All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
September 11, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
How are you?
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You're tuned to Rush Limbaugh program.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
This is a program and a host that says more in five seconds than your average host will say in an entire broadcast week.
Serving humanity simply by showing up.
Telephone number if you want to join us, 800 282-288-2.
Email address rush at EIB Net.com.
A couple things from uh been doing some some some research here after our call from Emily in San Francisco.
First she said that Ramza Youssef was Iraqi.
And that didn't sound right to me, but I wasn't uh I told her it wasn't true at first, and I had to stop and think about it.
So I didn't looked it up.
She also mentioned in her call that uh uh one of the 9-11, or one of the World Trade Center attackers uh explosives experts was let go and went back to Baghdad in 1993.
It turns out that that is true.
Ramsay Youssef is Pakistani.
Wikipedia says he's born in Pakistan.
Other people said he was born in some other stand, Baluchistan or something.
That doesn't matter.
Uh he's one of them.
And he's uh in jail now, spending a life sentence of actually 240 uh years.
But he had a nickname.
He was uh Ramsey the Iraqi, and he had an Iraqi passport, but he was not Iraqi.
Now, Byron York, writing about the first World Trade Center attack.
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than a thousand.
Although it was later learned the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as two hundred and fifty thousand people.
At first it was not clear the explosion was the result of terrorism.
The new president's reaction seemed almost disengaged.
He warned Americans against overreacting, and in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who did something really stupid.
From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law enforcement issue.
In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government's most important intelligence agencies.
For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand jury secrecy.
This is the old wall business here, which meant that the law enforcement side of the investigation couldn't tell the intelligence side what was going on.
Nobody outside the prosecutorial team, and maybe the FBI had access, said James Woolsey, who was running the CIA at the time.
It was all under grand jury secrecy.
Another problem with Clinton's decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in his new administration was in turmoil.
When the bomb went off, Clinton didn't have a confirmed attorney general, Janet L. Reno, who was nominated after the Zoe Baird fiasco, and Joey Zoe Baird be a hero today, by the way, uh she had hired illegal immigrants, uh, was awaiting Senate approval.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration.
The bombing barely came up at Reno's Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12th, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case.
Instead, Clinton praised Reno for sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others do better.
Yeah, like uh the branch dividians and Ilion Gonzalez.
At any rate, in addition, at the time of the bombing, and the investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing out by Clinton.
The new director, Louis Free was not confirmed by the Senate until August the 6th.
I remember that we did a bit way back then about Clinton having to fire Bill Mustfire, Bill Sessions, must fire Bill Session, because there was some kind of pressure on him.
Don't even remember why now.
The Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship.
Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold.
Woolsey recalled saying, I'm I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful.
Some of the nation's uh most critical intelligence capabilities went unused.
In the end, the United States tried six suspects in the attack.
All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey.
He fled to Baghdad, where he's living under the protection of the Iraqi government.
This is an old story.
Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they'll probably never know who was behind the attack.
This is what we we do know who was what was Yusuf and some of his uh cohorts.
But they let what that let I and I think I think Abdul Rahman uh Yasin was actually one of the guys that helped uh you uh Ramza Youssef mix the explosives and uh and test them.
But even back then, for the Clinton administration did not want to take this seriously, they did not want to deal with it.
Yeah, and I know they were new in office, but I mean, nobody nobody cared.
They were getting being cut all kinds of slack because of that.
So let's go to the audio sound bites.
I mentioned in the last hour that uh somebody called and said that oh uh what's your name?
Chris Janaman Poor and a little CNN story on the footsteps of bin Laden or whatever it is, mentioned a couple times.
Clinton had a chance to get bin Laden and didn't do it.
Caller was a little bit surprised.
I made the remark that uh Clinton's on tape, saying that uh the Sudanese offered bin Laden, but they didn't have any legal reason to take him.
Uh newsback's buddies have have had this tape, and they've got it up on their website now.
Uh but we have it here for you too, if you would like to uh listen to it.
It's it's it's sort of bad quality, internet quality, and lousy audio actually's making a speech to a group of people somewhere, forget where this was uh was taking place, but this is what he said.
Bin Laden used to live in Sudan.
He was expelled from Saudi Raiders America to start dealing with them again.
They believed it at the time.
He had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had nobody so much to hold him.
So we knew he wanted crime against America.
So I wish it was the Saudi to take him, because they could have, but they thought it was a hard way.
Yeah, it just happened to end up over to Gasday because I didn't have a reason to take him.
But in the in the case uh where Yousf and his cronies were convicted, there was uh an indictment for bin Laden.
He was uh indicted as uh well unended, he was indicted as a as a unindict he was mentioned in an indictment as as as being a co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center attack.
So there was reason to hold him, and that was accurately portrayed last night.
Mary Joe White was the uh U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Manhattan of New York, and was uh and and John O'Neill was happy as hell when uh when he learned from her that uh bin Laden uh could be pursued under terms of the indictment.
Clinton had the chance, didn't do it.
Now that tape you just heard was from February of 2002.
September 3rd of 2002, but seven months later, uh Clinton is on Larry King Alive, and King says, You remember what you were thinking, Mr. President.
What what would go through the mind of the immediate former president watching the 9-11 attacks?
I remember exactly what happened.
Bruce Lindsay said to me on the phone, my God, a second plane has hit the tower, second tower.
And I said, Bin Laden did this.
That's the first thing I said.
He said, How can you be sure?
I said, because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up a network to do this, and they wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets.
Bin Laden did.
Did you also think at the same time we came pretty close to getting them?
Yeah.
I thought uh that my virtual obsession with him was well faced, and I was full of regret that I didn't get him.
I mean, I immediately thought that he had done it.
I've I've tried to tell you people uh for countless numbers of years now, we're dealing with uh a genuine the man has a genuine problem.
You just heard for February 2002, essentially the Sudanese wanted to give Bin Laden to us, but Clinton wasn't interested.
Now you've just heard that Clinton had a virtual obsession with him.
And was full of regret that I didn't get him.
I mean, I immediately thought that he had done it.
I told Bruce Leslie when that second tower went, I said, I know it's Bin Laden.
I know it's only the Bin Laden guys and the Iranians could have done the Iranians aren't gonna do it because their country that makes them big target.
I knew Bin Laden did I was virtually obsessed with this guy, and I knew it was well fair.
Back in just a second.
I just don't want to relive the 90s here, folks.
Yes, some of the uh some of the babes in the Rick James harem, uh the Mary Jane girls here in my house.
Song from the mid-80s in the finest bumper rotation known to exist in a free or oppressed worlds here on the EIB network.
I have to I have to make a pronunciation correction, ladies and gentlemen.
I I assume it's people sympathetic terrorists have been besieging me.
It's not Abdul Rahman Yasin.
His name is Yassin.
Get it right.
Okay, what is it matter?
He escaped in Baghdad.
You know the interesting thing about this guy escaping to Baghdad in the mid-90s is you nobody got into Baghdad without Saddam personally okaying it.
That place was a police state.
Just a little uh little side note.
Uh C uh CD, Daily City, California.
I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network, hi.
Hi, Rush.
Uh last night I was watching uh the 60 Minutes piece and watched Andy Looney at the end.
And I have an 81-year-old mother that lived through the blitz and the bombing of her hometown in England.
And she's just adamant about not appeasing anyone.
She said, I live through an appeasement.
Yeah.
And I got an immediate phone call after that went on because we were both watching the 9-11 uh coverage in our respective homes.
And one of her other concerns is who's going to follow on President Bush, because she's not concerned about herself so much or even her children, but her grandchildren and her great grandchildren, because she said this is not going to end shortly.
No, it's uh it's not going to end shortly, and I'm sure she's concerned about the animals too.
Don't leave them out of the equation.
When you called, I I um I went and got the transcript of Andy Looney's commentary last night because I didn't see it.
And it's the last two paragraphs here.
I mean.
Here's what he said.
Americans are puzzled over why so many people in the world hate us.
We seem so nice to ourselves, but they do hate us, though.
We know that, and we're trying to protect ourselves with more weapons.
We have to do it, I suppose, but it might be better if we figured out how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldn't make so many people in the world want to kill us.
This is uh this is this is Andy Looney last night in the 60 minutes, part and parcel with the Boston Globe today, saying that George W. Bush is gonna end up being far worse for the country than the terrorist attacks on 9-11 uh themselves.
Uh so this this obsession with why they hate us.
Yeah, the the problem with that, ladies and gentlemen, is that it justifies the attacks.
If you're gonna run out there and get to go get all worked up and wring your hands and why they hate it, then you must be saying they have a reason for hitting us on 9-11.
Well, why did they hate us in 93, Andy?
I'll tell you that, I I can't believe how many people's heads are still in the sand.
And these now, Looney, I don't know how old he is, but he's just he's not a dumb guy.
He may be a liberal, but he's not.
Maybe that's where I'm going wrong.
These people could fully well just be stupid.
Hard to believe, but it just it it could I could well be the case.
Audio soundbite time, yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo, this morning on the Today Show, Matt Lauer interviewing President Bush.
And on this day, on 9-11, the fifth anniversary, Matt Wauer is concerned about torture.
Wowers says, you said within the law, and yet you admitted that there were those CIA secret facilities.
So what?
Why is that not within the law?
The head of Amnesty International says secret sites are against international law.
Well, we just disagree with him.
And plus my job is to protect you.
And most American people, if I said that we had who we think's the mastermind of the 9-11, they would say, why don't you see if you can't get information out of them without torturing him?
Which is what we did.
Were you made personal?
My job is to protect this country, Matt.
And uh, I'm going to within the law.
And it gets second-guessed all the time by people who don't live in the United States.
What you might not have heard at the outset here was Bush's answer.
Uh Mount Hauer said, You admitted there was secret CIA secret facilities, and Bush said, so what?
Why is that not within the law?
I love answers list.
So what?
Just destroy the premise.
You know, the problem with too many people being interviewed by these uh these uh drive-by is that you accept the premise of the question and you're locked.
That's a technique I have learned over countless years of doing.
Don't accept the premise.
Next question.
Well, I don't I don't want to let this within the law issue slip.
Remember, this is today, fifth anniversary of 9-11.
I don't want to let this within the law issue slip, though.
I mean, if in fact there was waterboarding used for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for the viewers, that's basically you strap somebody in a board and you make them feel as if they're gonna drown, you put them underwater.
If that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo?
Why do you have to do a secret location around the world?
I'm not going to talk about techniques, and I'm not going to explain to the enemy what we're doing.
All I'm telling you is that you've asked me whether or not we're doing things to protect the American people, and I want the American people to know we are doing so.
And finally, after Mount O'Hour compares us to the terrorists, the president has had enough.
Lauer says, But look, if they're used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, that there is a blurring the lines between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?
Matt, I'm just telling you, what this government has done is to take steps necessary to protect you and your family.
You asked me about your family, and you represent a lot of other people.
And the best information we can get is from people we take off the battlefield so we can act on it.
So we can stop plots before they happen.
We're at war.
This is people that want to come and kill your families.
And the best way to protect you is to get information.
And I'm confident the American people understand why we've done that.
We've acted on information they've given us to prevent attacks.
And uh, these are real.
This this isn't make-believe.
These are attacks that were coming to hurt the American people again.
You know what gets me this continual moral equivalence?
Well, you know, if we uh if we torture these guys, if we waterboard them, uh, we're just becoming them, and aren't they winning?
Uh it is so stupid.
We two atomic bombs in Japan.
Uh numerous civilians killed in both uh the Pacific and European theaters of World War II.
What is this?
What is this silly notion that we're going to become like the bad guys if we fight them?
The aggressor always sets the rules.
Note that note the way the left wants our hands tied behind our backs.
In addition to half my brain tied behind my back.
They want they want us to basically treat these these people like little school kids.
Don't be mean to them, don't violate their dignity, don't violate their civil rights, don't violate their human rights, and don't even ask hard questions.
Anything other than that is torture, Mr. Limbaugh.
Tartar.
Right.
Why these people cannot dare be trusted, ladies and gentlemen, uh, with uh leadership at this crucial period of time.
Jeff in Philadelphia, you're next.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Uh hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Uh, can I start off by saying, even though I'm calling you, I do not like you.
I'm on the far left, and I'm an Air America fan.
And there's two things.
You know how intelligence operates in this country.
And you know that the president, even if he appoints the CIA director, okay, they can be told to stand down by what is called deep intel, who are connected with the establishment.
If you read John Loftus's book, The Secret War Against the Jews, he even talks about issues such as that.
And also, you call the Democrats appeasers, correct?
Uh worse than that, yes, and worse.
Yeah, well, the the reason there's there is no appeasement, and we can handle the defense of this country.
But the reason that Democrats act the way they do is because they do believe, most of them, like myself, I'm part of the truth movement.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
No, no, no.
You know, you you never talk about the project for the New American Century, although you know about it, and you know the lingo in there about a Pearl Harbor level event motivating the American public.
And then you look at 9-11 itself.
You never talk about Marvin Bush, do you?
And you know his position within the trade towers and the airports.
And you look at those pictures today on TV.
Those towers after the planes hit were imploded, and you know they were rigged months and months before.
Isn't it correct?
Nope.
I don't know it.
You're putting words in my mouth.
No, but you look at the way, if it had happened, you know how many people would have been in on it that would have had him shot, prisoned, or tortured or eliminated.
I'd say maybe the people I figured it out.
You maybe the people who rigged World Trade Centers to be demolished like that were actually the people on Flight 93, which did not crash in the field.
No, it's they're down in the Canary Islands right now, and they're all in prison.
Making the complex understandable, so that all can learn.
Rush Limbaugh, how does he know what he knows?
800-282-2882.
And now time for a uh periodic segment.
Your host, America's Anchorman, makes the news.
Wolf Blitzer on Friday on CNN says to the forehead, you worked for President Clinton.
You served in the administration.
I take it you have not seen the path to 911.
No, but you know what's interesting?
Rush Limbaugh has and Bill Clinton has not.
That suggests that there's a political agenda here.
That ABC and the Walt Disney Company are trying to boost ratings, or I don't know, I don't know what their uh what their agenda is.
But but when you don't show the movie to Bill Clinton, who is featured many people believe dishonestly in the film, but you showed it to Rush Limbaugh?
What what possible historical value or input can you get from showing it, you know, to a right-wing radio blowhart?
Folks they hate me as much as Bush.
You know, they're convinced.
If you do, if you do any kind of a Nexus search or Google, when I mentioned I knew the writer, that the writer of the movie was a friend of mine.
That is when they went ballistic.
But they had all seen it.
You can't fool me forehead.
Richard Ben Vanista and a whole bunch of Democrats saw this weeks before I did at the National Press Club.
They took it there for a screening.
Nobody showed it to me forehead.
I got a copy of the DVD.
I watched it and played it for myself.
Didn't go anywhere.
This is this is just and Bill Clinton didn't.
And by the way, I checked into that.
You know, because I find this awfully odd, too.
They were putting a story out last week that the Clinton's were all asking to see it and were being denied, and I found out that's not true.
How did they know what to edit?
How did Clinton know what to complain about if he hadn't seen it or if some of his minions hadn't seen it?
Ben Vanist saw it in his a whole bunch of people at the National Press Club.
And next, from CBS Sunday morning, Katie Courick interviewed uh the 9-11 widows known uh popularly as the Jersey Girls, and here's an exchange that she had with Lori Van Auken.
Taking sides came at a price.
Rush Limbaugh referred to you all as Democratic campaign consultants, not grieving family members.
We fought for their safety as well as our own.
We were never coached by anybody, never funded by anybody.
So I guess the honeymoon's over.
Okay.
No, that wasn't too bad.
She at least you know she could have said Rush Limbaugh, sometime CBS commentator, free speecher, but that interview probably conducted before the deal was made.
Back to the news here.
I mentioned all this stuff early in the program.
I want to give you some details.
This just to let you know that all this talk that's going on out there about the Democrats winning the House and the Senate in November as though it's a fate of compli.
Not even the Democrats believe it.
From um the Philadelphia newspapers, they they published both on a website called Philly.com.
Um, and uh I guess it's a commentary by a guy named Jonathan Last.
Congress races look less certain for Democrats.
Uh numbers still look good for Democrats, although not as good as earlier in the summer.
He goes through polling data and so forth.
He says for a bellwether, watch the Missouri race in which incumbent Republican Jim Tallant has a slender lead over Democrat Claire McCaskill.
Talent won a 2002 special election by just 21,000 votes.
Missouri is a swing state.
Both candidates are solid, as goes talent, so go the Republicans.
Well, I can tell you how this is going to go.
Clinton went over there on the weekend and did an appearance in an endorsement for Claire McCaskill, so she's toast.
Had to widow Carnahan there and uh and a number of others.
Castle's not going to win this.
I mean, it.
This is another one of these pie in the sky dreams these people have.
From uh from the Los Angeles Times, two Georgia races may threaten Democrats' struggle for power.
Uh two congressmen face well-known opponents whose bids are aided by GOP redistricting.
Writing a wave of discontent over the economy Iraq and gas prices.
Lie to yourselves, people in the why don't you lie to yourselves?
Riding a wave of discontent over the economy, gas prices are coming down.
Where have you been?
This thing's dated yesterday.
Democrats are hoping to win enough states to retake the House this November, but their success could also hinge on their ability to keep the seats they already have.
And doing so could prove difficult in two key races in Georgia.
That is an excellent point.
The one thing that's been missing in all of this talk about the Republicans losing the House is this insane assumption that no Democrat will lose his seat.
Oh yeah.
Oh no, Democrats are going to smoke, babe.
They're gonna win everything.
Every one of their incumbents is going to win and win big.
Yeah, all we need to do is what?
Win 15 seats.
Well, yeah, you gotta win 15 and you gotta keep some of your own.
Nobody has been talking about that.
Democrat U.S. Representatives Jim Marshall of Macon and John Barrow of Savannah are facing hearty challenges from a pair of former Republican congressmen with name recognition and the ability to raise big money, bolstering their chances.
Our new district boundaries drawn up by the first GOP-dominated Georgia legislature.
Since Reconstruction, the outcome of the races could have broad national impact.
The Democrat Party needs a net gain of 15 seats.
Its candidates are posing serious threats to Republican incumbents in states like Indiana, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, but Republicans have also identified a handful of vulnerable Democrat incumbents, hoping to pick off a few of them to thwart the Democrat return to power.
Yeah.
Republicans are just gonna sit down and die.
They're just gonna sit back, let whatever happens, let the media run the show.
Every Democrat's gonna win his seat, and then every other seat.
Why, the Democrats may end up with 435 in the House, folks.
They may smoke every win the whole House.
Yeah.
Uh then there's this from the Hill newspaper.
Democrats missing big donors.
With their political prospects flying high, Democrats are turning their attention to mobilizing voters for the fall election.
And they're worried that the deep pocketed donors who helped them in 04 will sit this election out.
And of course, all that money was so helpful last time.
Oh yes.
2004, there was significant support by large national donors on behalf of the Democrat ticket, said Representative Arthur Davis, a Democrat of Alabama, one of a handful of lawmakers highly active with a Democrat's campaign operation.
That level of energy has not materialized to date.
And that's disappointing to us considering the tremendous stakes and opportunities available to Democrats this time.
Now, wait a minute.
How do you even write there's gonna be this massive takeover if Democrat big bucks are on the sidelines?
Why are Democrat big bucks on the sideline?
Why?
We've been told that the Democrats are having to be restrained by electronic device.
So eager are they to get to the polls that Democrats are being Democrats have had to put electronic censors around every home and apartment Democrats live in, so they get shocked if they go to the polls too soon.
There's that much desire, and yet Democrat big bucks on the sideline.
Maybe the Democrat big bucksters are tired of the no return they're getting.
Could be worried about the kuckefied nature of their party, too.
Like the World Trade Center was blown up by Bush.
New York Times, less promise for Democrats in New York.
In a year when Democrats hope to take control of the House of Representatives, every story starts this way.
New York would appear to be fertile ground for toppling Republican incumbents.
Democrats have a statewide edge in enrollment.
And a popular incumbent, Senator Clinton, at the top of the party's ticket.
In fact, just a few months ago, Democrats envisioned significant gains in New York, perhaps picking up as many as four seats, maybe even five.
But that goal now seems increasingly remote, and there is an emerging consensus among political analysts that the party's best chance for capturing a Republican seat, one is the battle to succeed Representative Sherwood Baylor, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress is retired.
So they were going to win five, and now the best chance to win one.
Why, what happened?
Well, nothing happened.
The whole thing has been smoke and mirrors from the get-go.
By the way, you're going to get mad at me for saying this.
But this have have you all paid attention.
Every two years, the Democrats mount these massive election drives.
Voter registration drives.
You got Sean Combs out there, Democrat convention in a t-shirt, voter die, and wants you to go join his organization to register.
You got MTV and Rock the vote.
The whole the whole Democrat effort.
And this is this hit me the other day.
The whole Democrat effort is registering voters just for the sake of it.
Now, what would lead you to think if you're some big Democrat power monger, that registering voters is all you got to do?
If you're registering people just to register them, if you're registering people that don't even know what they're doing, and much less care, what's the point?
Because then your goal becomes making sure that all these new registrants get to the polls on election day, which means you register them, then you gotta find them on election day, then you've got to get them to the polls.
Wouldn't it Democrats, wouldn't it just be easier to get a bunch of people informed on the issues and let passion take care of voting?
That's what Republicans do.
Yeah, we have registration drives, but we've also got grassroots efforts to inform people.
Republican voters are issue-oriented voters, and that is what provides the inspiration and the motivation and a passion to get out there on election day and go vote.
Just signing up a bunch of dunderheads, kids, teenagers, whoever, wherever you can find them, is no great shakes.
Now don't worry that I'm giving them this advice, folks, because the last thing Democrats can do is talk about issues.
They can they can talk about hate and they can try to get these people to polls based on rage.
But what if these people aren't mad?
What if they're not paying attention, so they're not mad?
Well, you gotta spend time making them mad.
They're really going about this the hard way because they have no other way to do it.
That's why Democrat voter registration drives just make me laugh.
From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, neglected by Democrats.
Blacks jump the party line.
Committee woman Norma Leggett of the Fourth Ward isn't sure what the Democratic Party stands for anymore.
She wonders how she's supposed to excite constituents in her ward about November's election.
See?
Leggett said that there are two Democratic parties in St. Louis, one that benefits whites and another that ignores blacks.
At one time Democrats were a solution for us.
I don't know when that changed or why that changed, but it has.
Her comments underscore a familiar complaint from blacks who claim the Democratic Party takes them for granted.
Norma Leggett voiced her, it could be legate to the way she spells it, not sure how she pronounces it, voiced her concerns uh Tuesday, last Tuesday, during a rah-rah session with several local elected Democrats hosted by Claire McCaskill.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
After reading the exchange posted on a local web blog, PubDef Weekly, I called Leggett to confirm her comments.
This reporter.
The quotes were correct.
The 40-year veteran of local politics told me she's no intention of voting for McCaskill's Republican rival Jim Tallant, but like me, She's grown bored with the dog and pony show put on with major elections roll around.
Democrats show up, I throw out the evil Republican mantra, ask for black votes, and they disappear without ever addressing our socioeconomic concerns.
I have wondered how long it's going to take for this to happen.
I don't know that this signifies anything other than uh one woman's opinion in St. Louis, but it's happening.
And the Zagwe Polk confirms that uh Santorum, uh, or as uh as uh Tony Soprano pronounces the name, Santorium, is gaining on uh Paul Care or what's it, Bob Casey, 47 out of 42.9%.
Santorium closing fast, back in just a second.
Stay with me.
Now listen to this, folks.
Just checking the email here during the uh EIB Profit Center timeout.
Dear Rush, it's a from a website subscriber, dear Rush.
I'm sorry to say that last liberal caller from Philadelphia has convinced me to cancel my 24-7 membership.
Rush, I joined 24-7 so I could listen to all the Rush parodies, but when the liberal callers become the parodies themselves, and you can hear it on the free side on the radio.
Why should I pay you to subscribe to your website?
If you want to keep me as a subscriber, I demand these callers now be limited to 24-7 only.
Tell your brother David I said hello.
I had the chance to meet him at last year's Washington, D.C. troop rally, signed Kevin Martin.
You know, that's a good point.
I hadn't even thought of that.
Uh it is it is getting tougher to parody these people because the way they're acting is funnier than we can write it.
But man, that's uh I appreciate the marketing help there.
This is Frank in Des Moines, Iowa.
Frank, welcome.
Great to have you with us.
Glad to be on your show, Rush.
Many kudos from the great state of Iowa.
Thank you, sir.
I I just wanted to tell you that last uh caller from Philadelphia is exactly the reason why I changed parties for fifty-seven years.
I was a member of the Democratic Party, and I wasn't real happy because my family always was, and I started listening to your show ten years ago.
Yeah.
And a lot of the things you were saying was true, and I've come to a conclusion when I switched parties, and I convinced my girlfriend to switch also.
Number one Wait, wait, wait, do you you you did that?
Yes, I did.
I'm a Republican.
Well, I'm gonna tell you why I'm interested in that, because we have not a lot, but over the years we've had a number of men call here.
They either have liberal girlfriends or wives, and they would love to know if it's possible to change their minds, because they'd like to be compatible on political views.
And uh, how did you do it?
I just told her the reason is since 9-11 happened.
I said, I feel much more safe, and I asked her some questions.
I said, Are you doing anything illegal on the phone?
She said, No.
I said, Well, I said, We're not we're not making pot deals, and they're not listening to see if we're making pot deals.
They're listening to see if we're making bomb deals.
They're trying to protect us.
And I said, uh, I don't care what they do.
I said, the difference between here's what convinced her to switch parties.
I said, I said, honey, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is really simple.
Republicans is all about being responsible and accountable for their actions, and Democrats are all about looking for legal loopholes for their failures.
And she said, you know, you're right.
I said, that's what it's all about.
I said, This sounds like a great, great woman.
Yeah, she is, and she said, you know, I'm not gonna be able to do that.
How long did it how long did this take?
How many months was this uh transition?
Six months, Rush, and uh she she uh, you know, there's some things I don't agree with, Bush, but I I I think he's sincere in his heart.
And uh and to all the Democrats, I just want to say it's it's not about parties right now, it's about Americans.
It's about getting together and supporting everybody, and uh let's uh let's get through this.
Uh we're at war.
And uh, and and Mel Aller is a joke, you know.
He's uh he's just he just uh drive-by liberal, like you said.
We need to pull together, and uh, and I'm thankful that that that the Republicans are in charge during during this time, and I think they're good for the country overall, whether it's uh in a in a in a wartime or not.
I think they're overall really good for our country.
I really, really believe that.
I can tell you sound very passionate.
Frank, thank you so much.
You've provided more services in this call than you could possibly understand, and I I really appreciate it.
He's got a real good point.
I made this earlier, I get to it very briefly.
Uh George Bush calls in the New York Times: Don't don't leak the NSA story.
It's gonna harm the country.
Bill Clinton threatens ABC.
Don't run that movie, it'll harm me.
Bush, Republicans trying to help and save the country, Bill Clinton and the Democrats trying to save himself.
Even the minions on their blogs are all about saving Clinton, saving the Democratic Party.
America's at war, including with the American left.
Back in just a sec.
All right, folks, when a program's over, I gotta record tomorrow's morning update, and I have to tell you, listen to the whole thing.
Otherwise, you are gonna go crazy.
You're gonna I'm just kidding.
▲
Export Selection