's not George Tenet.
The enemy in this movie is who the enemy actually is.
Al-Qaeda.
Terrorists who want to blow up and kill Americans just because we're alive and don't agree with them on fundamental religious beliefs.
The fact that you can look past that and try to make it all about you is exactly what happened all during the 90s with the Clinton administration.
Everything was about them.
Clinton can't stop talking about himself even now.
When asked by a network, I think it was ABC, who cares who it was, During this two-week orgy of the anniversary of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, what was Clinton's answer?
Well, I might have done something different because I might have done things differently because I have such a close attachment to that.
It's not about you.
What is it with you liberals?
Bunch of narcissists.
Everything is about you.
Watch the movie.
ABC didn't send me.
ABC didn't send me a copy either.
I'm watching, reading all this stuff in the news about how ABC sent all these.
This thing was first screened in front of a mixed audience of Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C. Richard Benveniste was in the crowd.
He didn't like it.
I told you what happened at this thing.
They're trying to rewrite history even now.
They're saying they haven't been allowed to see it.
They certainly have.
And it's the fact that they've seen it that's caused them to go.
You know what else is driving them nuts?
You know, and this is this is this is just amazing.
What's really driving them nuts is that I have said on the radio that I know the guy who wrote it.
That's in every story.
And Rush Limbaugh, who knows Cyrus Norazna.
Well, that automatically, that fires up the libs.
That fires up the Clinton people and automatically discredits the work of the writer.
I didn't write it.
I didn't talk to Cyrus when he was writing it.
Well, he did tell me that he was working on this movie a long time ago, and he'd send me a copy of it when it was done.
A long time ago, it slipped my mind until all this came up, until this screening in Washington.
You ever heard Bush complain about any of the books that have been written about his assassination?
The latest one from Cindy Sheehan, by the way.
She admits she had fantasies about killing Bush before he was born or after he was when he was a kid, so he wouldn't become president.
Now we got this movie debuting in Canada at the film festival up there in Toronto, and it's all about Bush's assassination.
You hear the White House blowing and whining and complaining about anything?
It can contrast these two administrations and contrast these two men.
Does Bush whine and moan about what's in the media about him ever?
No.
And you know why?
Because Bush is not depending on the media to write his legacy and his history.
Clinton has to because there was nothing of any real substance in his administration other than welfare reform, which was a product of the Republican Congress.
And he can point back to, we were safe, Limbaugh.
I mean, we didn't have it.
No, Mr. President, we were.
Did we have to go through this?
You want me to go through it?
World Trade Center attacks 93.
We cut and run in Mogadishu.
An ABC reporter gets an interview with Bin Laden.
Mogadishu showed him, we don't have the guts.
We can't take casualties.
Happened on your watch, sir.
You guys are the ones who pulled out of there in the middle of a victory just because some bad pictures on television involving Army Rangers being dragged through the streets.
Then we head to Cobar Towers and the USS Cole and all the embassies in Africa.
Nothing was done.
You can talk, well, we ratcheted up all of our spending and we did this and that.
Even though nothing was, I'm telling you, Richard Clark comes out as the hero in this film.
Richard Clark ought to be thanking his lucky star.
And he knows it, by the way.
Clark knows how well he's portrayed in this, yet he's thrown in with the Democrats.
And I think it's his personal because Condoleezza Rice reassigned him when the Bush people took over.
Reassigned him to something outside of terrorism czar or some such thing.
And of course, you know how egos are even in Power Mad Washington.
But this is pure bullyism.
This is thuggish behavior.
And it's putting ABC in a really tight spot.
It really is.
The orientation ideologically in Hollywood is liberal.
If they produce this thing, and by the way, the way the movie plays after all this buildup is not going to be relevant.
The image of the movie is going to carry the day with people even after they see it.
But I'm going to tell you what, folks, and I just want to reiterate this.
This is the best movie to portray what happened ever about any of this because they have the time.
They've got five hours.
Now, they're trying to portray 10 or 12 years in five hours.
It is intense.
There aren't going to be any commercials.
It's shot with a handheld.
It is one of the most educational things you've seen.
And not just the Clinton administration, the whole government.
The whole nature of the bureaucracy is shown to be ineffective.
It has shown that individuals don't have the guts to make choices on their own without going up top and getting a form and getting permission.
And some people don't want to even go up top because they know they're going to be shot down.
It will enlighten you as to how the efforts were made to deal with this or how they really weren't made or what all the cogs in the wheel were.
But the real indictment here, the people you're going to hate after you watch this are not Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright and all these people.
You're going to hate Zawahiri.
You're going to hate Sheikh Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.
You're going to hate Ramza Youssef.
You're going to hate Ramzi bin al-Shib.
You are going to despise Bin Laden.
You're going to despise all of these people.
You are just, as you should, they are the enemy.
And that's what this movie accurately portrays.
And that's where it takes your emotions.
I think the way all this talk about the hits on the Clinton administration, the way that got started, well, I'm a little long here, but I'm going to tell you where this all got started and why it is carrying the day in just a second.
Just give you a shortcut here.
You can blame the drive-by media for it.
They don't tell the whole story about any story.
But we know what the other half or 75% of every story is that we don't see the drive-by media.
Here comes this movie portraying what we know that the drive-by movies never talked about, so it's a cause for celebration.
Pure and simple.
Truth getting out.
Full truth and whole truth.
Back after this.
Hi, welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I was watching Katie Couric CBS Evening News last night, and this is going to sound bite number one here.
This is what I saw and heard.
Tomorrow Radio Talk Show host Rush Limbaugh, who has never been shy about speaking his mind.
What's on Rush Limbaugh's mind these days?
He'll tell you tomorrow on free speech, an important new part of the CBS Evening News with Katie Kerr.
See it now.
And then this morning on the CBS Early Show, this is how Katie announced the appearance tonight.
Freedom of speech is one of our most precious constitutional guarantees, no matter which side of the political fence you're on.
In tonight's free speech, we'll hear from someone most of you know, Rush Limbaugh.
Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamofascism.
We hope you'll join us for free speech and the rest of tonight's CBS Evening News.
Yeah, so it is tonight, folks.
The commentary, they're running this thing about 20 minutes into the show, 18 to 20 minutes into the show.
Eastern time, 6.30 is it starts where I live.
Most people on the East Coast starts at 6.30, some of them 7.
At any rate, at 6.48 to 6:50.
Also, these are some of the commercials that CBS is running in selected markets today.
Come on, you people, gut it up.
And we're back at 800-282-2882, America's real anchorman serving humanity on the EIB network.
I went back and I did a little research here.
As I mentioned to you, the path to 9-11 does not show Sandy burglars stealing documents via his pants, socks, whatever, from the National Archives.
Washington Post, a story from the 22nd of July 2004, just a little over two years ago.
Archives staff was suspicious of Berger as the headline.
Why documents were missing is disputed.
Here is the money paragraph.
The documents that Sandy Burgler has acknowledged taking, some of which remain missing, are different drafts of a January 2000 after-action review of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium.
The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard Clark at Berger's direction when he was in government.
So they went in there.
I just wanted to remind you of this.
Burglar was sent in it.
You don't think this is accidental, do you?
I'm telling you, the surface, the foundation on which the Clinton legacy is built is so flimsy that it cannot withstand a movie.
It obviously could not withstand an honest portrayal of his administration by the drive-by media.
But a movie has panicked them into behaving like censors and thugs, sending four-page letters from, or four-page letters from Clinton.
Albright and Burglar have sent their own letters to Bob Iger.
This is unprecedented.
In order to get this thing canceled, they don't want it to run.
What is it they are afraid of?
I mean, this is fascinating to watch this, and it just tells me that every suspicion I've had about this crew is absolutely right.
It is such a flimsy foundation.
It is built on balsa wood, if not feathers.
They have spent, it has amazed me the unity that the Clinton administration has been able to maintain.
I mean, you got Albright out there.
They've been trying to defend themselves on how they botched Korea going out there on television along with Wendy Sherman.
You got what's his name?
Ashley Wilkes.
What's his real name?
Wesley Clark.
Wesley Clark's out there.
This administration couldn't survive.
Its legacy is totally built on spin.
Mr. President Clinton, I have an idea for you.
If you really want this thing not to run, send Sandy Burglar to the ABC Broadcast Center and have him steal the show.
Have him take it out in his pants before it's supposed to air.
Our old buddy Bo Diddley, the EIB network, all across the fruited plain rush limbo, emitting vocal vibrations.
You know, it's just a shame because I happen to know Cyrus Norasta, who wrote the screenplay for The Path to 9-11.
And you have to assume lawyers and experts vetted it.
Tom Keynes on there as a consultant, the chairman of the 9-11 Commission.
But it sort of saddens me that just because I know Cyrus and have made that fact known on the broadcast here, that that becomes an instant way to discredit the movie as far as the fringe kooks.
Well, actually, it's all the way through the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
So let me practice equal opportunity.
I know this guy is him.
I also know Bob Iger.
I wouldn't say Bob Iger is a friend of mine, but I've been to a couple dinner parties with Bob Iger for big people, Black Tie Affairs.
And I once auditioned for a pilot for ABC, back when they were owned by Cap Cities, for Bob Iger.
So I know Bob Iger, too.
So let that get out there.
Let that become part of the liberal conspiracy.
Well, HR says, who else can you destroy?
I'm not destroying anybody.
I'm just causing them heat.
It's just, folks, it's the territory.
It's the league that we're all in here.
In fact, when Katie Couric approached me in early August about appearing as a commentator on their free speech segment on Evening News, I said, do you know what possibly could happen to you as a result of doing this?
I mean, you could be shunned at cocktail parties.
People could question your sanity and so forth.
And lo and behold, it's happening.
Last night, Charlie Rose had on his guests the New York Times TV writer Bill Carter.
And they're talking about the evening news.
And Howard Kurtz is on there as well.
And Kurtz says the commentary in lighter segments showing pictures of Ron Burgundy, fictional TV anchorman, going to leave some people hungry for more traditional news.
Bill Carter responds.
I would drop that commentary segment as of tonight.
I thought it was terrible.
And I thought, you know, they're going to have bigger names on there.
But do we really need Rush Limbaugh commenting?
He comments all the time.
You don't really need him doing that.
I feel like that's kind of a sideshow.
They're looking for more stars in there.
But, you know, Katie was the star last night.
Why take two minutes away from her?
It's just, I didn't think that really brought value at all to the newscast.
All right.
So there's the lead TV critic or the former.
No, he's just a sideshow.
We don't need him.
And I warned them at CBS that their friends would find this questionable.
But they have stuck with it.
I mean, they didn't.
They haven't.
I don't know that there were any lobbying efforts to pull out like there are with the Clinton administration and Sandy Burglar and Madeline Albright, ABC.
And by the way, if you're just tuning in, just to reiterate something, I don't just criticize on this program.
We offer solutions.
Now, the Clinton administration is distressed beyond belief.
They know that their legacy is teetering here on a five-hour miniseries.
Imagine that.
But they have demonstrated that they have adept and skillful ways of dealing with such things.
If they can send Sandy Burglar into the National Archives and steal documents, after-action memos written by Richard Clark to show how they dealt with terrorism.
This is why, by the way, I've always been more interested in what Burglar put back in there because he was going in to prep himself for his and Clinton's testimony.
What do you bet the odds are that burglar took out whatever was there and put back a more hard-hitting actor-action memo to portray the Clinton administration is on the case from the get-go from 1993 on or what have you.
I mean, when these people say that producers and writers are lying, this is like Colonel Sanders accusing the chickens of being murderers.
Well, it really is.
I mean, these people are not known for their honesty and their veracity.
In fact, Clinton was such a good liar, the Drive-By Media marveled at it during the 90s about how good he was and how easily they were spun.
And then they featured stories all throughout the Drive-By media in the 90s about how, you know, these lies, actually, they're good sometimes.
They save people's hurt feelings.
And they spare a lot of pain and so forth.
I mean, everybody knew what was going on.
So all of a sudden, now we're supposed to take their word as gospel.
Anyway, solution to problem, send Sandy Burglar to the ABC Broadcast Center under cover of darkness and steal the broadcast version of this mini-series.
I don't know what format they play it on.
I don't know if they use tape.
I don't know if they play it off disc or some other kind of format, whatever the media is.
But clearly, Berger can wear slacks large enough he could steal the stuff out of there.
If you've done it once, you can do it again.
And maybe replace it with, well, that wouldn't fly.
They'd realize if they don't have it, they can't run it.
That's my solution.
One more thing on this Scarborough country last night, MSNBC, a montage of Scarborough's remarks about me and ABC's The Path to 9-11.
ABC is refusing to provide a copy of the mini-series to President Clinton.
His former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, his former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, but has given Rush Limbaugh a copy of the tag.
Bill Clinton was not allowed to watch this, but Rush Limbaugh says Clinton's working behind the scenes to get the film re-edited that Limbaugh saw.
I don't know how true this is.
As I mentioned to you, there was a screening.
The first screening of this thing took place in Washington, and it was packed, and it was half Democrats and half Republicans, and that's how the word got out.
Richard Benvenist, I told you this when it happened, Ben Venice got really right up in Cyrus Norast's face, almost pointing fingers and so forth.
And that's where all this hubbub got started.
There were a lot of Democrats in that room.
And whether Clinton's been allowed, I don't know.
I have no idea if he's asked to see it and they've said no.
All I can tell you is ABC didn't send me my copy.
I didn't ask them.
It came in over the transom.
Hey, I am a powerful, influential member of the media, able to affect and impact attitudes and habits of gazillions of people.
Bill Clinton can't do that.
Sandy Burglar can't do that.
Madeleine Albright can't do that, but I can.
So, and I've tried to review this thing as accurately and honestly as I can.
And I could go through the whole thing today, but it'd be redundant.
It's on the website right now.
What I said yesterday about this movie, maybe it was a couple days ago.
I forget, days are running together.
They always do.
But Coco find it whatever day it was and put it back up there and highlight it so people can see it.
Because the thing, you know, you do notice certain portrayals of the Clinton administration because they're covered up otherwise.
The Lewinsky situation, Clinton's testimony before the grand jury.
They're attempted, they're mixed in with dialogue to show a distraction that existed.
If somebody wants to try to make the case for me that the Clinton administration was eagerly fighting terrorism, look at my good friend Katie Couric on the first night of her program said the war on terror began after the 9-11 attacks.
Well, when CBS says that the war on terror began after the 9-11 attacks, what does it tell you what was not going on prior to the 9-11 attacks?
Hmm.
I tell you, I love this.
And think of all the publicity that Clinton types are generating for the movie.
Think of that.
I mean, for all the smarts these people had about image and marketing and positioning, they're acting like a bunch of juveniles here and neophytes, which, you know, what's causing this is this is just too close to home.
This is so close to home.
It can blow all of these years of hard work of establishing this legacy that has built itself totally on spin.
Let's go to Richard in Detroit.
Richard, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush.
The media has for now forever done whatever they can to cover up for Democrats.
What in the world is possessing them to show this movie right before the elections?
I can't think of it.
Wow, it's too bad 9-11 happens to Hall right before the election.
You know, we didn't choose it.
The terrorists chose it.
So it's not ABC's fault.
It's not the Republicans' fault.
And that's just another example.
Democrats are like, how can they do this right before the election?
Well, when was 9-11?
I think it's September 11th.
Elections are in October.
It's the five-year anniversary.
We didn't create this date.
The Democrats can't deal with things that happen legitimately because everything they do is a spin operation.
Everything they do is an image that's been created.
They look at life through a different lens than reality.
But at any rate, you're asking yourself, why would ABC, you consider them to be the drive-by media, why would they do this?
Remember, this is not ABC News doing this.
This is the ABC Entertainment Division.
And I think, let me put it to you this way, folks.
You're hearing all these charges that things in this movie didn't happen.
Do you think that ABC would buy and spend $40 million?
That's Hollywood money.
Movie money.
You think ABC would buy and spend $40 million to produce something and then have the chairman of the 9-11 Commission on as a consultant to get it right and not vet this and not run this minor lawyers and not run.
They obviously felt it was great.
It is.
We're getting sidetracked here on the primary aspect of this.
It's intense.
It is really, really well done.
And I have to tell you something.
I don't want you to take this the wrong way.
Time does not fly in this.
This is not like a great entertainment movie where it's over before you even realized it started.
This is intense.
You live this.
I mean, this is something that when I watched all five hours at once because I watched part of it on the airplane, but the closed captioning wasn't working on the airplane.
I couldn't hear it well.
So when I got home and I did this, I did it on Tuesday.
I can't remember.
We didn't work on Monday.
It might have been Monday.
I did it.
Labor Day.
No, yes.
Yes.
So I think I watched Five Hours All At Once.
And I'm telling you what, it's an intense experience.
And it's got so much value, historical, dramatic value here.
For the Clinton people to go hog wild here and not want anybody to see this just convinces me that as far as their narcissistic minds are concerned, everything's still about them.
And nothing could be further from the truth, especially now in 2006.
Their history.
A quick timeout, back after this.
Stay with us.
Ha!
Welcome back, El Rushbo, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Just one more thing on this path to 9-11 stuff.
I keep thinking of things.
In fact, I'm getting close to disavowing any knowledge of Cyrus Noresta and giving him permission to say we never met and that I've been lying about all this all along just to make myself look big, to sort of take the heat off of him.
But at any rate, the Clintonoids all upset that they didn't get advanced copies of The Path to 9-11.
Albright didn't get one.
Sandy Bergler didn't get one.
Richard Clark didn't get one.
So what?
When do they ever?
Did George W. Bush get a copy?
Did Condoleezza Rice get a copy in advance?
Did Bin Laden get a copy?
I bet ABC forgot him, didn't get his input here.
Did they send one to Ayman al-Zawahiri?
Now that we know where Sheikh Khalik Shade Mohammed is, maybe they should have sent him one to get his reaction to how he's portrayed in this.
Did Gerald Ford get an advanced copy?
Did Jimmy Carter get an advanced copy?
Did the Reagan family get an advanced copy?
What is it with you Clinton people?
The world revolves around you.
See, the fact that they think they should have gotten an advanced copy means that they think that there is a right-wing conspiracy inside of ABC to shaft them.
Just because I got a copy.
Because I know Bob Iger.
Because I know Cyrus No Resta.
Well, I don't hear anybody else complaining.
I don't hear the Bush people complaining.
I don't hear Connolly Rice complaining.
I don't hear Bin Laden complaining.
I don't hear Zawahiri complaining.
I don't hear any of the terrorists in this movie complaining that they weren't allowed to see it in advance, even though a whole room full of Democrat activists did see it.
Ken in Marlborough, Massachusetts.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome.
Well, hello.
How are you, Rush?
It's Marlboro, New Jersey, by the way.
You're a little north of where I am.
Well, I can only read what it says up there on the screen.
I'm not taking a hit for this boo-boo.
Fair enough.
Let me say to you, first of all, that you really are having fun with this, and I don't blame you a bit.
I agree that ABC has a huge winner if they keep this show intact.
But my point is that because of the Democratic Wine Fest of the last few days, they have no break-even point.
If they keep it as is, not only do they maximize the controversy, they gain viewership, and people will tune in even if they disagree with what it says, just to see how it is said.
But if they change it, then they lessen rather than increase the controversy.
And as an extra-added attraction, they look like a wholly owned subsidiary of the DNC.
So they shoot themselves in the foot on radio and their credibility.
Yeah, but the ABC news division already is a wholly owned subsidiary of yeah, but this is at least potentially their breakaway point.
I have a book coming out next week called The Hopelessly Partisan Guide to American Politics.
I laugh at this media bias throughout the book.
And my co-writer, by the way, belongs to moveon.org.
He agrees with it.
So we have a lot of fun with this ourselves.
And ABC is part and parcel of a great deal more than that, as we both know.
Let me tell you what I suspect may happen here.
I suspect in the opening graphics and the credits, there might be some allusion to certain parts of this movie, such as Bill Clinton being portrayed as worthless are fictional.
Or what have you.
I don't think they'll go in and edit things.
They might.
I really don't know.
I'm just guessing like everybody else is doing.
But if they do anything, I think that it would only extend to graphic things.
This is a work of fiction.
Don't anybody think that this is pure history?
Blah, If they do anything, they are going to make it look like they caved to these complaints from the Clinton administration, these bullies and these thugs, and that's not going to help them.
You're exactly right.
And I'll tell you what else is going to happen.
Nobody's talking about this.
But if there are edits made to this thing, remember now, those of us in the new media who have seen this have told everybody what's in it and how good it is.
And there's going to be a demand for the original version.
There will be a public demand for the original version of this, an uncensored version, the uncut, the director's cut, so that people could see what actually Clinton succeeded in having removed.
It is sort of a catch-22 for them out there.
But if I were ABC, I'd be looking at this as, hey, we can't buy this kind of publicity.
We can put out there that it's a docudrama.
It's a movie.
It's a mini-series.
This is not a full-fledged documentary.
Blah, blah, blah.
They can do anything they want graphically and then leave it up to the Clinton people to go out there and do seminars and TV appearances to correct the record, which, of course, prepare yourselves because that will happen in Ernest.
Has it already started?
Well, it'll only intensify.
And when you see that, you just have to remind yourself, folks, why this is happening and ask yourself, why does Bush never go out and do this kind of thing?
Why does Bush never try to correct the drive-by media, either entertainment or news portrayals of him?
Because I worried about it.
His body of work will speak for itself.
Clinton's body of work doesn't, media spin does, and that's why it's so crucial.
What do you think the AP headline was from the entire Bush speech yesterday you heard on this program?
Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons.
We got lots ahead of us.
▲
Export Selection