All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
September 11, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you.
Once again, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, all across, fruited playing Rush Limbaugh, a living legend.
A living broadcast legend.
A way of life.
Here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I knew it.
I knew it.
We had a call in the last hour, very near the uh conclusion of the previous hour, asking me, hey, wait, they had a little nightline show last night after the movie.
Did they cut a lot of this?
So they cut 20 minutes out of this rush.
I said, uh, my instincts are no, I couldn't nowhere near that.
Uh uh, and I tell you what I did uh during the uh top of the hour break.
I got on the phone with a good friend, intimately involved in the movie, The Path to 9-11.
And uh here's here it is, folks.
Out of five hours, one minute of film has been cut.
One minute out of five hours.
Uh originally they were trying to sell commercials in this thing, they decided not to.
So the actual runtime every night is about 2 40.
Uh which would not equal five hours in total, obviously, other than for those of you in Rio Linda, which is why I'd point this out.
Only one minute was cut.
Total.
So, I mean, uh I'm I'm just telling you, my buddy at ABC, Robert Iger, did not cave, folks.
I mean, this this is it's not only he did not cave, he it it it's it's almost the opposite.
These these these cuts, I'm telling you, I watched both sides of this movie, version uh and uh unedited and and the uh and the edited version last night, and I could I could sp I knew them when they happened, what had been left out of this, and I had no questions about anything else.
I just didn't know what had been cut out of tonight, but uh apparently just a total of one minute.
And you know, when you when you stop and think of the pressure that Bob Iger was under, I mean, a phone call from Bill Clinton, a four-page letter from Bill Clinton, and another letter from Clinton's lawyers on Friday.
And then, and then this threat from Senate Democrats late last week to Mr. Iger, threatening his broadcast license of his own and operated television stations, and they cut one minute out of this.
Uh I don't think any of you ought to be writing angry letters to ABC over this.
Now, what they do on nightline after it as a whole different thing.
If they want to go on nightline, if they want to have nightline and trash the movie and try to help uh uh deal with the criticism that way, fine and dandy.
But in terms of the actual movie itself, it speaks for itself.
And I wanted to make sure and pass that on.
Uh Bob Iger deserves, I think this.
You know what it is for a broadcaster to have the license threatened by a bunch of big government thugs acting like hit men in the mafia, known as the Senate Democrat leadership, and then of course the full court press from Bill Clinton and his lawyers and uh and all these people out there like Sandy Berger saying, an incident never happened, this didn't happen, and so forth.
And they hung in.
They hung in.
And by the way, since we're passing out accolades for for Mr. Iger, don't forget this.
Disney refused to distribute Fahrenheit 911.
Uh you know, and I I um well, had you forgotten that?
Had you forgotten it?
ABC Disney refused, and that's how it ended up.
Uh, who do who did it?
The Weinstein, Miramax?
Harvey Weinstein is Brother Bob.
I think that's who did it.
But they refused that too.
But that wasn't Bob Iger, that was Michael Eisner at the time, who is not a friend of mine.
I've I've not met uh not met Eisner, so I can't claim any credit for Disney refusing to distribute um Fahrenheit 911.
All right, there are the audio soundbites, uh, ladies and gentlemen, Dick Cheney on Meet the Press yesterday with Tim Russert, acting prosecutorial, and he knew it.
I think, by the way, uh there are all kinds of signs, and I've got them here in the stack.
It ain't going the way the Democrats hope.
Let me just give you the headlines.
Um, from Phil it's a Philadelphia newspaper, they combine them on a website, Philly.com.
Congress races look less certain for Democrats.
Well, so the next one.
Uh to Georgia, this is Los Angeles Times, two Georgia races may threaten Democrats' struggle for power.
And the headline actually describes the Democrats are doing from the Hill newspaper.
Democrats missing big donors.
Things may be rosy out there for the Democrats, but they certainly aren't green, ladies and gentlemen.
And then the New York Times itself.
Less promise for Democrats in New York.
From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, neglected by Democrats.
Blacks jump the party line.
I'll have details in all these stories coming up.
And uh and this is uh the Wall Street Journal released a poll Zogby in the journal.
Zogby confirms what poll rumors said, Santorum closing in hard on Casey.
And then we've got some out-of-control piece here by Eleanor Clift in uh in Newsweek, actually on their website, in which she starts out trying to tell the Democrats how to win in 06 and ends up proving that Giuliani will win it in uh in 08.
Uh I mean it's it's it's uh and then you've got Jay Rockefeller out there saying that um that that Saddam Hussein uh would actually be better off if he were back in power, the Iraqis would be better off, we'd be better off, as I have said during the time of his trial.
Let him go!
Give him the country back.
Apologize.
Jay Rockefeller is out there saying so.
Bush duped public on Iraq.
There's all kinds of news.
It's not going well for the Democrats in these midterm elections.
Forget everything you've heard.
There's big trouble out there, and they're starting to write about it.
I think this is part of the reason that so many uh journalists, drive-by media members are starting to get panicked.
Because they've tried to talk themselves into the notion that it's a fate accomplished, but they know it's not.
Cheney agreed to come on meet the press yesterday.
We have some bites.
First question that we have, Russert says, in all candor, could that $300 billion we've spent so far in Iraq not have been better spent securing Afghanistan, improving airline security, having technology for gels and liquids so people can get on without being nervous?
Our cargo at our ports could have $300 billion have not been better spent securing our nation against terrorists rather than in Iraq.
We're here on the fifth anniversary, and there has not been another attack on the United States.
And that's not an accident, because we've done a hell of a job here at home in terms of homeland security, uh, in terms of the terrorist surveillance program we put in place in terms of the uh financial tracking program we put in place, and because of our detainee policy, where we in fact able to interrogate uh captured terrorists to get the kind of intelligence that has allowed us to be able to do that.
But could it have been better spent?
Well, I'm not sure that it could have been.
I don't know how much better you can do than no attacks for the last five years.
Yeah, it couldn't have been better.
How much better can we do?
Tim, we haven't had an attack.
Now, your buddies are out there telling us, uh telling all the enemy that only five percent of the ports are protected, so we may have to deal something about that.
You're trying to hamper every move we make to secure the country with uh surveillance programs and prisoner interrogation, trying to undermine everything we're doing, and still, despite all the efforts by the American media and the American left to hamper the effort to protect the American people, there hadn't been an attack in five years.
I think the money's been well spent, Tiffch.
Great answer.
Great answer from Cheney.
Next question.
People with radios and police departments in D.C. can't talk to Alexandria.
Four-fifths of the mayors say they can't communicate with their localities.
People can't carry toothpaste and shampoo on planes.
The administration cut six million or tried to, out of funding to screen those kinds of things rather than spending the money in Iraq.
We have spent billions on homeland security.
You can always find more you can spend uh uh funds on.
I think we've done a pretty good job.
And yet I don't know how you can explain five years of no attacks, five years of successful disruption of attacks, five years of of defeating uh the efforts of Al Qaeda to come back and kill more Americans.
You've got to give some credence to the notion that maybe somebody did something right.
I think we did.
I think we did a lot right.
This is another great answer because remember, the action line from the drive-by media is that this whole thing has been an absolute mistake, which is why, again, when you look at the movie last night and and uh compare it to the coverage that we're getting in the war on tarot today.
There's something really huge missing.
There's a huge gap of credibility.
We're doing things right.
There hasn't been another attack.
We're on the case.
This administration is doing what it can to hunt down people before they are going to attack rather than waiting until they attack and then try to get an indictment.
Which was the hallmark of the 90s 1990s in the Clinton administration.
As the path to 9-11 made clear last night, it will make clear again tonight in the um uh in the second part of the mini-series.
And so Cheney's making the point here that uh, you know, you gotta give some credence to the notion that maybe somebody did something right, and I guarantee when Russert heard that, or any other drive-by media people hear that, it just causes their head to explode because it doesn't compute.
Because the action line is Bush has just made a mess at everything.
Remember the Boston Globe editorial today.
Bush is worse than the attacks.
The Bush administration is going to end up being worse for the country than the attacks themselves.
Which, again, goes to this whole point that the left would just love to deal with this as mere episodes, and yeah, they're horrible and so forth, but let's not get the public too worried about it.
Let's deal with it with a courts and judges and juries and uh not take it all that seriously.
Uh no greater contrast, I think, could be seen.
Such such timeliness here.
Next question from Russell.
Do you think the president should pardon Scooter Libya?
Now, this is a fascinating exchange.
Said all I'm gonna say on the subject, Tim.
You wouldn't support a pardon?
I've said all I'm gonna say on the subject.
How about Richard Armitage, who's come forward and said that he was the original source for Robert Novak some years ago.
Does he need a pardon?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Does he need a pardon?
We'll be back in just a second, say with couple more sound bites from Vice President Cheney with Tim Russett yesterday, then back to your phone calls.
Next question in the New York Times today, Cheney's power no longer goes unquestioned, suggesting, sir, that your supportive issues regarding the treatment and prosecution of terror suspects and national NSA surveillance eavesdropping policy has weakened your influence within the White House.
Is that a question?
Yes, sir.
Has it?
I uh uh I haven't read the story in any great detail.
It's looks like one of those thumbsuckers that's done periodically.
That's probably as valid as the ones that were done saying that I was in charge of everything.
I love this guy.
One of those thumbsuckers, they just don't rattle him.
And that just angersome, you can't believe.
Because they're trying to destroy this guy.
And he just laughs at them.
I've told you, that's how you deal with it.
Final bite, Russert and the Veep have this exchange.
Shall I be relieved you didn't bring your shotgun in today?
Uh, I wouldn't worry about it.
You're not in season.
Tim, you're not big enough to shoot.
It doesn't matter.
It's not media season yet.
Not that the question from Russert was clearly indicative.
In fact, he had done a hard interview, and he knew it.
And uh so he said, uh glad you didn't bring in the shotgun.
All right, to the phones, we go to uh Hudsonville, Michigan, and Tom.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Mega Dettos.
Thank you, sir.
I just wanted that whole movie basically is a vindication of the the Clinton years, at least in my book, but I think it's patently obvious to the entire country that no matter how you spin it, no matter how the you want to talk about the story, there's one thing that is just right at the top, and that is complete total lack of leadership during the Clinton administration.
And that movie just goes right to it, no matter how you spin it, doesn't matter how you write the story, Rush, it's gonna come out the same way.
Well, yeah, um I I I I look it, you you you've said it well.
Um lack of leadership, perhaps.
I think it goes beyond that, though.
Um it it goes to uh a lack of action, a lack of real coordinated, purposeful action.
There was incidental and episodic action to deal with incidents and episodes.
But the path to 9-11, for all of the talk, and you're right, you could you can you can synthesize this down to a message or to a theme, and that is for a number of years, and that what how why the title, The Path to 9-11, as it says in the beginning of the movie, we all know what happened.
But how do we get here?
Meaning it's just not an episodic event, just didn't happen out of clear blue.
It had been planned, it had been dreamed of, it had been thought out and conceived years earlier.
And we had just a paralyzed bureaucracy.
We had uh even without the Lewinsky stuff, even without on the impeachment stuff, we had a paralyzed bureaucracy.
Uh we didn't have a cogent policy to deal with this kind of thing as we do now, and we saw what that uh what that leads to.
And I want to give you this quote again here, folks, from Philip Klein, writing today at uh Spectator.org.
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 urged President Bush to approach it.
The Clinton administration didn't overreact.
It made sure Americans were not too fearful of terrorism, it was conscious of international law.
It limited itself to low-scale military operations, was also actively involved in mediating a negotiated peace between the Israelis and the uh and the Palestinians.
So uh today's liberals want us to withdraw from Iraq out of a belief that the war is unwinnable and counterproductive, but that's precisely the same attitude that prompted the Clinton administration to withdraw from Somalia, an event of which bin Laden said our boys were shocked by the low low morale of the American soldier, and they realized the American soldier was just a paper tiger.
Before that fateful day five years ago, it was arguably understandable for people to have underestimated the threat posed by radical Islam, although President Bush certainly didn't.
But after as President Bush certainly did, but after September 11th, it's simply inconceivable that anybody would want to return to the way things were done before.
Comparing Nazi appeasers to today's liberals is unfair to the appeasers of the 30s, because at least they spoke out for ignorance about how dangerous they spoke out of ignorance about how dangerous Hitler was.
They weren't still arguing for appeasement in 1943.
His point being that uh, you know, it it's really unfair to the appeasers back then to compare today's appeasers to them because those guys, like Neville Chamberlain, eventually got it.
But the appeasers today, even after 9-11, don't got it.
They still don't get it.
They don't understand it, they're still appeasing.
They still want us out of a rock.
They want us to lose.
And that's the Clinton administration approach.
And that's, I think, what's more important to whether it was a lack of leadership, there are actual active policy differences between the two parties.
I, you know, I cringe when I hear people say, hey, it's not a dime's worth of difference between the two political parties.
Well, that may be true on some things like spending our money.
But when it comes to substantive things on the foreign policy front, you can't say that.
There are dramatic differences.
Mike in Norwood, Massachusetts, I'm glad you called, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hey, Russ, how are you doing, buddy?
Fine, buddy, thank you.
Uh, I don't know if I'm a Democrat, Republican, but just a man of common sense, and uh I just don't understand why we didn't go full force with everything we had to get a Sama bin Laden capture this guy.
When?
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
What's that?
When are you suggesting we should have gone full force, full tilt?
Before we even went into Iraq, just everything we had.
We should have gone after Sam bin Laden.
Capture him and get all the information we could out of this guy.
You know, torture him, beat him, whatever.
No, no, can't do that.
Now, the the the the world would have hated us if we had tortured bin Laden movie.
But did you watch uh the movie, The Path to 9-11 last night?
No, actually I was working, I didn't get to see it.
Oh, it's that's too bad.
It really is too bad because there are a lot of people who think that Bush is to blame for not getting bin Laden.
And one of the points you it's a shame you didn't see this last night.
We had numerous chances to kill bin Laden or to capture bin Laden, and they were all passed up on in the 1990s.
I'm not even going to politicize this and mention who was running the country then.
Because I'm not trying to be provocative.
But we have so when you call here and say we should have done everything we could to get bin Laden, I think that we did quite a bit, and we have done far more than was done in many years previous.
But if you have as your as your as your uh uh contextual understanding of this that all this began on 9-11, 2001, then I can understand why you think we've botched the operation.
Uh, but there were countless opportunities, all during the 90s, and they were passed on.
They literally, the decision was made to not do it, or the decision was put off so as to avoid even having to make it.
Here on the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaum.
I'm holding, ladies and gentlemen in my nicotine stain fingers, a uh an interesting little story from the New York Times, Sunday magazine.
Lots of juicy stuff in this uh in this story, uh, and a whole lot of this haven't been picked up on yet because it's being overwhelmed by the remembrances today on 9-11.
But the editor in this story, Bill Keller, New York Times editor, says that he felt justified in publishing the leak on the National Security Agency's foreign surveillance program in part because the Bush administration had lost credibility, and the Times could give them less benefit of the doubt.
Now to set the table for you on this, the Bush administration brought Keller in there to the White House.
Cheney was with him, and I I forget who else was in there.
Bill Keller, the editor, Little Pinch was in the room, and somebody else in the New York, maybe the Bureau Chief, uh, Washington Bureau Chief, came in.
And Bush implored them.
Uh actually it's it's uh uh it's not the New York Times Sunday magazine, it's New York magazine, and then they've got the New York magazine.
In fact, I've d I've they've got a cover uh that that that replicates the New York Times front page, and Bush told Bill Keller, you're gonna have blood on your hands.
If you run this story, you are gonna have blood on your hands because you're gonna compromise a program that is working.
And that's what Keller says.
We listened for a week and we thought about it for a week, but we decided the Bush administration had lost credibility, and so we didn't know whether to believe them.
What what what a cheap childish lowball thing to say?
Boy, why has the Bush administration lost credibility, Bill?
Do you think you might have had somebody to do that, you and your buddies in the drive-by media?
Here's here's Keller's quote.
There was an erosion of the administration's credibility, not just with us, but with the public.
As more and more was revealed, including in the New York Times, by the way, about the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war.
As time passed, added Mr. Keller, they've demonstrated that they're entitled to somewhat less benefit of the doubt.
All right, now this provides an opportunity for an interesting comparison.
Here you have the New York Times runs a leak, runs a story based on a leak of the National Security Agency's foreign surveillance program.
The drive-by media and everybody lying about it, the Democrat Party calling it domestic spy program, creating the impression that President Bush actually goes somewhere and listens to your phone calls.
Whatever you're saying to whoever just wants to spy on you because Bush doesn't want you to have freedom, and Bush doesn't want you to have civil rights, and Bush wouldn't want you to have human rights.
He did all that even before he sent the hurricane to New Orleans to destroy it in the levees.
They're out there creating all of this, and then they lament and whine that there's this loss of credibility.
But what did Bush do?
Bush brought him in.
You're gonna have blood on your hands.
Don't do this.
The program's succeeding.
We're we're we're having tremendous success.
And it wasn't long after that they leaked the story about how we'd successfully interrupted the financial resupply lines of terrorists throughout the world.
Now let's compare that.
Bush brings in the editors and the publisher of the New York Times and says, please don't do this.
You're gonna compromise a great program and you're gonna have blood on your hands.
ABC Disney announcers are gonna run the path to 9-11.
It gets screened in Washington, D.C. For a bunch of people.
Amongst those seeing it are a bunch of Democrats.
By the way, all this talk that I got this started is bow hunk because Richard Ben Venist saw this before I did, and Richard Ben Venist and one of his aides threatened the writer and the producer with action if they went forward with this.
So the Democrats saw this.
All this talk about Clinton hasn't seen it and all that.
It was screened for a whole bunch of Democrats, including members of the 9-11 Commission in Washington at the press club long before I ever saw.
But that's just a side point.
They screen the movie, the movie is about to air, and Bill Clinton sends his own four-page letter to Bob Iger at ABC, and then Clinton's lawyers send another letter threatening action.
Then Sandy Burglar gets on the phone and says, Don't you can't fix it, just yank it.
And then Senate Democrats send a letter to Bob Iger at Disney threatening broadcast license.
Now let's compare these two things.
On the one hand, you have George W. Bush calling the New York Times in, trying to protect the country.
In the other instance, you have Bill Clinton, Richard Clark, Sandy Burglar, Madeline Albright, Senate Democrats, and their threatening letters and lawyers trying to kill a movie to protect Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton acted to protect himself.
George W. Bush acted for the New York Times to protect the country.
No more stark comparison of reality could possibly be made.
And I, of course, am the one to conclude it, come up with it, and make it public.
Also, CIA Director General Michael Hayden said today that more than 5,000 terrorists have been captured or killed in the five years since the 9-11 attacks.
His remarks were made in a videotape statement distributed to CIA employees around the world.
Hayden called the 9-11 attacks an unforgettable blow from a plot we had not been able to prevent.
Since then he said Al Qaeda's core operational leadership has been decimated, and their successors are in hiding or on the run.
Sources ABC News.
Interesting thing here about in hiding or on the run.
I went to a fabulous party Saturday night in uh in Los Angeles.
Maybe someday I'll be able to tell you about it.
But I ran into somebody we're talking about the path to 9-11.
And uh uh the subject of bin Laden came up.
And this person's theory is I don't care.
Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri.
Those people are where are they, Rush?
They are ineffective and they're inconsequential now.
They're hiding in caves or rat holes somewhere in the more despicable, uncomfortable places of the earth you can find.
He said, You remember the story of Pancho Via?
Pancho V has his great reputation, came across the border, did what he did, but we chased him, couldn't find him, but he was never heard from again because he couldn't dare show his face or he would be dead.
Same thing with bin Laden Zawahiri.
Bin Laden's still alive.
He can't show up anywhere.
He can't go anywhere.
He's it is he's he's he's finished.
And I bring this, I thought it was a pretty good point.
The reason I bring this up is that the uh Democrat Party and American left continue to say that there will not be any success in the war on terror until bin Laden is either captured or killed.
And of course, that's nonsense.
Bin Laden will not be seen again by anybody.
I mean, he may have his little network of mule trains that he runs around with, uh, maybe he rides goats.
I don't know what may still may be in Jeep SUV.
Who knows what?
But I guy can't go too many places.
Cannot live a normal life.
Even for what him uh for what for him would be a normal life.
Janet Northport, Florida.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
Um, in watching all the coverage um about the 9-11 remembrance this last week, I was struck by a clip that I saw of a poll that was taken, um, I guess it was the first week after the attacks, and in the poll, President Bush had a 93, 92 percent approval rating.
And I believe now that you can almost pinpoint that day of this poll that the Democrats pretty much decided that he had to be destroyed.
Um, and that they would never get power back if they didn't destroy him.
And I think uh looking back on it now, these last couple of years, they've been pretty effective.
Well, longer than that.
They've been effective for longer than that.
But you know, it's it's it's one thing, I mean th 93% approval rating after 9-11.
That would make total sense.
Country comes together in an event like this.
What the Democrats try to do as quickly as they could is is uh erase people's memory of it, uh or to mischaracterize it.
But let us not forget, ladies and gentlemen.
All of these Democrats in nineteen ninety-eight, and again in two thousand two at their own request for a new resolution authorizing the uh use of force in Iraq, took to the floor of the Senate and warned us of those weapons of mass destruction, including J. Rockefeller.
And they they have the privilege now, the opportunity to just erase that from memory because uh drive by media will not remind anybody of it.
But there are those like me who will and do, and we've got the audio and we've got the video, and you have seen it on various cable networks, you've heard it on this program.
So it's it's it really is uh it's unconscionable uh what they are trying to do.
Of course they're hiding behind the fact Bush lied to us.
They had all intelligence, they knew what everybody else had, and they were talking about this long before Bush even came into office.
But you're right, at some point, and we have the Rockefeller memo, uh in which he said we can only do this one time, but we're gonna have to c we're gonna have to launch a full scale investigation into how we've been lied to, how the intelligence was made up, and of course the product of that was released on Friday.
Uh you're right, the whole thing has been a fabricated policy to uh to win back power at the expense of national security and everything else.
It has featured lying, it has featured uh prevarication, it has uh featured deceit, dupliciteness, uh duplicitousness.
It has it's it's uh arrogance.
But pretty much every human characteristic that we find offensive has been front and center in terms of the uh the dem particularly Senate Democrats, you can't leave the House out of this either, uh, efforts to rewrite history and erase it from as many minds as possible.
Quick break.
Back with more in just a moment.
Hey, look at it this way, folks.
I mean, you want you want some uh straightforward blunt words.
You have the nineteen nineties and no action taken.
Bush takes action.
There's two different policies.
We've got Democrats running around in nineteen ninety-eight warning of all these threats from Saddam Hussein, doing nothing about it as usual.
Now in two thousand two, demanding a chance to say it again on the floor of the Senate in debating a resolution of force uh or use of force resolution for the president, and now four years later they want to erase memories.
Clinton administration with the same thing, that's why they didn't want this movie to air.
Remember, only one minute has been cut.
I have confirmed this.
Out of five hours, only one minute has been cut.
It was a total failed effort by the Clinton's.
Well, I can't say total, but they can't erase any of the meaning of the movie.
Uh ABC did not cave.
Turns out that Bill Clinton lied, and it did cost lives.
He didn't have to spend years lying about the Lewinsky matter and being embroiled in the Paula Jones thing, perjuring himself, obstructing and all the rest.
So he lied, and people did die around the world.
Americans.
And what of Sandy Burglar and Madeline Albright and all the rest.
I don't know if they had sex with Lewinsky either, but were they so busy they couldn't focus on the terrorist threat in front of them?
It's in it it's it's in inconclusive uh inescapable, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Inarguable.
Emily in San Francisco, we cross our fingers with phone calls from San Francisco.
Emily, how long you've been a woman?
Oh.
You know, Rush, I I so admire your brilliance and your dedication and and hard work for this nation.
Thank you.
But I notice you didn't answer the question.
How long have I been a woman?
Oh, it's too long.
Good answer.
That's a great answer.
You know, I I uh I just want to uh mention to the nation that a lot of people and people uh listening to you could tell others to change just for the sake of change is a mistake.
Because you would be run.
The United States would be run by San Francisco.
The House would be uh Nancy Pelosi and the San Francisco gang would be running the United States.
And here people are very nice, but they don't like war, and they will never defend us.
And you put them in, and the terrorists know that.
Because when uh Bill Clinton was in office for thirty days, then they attacked when uh President Bush was in office, when he got into office rather, he was only in a short time, and then you re you can remember that no confirmations were permitted by the Democrats of staff.
So with President uh with uh the terrorist uh concept of uh when the government is in turmoil or ch in change, that's when they attack us.
So we must not permit the Democrats to get hold of this country because they will not defend us.
And then Iraq can move it uh, pardon me, Iran can move into Iraq, take control of the oil wells there, move into Kuwait and the whole Middle East with the uh threat of uh by the way, speaking.
This is not getting much coverage, but have you uh have you heard today that the Iranians all of a sudden are saying, okay, uh we'll halt our enrichment of uranium program uh while we talk to you.
Oh, I uh yeah, but uh if their plan is to do something in in two thousand and seven, they're just uh stalling uh that's what they need.
And you know, if you ever get a chance to read the headline on uh Wednesday uh August 23rd, nineteen ninety-five, where Iraq does uh admit that they were uh were trying to enrich uranium for their nuclear weapons.
You know, and they and uh i if you get a chance, read that because uh Ramsay Youssef, which I learned from this film, was an Iraqi.
No, no.
That's what the film showed.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
No, no, but wait a minute now.
Ramsey Youssef wasn't Iraqi, he was Algerian, wasn't he?
No, no.
Um He had an Iraqi passport, I think.
Uh but now now you got me confused because because maybe now he w he you're right.
I'm thinking of somebody else, the Algerian uh bomb exp bomb expert, explosives expert.
Um let me check on that before I firmly say that you are wrong and don't know what you're talking about.
Just one thing.
There was another film made by Hollywood, and that not a word from the Democrats on the same topic of nine one one the no, the first uh bombing.
And in that film, Ramsay Youssef was uh was caught by the airport security, and they called the s uh State Department, and the State Department under Clinton let him into this country, and also he got out after he bombed the World Trade Center.
Okay, I have to run.
I want to grab one more call here, Emily, before I have to go to the break, but thanks so much.
I appreciate that.
I'm gonna check on uh on on uh on Ramsay Youssef being uh being Iraqi.
I didn't ring a bell.
Dave in uh Baltimore.
Um I'm glad you waited.
Welcome, sir.
Hey, hello, Rush.
Yeah, it's fine.
Uh last night I was uh channel surfing and I just happened to stumble on to the uh program on CNN hosted by Christiana Anampur.
It's called the Footsteps of Bin Laden.
And in her report, and I'm just channel surfing, I'm not even there for watch the whole program.
Right, right.
She mentions that they had Clinton uh they had uh bin Laden one time, Clinton let him go, and then the second time she mentions it, she said they were afraid to bomb the uh encampment that he was in because there was playground equipment in front of the houses, and so they wouldn't do it.
So here's a little research project for your uh staff over the weekend.
Go watch the whole program and find out how many times Christian Anampur on CNN mentions that Bill Clinton had the chance to pull the trigger, but he couldn't do it.
Interesting.
I didn't uh see the CNN treatment of this.
That's uh that's fascinating.
There's not there's not just that instance.
I mean, there's the whole Sudan ins incident where he was basically offered to us, and Clinton refused because uh he said, Well that another thing you heard, I don't how do uh I have no reason to hold him.
But he was under indictment in New York as an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing of nineteen ninety-three.
So there was a legal reason for uh taking Clinton's tried to deny that that happened too, by the way, but he's on tape.
Uh admitting it our buddies at Newsmax have that back in just a second.
Ramsey Youssef was born in Kuwait, claims he's a Palestinian, and uh had a nickname of the Iraqi.
But he was not Iraqi.
And we've got an hour of broadcast excellence remaining.
▲
Export Selection