All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
September 11, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, I'm sitting here, folks, and I'm watching all this self-absorbed remembrances going on on the media today about 9-11.
And I promise you, we're not going to do that.
I'm not going to bother telling you what I thought on 9-11.
It wasn't about me.
But there's one thing that strikes me.
How many just hit me like a bolt of lightning this morning as I'm watching this stuff?
There is one day a year where the Democratic Party and the American left admit that 9-11 happened.
And it's 9-11.
It's today.
Now, what happens to the other 364 days of the year?
They pretend it never happened, but today, oh, yes, it happened.
We're out there doing the mass mushwalk.
And it's just interesting to note.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Rush Limboy here behind the Golden EIB microphone at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number today has not changed, ladies and gentlemen.
800-282-2882.
And the email address, if you want to send an email, is rush at EIBnet.com.
Got lots of great audio soundbites today.
Dick Cheney yesterday, masterful on Meet the Press.
Russert assumed the role of a prosecutor yesterday, and Cheney held up well.
And I watched The Path to 9-11 last night on a plane ride back home from Los Angeles.
And I intended, because I wanted to watch The Manning Bowl, which was on at the same time.
So I intended just to watch the parts of the movie I knew where there might be edits.
And I couldn't tear myself away from it even a second time, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll talk about it in greater detail here in just a moment, but the edits were not that severe.
They really weren't.
They could have done a lot more damage butchering this thing than they did.
But I just want to start off here with a little continuation or expansion, if you will, on the lightning bolt realization that I had earlier today that on one day a year, the Democratic Party and the American left will actually admit 9-11 happened.
You and the Democratic Party and you on the left will solemnly commemorate any anniversary of 9-11, today being the fifth.
But why don't you do this?
You know what's stunning to me is that you won't support the war effort.
Why not?
We're out here admitting that what happened, I mean, there were 3,000 people who died and had no idea why.
They had no clue why what happened happened.
Their lives were stolen for reasons they never knew.
In the immediate aftermath, few people ever really saw the full horror reported by the cameras.
The raw footage was deemed too graphic for us to view.
Likewise, few ever heard the captured screams of panic or prayers from the dying.
Their lives were stolen for reasons they never knew.
You know, we're civilized people.
We have civilized rules of warfare.
And by the way, have you seen what happened to Abu Grab?
The Iraqis have turned it over.
The Americans have turned it over to the Iraqis.
And apparently there's screams and shouts coming out of the place now.
Bring back the Americans.
Abu Grab.
Abu Grab's under new management.
We practice civilized rule of warfare.
And our own political considerations keep us from showing images of carnage inflicted upon civilian populations in Afghanistan and Iraq, all over the world, Bali, Spain, Kenya.
Most people will never see recordings of the beheadings that terrorists employ because that's too graphic for our sensibilities.
Those who insist that these barbaric acts they commit on a religious mission are confronted in battle zones far from New York and the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.
Our military and the civilian victims of terrorism are the only people who see this daily horror up close.
So here we are, five years later, some Americans who've never been deprived of personal liberty at all view the war as a political game.
Partisan journalists who abuse First Amendment privileges routinely leak national defense secrets.
An entire political party, solely intent on regaining its power, has lost all clarity and has descended into the early stages of utter madness.
Those who recognize that the Islamo-fascist threat to Western civilization is real are themselves under attack from a spoiled, naive, leftist ideology and a template of moral relativism incapable of distinguishing good from evil.
Even today, the Boston Globe, I kid you not, I'm going to paraphrase it.
Actually, I don't know why I'm surprised because I have been telling you this is what the left thinks all along.
The Boston Globe has an editorial out today, a Boston Globe owned by Little Pinch and the New York Times Company, which honestly says that President Bush has done more harm to America than the 9-11 terrorist attacks themselves.
They actually, now they've said it.
They've always thought it, and I've known they always believed it.
Bush is the terrorist.
They think the war on terror began on 9-11, as the movie last night clearly showed it started many, many years before that.
They think the war on terror began on 9-11, and they don't even take it, consider it seriously using that starting point.
Five years ago, evil attacked us.
By the way, this movie last night shows clearly the war on terror did not start on 9-11, 2001.
And it also illustrates that Bush did not create terrorists, that they were out there and they hated us long before Bush even wanted to run for president.
So evil attacked, still attacking us, and we cannot afford to forget it.
Here we are on the fifth-year anniversary as we solemnly commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9-11 and the people who once a year will admit that, yep, yet it happened, won't support the war effort, won't support retaliating for action that actually caused all this solemnity today.
You'll go to the process of getting to the airport two hours earlier, but you won't support the war effort.
You'll surrender all of your liquids except your saliva, but you won't support the war effort.
I mean, it's one thing to be flexible and able to adjust to a temporary situation, but do you really expect you, your children, and their children to continue on this legacy, remembering it one day a year?
You've been complaining, the American left's been complaining all along that everybody should sacrifice.
So, what they really mean by that is that the rich should be hit with higher taxes.
You want to sacrifice?
Support the war effort instead of undermining it.
Because there's a hard, cold reality out there, ladies and gentlemen, that we must face.
America is at war with Islamo-fascism, and American liberals are at war with America.
And there is no doubt, make no mistake about it.
Now to the path to 9-11.
I know that some of you have been eagerly reading the web today, various websites trying to figure out what was cut, what was butchered, what was edited out.
And I watched the thing on the plane ride home from Los Angeles last night, eager myself to see exactly what had been cut out.
And I read the AP report today, and the AP report, and there are others, who wrote this?
Steve Gorman.
Now, this is Reuters.
There's an AP out there by old buddy Bob Tom or Tom Rom or whatever his name is.
The ABC Network on Sunday debuted a newly edited version of its controversial miniseries, toning down parts that drew the most fire from leading Democrats who called the film propaganda.
The network and producers also insisted that they were continuing to edit the film up until it's broadcast.
Ladies and gentlemen, take it from one who has seen both versions.
Yeah, they took some things out.
They took out the scene.
The National Security Council got George Tennant in there, Matt Albright, Sandy Bergler, a couple other people and the CIA and the Northern Alliance on the ground in Afghanistan make a phone call.
He's there.
Can we go in?
And they're just hamstrung at the National Security Committee.
You mean women and children there?
Oh, my God.
And in the original uncut version, Berger hangs up on the CIA agent.
They edited that out.
They didn't edit out the meaning of the whole thing.
The Northern Alliance commander, after getting the word that it was a no-go operation, said, wow, are there any men left in Washington?
Are they all cowards?
I thought they'd take out Clinton's.
Well, unless you do one more time, I'm going to say this one more time.
I did not have sex with that.
They left that in.
One of the other changes was minor, I think.
I mean, you got to view this in the whole context.
I think it's Clark and John O'Neill riding around in a limousine.
In the original version, Clark, I think it is, might have been O'Neill, but Clark says, I can't be sure that this whole Lewinsky thing is not going to be a problem distracting the president.
The edited version has Clark saying, the president assured me that this is not going to distract him from this effort.
But overall, these things that happened were, these cuts were very minor.
The little graphics that they threw in there, this is a fictional piece.
Some of these scenes have been made up.
Irrelevant.
Those little changes they made could not and did not.
And I've done focus groups.
I had all little focus groups.
I had a flight crew watching this thing.
Dawn watched it last night.
Brian wanted to watch it.
Brian's a big football guy.
He could not tear himself away from this to watch a Manning Bowl.
And people who've watched it have come to the conclusion that I did.
The whole presentation context is devastating to the people in power at the time.
It is clear that they couldn't pull a trigger.
Now, one thing, this scene about Berger hanging up on the CIA agent in Afghanistan and burglars out there in the beginning, that never happened.
Well, there's a guy who wrote a book called the Derelection of Duty.
He carried the nuclear football for Clinton for a number of years.
Name is Buzz Patterson.
And he said, not only did it happen, it happened numerous times.
The way it happened more often than not was that Berger would get a phone call from somebody and say, okay, we got Bin Laden on our sites.
And Berger would try to reach Clinton, but Clinton wouldn't answer the phone.
And if his cell phone showed that it was Berger calling, he wouldn't answer the phone until the window of opportunity had passed.
It just didn't want to deal with it.
Now, the Clintonoids out there can say all this stuff never happened and all they want, but the guy that carried the football has written a book, and he's been all over radio and TV lately being interviewed about it.
World Net Daily has a story, and I'm going to give you the details of what he says.
It's even more devastating than that as the program unfolds.
But sit tight, folks.
You're not going anywhere.
And we got the rest of the program is broadcast excellence.
Your phone calls as well at 800-282-2882.
We'll be right back.
Hi, welcome back, America's real anchorman serving humanity here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, El Rushbow, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned.
Maha Rushi.
Hope after watching The Path to 9-11 last night, you understand some of the comments I made last week about how flimsy the Clinton legacy is built, that this movie was so devastating to them that they had to try to get it killed.
Berger said yesterday, or late on Friday, you can't save it.
You can't fix it.
You just have to yank it.
It was unfixable, he said.
As to the Democrat Party, I think they've got a different view about this.
The Democrat Party's view on this is not so much oriented toward Clinton's legacy as it is the November elections.
And this movie last night clearly establishes that we are still at war and that it's serious and that these people that we are fighting are serious.
And the Democrats have done everything they can to say, eh, Bush has grew it up.
Bush has created the terrorists.
Bush made them who they are.
Bush is making a mess of this.
We got to get out of Iraq.
Blah, blah, blah.
We can't be dealing with this.
They want to create the pre-9-11 world in as many minds as possible.
Now, there's a new poll out, and you know how I feel about polls.
But I also know that political parties live and die by them.
And actually, it's not just one poll.
It's just a CNN poll and a couple of others.
Several polls now show the number one issue heading into the election season is not the war in Iraq, not the terrorist threat, but rather the performance of the U.S. economy, which has gotten poor marks from voters despite steady growth and lower unemployment.
But pollsters conducting the election surveys for Republicans say persistently sour voter attitudes about the economy have begun to improve recently.
And I wonder why.
Could it be the decline in gas prices?
28% say the economy is the number one issue going into the elections.
25% say it's Iraq.
13% say it is terror.
Sorry, 18% say it is terror.
The gasoline price drop is lifting a sour mood out there amongst the populace and making a sour mood among the Democrat Party.
So the Democrats, what are they going to do now with this polling data?
What are they going to shift their agenda once again to focus on the economy and start talking about the affordability crisis that we all have out there?
As to the actual movie itself, folks, it makes it clear from 1993 on, we didn't do anything.
The administration, we had some courageous characters trying to stop it, but there was an attitude of, you know, we really don't, it's not that serious a threat.
We don't want to get the American people that worried about it.
We can fight it as a law and order issue.
We don't have to deal with this as a war.
This is not that kind of big a deal.
This is the way the administration sort of played it.
In fact, there's an interesting story about this that I found at spectator.com, American spectator.org.
And here's the money quote from the piece.
The point is not that President Clinton completely ignored the threat of terrorism.
More accurately, Clinton confronted it in much the same manner that today's liberals urge Bush to approach it.
The Clinton administration didn't overreact.
It made sure Americans were not too fearful of terrorism, was conscious of international law.
It limited itself to low-scale military operations and was also actively involved in mediating a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
And I think that's pretty much on the money.
That is the way the Clinton administration dealt with it.
The movie last night fairly well indicated that, portrayed that.
And it's how they think we ought to fight it today.
There is no need for a war.
There's no need for all this.
It's crazy.
These are just mere episodic, unrelated events.
And that's how they want it viewed.
Now, more on the movie.
And last night, by the way, ABC did a little nightline after the first part of the miniseries aired.
And George Tennant was thrown under the bus by the Clinton administration.
Richard Clark was on there.
He's a paid employee of ABC, by the way.
He's one of their paid commentators.
And he said something to the effect that three out of four of these events, it was Tennett that wouldn't pull the trigger.
The movie itself came down pretty hard on Tenet, made Tennett look like the bad guy.
And you have to ask yourself if you're an engaged human being when you've got chances to take out this terrorist or that terrorist or bin Laden.
It's George Tennant's decision to make.
Don't forget here, folks.
And I thought this was just masterful.
I think this thing is so well done.
I think the cinematography, the writing, the acting, the depiction of the squalor and the wackiness and the backwardsness of these people that we were fighting was just, it was perfection as far as I'm concerned.
I look something, I would no more know how to do that.
And that's why I have great admiration for it, among other things, including the content.
But I think the composite CIA agent known as Mike played by Donnie Wahlberg.
There's a meeting, and John O'Neill goes in and wants permission to take somebody out or take action or do something and get shut down.
And Wahlberg says, well, what are we fighting a law and orderly war?
And it made the point brilliantly that the administration was fighting this as a law and order circumstance, a legal situation, as opposed to, oh, there weren't a whole lot of references to the wall in the movie last night.
Do you remember any of them, Mr. Snowden?
Those probably got excised or exercised as well.
That's undeniable.
I mean, the fact that there was a wall and these agencies couldn't share data with one another.
Maybe that's in the second episode.
I'm maybe jumping the gun on that.
And there's some people claiming that the scene with Ambassador Bodine over in Yemen has been, I'm not sure that happens in the first three hours.
Might be cut, don't know.
She wrote a big editorial about it.
Overall, the administration, the policy of the church committee in 75 and the CIA was we couldn't assassinate anybody.
No assassination of foreign leaders, which bin Laden was said to be or considered to be.
And so they needed a presidential finding to take out bin Laden.
That's what they couldn't get.
Clinton just wouldn't come forth with it, and they had to drop the whole plan again.
And this led to the comment, so we got a law and orderly administration.
It was not kind to these people.
And the Clintons making so much noise about this created a lot of tune-in factor for it that people who did watch it paying far more close attention to it than they otherwise would have.
Of course, Democrats have their own problem with it because it totally just wrecks their attempt to portray the world in a different light today than it actually is.
We'll be back and continue just a second.
Ha, how are your talent online from God?
Rush Limbaugh, the fifth year anniversary of 9-11, 2001.
Here's another observation about the movie last night.
It is, I don't know, it's ironic or not.
It's just a little frustrating when you watch this movie.
You tell me if I'm not right about this, that the Democrats and the liberals have been able to make the Bush administration's inability to get bin Laden a major issue.
When this movie, last night, clearly illustrates and that the drive-by meeting today and the liberal democrats today all know that bin Laden is only alive today, if he is.
And I still have doubts about that.
I'm still not buying into the fact that he's alive.
But nevertheless, he is only alive today because the entire Clinton administration was a bunch of kids, a bunch of children.
They created a mess.
They did not deal with a mess which we've been struggling to clean up for five years.
And the gall to go out there and blame Bush for not getting bin Laden is part of the Clinton legacy rewrite effort.
And that's what was so threatening to Clinton about this movie.
Now, I've got an idea for Bob Iger, a friend of mine, well, an acquaintance of mine.
Bob, consider this an open letter from me to you.
First, Bob, I want to say, way to hang tough.
Even though there were edits, some will think the movie has been butchered.
And I'm getting to this here in just a second.
And hang with me here, folks.
Bob, I think you hung tough.
When the Democrats threatened your broadcast licenses of your owned and operated television stations, you could have caved.
And I don't know this to be the case, Bob, but I'm betting, I would wager that sort of made you mad and made you stick with this when you maybe, as was reported, was on the verge of wiping the whole thing off the slate.
So I want to thank Bob Iger for sticking with this, even though they did respond to some of the Clinton complaints.
The things taken out of there were vanity pieces that Clinton didn't want people to see about him, but they didn't take any of the meaning out of the movie.
They were unable to do that.
They would have had to scrub the whole thing.
But Bob, here's how you deal with this.
As a consumer of DVDs, I happen to know that the DVD business is sort of flailing right now.
Sales has sort of tapered off in recent years, and that's why the new competing formats in Blu-ray and HD DVD are out to try to revive the DVD business.
I have a way that ABC Disney can single-handedly do it.
And Bob, you have to do this just to protect your own property.
There are 900 versions of the uncut, 900 copies of the uncut version of the movie out there in the hands of media punditrants, pundits and powerhouses like me, reviewers, and so forth.
900 copies are out.
Bob, old buddy, you know that before all's said and done, it's going to be on the internet.
The uncut version is going to be on the internet as much as artists and creators and lawyers try to keep it from happening.
It's going to happen.
So what do you do, Bob, old buddy?
What do you do to staunch this?
It's real simple.
Very soon now, you produce an entire DVD package.
It has both versions in it.
The original version that was going to air and the version that did air.
And then in the bonus DVD, you have discussion groups and you invite Clinton and Albright and Burglar to come on and discuss what was wrong about it.
And then you have the writer and the director and the producer discuss how they put it together.
In this way, Bob, you're satisfying everybody.
And you're providing information everybody wants to know.
And you're letting the critics have at it.
You could even put last night's little version of Nightline on it.
Whatever you wanted to do.
But this is a, you think this wouldn't revive the DVD business, at least at Disney or whatever company they put their DVDs out.
What a fabulous idea this is.
Both versions, make you know, special boxed collector set, whatever they call it.
Both versions, and with compression, Bob, of five hours, you'd be close.
You'd be hard-pressed to put both of them on two-seat DVDs, but it'd be close.
But you could do a three or four DVD set with a lot of bonus material on there and have all the people who had a problem with this, people that threatened your broadcast license, let Harry Reid come on there and let all these other Democrats have a say if they'll do it.
Invite President Clinton in, put him in the studio, tell him ask him what problems he had, let him be interviewed by somebody even sympathetic to him.
You know, and then let it stand on its own and let the DVD-buying public see both versions.
Because, Bob, you're about to be pirated out there.
I mean, I know the internet.
And with 900 versions of this thing out, the original version, one of them is going to end up somewhere.
Parts of this, if nothing else, the edited scenes are going to end up out there.
And people are going to be able to do an A-B side-by-side comparison.
Hey, if you want to, let Richard Clark narrate the thing or host the thing.
Yeah, I mean, there's any number of ways.
Or have Richard Clark and Buzz Patterson host.
Make sure both sides are covered, Bob, old friend.
Because I think it's time to make as much as you can off of this and serve the public interest at the same time.
And this would be a just what a service.
I'm serious.
No, no.
Snurdily beyond.
Does it sound like I'm kidding?
I am there laughing.
I am not kidding.
I think this would be.
Let me say it with a solemn and straightforward.
I think it would be a tremendous idea, ladies and gentlemen.
Something the American people clamoring for.
Both versions, one specially priced, super boxed set with commentary from all of those who either like one version or not, or vice versa.
Now to Buzz Patterson.
For those of you who do not know who Buzz Patterson is, he wrote a book called Derelection of Duty.
Buzz Patterson's a former military aide to President Clinton.
And this is from our buddies here at WorldNet Daily.
Buzz Patterson claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden.
And he says that the producer of this mini-series, The Path to 9-11, came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism began pressing for changes to the script.
In an interview with World Net Daily, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert Buzz Patterson said the producer and the writer called him the morning of September 1st, explaining he had used Patterson's book, Derelection of Duty, as a source for the drama.
Now, Patterson carried the nuclear football for Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.
What were the years he did that?
1996 to 1998.
He was one of five men entrusted with carrying the nuclear football act that contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons for those of you in Rio Linda.
And Patterson said, I was there with Clinton and Sandy Berger, and I watched the misopportunities occur.
Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.
Berger was very agitated.
He couldn't get a decision from the president.
Patterson noted he wasn't sure what Berger wanted to do, whether Berger wanted the answer to be yes or no.
But the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.
In his book, Derelection of Duty, Patterson recounts an event in a situation room of the White House in which Sandy Bergler was told by a military watch officer, sir, we've located bin Laden.
We have a two-hour window to strike.
Clinton, according to Buzz Patterson, didn't return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour and then said he wanted more time to study the situation.
Patterson writes, we studied the issues until it was too late.
The window of opportunity closed.
In another missed opportunity, Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president.
Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message.
After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he'd call Berger on his way back to the White House, and by then, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.
Dereliction of Duty is the title of the book, and it makes it plain that while maybe the specific incident of burglar hanging up on the CIA in the deserts of Afghanistan didn't specifically happen, the point was that there were countless efforts, according to a witness who was right there, guy carrying a nuclear football, where Clinton just didn't want to deal with it and pretended he was unavailable or refused to take Bergler's phone call.
Quick time out.
Your phone calls are coming up right after this break.
Don't go away.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, despair, tumult, and chaos.
Also providing major marketing ideas to major American media corporations, including the Good Times, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Listen to this.
This is how the Boston Globe's editorial opens today.
How safe a world it is entitled.
The fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks is a day of remembrance and special sadness for the nation and all those who knew any of the nearly 3,000 victims.
Yet, in the long run, the reaction of the Bush administration may prove more harmful to the national interest than even these horrific attacks.
In speeches over the last two weeks, Bush has painted the attack as a battle in the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century.
And he said of al-Qaeda, the jihadist group that organized the attack, their successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists.
And they go on to debunk that.
Yeah, these guys are clever, but they can't hold a candle to Hitler or the Soviets or any of that.
So it's Bush is creating all these terrorists.
Bush's response, Bush is worse than Al-Qaeda.
Bush is doing more damage to America than al-Qaeda.
And then there's this, ladies and gentlemen.
You heard one of my brilliant opening monologues today talking about how the horrors of 9-11 are so severe we're not even allowed to see them.
And we certainly never see the barbaric acts of our enemies, the beheadings and, oh, no, no, no, no.
Our rules of engagement and our rules for civilized society is so, so, so that we just can't see that.
We're not allowed to see it.
We're not supposed to look at it.
It's too soon, everybody says.
Meanwhile, these nearly 3,000 people died, and very few of them had any clue why.
Only the people on United 93 had the slightest understanding of what was going on.
These people, World Trade Center, and the Pentagon never knew, never had the slightest clue what they had done.
Of course, they had done nothing.
But if you listen to the American Democrat Party, the American left, why we're all ugly Americans.
Why, even Andy Looney said so last night on CBS.
We're all ugly Americans.
We've got to stop doing what it is that makes them hate us.
So if you liberals are going to be consistent, you have to say that the people in the World Trade Center probably deserved it because America hates us.
Oh, sorry.
Can't say that because they didn't hate us till Bush was in office.
But then how do you explain 1993?
How do you explain the USS Cole?
How do you explain the Cobar Towers?
How do you explain the embassy bond?
They didn't hate us then.
I mean, they clearly hated us before George W. Bush was even a candidate, but that doesn't fit the template, does it?
No, they only hated us when Bush came into office and stole the election from the Democrats that the world loves and adores.
So get this.
This is a story from David Border, the Associated Press, television loosening its restrictions on airing graphic images of 9-11 horrors.
Oh, is it?
For the last five years, television networks have been reluctant to show the most disturbing images of 9-11, but now, five years later, some of those restrictions are loosening, the AP says.
For example, here's a CNBC memo about footage restrictions.
Please note, for B-roll purposes in regards to 9-11, we have agreed we will not show the following.
Remember, this is loosening up, according to UAP.
We will not show the following.
No planes flying into buildings, no people jumping from buildings, no collapse of the towers.
We can, however, show the towers burning and smoky.
We're loosening up.
This is loosening up until we are.
The New York Times can leak everything they find out.
The New York Times can leak every secret program we've got to try to deal with these terrorists who want to kill us.
But we can't see it when they do it.
Wonder why that is.
Probably, ladies and gentlemen, because that, too, like the movie last night, would undercut the efforts of the Democratic Party to portray this as something other than it is.
All right, to the phones, as promised, we start in Tampa.
This is John.
Great to have you, sir.
Welcome to EIB Network.
Mega Ditto's Rush from Tampa.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, I wanted to talk a little bit about the film last night, The Path to 9-11, about the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and the response from the Clinton administration.
My belief is, you know, Clinton, in his entire presidency, has been more concerned about appearances than reality or the mortal danger that our country is in.
I wanted to kind of get your thoughts on that.
Well, I think it's very unfortunate, sir, that you would bring politics into the discussion on this.
You know, you're absolutely after all I've just done.
You're absolutely right.
Clinton totally obsessed what people think about him.
I mean, that's just a longer way of saying he's concerned about his legacy.
So you say appearances?
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
I was really happy that the film showed that in a candid point of view, and I was a little distracted at the end of the movie.
I noticed it ended 20 minutes early, and I didn't know.
I know you had seen it earlier.
And was that nightline spot supposed to air originally?
No, no, I don't think so.
I think the nightline was put in there and in part to deal with the criticisms and the complaints from the Clinton administration and the Democrats and the threatening of the broadcast license by the Democrat Party.
So I think that was put.
I don't know that they cut 20 minutes out of this.
I think what they've done, obviously they cut some, but my take is they haven't cut, even if you add all the snippets up, it doesn't equal 20 minutes.
But they've got, and I don't know what they're going to take out of tonight.
You know, there's another two hours to go.
Yeah, but they've got Bush and his, he's got an 18-minute speech tonight that they're airing at 9 o'clock to interrupt the replay.
But my memory is that they didn't really take bulk time out of the thing.
Maybe they have from tonight in order to make time for the nightline last night.
But I don't think it was part of the original plan, although I don't know.
I'm just guessing.
I really appreciate what you're doing.
I'm 26 years old, one of your biggest fans.
I'm a 24-7 subscriber, and I just want to tell you what a great value that is.
And I would encourage everybody out there to sign up for it.
I would too.
Well, I mean, look, I appreciate the plug.
You're very kind, and I'm glad that you called.
Thanks so much.
Really, I don't know if 20 minutes of this has been butchered.
It doesn't.
Folks, I'm telling you what they took out is just window dressing.
The impetus and the impact was all there last night.
Trust it from one who's seen both sides.
Back in just a second.
And welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, The Cutting Edge of Societal Evolution.
Again, thanks to my old friend Bob Iger for not caving to the demands of these edits.
The movie was left intact.
They may try to do it.
Nightline, destroy it up that way.
▲
Export Selection