All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
September 18, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I don't see the cover of the news magazines because I don't get them.
And I frankly, I very seldom go to their websites.
But a friend of me sent me an image of the latest cover of Time magazine.
And it's I mean, it's it's just classic.
It is perfect Time magazine.
They've got a picture of Mahmood Ahmadinejad.
It makes him look like an angel.
Of course, they had Bush on the cover not long ago, in a horrible picture, being swallowed up by a hat and uh and all that.
But it's all about what war with Iran would look like.
And he's portrayed almost in an angelic fashion out there.
I mean, it's hard to say that Time magazine's turning harder to the left, because they've done this with Castro and they've done this with a number of world leaders who are enemies of the United States, but the uh covers abs it's an absolute disgrace.
Ahmadinejad going to be in New York tomorrow flying up from Cuba, where he met with the Hate America crowd of the Non-Aligned Movement, Castro apparently too sick to go to the movement, but uh Hugo Chavez and all the gang uh were there.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Uh over 600 great radio stations on the most listened to radio talk show in United States.
A couple things left here on the uh on this whole argument over common Article III of the Geneva Convention.
I want to go back and play Vice President Graham one more time, and then we have one soundbite from Susan Collins to get through.
But uh, in case you weren't here in the last hour, here is Vice President Graham commenting on a hypothetical.
What would happen if a CI agent were captured in Iran trying to suppress their nuclear program, and the Iranian government put this person on trial as a war criminal, and the Iranian prosecutor had a foul marked secret, gave it to their judge and their jury, and said, convict this man, and they never shared uh the evidence with the American agent.
We would go nuts.
We would say that secret trial violates the Geneva Convention standards for trying people.
What would we do if the Iranians sentenced an American to death based on evidence the American never saw?
We would go crazy.
I don't understand the point of the question.
It's happened before.
The Geneva Conventions don't make our enemies nice people.
They don't abide by them.
The fact that the that we are one of ham want to handcuff ourselves here uh as a means of protecting our soldiers, which is really their point here.
We've got to protect our soldiers.
We have to do everything we can.
It's I I uh don't want this to sound cold and cruel, but Senator Graham's soldiers know what they're getting into.
They volunteer, they know what this is all about.
They're trained for being captured.
This issue is not about protecting soldiers or protecting the enemy.
This issue is about protecting the citizens of the United States of America.
What is so damned hard to understand about this?
Besides that, Senator Graham, it wasn't until this summer when the Supreme Court issued its uh ridiculous Hamden decision.
Did anyone in our government believe it Common Article III applied to terrorists anyway?
What what were we before that ruling?
Were we no different than Al Qaeda before that ruling?
Did the Supreme Court bless us and say that we're now different from Al-Qaeda because we're going to apply people that don't even qualify under the Geneva Conventions, period.
We're going to apply Common Article III to them.
You know, Judge Chief Justice John Roberts was on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
He recused himself from the case when it went to the Supreme Court because he had ruled on it and voted on it when he was at the Fourth Circuit.
So the Supreme Court voted five to three.
Here are the names.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, suitor, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, that's who voted to confer common Article III on terrorist suspects that are not even qualified to live under the uh or to be to be uh treated by the Geneva Conventions.
They don't fit the definition.
So Judge Roberts recused himself, Chief Justice Roberts recused himself because he had voted for the administration's side in this case, which was, I think, a three to nothing decision.
Maybe it was two to one, but it was pretty Close.
Three judges uh uh were rejected uh uh the whole concept that Hamdan should be given constitutional rights under the Geneva Conventions.
Now, Senator Graham, you voted to confirm Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court, knowing full well how he was uh what what his vote on the Hamdan decision was when it was before his court, the Fourth Circuit.
Was Judge Roberts back then as Justices Thomas Scalia and Alito are today?
Are they all wrong?
Were they all lawless?
Are those four justices on the Supreme Court lawless?
Are they all for torture?
Is that what we're to assume here from the position you all are uh are taking?
This is the problem with dragging this war into the courtrooms.
I have warned about this.
These left wing lawyers knew it, they pushed for it, they've achieved it, and now McCain and Company are handing them rights within the trial process that further endanger our ability to win the war.
Because the focus is now not on protecting our citizens.
You gotta hear Susan Collins.
She spoke this morning on PMSNBC.
She was interviewed to question Do you think that the president was engaged in any hyperbole in his remarks from the White House when he said they're coming for us, meaning the terrorists, and at time is running out?
Is it in fact true that the CIA has stopped some interrogations because the Congress is not clarified the rules on this?
I'm not sure what the status of individual interrogation techniques is, but I'll tell you, we should be able to develop techniques that will allow the interrogators to get the information that they need without crossing that line into torture or other techniques that are completely unacceptable to us as Americans and that do not reflect our values.
So I disagree with the president when he says that the program would have to be terminated.
I think we can cla set clear standards for conducting the interrogation and for trying the detainees.
Yeah, baseb based on what knowledge and experience, Senator uh Senator what's her name?
Collins?
What is you're sure we can do?
This sounds like a Miss America pageant contestant.
Well, I am for world peace, you know, and like you know what I mean?
I want people to love each other, you know what I mean?
And I I'm I'm sure that we can come up with ways that get the information that we need, do not constitute torture, and I don't think we need to stop the program.
Well, you know, we need to stop the program.
We'll get w you i then nothing's wrong with it, right?
If we don't need to stop the program, nothing's wrong with the program.
Uh what else does she uh let's see and Hamlet Nora O'Donnell's question?
The White House, you believe the remarks from the White House when the president said they're coming for us, meaning the terrorists they just recently said the Pope now must die.
The Pope must die.
That is the statement from these militant Islamo fascists.
What do you mean they're coming for us?
This is uh continuing to utterly flabbergasted me.
What was 9-11?
What was the decade of the 1990s?
People have been waiting patiently.
John in Valhalla, New York, I'm glad you waited, and welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
You bet any time.
Uh yeah, I just uh wanted to say that um I have to imagine that John McCain's stance on all this is uh is you know when he talks about our image in the world, he's got to be talking about the Democrats, the Islamo fascists, and uh most of Europe, I would think.
Um there's no reason to think otherwise, and uh by my the last time I checked, most of those people believed that uh the U.S. was behind 9-11, so exactly what moral high ground is he trying to uphold with these people?
Yeah, well, I don't know that it's most, but there is certainly a um a rising percentage of people in the so-called mainstream who believe the U.S. government was behind the World Trade Center explosions in the Pentagon.
Uh that's that speaks for itself.
Uh but I I I think the um best way to answer this is to just take this back to a personal level.
This is the best way for people to understand this.
And I just ask you a question.
How many of you, either because of the way you were raised or just because the way you are, have gone through life trying to make everybody you're around happy?
How many of you have gone through life making sure you don't offend anybody?
And how many of you have gone through life making sure that uh doing what you can uh to make sure that everybody that you run into respects you, likes you, blah, blah, blah, loves you.
How long did it take you to learn that that is not possible, but you still kept trying?
And in the process of trying, how many of you ended up really not being who you are?
You had to end up deciding what everybody you wanted to love you and respect you expected you to be, and then try to be that.
And so, what was the result?
The result was that who you are got suppressed, maybe never even developed.
You may be the if you've done that, you're probably the biggest phony baloney plastic banana good time rock and roller, and you probably are primed to be elected to some office.
Because that's exactly what politicians do.
Why put their finger in the air, figure out which way the wind is blowing and get in the way of it?
And you after you do that, after you've gone out of your way, to make sure everybody likes you.
How many of you have discovered the utter failure that the people you most wanted to like you never did, never accepted you, the people that you were most trying to show you were not what they thought you were, be it a geek, be it a dork, be it an mean person.
How many of them just ended up laughing at you even more?
My point is that it is impossible.
When you win when we as a nation are gonna have five or six or ten or twelve people worried about our image in the world, I'm telling you, we're being ruled by a bunch of people that need couch time.
Serious, serious couch time, particularly in a war.
The only objective here is protecting American citizens, protecting American life.
But when people are going to step forward and say it's about our image in a world, what people think of us, we're dealing with a bunch of insecure nabobs whose only concern in life is that they personally are like, and so we're listening to people about whom it is all about them in their mind.
And that's what we're getting here, and that's what is so frustrating.
Because this, as an objective, to make sure everybody likes us, to make sure everybody looks up to us, to make sure everybody respects us.
Impossible.
Simply impossible.
And in fact, what we're talking about our enemies, this is the stuff that makes them laugh.
Can you believe it?
Bin Laden actually listens to all this or whoever, they really want us to like them.
He's laughing in the cave.
They want us to think they're good people.
Okay.
We'll be back, ladies and gentlemen.
Sit tight, don't go away, El Rush Ball with more rhetoric, residence and unique profound wisdom right around the corner.
Just got a note here from a uh a famous friend of mine who's a legal expert, who says, Rush, regarding Senator Graham, if we were at war with Iran, this is his hypothetical that CIA agent captured and so forth and put on trial without being given evidence and so forth, like we would be mad, you know what I mean?
If we were at war with Iran, by the way, some emails.
Rush, why are you all of a sudden saying, you know what I mean?
Well, because I've been hanging around young people lately, and that's how they talk.
And uh and I'm we know everybody wants the young audience.
We try to get to 12 to 18-year-olds as well as anybody else does, even some of the 18 to 24s, and I've been around some lately, and they all talk, you know what I mean?
After they say anything, they could make a statement, ask a question, you know what I mean?
It it's not even you know what I mean, it's just a bunch of syllables that sound like you know what I mean.
Um I'm just trying to relate to people, folks.
That's all.
If we were at war with uh with Iran, Iran, as I said, would be uh obligated by its membership in the Geneva Conventions to treat our soldiers as honorable prisoners of war, meaning they could not even be roughly interrogated, much less put on trial.
Common Article III has nothing to do with the prisoner of war provisions.
That's an entirely different part of the Geneva Convention.
That is, if Iran was conducting a trial of an American soldier or CIA agent, they would already be committing a war crime.
If they were disposed to do that in the first place, why would we expect the trial to be anything other than a sham?
But the real question is, what does any of this have to do with Al Qaeda?
What in the world are we getting examples from Senator Graham and Senator McCain about Iran or future prisoners of war down the line?
What?
It's all personal here, folks.
There's something going on that that has nothing to do with what they're talking about.
It can't possibly, and they're roping in, you know, some saps who think what they're saying sounds good, so I'll agree with them, and people think I'm touchy-feely, insensitive, and compassionate and uh and and all that.
Here's Doug in Pickerington, Ohio.
Doug, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Ditto's rush, I'm furious.
I'm going to make this as as quick as I can.
Um let's ask Mr. McCain a question.
Uh, what would happen if Al Qaeda took uh some uh some people prisoner on airplanes, and then they gave them uh what, maybe thirty minutes to live before flying them into the middle of the building, so the people would then be imprisoned on the top of the building, and they would have maybe 30 minutes to live before a building collapsed, or they jumped or they burned to death.
So I think that McCain has forgotten Somalia that the barbarism that goes on is they drag our soldiers through the streets out there, and McCain is nothing more than a useful idiot.
President Bush was doing useful good talk last week, strong hard talk to the media, and McCain has gotten in his way and stepped on his toes because McCain and Powell, they probably want to run for prison for president, vice president next year, and the ends don't justify the means, just like these Muslims, these radical Muslims, people they'll never win the world over with their religion because of the fact that their ends don't justify the means.
All right.
All right, passion from a caller.
I had no intention of interrupting you, and you could have gone on as long as you wanted within reason.
Thank you very much, Rush.
But I am I here today.
I mean, furious that Mr. McCain can't see the the force through the trees.
All right, wait a second.
See, that's the one thing you said that I wanted to ask him.
Do you really think he can't?
Uh no, it's it's simply one simple thing, Rush.
It's that his own political agenda and his own personal power is more important than anything else.
So that means if he has to separate him from the pact, which is the point that you made earlier, that he is separating himself from the rest of the Republicans.
He thinks he's gonna make an independent run next year, whatever he's gonna do, because he could never do it as a Republican.
He and Powell are probably gonna team up together, but the ends will not justify the means because they'll never get the nomination on the Republican side, the Republicans will join up, and they will squish him like a bug.
Because I've learned from you, moderates lose, independents lose.
Yeah, they do, because they don't stand for anything.
That's exactly right.
And he's not standing for anything here.
He needs to be standing for America, our American soldiers, and the lives of those who have been lost already.
He needs to stand for those.
And the American people.
See, the whole the whole issue here is about protecting America, American citizens.
Uh uh.
You know, you uh you're you're getting pardon me for my stuttering on this, folks, because I'm I'm I'm um I'm practicing a little restraint here.
But see, I I don't think Senator McCain is this short-sighted.
Senator McCain knows Al Qaeda's the enemy, and he knows they attacked us, and he supported the war on terror, and he supported the war in Iraq.
So there is something else going on here.
You may be right, it may be he wants to run for president with Powell, who knows about that, uh wants to do it as an independent.
As I say, there are theories floating around out there that McCain knows this country's not going to elect an independent candidate.
Besides, there's another guy thinking of doing that, and that's the uh mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg.
He's thinking of running as an independent.
Uh the country's not going to elect an independent president.
It just isn't going to happen.
Yeah, let me let me take that back.
The way things are headed, anything could happen.
Especially since it's so hard to identify who the Democrat-Republican nominees in 08 are going to be.
But regardless, uh the theory going around is that Senator McCain uh would benefit the most as a Republican candidate in the primaries in 08 if the party uh really just bottomed out in the November elections coming up,
lost the House, lost the Senate, that would create panic among Republicans after two years of Democrats in control, war trimes trials, uh in in speed in impeachment uh hearings, uh all of these investigations that subpoenas that the Democrats want to use.
Uh the theory is that McCain would uh thinks he would benefit from Republicans being so outraged by that that it would get him over the hump.
Uh so you have a theory that he's actually trying to I can't I just uh can't get my arms around it.
Um but I know there are people who think that there would be benefits to losing, and he may be one of them.
Hell I don't know.
But it's about far more than what he and Graham are saying it's about.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Chris from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Thanks for waiting, and welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Airborne Ditto's for Bragg Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks very much.
Hey, Rush, we we aren't like our enemy.
Our our enemy are true believers that are totally committed to our destruction.
And the questions we need to be asking are all this BS, it's not a good thing.
Now wait, wait, wait.
Wait, wait, hey hang hang on just a second.
Dang on just a second, Chris.
Do you realize what you just said?
Our enemies are true believers, totally committed to our destruction.
Do you know how many Americans do not believe that, don't want to even consider it?
Oh, that's right.
That's why I'm calling Rush.
I've served over there in both theaters.
I'm active duty military.
And I'm telling you, at the critical time right now, and all this minutiae and this BS and static is we've got to ask the question, where would we be right now with the war on terror if we had a hundred percent cooperation of the Congress and the media?
Because this divisiveness that is disguised as alternate patriotism is nothing more than self-serving politics and is providing our enemy with the means to protract the war, wear us down, and strike us again on their terms.
All right.
Let me ask you again.
Uh well, they ask it a different way.
How many people how how many how long is it going to take to get a majority of Americans uh of this mind?
Rush, it you know what it is?
It's it's got it it's gotta be the people that are pro uh you know opposing President Bush and the people that are opposing the war with all these side issues, because until they get on board, we won't.
I blame them for this protractive war, I blame them for the failures.
I told you I've been over there.
I served every day, and I watch the news because we get the news over there, and we get a sliver of the information on the media of what's really going on over there, and it's pathetic.
Uh let me ask you a uh uh not altogether hypothetical question.
Uh I'm just seeking your opinion here, but you seem passionate and informed about the enemy.
What is our duty to ourselves as a representative republic?
We have elected a president who um takes this threat very seriously and is doing everything he can uh to defeat the enemy.
As you noted, he has opponents largely in the opposition party, but some in his own party who are throwing up obstacles.
If the American people in future elections decide that this is all bogus, that this threat that you just described really doesn't exist.
Uh what is the responsibility of leaders to the nation to listen to the people who don't recognize the threat or don't want to recognize it, or to recognize it, deal with it, and protect the Constitution and the country.
Rush, this is a nation built on passion.
It really is.
And if you go back to the day of 911, when the people were running through the streets, when the buildings came down, there was no black, there was no white, there was no interest rate, there was no global warming.
It was we were united.
Oh my God, what have they done to us, and now it's time for Some payback.
We were not.
I hate to stop you there.
I hate to stop you there, Chris, but I don't believe that for a moment.
I don't believe we have ever been united about this.
And in fact, it was not a day or two later that a new group called Answer formed, and they f and and their first proclamation was a resolution demanding that we not respond militarily to the attack, and they had a lot of leftists sign onto it.
The unity myth is just that.
This is what's why my question, because if you're right that we will never be unified, then who what side wins in this?
Well, and that's why you gotta admire the president, because he has stayed committed.
I mean, he has taken some slings and arrows for his policies, but he has stayed as committed as the enemy, as my earlier point.
And I think that answers your question as best as I can is that if you know what right is, you had mentioned earlier about McCain, he knows what right is.
He ain't fooling me, just like he ain't fooling you.
But you gotta stay committed to what's right because you have the responsibility of those who elected you under you.
And it ain't about you.
It's like that for us in the military.
It's about the people that you lead.
Let me speak of that, let me before before I let you go, let me ask you this.
I want to make sure I'm right about this, because some people think that I'm sounding cruel, cold hearted, and insensitive.
Uh when the McCain crowd says that this is about protecting our soldiers, that we we can't we can't interpret common Article III.
We can't let the president go down this road of rough interrogations.
Uh we must keep it within the confines of the Geneva Conventions as structured and written, because we've got to protect our soldiers in the future.
What I have said to that is our soldiers know what we're getting into.
They they sign up.
They know they're trained if they're caught.
They know exactly what they're it's time to stop treating them as a bunch of helpless, no-nothing waifs who are in for a big bunch of surprises.
What this is really all about is defending and protecting the citizens of this country and keeping this country alive and the people who live in it alive.
Right.
Rush, it's a red herring.
The last two soldiers that were pulled out of those Humbies and captured by the enemy were so mutilated and so booby trapped, it took twelve hours to expel those bodies from the site.
So why are we worrying about a perceived treatment of our prisoners when we know exactly what they're doing to our soldiers?
You want to protect our soldiers, you kill the enemy.
Exactly.
Exactly.
You kill the enemy and you break their stuff, and you break their spirit.
You don't protect the soldiers by pulling them out of the fight, guaranteeing a defeat.
But that seems to be the it seems to be one of the objectives here of the McCain wing and the whole liberal wing uh is that our soldiers are somehow just grave risk.
Our soldiers, we we've got to redeploy to Okinawa, we gotta pull them out of there.
Why it's just it's it's it's it's it's inhumane what's happening to them.
We've got to get them out of there.
It's horrible, it's terrible.
What are they there to do?
This is the gallant United States armed forces made up of some of the finest Americans ever produced.
They volunteer.
They are not babies.
We don't send them over there, and then after a few rough days, ooh, guys, we feel so but we gotta pull them out.
That's not what they signed up for.
Chris, I appreciate the call.
Thank you very much.
Interesting piece uh in the Los Angeles Times today.
Uh this is an op-ed by a guy named Sam Harris, who's the author of The End of Faith, Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.
His next book, Letter to a Christian Nation will be published this week by Kanop.
And he is a lib.
He's a professed lib, and in this piece, he tells his fellow liberals that they are way off base.
Let me read you some excerpts, by the way.
Speaking of the LA Times, have you heard that David Geffen wants to pay cash for it?
Well, a bunch of Hollywood people say, hey, they read the story last week that the Tribune Company is going to force some cuts, and that the editor says, We're not cutting anybody, defied the home office, told the home office to go to hell.
And so now the uh bunch of Hollywood libs and leftists, uh, Southern California leftists want to come out and save the paper.
Just spend cash for it.
That's cool.
I mean, I'm not.
Uh at any rate.
Two years ago, writes Mr. Sam Harris, I published a book, highly critical of religion, The End of Faith.
In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict, and now prevent the emergence of a viable global civilization.
In response, I've received many thousands of letters and emails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid worker students, young people, and old, who occupy every point in a spectrum of belief and non-belief.
This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized.
I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.
And this difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.
Perhaps I should establish my liberal bona fides at the outset.
I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized, and homosexuals free to marry.
I also think the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years, especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, scuffling of science, and its fiscal irresponsibility.
But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world, specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about us, about paradise, and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.
This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that liberals are soft on terrorism.
It is, and they are.
A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world for reasons perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad.
The truth is that we are not fighting a war on terror.
We are fighting a pestilent theology and a longing for paradise.
This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet, and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.
Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope.
Numerous studies have found that most radicalized Muslims tend to have better than average educations and economic opportunities.
Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb and to believe that he'll get seventy-two virgins in paradise.
And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education, and American militarism.
At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9-11 were orchestrated by our own government.
Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism if not the decline of Western civilization.
There are books, films, conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks in the heart of liberalism.
That is that Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance if only given sufficient economic opportunities.
This, by the way, Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, Religion Terror, The Future of Reason, LA Times Today, and a documented confessed uh liberal, who received all kinds of complaint emails when he wrote the book, and he's analyzed them.
And the liberals have gone off the deep end.
Which is why I asked the question of Chris from Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
We supposed to what if these people become the majority?
We listen to them?
I'm telling you, they think they're the brightest people in the world, that all they have to do is go out and be nice.
They think the U.S. military is the focus of evil in the modern world.
I have told you that for years, this man confirms it in the liberal responses he got.
Yet the reason these people are attacking us is because they're uneducated and they're very poor, and uh and they're responding to our militarism around the world.
I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings, or saw the heads off journalists before their fantasy will dissipate.
The truth is that there is every reason to believe it a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam.
Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.
Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase Islamic fascism are a case in point.
Why liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this iron age madness?
Or while liberals should be the ones pointing the way behind this madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant, being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism, but they aren't.
That's again Sam Adams of Light Times and they will link to it at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Little long here, got to take a quick time out.
Back after this.
Hi, welcome back.
I think the funeral crashers are at it again.
Uh the funeral for Anne Richards.
You watching C. Spanner, could you turn to C-Spanning there for a minute?
I'm told that uh Hillary is talking politics at the Ann Richards funeral and yucking it up.
Uh out there, in which case uh it will be another case of the funeral crashers.
And that is Democrats taking over the funeral, a solemn occasion of the death and passing of one of their own to uh turn it into a political event.
Cookie's watching it out there.
If there's anything more menus, we'll get audio sound bites from it.
Here in the meantime is Tony in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Welcome, sir.
Hello, Rush.
It's great to talk to the great one.
Thank you, sir.
Uh my statement had to deal with uh I think it was a tremendous and profound misunderstanding of what Pope Benedict has done and what he's tried to accomplish.
I've read a lot of uh There's nothing, there's there's nothing miss there, there's not a misunderstanding at all about any of this.
Well, I think what people are misunderstanding is that he was trying to uh discuss about opening up a dialogue with Muslims, but to do it through faith, and here's the the important point reason.
Now, his he quoted and he said twice before he read that statement.
I quote, twice he said, I quote.
Yeah, that's what nobody misunderstands this.
Well, the thing of it is is that how are we going to have dialogue with people that have this characterization that goes back?
Now, they played right into them, Rush.
They played right into them in terms of they became what they're protesting.
They be exactly Well, they are who they are, and they're not afraid to be who they are.
And that's I think this is what Benedict was trying to promote is that we want to have a dialogue with you, but how are we going to do it when you're trying to kill us and you this thought has gone back nearly six hundred years.
I keep asking the question.
How do you negotiate with people whose starting point is your death?
Exactly.
I mean, and if you look at his apology, he doesn't retract what he said.
In fact, uh he said I these aren't my statements are not attributed to me.
Look, look, there's there's there's no misunderstanding.
What the Pope said is irrelevant.
If you read the whole speech, uh you will see that what you're saying is correct.
But that that's not what this is about.
It's just like those Danish cartoons of the prophet.
That's just an opportunity for the renomobs to be put and paraded in front of willing, accomplice photographers to spread the image of angry militant, intolerant Muslims who think once again they've been mil misaligned.
This these people go nuts here.
Yes, this is an out of control theology, but it's also an ideology.
And it seeks to intimidate and suppress any disagreement whatsoever, even if there is none.
All it takes a couple buzzwords, and they get the pictures they want.
They're burning effigies of the Pope now.
They're now clamoring for the Pope's death.
I mean, you're right.
Their behavior illustrates precisely what the Byzantine Emperor that the Pope quoted said.
Uh this is the thing about it, but nobody wants to face the threat yet.
There aren't enough people who want to deal with this for what it is.
And so it's gonna take a lot more than this to uh disturb people up.
Uh anyway, I have a brief uh break I must take, ladies and gentlemen.
The Hard break, as they say, programming format requires it.
Man, it's already uh into the third hour here almost.
And I got lots of stuff left to go on the stacks here.
We're gonna run through it pretty quickly, as well as your phone calls.
You sit tight, folks.
▲
Export Selection