All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
September 7, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbo, America's leading conservative voice, well-known radio racon tour.
Show prep for the rest of the media.
And obviously a lot more than that.
I may be the central focal point causing most of the anger and outrage on the American left.
It's an honor.
Happy to have you along.
Telephone number is, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
You know, we have a lot of new listeners each and every day on this program, and they add up over the course of a month, two months.
And occasionally, I will take time out in the midst of an explanation of something and say for those of you in Riolinda, that's, and come up with a simpler way of explaining it for them.
And people who are not veterans of this audience and this program will invariably send me notes.
Well, what is this Rio Linda bill?
Where is it?
Riolinda is a suburb of Sacramento, which is my adopted hometown.
But I think this story that somehow I missed, I was just advised of this, just learned of this.
It happened on September 2nd, which was five days ago.
But this ought to explain it to you if you're new and you haven't really had it explained before.
Just read this website to you.
The 2006 Sierra Stampede Festival and Gay Rodeo will hold most events at the Central Park Horse Arena in Rio Linda, just 15 minutes from downtown Sacramento.
The festival grounds will be open on September 2nd.
Free parking available.
We suggest you carpool.
Keep in mind, no pets allowed on the grounds.
They don't need pets.
They got horses.
And other things.
At the Sierra Stampede Festival and Gay Rodeo, which of all the places in the world that they could hold it, it's in Rio Linda.
well that's right um A lot of cowpokes in Rio Linda.
It is.
I offered to move there if they'd named the town after me, and they refused.
All right.
This media reaction to Bush's speech yesterday is classic.
We have audio sound bites here to sort of illustrate this for you.
You have to understand the context.
The context is Bush is toast.
This is before the speech yesterday.
Bush is toast.
MSNBC is doing its telethon all day yesterday, attempting to cure the evil disease called Republican majority.
They really did day-long focus on Democrats winning back the Congress in November.
In the middle of it came President Bush's speech.
And the media reaction to this, we've got another set of talking points that's gone out.
One of the words that several commentators used to describe the president's speech yesterday was jiu-jitsu.
Somebody thought up the word jiu-jitsu just like they thought of the word gravitas for Dick Cheney being chosen as vice president.
And it's amazing when you hear the bites.
They're coming up shortly.
But the context of this is Bush pulled a fast one.
Right before the election, he did this.
Right before the election.
This is a dastardly trick.
Why, we're on track to win back the house.
What does Bush think it's his right to compete for it too?
Who does he think he is?
This is ours.
This is our election.
What is he doing?
Bob Schieffer last night on CBS said the president was artful and brilliant in changing the direction of the way he's going on the subject here.
And it was, folks, because he has put the Democrats in a position here that are very nervous.
They're the ones that were bellyaching about the military tribunals.
They're the ones that wanted us to go to court.
They're the ones that wanted to turn the terrorism fight and war into a give the Al-Qaeda bunch a civil rights bill, Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
And they wanted the judges and the courts to be fighting this rather than it having it take place on the battlefield because they own the judiciary.
That's where their buddies are.
And Bush just took it back to Congress and said, I want some legislation here to reauthorize according to the court's mandate.
And he was, by the way, when I was listening to that speech yesterday, he was subtly rebuking these people on the Supreme Court.
He's not happy about it.
And he was letting the American people know why this had to be done.
And he let the American people know that previous presidents from George Washington to FDR have used military tribunals.
But now all of a sudden, five lawyers in black robes on the Supreme Court said, uh-uh, you aren't.
We're running this war.
You got to do it the way we say.
And since everybody looks at the Supreme Court as the last law of the land, the president has to go back to Congress, get reauthorization, actual piece of legislation.
And the Democrats in a tizzy about this because, I mean, how do they oppose this?
How do they oppose it?
It's what they wanted.
It's courts.
Just military courts.
How do they avoid going along with the president right before the election?
Oh, no.
Why did this have to happen right before the election?
It's a trick.
It's all a dastardly trick.
The Associated Press tried to play all this down.
After all I've told you about the speech yesterday, and many of you yesterday heard it on this very program.
You know what Nedra Pickler chose to headline and report on?
Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons.
They released that before the speech, Nedra.
That's not even news.
To have that be the post-speech focal point, Nedra for crying out loud.
Television was drumming that little graphic all over for an hour, 45 minutes before the speech.
By the way, Washington Post with a story here on that, officials relieved that the secret is shared by our old friend Dana Priest.
Finally, the burden of this program will not rest only on the shoulders of the CIA, said James Pavitt.
Maybe it's Pavitt, who headed CIA covert operations when the program was put in place with White House approval after September 11, 2001.
This was a tough world.
We were asked to do some tough things.
Adding that such efforts were always within the law.
Another Washington Post story, President Schiff's argument catches critics off ground.
It's by Michael Abramowitz and Charles Babington.
At the same time, Bush sought to redefine the issue of CIA detentions from one of civil liberties to one of protecting Americans.
It's always been that.
It's been you people that have been trying to turn this into a civil liberties issue, the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
It's always been about protecting Americans.
What is it you people in the left don't understand about this?
President Bush this week has demonstrated anew the power of even a weakened commander-in-chief to set the terms of national debate.
That's, you can just see the pain and anger dripping off the fingertips as they type that one.
We thought we had destroyed this guy.
We thought we set him up for those impeachment hearings.
What the hell is he doing crossing us up and setting the agenda on a national debate?
Yesterday, Bush sought to turn a legal defeat at the Supreme Court into a political opportunity.
You know, there's no question he did that.
But to say that this is pure politics with Bush goes to, again, this misunderstanding of who he is.
To say that this is all about politics to him, that's the way you people in the drive-by media and the left look at Bush and look at everything is through the prism of politics and how can it hurt him.
And now you're forced to look at something as though it might help him and you are despairing over it.
A legal defeat at the Supreme Court into a political outcome.
He's doing what's necessary as commander-in-chief to defend and protect the country given the obstacles put in his way.
You look at it as a political move, a deft political move.
By challenging Congress to immediately give the administration authority to try notorious al-Qaeda figures like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by military tribunals, he shifted the argument with Democratic critics of national security policies and competence.
As Bush framed the choice, anyone against his proposal would be denying him necessary tools to protect American security.
You know, this is a battle that Bush has been fighting all along.
He's been fighting all along the American left, the liberal judiciary, the drive-by media in trying to do his job to protect the American people.
First, the Abu Grab pictures and then the club Gitmo flushing a Koran down the toilet stories.
List goes on and on and on.
And then there's this.
This is USA Today, Joan Biskupik and Andrea Stone.
Three Republican senators among critics of military tribunal plan.
Can you take a guess as to who two of these three might be?
Do you know, Mr. Snerdley?
You don't know?
Well, take a wild guess.
You'd be a good guinea pig here.
Three Republican senators.
I'm only going to make you guess two of them.
Who do you think are the two of the three Republican senators who are critics of the plan?
It's you've got two of the three.
It is Senator McCain.
It is Lindsey Graham.
And the third is John Warner.
But they say their objections are not insurmountable.
They can work with the president on this.
And you wonder why we can't get anything done on immigration.
Does the name McCain have any meaning here?
Campaign finance reform.
Now the president wants this to do military tribunal.
Lindsey Graham has been all for this.
Well, he wants the Jag Corps to be running things.
He's from that group.
But, you know, when you get to the Senate and you're talking Republicans, the odds are you're going to be running into a lot of obstacles there.
By the way, I just thought of another question for you Clintonoids out there.
Where were you during all three years of the Valerie Plam Joe Wilson scandal when you knew that was BS?
And that's real life.
And there's been a real guy indicted in the process crime, not even for something that the investigation was about.
Where were all you people concerned about accuracy in the drive-by media and in the Clinton universe when this whole Richard Armitage and Patrick Fitzgerald fiasco was unfolding before our very eyes and journalists were going to jail and so forth?
I just find it's highly suspect that of all the things that we know to be inaccurate out there, the only ones you care about, those that affect you.
It's always about them.
It's always about Clinton.
I mean, this is...
All right, we're going to go to the audio soundbites, as I mentioned, a montage.
George Steffi Stephanopoulos, Tim Russert, and David Rodham Gergen, all talking about the president's speech yesterday.
Administration took an admission and a mandate from the Supreme Court and turned it into a powerful political statement.
That's some clever jiu-jitsu there.
Remember, after the September 11th creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a Democratic idea, the president opposed it.
He then took it jiu-jitsu and drove it and ran against Democrats in the midterm elections of 2002 successfully.
I think the political jiu-jitsu here is to say, okay, now we've got these guys.
We want to put them on trial.
We need tough military tribunals to do that and to push the Congress to do that.
It just continues to boggle my mind.
They've been caught at this and yet they continue to do it.
It shows their arrogance.
Maybe they don't even know it.
But where does this come from?
It has to be they're sitting around together after work at the bar, what have you, and they're talking about it.
And somebody comes up with a word that they all like.
And since they're all on the same team, bam, that becomes what everybody says.
So there were more examples than this.
This is just the three that we put together in the montage of the president's political jiu-jitsu.
Now, today's show today, host Matt Oauer and Tim Russert are discussing the president's speech yesterday.
Matt Wauer says, let's talk about the timing of this.
The Supreme Court handed the administration a defeat on this subject back in June, so several months ago.
The president at any time in the last couple of months could have made this announcement.
Why did he wait till now?
Or he could have done it on November 8th, the day after the midterm elections.
But the political and legislative calendar now is front and center, Matt.
There's no doubt about it.
This was an important announcement politically for the president because it focuses the conversation on September 11th, not Iraq.
And so for the next three weeks, the president will be saying, where's the bill?
Where's the bill?
Where are my war tribunals?
And they just can't stand it.
They just, the group of people that does everything for political reasons, everything for political outcome, just thinks they're being cheated on when their opponents do it.
Don't you know Bush is supposed to just lay down and lose?
The Republicans, in fact, there probably shouldn't even be an election.
The Republicans in the House should just wave the white flag and say, we're done.
Well, we don't even need a campaign, and we're not even going to hold the elections.
I mean, these guys lamenting, hey, yeah, he could have waited till November 8th, the day after the election, to do this.
They just can't stand it.
They think they own all this.
It's their property.
And anybody who plays on their field and competes with them is practicing a dirty trick, essentially.
Let's go to the situation room with Wolf Blitzer last night on CNN.
He's interviewing Representative Jane Harmon, Democrat California.
She's the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, I believe.
Wolf says, you give the president credit for now coming forward and acknowledging this new policy, this major change as far as the U.S. treatment of al-Qaeda detainees.
He had to do this.
The Supreme Court said in June that his policy is unconstitutional.
But I do think the timing is suspicious.
On the first day of the legislative season following Labor Day in a campaign year comes an 85-page bill and a rollout that includes talking points from the Director of National Intelligence, profiles of the 14 men, heinous murderers in most cases, who were being moved to Guantanamo, and Congress is basically being told, either take this program or you're coddling terrorists.
Jane Harmon is not pleased.
She's not pleased because Bush has put Democrats in a box.
They fought for the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Now they have to vote for the Bush bill or look like they're for even more rights for terrorists.
They just can't stand it.
This wasn't supposed to happen.
Don't you know it's already Chairman Harmon, Speaker to B. Pelosi.
Next question from Wolf Blitzer.
I assume that you listened carefully to the president's speech today, in which he openly talked about previously classified information involving these suspects, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others.
Was there anything in there that you disagreed with in terms of the facts, since you have been briefed on all this information for years?
I disagree with the timing of this rollout.
Wait a second.
Hold it.
Just recue that.
Something just struck me.
Wolf just said, you've been briefed on all this information for years.
All of this intelligent data, all of this classified information that's now been released, declassified.
I thought the Democrats' case was that Bush was leaving them out of these decisions, was going around them, not including them, and of course violating civil liberties, human rights, animal rights, whatever rights there are out there, Bush violating them.
But she doesn't challenge him on this.
Here's the answer again in total.
I disagree with the timing of this rollout.
I'd also point out that for years, those of us who have taken an oath to protect classified information have never disclosed anything we know.
And now, on day one of the final two months leading up to the election, the president dumps it all out there and talks about 14 people who are, in my view, serious, heinous criminals.
So I'm not soft on any of these people, but what I am saying is that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to protect the Constitution, to protect the laws we've passed, and to make certain that whatever process applies to these people will, in our eyes and the world's eyes, seem to be fair.
Is that what this is about?
We're going to seem to be fair.
That the process, this is not a process.
This is a war.
And despite all that, notice how she also has to point out: hey, these are bad guys, and I don't want anybody thinking I'm soft on these guys.
These are serious, heinous criminals.
It's a good point.
I don't know if she realizes they're terrorists.
This is the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the mastermind of 9-11, as you will see in the path to 9-11, unless ABC edits it to prove that Bush blew up the World Trade Center himself along with Rumsfeld and Cheney.
You never know.
But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, not a criminal, is a terrorist.
But Jane Harmon couldn't bring herself to say that.
But she wanted you to know.
She realizes these are bad guys.
If you have to say, yeah, you know, I think Hitler was a pretty rotten guy.
There must have been some doubt about what your opinion was.
Hang tough, folks.
Back in a sec.
Oh, yeah.
America's real anchorman talent on loan from a god.
Okay, if the libs and the drive-by media are just coming out of their gourds over the timing of the president's deft political jujitsu, wait till they see these next three stories.
Oil falls to five-month low after stocks build.
Stocks of oil, not stocks and shares of companies.
Just before the election.
That's not said in the editorial in the headline writer, but I'm adding it.
Just before the elections, oil falls to five-month low after stocks build.
Jobless claims fall by most in seven weeks.
The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits dropped by the usual bigger than expected amount last week.
I keep, when are these who is this?
AP.
When are you guys going to go get new experts?
Experts are always wrong.
The government reported that applications for jobless benefits totaled $310,000 down $9,000 in the previous week.
Biggest decline in seven weeks was a larger improvement than analysts had been expecting.
You know, I think for the last three years, everything that's been reported economically has surprised the analysts one way or the other.
And from the Christian Science Monitor today, dip in gas prices may lift entire economy.
Oh, no.
Motorists are finally getting a break at the pump.
Gasoline prices over the past 30 days dropped more than 30 cents a gallon with the price of fuel at the lowest level since mid-April.
Richard de Kayser, chief economist, National City Corporation of Bank in Cleveland, said the decline in gasoline prices has the effect of a tax cut.
Of course, it's only partly reversing the tax increases of the past three years and gas prices.
Doesn't matter the momentum, folks.
The momentum, it's just nothing.
Another tax cut.
And it's Bush manipulating the markets, manipulating the unemployment figures, manipulating the world oil price, now manipulating Congress right before the election.
I want to go back.
Snurdle, you had an excellent point here about Jane Harmon not having the guts to point out that these 14 terrorists are actually terrorists.
You had to call them criminals.
And it made me think a couple other things.
So I want to go back, play this bite again.
And listen, this is the Jane Harmon, who's the Democrat, she's California chairman, the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee.
Just listen to what she says here about the terms and the policy, the philosophy of transferring these people to Club Gitmo.
I disagree with the timing of this rollout.
I'd also point out that for years, those of us who have taken an oath to protect classified information have never disclosed anything we know.
And now on day one of the final two months leading up to the election, the president dumps it all out there and talks about 14 people who are, in my view, serious, heinous criminals.
So I'm not soft on any of these people.
Listen.
What I am saying is that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to protect the Constitution, to protect the laws we've passed, and to make certain that whatever process applies to these people will, in our eyes and the world's eyes, seem to be fair.
That is really stunning.
Okay, Ms. Harmon, where?
I want you to show me where does the Constitution protect unlawful enemy combatants?
The Constitution doesn't.
Five lawyers at the Supreme Court did.
But the Constitution doesn't say it.
She's going further than the Supreme Court did here, actually.
The Supreme Court has never said the Constitution applies to unlawful enemy combatants.
They said we think it should, but they never said that it did.
They've conferred certain rights on terrorists, but they've not gone as far as Jane Harmon or John McCain and all those who wave the Constitution around and claim that al-Qaeda terrorists are subject to it and have the benefits of it.
I mean, her way would, in fact, result in the enemy having their Miranda rights read to them on the battlefield.
This is foolish, folks, and they don't even understand what's coming out of their mouths.
They think they're sounding so reasonable and so tolerant and so smart and so caring.
But if she had her way here, if McCain and these other people actually mean what they say and if it were ever implemented, then we'd be reading these people to Miranda rights right before we pull the trigger.
And then what would happen?
Can you imagine our guys dropping leaflets with Miranda rights on them or have these giant megaphones?
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and be you.
It's just reached the theater.
And of course, it is all about what they think of us, what the world thinks of us.
That's what the liberals in the new castrati are so concerned about, is what the world thinks of us, that we are fair and that we are even-handed.
And if we go down to a stunning defeat in the process, as long as the world likes us, hey, that's good enough for them.
Sandy in Topeka, Kansas.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hello, Rush.
You are a huge, huge, huge, huge part of my life.
I love listening to you every day.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
My question is about this movie that they are going to play on Sunday.
Why do they feel the need to make up stuff to make Clintons look bad when they can do it fine on their own?
I mean, why not show the truth of some of the things that they did?
You know, like the wall that one of the 9-11 committee members built.
You know, the fact that...
By the way, Jamie Gorelick, since you mentioned Jamie Gorelick, I'm not sure I caught all of the audio here.
I, you know...
I'm not sure the captioning was everything that was.
I don't think Gorellic was mentioned in the movie.
It certainly wasn't shown.
And she was one of the architects of the wall.
That's the thing.
Sandy, I know everybody's out there, Sandy Burglar is saying, this never happened.
And Albright saying, this never happened.
And a 9-11 Commission report says it never happened.
Well, it could be a number of things.
It could be that the Clinton administration lied to the 9-11 Commission about what they did and didn't do.
And there was nobody around to refute it because the Clinton administration has remained banded together.
We do know that Sandy Burglar stole documents from the National Archives for the purposes of revising them somehow, and some of them are still missing.
We don't know what he put back because we're not sure what he actually took out specifically.
So just because they're saying it didn't happen, I mean, Bill Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman either, Ms. Lewinsky, not a single time, never.
Bill Clinton said a lot of things, lied about a lot of things.
Why all of a sudden do we believe him?
On the other hand, it could well be that the producers have taken what is called literary license and combined certain elements of the story and made an episode or an incident here that is not true to fact.
But I don't think that they've said that this is a true to life in every instance documentary.
It's a mini-series.
It's a movie.
But I think that they could have really had a bigger impact if they would have stuck with reality and people would find out what really happened.
You're going to find out what really happened.
Well, I think a lot of people are aware of some of the things that Clinton did during his eight years.
And I think that if people seen that, it would probably give him away.
Well, they're going to believe me.
Let me tell you, this is what I said in my original review, which is up there at rushlimbaugh.com.
You go see the whole thing.
You can see the review, read it.
But I'm telling you, the movie starts with the World Trade Center attack in 1993.
It proceeds forward over five hours through the 9-11 attacks.
Now, 1993 to 2001 is eight years.
And all but nine months of the timeframe, Bill Clinton was in the White House.
Not a whole lot you can do to cover that up.
And there's, I mean, the idea that there was no significant response to any of these attacks during the 90s is unmistakable.
I mean, it's what it was.
We don't need a movie to tell us this.
We do not need a movie.
By the way, they don't even get into Mogadishu or Blackhawk Down in this thing.
They start with the, which happened after the World Trade Center attack in 93.
There's a lot of, if they really wanted to slam Clinton in this movie, they could really have done a whole lot more than they did.
People will, as I've said, people who watch this are going to understand that it was a culture that prevented us from dealing with this, a bureaucracy, a failure to recognize who the enemy was and is.
Not wanting to make hard choices, thinking that these were mere individual unrelated episodes, that they didn't represent an ideology and a people who want to wipe us out.
It's unmistakable when you watch this.
Look at Condoleezza Rice doesn't come off all that well.
Richard Clark comes off as a hero in this movie.
Richard Clark's perhaps the sanest and most responsible guy in the movie.
And he's even out there complaining about it.
He knows he comes off that way.
That's not going to please Republicans.
Republicans think Richard Clark's a turncoat because of his behavior at the 9-11 Commission hearings, the public hearings.
I mean, this is something for everybody in here, but the enemy, aside from today's American left and some of the Democratic Party, the enemy in this movie is clear.
It's Al-Qaeda.
It's the terrorists who want to kill us.
I got a note from a friend here about all holding it here in my formerly nicotine-stained.
If the Clinton cabal and their groupies are this hysterical over a damn television show, it makes it obvious that like all Democrats, they were clearly mentally and psychologically incapable of handling the kind of enemies that Bush confronts daily, both at home and abroad.
Just unable.
And that's my point.
This reaction of theirs to a movie, a movie illustrates just how flimsy the foundation of the whole phony Clinton legacy is back in Justin Secondvolt.
Have you all seen the videotape of this investigative reporter beaten up by the two people he was investigating?
I guess they're running.
There it is now.
In Fox, they're running some kind of investment scam, real estate scam.
And these two, this guy shows up with his camera.
They kick him in the face.
They pound him in the face, bloody him all up, throw water on his camera lens.
And it is a couple of crooks, but it's an investigative reporter.
It's kind of hard to choose sides here.
Alleged crooks.
That's the whole point.
He was trying to...
But, I mean, he's dogging them.
He's...
He's dogging them.
Now, what gives investigative journalists the right to poke a camera 10 feet from you and follow you around wherever you go?
Well, what gives them the right to lash back and say, well, you know, it's might call a camera an invasion of privacy, so forth.
How about that father?
This is old news by now, that ran out on the field in California and decked a 13-year-old killed because a 13-year-old kid decked his kid after the play, late hit, and so forth.
You know, I'm on the wrong side of this, I know.
I'm really on the wrong side, but I have to ask you guys a question.
Now, I'm not a parent, so I can only try to imagine it.
I don't have to actually do it.
But you see something like that, and there's no foul call, there's no retribution.
They talk about the father going out there and decking a 13-year-old.
How about a 13-year-old decking an eight-year-old after the play and a late hit?
I mean, the raw emotion I would think that father had is quite natural.
He just lost it.
He lost his restraint.
But I don't think what he did is that foreign to most people's impulses.
Most people want to do.
Look at how many of you people have wanted to charge on the field at a Major League Baseball game and deck the ump.
You haven't, Sturdley?
Well, then you haven't lived.
People don't do it.
A couple drunks in Chicago did it once.
White Sox, they attacked the first base coach of the Kansas City Royals.
But I know it's odd it doesn't happen.
It's not proper.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just saying that the emotion that a lot of parents probably have in situations like that is to do just what that guy did.
They just resist the impulse.
Of course, I understand rage.
I'm the author of the angry white men, aren't I?
According to the drive-by media.
Here's Ed in Brunswick, Georgia.
Ed, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
We're a privilege to talk to you, Rush.
Well, thank you, sir.
This former resident of Marin County in Palm Beach County greets you.
Wow.
You tried both places and scrammed, huh?
Rush, my son is in the military.
He's in the Army, and he's in Iraq right now, and he listens to you every chance he gets.
So my greetings to the noblest class of Americans, the United States military, and to him.
Thank you, Taylor.
I agree 100%.
Now, my point is that I think that these people are running scared over this ABC movie because it may just focus enough people to the right place, and that is that al-Qaeda is the enemy, not the Bush administration.
And they're terrified that the media is now being used as a weapon, or could be used as a weapon, to prove that point.
That actually is an excellent point because much of the drive-by media and the American left, Democratic Party, have been doing their best to convince people that we live in a pre-9-11 world.
9-11 was an episode.
It was irrelevant.
It's mostly Bush's fault.
It can't happen again.
They have been against showing all of these other movies, United 93.
Especially the Upper Westside Manhattanites have been opposed to any of this sort of thing.
And I think you're right.
I think this, because this is five hours of intensity, and it will focus and remind.
This is why I've always said we need to see these pictures frequently.
The American people's psyche is determined by pictures now, their attitudes and largely their opinions, except that people, listen, this radio show don't need pictures because we paint them for them so well here.
Don't these people on the left coast understand that if al-Qaeda had its way, they would be the first target?
No, no, no.
No, seriously.
They think they're the only ones that could reason with al-Qaeda.
They could talk to him, make deal with them, and show that America really means them no harm.
No, I'm not kidding you.
These people's lives are a personal train wreck, and yet they're out there telling us how we should vote and how we should behave.
They don't even know their own zip code or the price of a gallon of milk.
Or the price.
Yeah, exactly.
Or the price.
I mean, it's just, it's a scream.
And I think they're terrified of that, Rush.
I think that they think that this docudrama, whatever you want to call it, which, by the way, I will watch if ABC airs it in its entirety, and if they cut it, I won't.
But I think that they're scared to death that the Michael Moore media is in medium, I should say, is now being used to focus who the real enemy is in this country and what we should and should not do about it.
That's an excellent point because they have spent the last three years trying to portray Bush as the enemy, the real terrorist, the reason there are more terrorists.
And it's clear when you watch this, you can't conclude anything other than all this happened before Bush became even a resident of Washington, before he was even in the White House.
This happened when he was governor of Texas.
To say that he caused all this is absurd.
And it's not to say that Clinton caused it.
These people did it themselves based on their own ideology and who they choose the enemy, and we're it.
But I think it's an excellent point.
I'm going to give you a gold star on that one.
Let me ask something out there, Ed.
Are you a subscriber to my website?
No, sir, I'm not.
Well, you are.
Yeah, use a computer?
Oh, yeah, all the time.
Well, then we're going to make you a comp subscriber.
That is really a good point, one that I should have made myself and failed to come up with.
You have embarrassed me here by being smarter than I on one little brief point here.
But stand by.
And we'll make you a comp member, get all the information to you that we need for that to happen.
Lindball Letter 2.
Stay with us, folks.
President Bush hit another home run with his speech on the war on terror this morning and went right at the Democrats in a couple of their points.
▲
Export Selection