All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:57
September 8, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
Dulcet Tones, Vocal Vibrations, Trend Setting, Media Setting, Broadcast Excellence on Friday.
So let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And we plod on here, ladies and gentlemen, through the Stalinism of the Democratic Party.
And former President Clinton and his hacks, five years out of office, still trying to run things.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
A little detail here on the thing I blurbed right before the break at the top of the hour.
Barbara Bodine, ambassador to Yemen at the time the USS Cole was exploded.
One of the myths, she's got an op-ed in the LA Times, and I'm reading excerpts of it to you here.
One of the myths perpetuated by ABC played out in the steamy port city of Aden, Yemen in October of 2000 using an FBI agent out of New York, John O'Neill, and the U.S. ambassador to that country.
According to the myth makers, a battle ensued between a cop obsessed with tracking down bin Laden and a bureaucrat more concerned with the feelings of the host government than the fate of Americans and the realities of terrorism.
I know this is false.
I was there.
I was the ambassador.
I am not here to either defend or attack O'Neill.
He was a complex man.
By the way, this character is portrayed, as I say, by Patricia Heaton from Everyone Loves Raymond.
The realities of a U.S. investigative style inevitably collided headlong with the limited capabilities of Yemen.
The Yemenis knew Aden and its people, but lacked technical and professional competence.
The FBI had the forensic and technical capability, but could not operate on the street in Aden.
The friction, the suspicion, the miscommunication between the two could not, however, be allowed to derail a successful criminal investigation of the attack, its roots in Yemen, and its links to other attacks against Americans around the world.
In the aftermath of the attack and the call, the stakes were high.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's first lesson of leadership is that being responsible sometimes means making people mad, although she uses the P-word instead of making people mad.
It's inevitable if you were honorable.
The job of the ambassadors to make tough calls to paraphrase a fellow Missourian, the buck stopped on my desk.
So she's denying what she, what is she confirming here?
Anyway, it's a really good scene.
It's a taught scene.
And here's my thought about it.
We've heard that there are dramatizations that are taking place.
We have heard that there are literary liberties being taken.
Let me ask you a question.
How many of you have grown sick and tired of diplomats in this country, in this country and around the world saying, no, we can't do that because I'm afraid of what the world will think of us?
The idea, Ms. Bodine, that this is outrageous and could not have happened spares me my credulity.
I'm sorry, madam.
It may not have happened in your case, but it's a hallmark of our State Department.
It is a hallmark of our ambassadorial crew.
It's a hallmark of our diplomacy.
In fact, one of the things hamstringing us right now is we must recapture our image in the world.
We must be concerned with what people think about it for crying out loud, Madame Bodine.
We didn't go get bin Laden on a number of occasions because we were afraid we might kill civilians or we might get blamed or it might lead to something.
We are always worried about what other people think.
It is the nature of a bunch of diplomats because to them they take it personally.
So you're always going to be concerned what people think.
Whereas the average American who's dying out there in these attacks and is threatened by them and having to go through hell just to get into an airport and on an airplane actually doesn't care what people think.
Well, the wacko kooks and the lib fringe do.
But that is my point.
I don't know whether this actually happened in her case, but this movie compiles attitudes that are undeniably true about the diplomatic core, about the battles between the CIA and the FBI and the inability to share information.
There is no question the Clinton administration did nothing of any substance throughout the 90s.
There's no question whatsoever.
I have a occasionally go to a blog out there called Powerline.
It's three lawyers.
These guys are in Atlanta.
They're not particularly fond of talk radio, but I'll be bigger than that, and I will compliment them when they do something I like.
Scott Johnson, Paul Meeringoff, and John Heindraker are Hindu.
And I don't hear these people's names pronounced, so you forgive me if I'm mispronouncing them.
But they have a five-page post today that lists every terrorist event in the 1990s.
Look at the big picture, though.
It's a little hard to see what the Democrats are complaining about.
I haven't seen the miniseries, but I take it that it doesn't portray the Clinton administration as having taken very effective action against the growing threat from Islamic terrorists.
What I don't understand is how the Democrats think they can rewrite history to challenge that characterization.
There's no doubt about the fact that terrorist menace grew and became increasingly obvious during the Clinton administration.
To note, just a few highlights, and I can't, I'm not going to read this whole thing because it's to almost three pages of bullet points.
Let me count them.
Starting in January 25th, 1993, with a guy that fired an AK-47 into cars, a Pakistani, at a stoplight in front of the CIA, killed two CIA employees.
In February 26, 1993, the first World Trade Center attack.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.
It concludes with the October 12, 2000 al-Qaeda bombs of the USS Cole.
Between 93 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse.
And then came 9-11.
So, what history of these people try to change?
They're going to try to say these terrorist attacks are unrelated and they really didn't happen.
I mean, this is just, it's absolutely, it is outrageous, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the United States of America.
And I'll tell you what, when you have campaign finance reform, thank you, Senator McCain, and thank you, Senator Feingold, when you have campaign finance reform that chips away at free speech at the First Amendment in violation of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court didn't stop it.
And the president, by the way, the president in his signing statement on the McCain-Feingold bill expressed his fears and cautions, but he said he was confident the Supreme Court would deal with it.
It didn't.
So, do you know we're close to the moment now where no more advertising can take place for the November elections among special interest groups 60 days out?
It's either now or soon.
It's no question this week.
I just, it's either we're 61 days or 60 days now.
It's this weekend at some point.
That's it?
No.
Probably right now.
November 8th, 30th.
Yeah, it's right now.
From now on, no more elections, commercials on TV from certain groups, for people running for election, re-election, what have you, in November.
So now it's easy to chip away the First Amendment.
Here comes the Democratic Party acting as pure Stalinists while claiming Bush is the dictator, Bush is the oppressor, Bush is spying, Bush is denying people all these privacy rights and civil rights and human rights.
Here comes the Democratic Senate leadership threatening ABC with its broadcast licenses and its owned and operated radio stations for a movie.
They're squealing like stuck pigs.
Folks, I hope that you are able to understand exactly what this means as it relates to their position on the whole issue of national security and their utter fear of being exposed as utterly useless to this country in that regard.
Back in just a second.
So I mentioned to you earlier, Democrats are having an orgasm, multiple orgasm in Washington.
They're just going beside themselves because this two years in the making report on intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq that the Democrats and the Senate Intelligence Committee demanded has been released.
400-page report.
And apparently the thing that's got these people all excited is this.
It discloses for the first time in October 2005, keep that in mind, 2005, last year, assessment that prior to the war, Sodom's government did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye towards Zarkawi and his associates, according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats.
So what?
So what?
What's the big deal?
2005?
Has anybody ever said Saddam had any links to al-Qaeda as it relates to 9-11?
No.
That's another myth that the Democrats have put out there.
Was Zarqawi in Iraq before 2003?
Yes.
Whether Saddam knew it or not, who knows?
Who cares?
Was there?
The idea that there's been a relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda probably trained some of these al-Qaeda people at Solomon Pak.
But what does it matter now?
All of this is irrelevant.
This is nothing more than a report that's been, this is part of Rockefeller's on this committee.
And this is no more than an extension of his policy to start an investigation that they can only do one time, and this is it.
And so how about I put on my Jane Harmon hat and say, well, you know, I don't like the timing of the release of this report.
You are politicizing the intelligence of this country that's up for grabs for national security.
And now look what you're doing while you're releasing this on the eve of an election.
But we're not babies.
We're not reacting to it the way they are.
We're reacting to it substantively, as in, so what?
We went to Iraq in 2003.
This assessment is 2005.
So what?
All this is, is the Democrats trying to undermine this country at every step of the way.
Not just this president.
They are trying to undermine this country, ladies and gentlemen.
We've got them pushing this bogus report here as hard news while they complain about a docudrama.
Phony baloney, plastic banana, dangerous good time rock and rollers.
All right.
It's Open Line Friday.
This is Norman in New Britain, Connecticut.
Norman, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello, Rush.
I just want to say I saw you last night, and you were great.
You're just, you're a great American.
Well, thank you.
But what I wanted to say was two years ago, same time presidential election, Michael Moore made that movie Fahrenheit 9-11.
Now, he has a right to say what he wants to say because we're all protected under the Constitution.
But the Democrats, what they did was they embraced him.
They made him the superstar, the rock star.
That was his title, the rock star of the DNC convention.
Right, they totally embraced it.
They went to his premieres.
He sat at the right hand of Jimmy Carter Almighty at the Democratic National Convention.
And the movie was a fraud, but it worked.
It ginned up a bunch of anger among Democrats.
It was propaganda, but it worked, just like the attack on Bush and Rove over Valerie Clayman.
It worked.
It was all lies.
Total lies.
Everything was a lie.
I don't understand their outrage.
I mean, now they want, to me, freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
No.
No, no, no, not when they are being criticized.
These people are Stalinists.
I am trying to explain this.
They know that whoever controls the media controls power.
That's what they know.
And this somehow slipped under their radar.
You know, if Fox were doing this, they wouldn't care.
Well, they'd care.
They'd care.
Let's take that back.
But it's ABC.
This is a Peter Jennings Network.
How can this possibly be happening?
The problem with the Democrats is they can't stand the truth being illustrated about them.
They can't stand the light of truth, folks.
That's why many covers of the Limball Letter have featured the Democrats as mice and rats hemmed in in a corner with a bunch of lights shining on them and no place for them to go.
That's what this is.
Five years after the fact, they're still trying to control things.
Intimidating.
An American corporation.
Of course, what's new about that?
They've been doing this to Walmart for how long?
They've been doing this to big oil for how long?
This is who they are.
And it's all rooted.
And I know you think this is simplistic, but I'm speaking to you now psychologically.
It's all rooted in their entitlement attitude to power.
It is theirs.
Especially since FDR and the Kennedys.
It's theirs.
They own it.
That's what they're born to.
They are born to go to Harvard and Yale and Princeton and wherever else, the Kennedy School.
They are born to be groomed to lead.
They are born to be elected.
And when the people don't cooperate, well, there's hell to pay.
Voting machines, hanging chads.
It's never their fault.
I don't want to review all this, but I mean, folks, they had a monopoly.
They ran the show for 50 years and they don't anymore.
And they can't come to grips with it.
And they're lashing out at anybody who has usurped some of their power.
And this is the fact that ABC, the fact that this movie even got made, there's one way to look at this that nobody is right now, but this is one hell of a step forward that the movie even got made at ABC.
I mean, this is stunning to me.
I'm outraged by the Stalinist attempt to cause it to be edited down to where it doesn't mean anything or to be canceled.
But this is an amazing, amazing thing.
And it's just, it's another event in a long series of events over a long period of time that will be required to continue to wrest more and more power away from these people.
But the problem is that there are setbacks and people go, oh, what's this?
I'm not even worth it.
Every time we win, we lose two steps.
Every time we take one forward, that's not the case.
Why are you frowning in there, sturdily?
How can you possibly disagree with anything I just said?
How could it be?
Just tell me how you can possibly disagree.
I'm stunned.
I have just been profound and brilliant.
I have offered a new insight into something people have been talking about for a week, and you're going, hmm.
Here's a story.
How could you tell the 9-11 story in it?
Away you could tell it the way Michael Moore did.
You could tell it the way Michael Moore did.
ABC could come up with their own classy version of it if they wanted to.
The fact that they took a script that was as close to accurate historically as anything you've ever is stunning.
And I'm, if you ever hearing gossip out there, it's nothing you can hang your head on that Mr. Iger is livid about it, variety, I mean, livid and thinking about pulling it.
ABC executives are still pondering whether or not to pull this thing.
One of the things that would make it easier to pull it is they're not running any commercials in it anyway.
They never have scheduled commercials in it.
So they don't have to worry about advertiser defections.
That's a big, if they were advertising in this, it'd be a different story.
Advertisers don't want controversy, supposedly.
I think they could probably find a whole bunch of people that would love to be sponsors of this thing today if they wanted to go out and sell it.
But they're going to run it without spots.
So they don't have that controversy.
If they pull this, if they do that, folks, you know, the repercussions will be felt by them for a long, long time.
To buckle to pressure from a former president and his hacks, Sandy Burglar, who himself pleaded guilty to a crime and all of this in the aftermath.
And I'll tell you what happened.
I'm going to tell you what's going to happen if they do pull it.
I know that there have to be tons of review copies out there.
There just are.
And if I know the internet, the uncut real version will be out there, regardless of what ABC does.
So count on seeing this anyway, folks.
Back in just a second.
Alma Mind Friday continues with Rush Limbaugh firmly established behind the golden EIB microphone in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All right.
I'm just trying, folks, I want to prepare you if you're going to be watching cable TV news tonight.
I'm going to be reading the news.
You're going to be, it's going to be Katrina anniversary all over again.
Only this time it's going to be the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
And I just want to prep you for this.
Again, it discloses for the first time, an October 2005 CIA assessment, that prior to the war, Saddam's government did not have a relationship or harbor or turn a blind eye toward Abu Zarkawi and his associates, al-Qaeda, according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by the Democrats.
And they're all going, wow, look at this, look at this, look at this.
See, we were right, we were right, we were right.
There was no functionality operational between Zaqawi and Al-Qaeda and Saddam Bush lied, Bush, lied, Bush, lied.
I'm holding here, my formerly nicotine-stained thing, a story from June 17th of 2004, over two years ago.
In the Washington Post by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank, Al-Qaeda Hussein Link dismissed the September 11th Commission reported yesterday that it's found no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, challenging one of the main administrations, the Bush administration's main justification for the war in Iraq.
Well, wait a minute.
Now, this two years ago they said this?
The 9-11 Commission?
And now, two years ago, we've got this Senate.
Well, isn't this the same news?
So it's not news.
It's really not news.
It's just recycled news as though it hasn't been reported before.
But to me, the Democrats go in bonkers over a claim that there were no al-Qaeda in Iraq.
So what?
Nobody ever said there was.
In terms of an operational relationship between the Iraqis and Al-Qaeda when it comes to us going to war in Iraq, the Bush administration never mentions Alqawi by name before 2003 on the run-up to the war.
They never did it.
The spin has already been spun here.
The joint resolution passed by Congress speaks of members of al-Qaeda known to be in Iraq.
The thing in 2002.
Remember the Democrats demanded a new resolution before we went.
Everybody said there wouldn't.
Now this, but Bush manipulated the intelligence fool everybody lied to us and got us on board for something that didn't really happen.
Blah, Just get ready for it, folks, because it's coming at you all over again.
A new bunch of spin of old news and the theme, Bush lied.
And the theme, Iraq is in War.
We need to have been there, never have gone there.
It's been a total waste.
It was totally unnecessary.
Get out now.
Bush is a liar.
They're going to refight this election on the same issues they tried in 2002 and 2004, particularly 2004.
Dan in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Thanks for waiting.
Open Wine Friday.
You're next.
Thank you, sir.
I am stunned at the courage of ABC to even do this film, and I am outraged, outraged that big government is making an intimidating effort to get them to stop.
Big Democrat.
No, this rise above party partisan politics.
It doesn't matter which party this is.
The networks need to close ranks and make sure that this doesn't happen again and get together, walk shoulder to shoulder and fight back.
If this is an attack on our First Amendment in our media, it doesn't matter whether it's Democrat or Republican.
In this case, it's Democrat, and they've motivated it.
Wait a second.
It most certainly does matter because the Democrats are the one to do it.
That's fine.
They are the Stalinists.
This is pure Stalinism.
But you know, son, I hate to tell you your scenario is not how it works.
You want me to give you some examples?
You want me to give you some...
Pardon?
I'm sorry.
We've got a phone problem here.
You and I talk at the same time.
You don't know I'm talking to you.
Say that again.
I am convinced that in this circumstance, if the Democrats have done this, it is an example of big government, and they will lock step to make sure that it doesn't happen.
They will defend each other and their rights for the future.
And frankly, I think it rises above partisan politics.
It is an attack by government on the First Amendment, and we should all close ranks together as Americans.
Right, we should.
But your first scenario, the colleagues of ABC, other networks banding together, ain't going to happen.
It's not how this works.
You want to know how it really works in real life?
Go ahead.
Tell me.
Pardon?
Yes, sir.
I'd like to know.
Okay, here's exactly how it happens.
There's a fledgling radio network out there of liberals.
Were it not for a major American broadcast unit, Air America would not have survived a month.
But this major American broadcast unit felt that it would get the government off their back during a Howard Stern controversy if they put this network on 50 or so of their stations.
And it has.
Broadcasters fear the government because they are a regulated business.
They have mortal fear of the government because the Democrats in threatening the license of the ABC-owned and operated radio stations.
Can they can yank it?
If the Democrats have the votes at the FCC, if they can do it, they probably couldn't do it under this construction, but if they get in power someday, they could do it.
And there are a lot of people who would love to own those stations.
All the more reason to counterattack so this threat will never ever come up again.
And I believe they will recognize that threat and rise above the usual way of doing business and show the same courage that ABC has done by making this movie and ensure that if this never happens again in the future by either party.
Well, you know, look, I don't disagree with you.
You're misunderstanding.
I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but I don't know how much outrage there is out there over this.
I don't know.
I'm assuming there's a lot, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of outrage over how this Valerie Plame story was totally massaged and ended up a total blasted lie of the drive-by media and the Democratic Party and Joe Wilson himself.
Here's a guy lying through his teeth.
He got away with it.
He's a national hero to some kooks out there.
This is campaign finance reform.
Who stopped him?
Supreme Court didn't stop them?
They're already chipping away at the First Amendment and a whole bunch of political correctness is.
Political correctness is an imposition of a threat and an obstacle against free speech.
When some bunch of Nambi-Pamby whining linguiney spine little cowards don't want to hear things that make them uncomfortable, they run off somewhere and you get there.
It offends me.
So we've got to be worried.
There's a tape out there.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has tapes made of his conversations in his office out in Sacramento.
And the essential purpose is to give his speech writers a little insight onto his thoughts and his speaking cadence.
Now, we've got a soundbite of one of the, let me find this thing.
Where is it?
It's audio soundbite number 13.
Yeah, put that in the machine there.
And this is a six-minute recording obtained by the L.A. Times and a little excerpt of it of a meeting with some members of his inner circle last spring.
Excuse me, Puerto Rican.
They're all very hot.
They have the more black blood in them and part of the Latina blood in them.
He's talking about some babe, some elected official or something somewhere.
Now, so because of political correctness, this is going to become a controversy.
He has referred to somebody's color and the kind of blood that they have.
This is political correctness.
Political correctness.
You know where it's getting us?
Let me tell you where political correctness is getting us.
Making us think that baby formula is an enemy getting on an airplane.
Or that box cutters are the enemy getting on an airplane.
Or that gels that detonators could go in are the enemy getting on the airplane.
We're not allowed to offend the people. who would take those things aboard the airplane.
We're not even allowed to admit what we know.
We have to be in utter denial of what we know so we don't offend people.
So don't talk to me about First Amendment free speech.
Because it was lost a long time ago, ladies, and all these people standing up, you think NBC and CBS are going to ride to ABC's rescue?
They don't want to get in the same crosshairs of a bunch of people in big government who control these licenses.
You don't know how frightened broadcasters get of those things.
And with this threat out there, it's don't misunderstand me, folks.
I'm not suggesting this can't change and shouldn't change and nobody should be outraged about it.
It's just the exact opposite.
But it's this is like anything else.
It's not going to affect me.
Why should I care?
It doesn't amount to me.
Why should I care?
And it does in so many ways.
But the illustration here is, and the eye-opening aspects of this are just too rich.
How utterly afraid of the truth Democrats are, how they cannot stand for a campaign in this election to be based on national security, on how they haven't the ability to even deal with the truth.
The truth is what imprisons them.
The truth is what harms them.
None of these esteemed broadcasters have said a word.
I haven't seen anybody.
I've seen bloggers and I've seen average people and I've seen radio people complain about this, but I haven't seen anybody from other television networks stand up and complain and say in righteous anger, this is outrageous what is happening here.
Fairness doctrine, the fairness doctrine gotten rid of by Ronald Reagan in the late 80s is really what opened up talk radio and expanded the radio business.
There are more points of view on radio than there have ever been before.
The fairness doctrine, the Democrats are always threatening to reimpose it if they get back in the White House.
Because what the fairness doctrine does is chill controversial speech.
Fairness doctrine is one of these incorrectly named things.
Fairness.
Oh, who can oppose fairness?
Well, I do, because it's not what this is.
Fairness says that anytime somebody hears something on the radio they disagree with, they have to be afforded, and it's not equal time, it's a whole different thing.
They have to be afforded an opportunity to react to it.
So in this heated age, local general managers and program directors of radio stations have to spend the whole day letting every subgroup of sub-humanity have five or ten minutes on the radio because they didn't like something they heard.
That would cause them to just get rid of the format altogether.
And they go back to playing elevator music and whatever else they were doing, Chinese opera, and that would be it.
And the Democrats want to use that as a weapon to silence talk radio since they can't beat it.
And when they were proposing, I didn't hear anybody's broadcast community standing up.
There were some on this side of the aisle, but industry-wide, there was not a hardly a peep, especially the music guys.
They didn't care.
So this is not that uncommon.
I want to be wrong about this.
I would love for them to be some outrage, but it might require a license to actually be revoked or this thing to be pulled before that reaction takes place.
Be right back.
Stay with us.
You heard that President Bush is going to address the nation Monday night, 17 or 18-minute speech on the anniversary of September 11th.
Now, how long is it going to be before the Democrats do one of two things?
Either call all the networks and have them cancel it and not carry it, or demand time to respond.
Timing of this is very suspicious.
It comes right near the election.
The president going, I'm making a partisan speech.
It just isn't fair.
ABC, we've threatened your license.
Now, CBS and NBC, we're going to threaten your license.
And Fox, you too.
If you guys broadcast an obviously partisan speech that's going to be packed full of lies like this president does, then we are going to threaten your license.
Remember the 1934 Telecommunications Act, blah, Either that or they will demand to respond like they do after the State of the Union address.
In which case, why don't you just cut to the chase, Democrats, and go get a tape from Bin Laden and run that as your response because it's hard to tell a difference when he speaks and you speak.
Here's a case in Stafford, Virginia.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you.
Thank you, Rush.
Thank you for having me on.
Quick question.
Yeah.
Why have they shut down the Fitzgerald investigation?
Got me.
I have no clue.
I think that the Attorney General ought to shut it down at this moment and fire the independent counsel.
It's a pointless investigation.
I think Bush ought to pardon Scooter Libby, and he ought to pardon Chuck Schumer for his role in this so that Schumer has to carry around the fact that he was involved in it for the rest of his life.
But certainly Gonzalez ought to fire Pat Fitzgerald to get rid of this.
This whole thing is pointless.
It's been a waste of time and money.
Armitage has come clean.
He went on CBS last night.
I feel terrible.
It feels like they let down my president.
I let down Columbia.
Oh, he cares.
So he's off the hook.
There's no point in this.
It's absolutely absurd now.
They've got to process crime.
They got an indictment on something.
It didn't even happen until the investigation started.
It's just absurd.
It is absolutely ridiculous.
Yeah, I agree.
I just don't understand.
I don't know why it had still open.
It's still open because the Attorney General hasn't shut it down.
And I doubt that the independent prosecutor here, Mr. Fitzgerald, is going to cancel himself out of the equation.
He's portrayed this as monumental importance, so I don't think he's going to say, oops, you know what?
Tired.
Going back to Chicago.
I'm going to work on putting Conrad Black in jail.
See you guys.
I don't think that's going to happen.
Mary in Sanford, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Rush, Mega Dittos from Mid-Michigan.
Thank you.
Have a comment.
I got my Irish up last night while watching the evening news and this bin Laden tape that came out that was made pre-9/11.
Who cares?
It doesn't make any difference.
I told your colleagues.
Oh, no.
Let me explain that to you.
Let me explain that to you.
You see, there are two sides in every war.
Well, yeah, but bin Laden has his points too.
And as I heard somebody say, forget what network it was last night, it's Bin Laden's anniversary, too.
Well, you know, Rush is a good idea.
I kid you not.
And that's where it comes down to.
Are we talking security?
Are we talking politics?
I think when you see these media outlets with your, you know, your perky little, you know, host saying, are we prepared?
Are we ready?
You know, five years later, is it enough?
You know, I think we're prepared.
I think all of us, as Americans, look around every day, take a good look at our surroundings and think, okay, is this a safe place?
You know, I mean, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I think that's exactly what the media says.
It sounds to me like the media is terrorizing you.
Sounds to me like the biggest terrorists you fear are the drive-by media.
And look, I totally understand it.
We're out of time again here.
Darn this stupid format clock.
I can't do anything about it.
It's getting dirty up in Connecticut.
Ned Lament is now criticizing Lieberman's 1998 rebuke of Bill Clinton from the Senate floor on the Monica Lewinsky affair, ladies and gentlemen.
Watch more straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection