All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:08
September 25, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, welcome back, my friends.
L. Rushball serving humanity simply by showing up.
America's real anchor man with talent.
So much talent on lawn from God.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Lots of other stuff to do.
I've got one more segment here of Clinton stuff that will be done with it.
I want to give you a contrast here of how Clinton is treated elsewhere in the media.
We put together a montage of Larry King, Meredith Vieira at uh NBC, Greta Van Susteren on Fox, Tim Russert, and uh another guy at uh I don't have his name, MSN, but Keith Keith Oberman, I think it is, at MS uh NBC, all interviewing uh former President Clinton, j just to contrast the treatment he has been used to uh for well since 1992 of the presidential campaign 93.
Now the purpose of your initiative overall is to make the world a better place, right?
How's your health?
Did you see the Al Gore movie?
If you had a genie, what wish would you want, Granted?
You have lots of intelligence.
The New York Times recently ran a front-page article about your marriage.
Do you think that was fair?
How's your new best friend, uh, President Bush 41?
What do you think is the biggest problem confronting our world?
The biggest.
This was transcendent these last three days.
The number of people that you reached here and the convictions and the generosity.
Here's eight more schools in Kenya for me.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
Now we go back to Fox News.
These people all live in their own little world.
It's a circle.
Uh uh back to Fox News Sunday.
Uh Chris Chris Wallace says, I mean, mr. President, you seem upset, and all I can say is I'm asking you all this in good faith because it's on people's minds, sir.
There's a reason it's on people's minds because there's been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression.
The people on my political right who say I didn't do enough spent the whole time I was president saying, why is he so obsessed with Baden?
That was tape, stop tape.
We have nuked that one, folks, blown it out of the water.
If you've missed it, uh it'll be in the website, Rushlinbaugh.com, and we update later this afternoon uh on our podcasts.
Uh for those of you that uh get them, they're free to members at Rush 24-7.
We've gone line by line in this uh parents yesterday and nuked the whole thing and blown it to smithereens.
Let's let's finish this bite here.
That was Wag the Dog when he tried to kill them.
And you guys try to create the opposite impression when all you have to do is read Richard Clark's findings, and you know it's not true.
It's just not true.
And all this business about Somalia, uh, the same people that criticize me about Somalia were demanding I leave the next day.
The same exact crap.
So if you're gonna do this, for God's sakes, follow the same standards for everybody.
I think we did be flat and fair.
I think we did.
And we've documented that the tough questions that have been asked of various administration officials about the war on terror by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.
Uh a couple Richard Clark bites uh here.
This is uh early August of 2002.
Richard Clark spoke to reporters, and in the conversation, he describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Clark says, I've got about seven points.
The first point, I think the overall point is there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Here is Clark laying out point number five.
Uh decided in principle uh in the spring.
And to increase the IA resources, for example, uh covered action.
Remember, Clark says uh the overall point there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from Clinton to Bush.
Uh and Clark next says that Bush uh Bush's uh uh I'm not sure.
There, let's listen to what he says.
Over the course of five years.
But it has been a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al-Qaeda.
That was Richard Clark in early 2002 saying that uh that uh Bush changed strategy from a rollback of Al-Qaeda to elimination of Al Qaeda.
And I just I just wanted to set all this straight because Clinton is citing Richard Clark in his book as the world's foremost authority on all of this.
Uh and what we had was classic Clinton.
I mean, there was nothing new here uh in terms of Clinton's personality, his character, lying prevarication, all of that that went on for eight whole years.
And I think one of the things this is going to do is make the countries, do we want all if Hillary is elected, do we want to go through this every day?
All of this all over again.
She's not doing well in Iowa.
I've got a story here in the stack.
David Yepsen at the uh Des Moines Register, her polling data is horrible.
Uh and so is Vilsax, the governor out there.
They're both plummeting in uh in polls in which they're matched up against a variety of Republican nominees.
Now, uh one thing, just to wrap this up, this is uh from a Byron York story, National Review, December 17th of 2001, about three months after 9-11.
In early August of 96, a few weeks after the Cobart Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history, his legacy.
Morris divided presidents into four categories: first, second, third, and fourth tier.
And all the well, first, second, third, then all the rest.
Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category.
Just five presidents, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt made Morris' first tier.
Clinton asked Morris where he stood.
Morris said, I said it the moment he was at the top of the unrated category, Morris recalls.
Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president's standing had a little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office.
Yeah, Clinton responded, it has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it.
Clinton then asked, Well, what do I need to do to be in that first tier?
Morris said, you can't.
You have to win a war.
Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals.
The first was successful welfare reform, or Republican idea.
The second was balancing the budget, Republican idea, and the third was an effective battle against terrorism.
I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism, Morris says.
And this is not a recent recollection.
Morris also described the conversation in his 97 book, Behind the Oval Office.
Now I'm reading to you from a story, December 2001.
Clinton never began, much less finished a war on terrorism, even though Morris's polling showed that the poll-sensitive president of the American people supported tough action, Clinton demoured.
Why?
Morris explains he had almost an allergy to using people in uniform.
He was terrified of incurring casualties.
The lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him.
He lacked of faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.
But there was more to it than that.
On another level, Morris says, I just don't think it was his thing.
You could talk to him about income redistribution, and he would talk to you for hours and hours.
Talk to him about terrorism, and all you'd ever get was a series of grunts.
And Morris has been consistent about this, by the way, since 2001, saying all these things.
Clinton really never cared about it, didn't want to deal with it.
And that's the key to understanding Clinton's handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House.
It just wasn't his thing.
Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era.
Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he'll be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401k balances.
He's right about that too.
This is from five years ago.
Myron York National Review.
Back in just a second, my friends, as we scoot along here in the EIB network.
Well, the gasoline price continues to plummet, and oil, what is it now?
Below sixty dollars a barrel.
It is continued to uh are expected to continue plummeting through October.
U.S. retail gas prices dropped nearly twenty-four cents a gallon the past two weeks, a third consecutive decline since a mid-August peak, according to a survey, the Lundberg survey, 7,000 gas stations across the country.
National average for self-served regular about 242 a gallon on September 22nd down from about 265 two weeks earlier.
And uh I checked the National Hurricane Center website.
I went out there and I looked at it.
It's all quiet out there.
There are no tropical storms to report at this time.
That's just not playing out the way the Democrats thought it was going to play out.
The post-Labor Day scenario by now, they had hoped we'd had four or five destructive hurricanes, showing how Bush ineptly runs the administration and FEMA and all that, but it ain't happening.
And now the uh the Alaska pipeline's been repaired.
That's one of the reasons the price of uh of crude oil is coming down.
Nothing's working out.
Clinton blows his stack and implodes on Fox News Sunday.
Uh, it just the scenario isn't playing out.
Then Mike Allen in Time magazine headline, why the Democratic Wave could be a washout.
I'm telling you folks, there have been there's one of one of these stories at least maybe two every week now, and there have been for three or four weeks in a row.
And I know what's happening.
The drive-by's for this whole year have been saying a Democrats going to win back the house, it's a fate of compliment, maybe even win the Senate.
Now they're setting themselves up.
They're getting themselves ready in case it doesn't happen.
They're sending out the warning signs.
American voters have been in a bad mood lately.
Don't think highly of President Bush's performance, aren't crazy about the war.
They certainly don't like the GOP led Congress.
However, the poll cites a drop off in turnout for most Democrat primaries this year is one sign the Democrats aren't strong enough to mount a takeover of power on Capitol Hill.
This is a wave election.
Moments like this have produced what political scientists call wave elections, in which voters uh oust even lawmakers who didn't seem vulnerable, but none of the scenarios are working out.
Why the Democrat wave could be a washout.
The wife out, uh the the wave, the whole theory of this environment is not consistent with a surge election.
Other words, the conditions aren't great, but maybe the Democrats' wave won't be quite big enough to let them surf into power.
They're getting themselves ready.
Another story, Washington Post today.
Both parties censing tighter house races.
After months of unrelenting bad news, President Bush and his allies have begun to change the mood, if not the overall trajectory of a midterm election campaign that is tilted against him for a year.
Democrats are so panicked, they are once again trying to destroy George Allen in uh in Virginia.
They have found a guy who was with Allen some years ago, many, many years ago, who's all of a sudden now.
Come out and say, Well, you know, this guy was a racist, he was a sexist, he used the n-word on the football team.
This guy's bad news.
Why, after all of these years, after 17 years, George Allen has been in the state assembly, he's been a governor, he's been a congressman, he's been a senator.
Now he's running for president, and all of a sudden, why his mother is Jewish, and that's supposedly a crime when Madeline Aldwright announced that uh she had Jewish blood in her family.
Well, it was cause to celebrate.
But George Allen's an anti-Semite because he has been hiding it.
Yeah, and his father even worked in a business where they used pig skin.
This is unspeakable.
It is despicable.
This was a reporter from a local TV station in Washington asking Allen about his mother's religion as though that matters.
It does if you're a Republican.
The macaque thing they won't let go of.
This is pure panic mode, ladies and gentlemen, and it's typical of Democrats.
They can do nothing but smear.
They can't beat George Allen on the issues, and neither can James Webb, his opponent.
They can't win debates on issues.
They can't beat him.
They have to smear every one of their opponents to get rid of them because that's all they've got.
From the Des Moines Register, David Yepsen, today's Iowa poll published yesterday, by the way.
Today's Iowa poll of the 2008 race for president in Hawkeye State ought to make Republicans happy and cause a pause on the Democrat side.
It's particularly bad news for Governor Tom Vilsack and Senator Hillary Clinton, two Democrats gearing up for that contest.
We ask likely Iowa voters what they do in some hypothetical hypothetical 2008 matchups in the state.
The two GOP frontrunners, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, beat the Democrat front runners, Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry.
Giuliani beats Clinton 5637.
Edwards 5143.
McCain defeats Clinton 5437.
Edwards, 4746, and Kerry, 5339.
The poll also ought to chill the Sunday muffins at Terrace Hill this morning.
There are 57% of likely Iowa voters who think it's a bad idea to Vilsack run for president.
Only 26% think that it's a uh good idea, 17% are not sure.
Not looking good in Iowa for Hillary Clinton against anybody, and what uh just it just goes to show all this BS that we've seen from polling data over the course of this year reported as news is meaningless.
As I have constantly tried to explain to people, polls about an election that take place nine months out are worthless, other than in trying to craft public opinion early.
Back to the phones, Eileen in Tampa.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
It's really an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
I uh and uh just to comment on Clinton yesterday.
I was really surprised that he did not uh come out and blame the right wing and the uh and uh for focusing uh changing his focus from his presidency with Monica Lewinsky and all the t the attacks that he had um that were launched on him and making him basically ineffective when um if you recall all the talking heads that he would send out Stephanopoulos, Podesta, and everything, we would go on and on about how brilliant this man was, how he could compartmentalize.
Wait, wait.
Uh I'm confused.
All he did yesterday was blame the right wing.
Well, yeah, but uh he didn't mention, of course, his th his scandal or anything like that, and um with Monica uh and it was not.
Oh, you mean he didn't blame the Republicans and the conservatives for distracting him as president on this baseless uh Lewinsky and impeachment charge.
Correct, correct.
Because if you recall, he would get up, he would get questioned uh about this.
Isn't this in a distraction for you?
And he would constantly, every say in every press conference, whenever he took questions, I just get up every morning trying to do the best I can for the American people.
That's an excellent point.
Let me tell you why.
That's an excellent question, and I'm gonna explain it to you.
Because Clinton's trying to wipe that memory from everybody.
He doesn't want people to think of Lewinsky.
He doesn't want people to think of impeachment.
Legacies don't get built on those.
He has been busy since he left office trying to establish a legacy of world compassion, poverty relief, tsunami relief, uh, philanthropy, uh, and tough on the war on terror.
He no he d listen to Dick Morris's point, you've got to win a war if you want to end up in a top tier of presidents.
They're trying to create after the fact a legacy of Bill Clinton leading the world against bin Laden, trying harder than anybody else ever did to get him, getting oh so close, but not getting him at least.
Clinton tried to try to create a false impression, revisionist history.
The last thing he wants to do is blame Republicans or anybody for an episode he know he wants nobody to remember.
Absolutely.
But also, uh Rush, could I also comment that I agree with you wholeheartedly uh when you mention Hillary, uh, if there was ever a reason to keep her out of the White House, this is it, because we would be spending four years of hearing this kind of thing over and over again, and he would have her platform, her presidency, to go on and on and try to patch up the the his shortcomings uh over the eight years that he had that office.
And if I was her, I would dump him.
Well, uh, I'll tell you the uh the the situation here with the future Clinton presidency uh is probably haunting to a lot of people.
This episode will remind uh a lot of people of what it would be like because it was a period of time of constant spin being pampered by drive-by media.
Uh uh and it would be more and more narcissism.
I did this and I will do this, and we did this, and I don't think it's uh I don't think it's something that uh anybody or a majority of people want to go through again.
But it is interesting that uh you know, he blamed the right wing.
Hillary vast right wing conspiracy for Monica.
They put her in the White House.
You know, they they set her husband up.
Was all I mean it was just pathetic, pathological, but they don't want to bring any of that up, and it just goes to show you how that movie, The Path to 9-11 has blown every one of their plans to Smitterines.
Ah, if that's what you want, you are in the right place, at the right place.
One of over 600 great radio stations nationwide.
I think we still have that Trinidad Tobago pirate outfit down there broadcasting.
It's okay.
Here's this story from Salon.com about George Allen.
Uh headline teammates, Allen used N-word in college.
Three members of Senator George Allen's college football team remember a man with a racist attitudes at ease using racial slurs by Michael Shearer.
Now, in juxtaposition with Bill Clinton's interview yesterday, this kind of stuff is typical for Republican candidates during election time.
Smear, smear, smear.
We know what has happened to George W. Bush with the National Guard story, all of that.
Democrats don't get these kind of stories.
Democrats never get themselves prepared for these kinds of questions or attacks, because the mainstream media doesn't go after them this way.
The mainstream media is not interested in smearing Democrats, including people like Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
He is still portrayed as, well, a guy grew up poor, sharecropper's son, always wanted money.
Can you blame him in this racist sexist society?
Here's George Allen who has done nothing to anybody ever.
Hasn't stolen, hasn't pilfered, hasn't done diddly squat, comes in a great family, has to be destroyed by the drive-by media now because he might win his Senate re-election and he might become a presidential nominee.
Um it's disgusting what they are doing to this guy, but it is typical.
It happens to a lot of Republicans.
First, a hack working for James Webb, uh working with left-wing kook bloggers over the macaca garbage.
Then they attack George Allen over his Jewish grandmother, grandfather, whatever it was.
And now these Lib SOBs are literally trying to destroy him.
Over the past week, Salon.com has interviewed 19 former teammates and college friends of George Allen from the University of Virginia.
In addition to the three who said Allen used the word the N-word, two others were contacted, said they remember being bothered by Allen's displaying the Confederate flag in college, but said they don't remember him acting in an overtly racist manner.
Seven others said they didn't know Allen well outside the football team, but they don't remember George Allen demonstrating any racism.
Seven others said they didn't know Allen well outside the team, but they don't remember Allen demonstrating any racist feelings, separate seven teammates and friends said they knew Alan well, didn't believe he held racist views.
Uh so we what we have here, folks, is is a bunch of literal garbage.
One guy says he remembers all this use of the N-word.
Two other guys think they remember something about the Confederate flag.
Fourteen others say they don't remember seeing any of this, and the cover story and the headline is Alan used N-word.
And the one guy that remembers all this is now some some hack working uh at an anti-tobacco pack or 527 or uh or some such thing.
The constant smears of the left and poor old Bill Clinton, who never has gotten a taste of it from his own side.
He never had to ask answer questions the American Spectator.
He never had to answer questions from Newsmax, he never had to answer questions from me.
He never had to answer questions from his critics, and he didn't have any critics in the drive-by media.
So he finally tiptoes onto Fox, gets one little innocuous question and blows up because they aren't used to it.
They don't expect it.
They expect to be pampered.
They expect to be coddled.
They expect their lives to be amplified and covered.
He couldn't handle it just like that movie, a few good men.
Here's Gwynne in Alexandria, Virginia.
Hi, Gwane, nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
I was watching the show the other morning, and I heard Bill Clinton tell Chris Wallace uh his hands were tied.
Did his own administration tie his hands and couldn't he just give it an executive order to go through this?
Uh well he says he did.
That not an executive order, it's called a presidential finding.
I mean, the official term is the president has to issue a finding.
He claims he did.
That's his point.
He did, and the CIA and the FBI wouldn't go do it.
Oh.
And they're saying no, we never got the authority.
You know, here he's dumping on it.
You're right, he's dumping on his own administration.
He's acting like his own CIA and his own FBI stopped him and wouldn't let him do it.
M Dick Morris's point is he didn't want to do it.
He didn't want to use the military.
He was loath to use military people, particularly ground troops.
He did not want the fallout.
He didn't want reprisals.
He was afraid of failure, what it might do to his approval numbers, which was all that mattered because he was trying to craft a legacy.
Don't forget.
Don't forget, folks, we need to remind you when 9 11 happened, it was Clinton administration people wandering around saying, oh, why couldn't this have happened on our watch so our guy had a chance for greatness?
And the reason for that was that Bill Clinton had been told by Dick Morris, you want to be in a top tier of presidents, you gotta win a war.
And they were jealous that this had happened on Bush's watch and that he had the chance for greatness.
And ever since they have been undermining George W. Bush.
Hell Clinton's on Fox News Sunday saying, I never criticize President Bush.
I can't believe what the right wingers are doing to me.
He went on Meet the Press Sunday and just lay basted Bush on the war and the war on terror, and he's done it on foreign soil for the last uh number of years.
Davos Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, World Economic Forum.
So it's just he's just being cowardly when he says um that the FBI and the CIA wouldn't follow his orders.
I gave him I gave him that finding.
I told him go kill Bin Laden, and then they just wouldn't do it.
It's it really is it's embarrassingly pathetic, uh, Gwen.
I mean, when you when you when you strip all this away, it's just embarrassing.
Uh if if if uh he wasn't such a promiscuous president, do you think Americans would take him more seriously?
I don't know how many don't uh until yesterday.
Um, you know, in in certain circles, his uh his legacy creation and crafting has worked pretty well.
I mean, he's uh uh I I am you know let me think about that.
I don't actually know that that's the case.
I know it is in some quarters.
I think one of the reasons and I was asking uh who was this.
It was during the movie The Path of 911.
I was talking to somebody.
I said, you know what's amazing to me?
There hasn't been one ranking member of that administration to f to to to fall out and to um uh leak about some of the incompetence that went on in this administration.
Like they it goes on in every administration.
There hadn't been one.
Everybody stands behind, builds him up, tries to cover Sandy Burglar even even risked jail time to steal documents out of the National Archives, and who knows what he put back in there.
Risk humiliation, risk jail time, got a ten thousand dollar fine, all that to protect Bill Clinton.
You gotta wonder what is it that can make people do this.
One of the things is fear.
Another thing that can make them do it is desire for their own legacies not to trumble.
Because if Clinton goes down, they all do.
If Clinton's made to look like an idiot, they're all gonna look like idiots.
And if that starts to happen, if Clinton's legacy project falls apart, then you may see some people trying to protect their own reputations if they can get over the fear factor.
But I mean it's it's um uh an amazing thing, and I think because there haven't been all these defections uh like like there are in other administrations.
Uh some people don't have the uh impression of the Clinton administration as as it really was.
Although I think the I think the real truth is I don't think Bill Clinton's on that many people's minds anymore, and I think he's doing his best to keep himself on as many people's minds as possible.
Most people move forward.
Democrats look backward.
Uh they try to find their strength in their past, because there's nothing they see going forward that looks promising.
It's like we talked about this earlier.
It's like this uh national intelligence estimate story in the in the Sunday New York Times, uh Which is a it's been around since April.
Did you know that?
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Been around since April.
It's got a lot of stuff in it.
There's one little passage here that some people think, some people are speculating, some people are considering the possibility that moving into Iraq has increased the number of terrorists.
Nobody says it conclusively, nobody proves it, nobody can.
So it shows up and the New York Times sees, whoa, somebody leaks this to them.
Another leak from April is how old this is.
And they run with it and they're trying to create, but it's it's not anything to worry about, folks.
It's just another replay of a same old page in the playbook, Bush created terrorists, as though nothing happened on the terrorism front up until September 11th of 2001.
There weren't any terrorist attacks, in fact.
Did you know that?
That's right.
There were no terrorists in the world prior to December September 11th of 2001.
And then we got hit by Al-Qaeda and Bush goes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now we're creating all these terrorists.
Well, I think if that's well, it's not true, but in one sense, the following is true.
One of the most interested groups of readers of the New York Times is terrorists.
They probably learn more about what this administration plans.
They learn more about what this administration is trying to do to catch them than they do from any place else in the New York Times.
And now here comes the Times with this national intelligence estimate story, which is another leak.
The real concerning thing to me is that if some in the intelligence community are more concerned with destroying a sitting president and administration than they are in dealing with the problem we face worldwide, then we've got a fundamental systemic problem.
Uh New York Times takes it and moves forward.
Let's talk about the New York Times.
As you know, the Times is running into tough times economically.
They had to lay off 50 journalists last year in the midst of a booming economy.
In spite of that, they've hired new perfume critic.
I kid you not.
They have hired a perfume critic.
Of these fifty journalists laid off, who knows what some of them are doing now, probably working in burger joints.
They don't have any health insurance, they're not earning a living wage.
May have to be working in the spinach fields now for all we know, having to do jobs that Americans will not do.
Maybe they're mowing lawns off the books.
But they're out there, fifty journalists canned at the New York Times.
However, that was last year.
You know the hiring freeze has been lifted.
They hired the perfume critic, uh, which probably will provide readers a guide to all the stink that's fit to print in the New York Times.
And get this.
They hired a new position.
They created a new position out there, futurist in resident resident, and I am not making this up.
They have hired a futurist in residence.
The job filled by a former Washington Post executive executive Michael Rogers.
Now here's what the Times says this new futurist will do.
He has unique insights into the confluence of digital technology, consumer behavior, and journalism.
His duties as futurist in residence will be to help the New York Times continuously deliver the innovative information products and services that their readers expect.
Now, on the surface, this sounds like a fun gig.
At least it does to me.
You hired as a futurist, you sit around, look around at all the new technology and gizmos that you think will meet the expectations of loyal New York Times readers.
Now, as we know, many of those loyal readers are terrorists who internationally, here and internationally looking for the latest leak to find out how the Bush administration intends to capture them.
So what could the New York Times futurist in residence do to serve that readership?
Well, I have the perfect idea.
Mr. Rogers, use the confluence of digital technology to provide national security leaks to the terrorists, not on the front page.
Because they don't get it any faster that way than anybody else gets it.
they have to sit around and wait for the front page, why it may take a while for the front page to get to the caves in Pakistan and Afghanistan or wherever they are.
But you can do it in real time, Mr. Rogers.
Just leak all of this terror data that you get from scabs in the Bush administration and put it out there on their cell phones.
We know that terrorists have cell phones.
Put it out there first.
Give your terrorist readers innovation.
Don't make them wait for the front page.
You really want to ramp up the time's service to your devoted loyal readership.
Put these leaks, such as the NIE and the NSA foreign surveillance program.
Don't wait for the internet.
Don't wait for the printed paper.
Put this news on cell phones exclusively beamed to terrorists around the world and in this country, and you will in fact be innovating, and you'll get to them even faster, and they can prepare even better for the dastardly unconstitutional, mean-spirited attempts by the Bush administration to bring them to judges.
By the way, Clinton uh says he was obsessed with bin Laden, right?
And uh he says Republicans are mad at him for being obsessed with bin Laden.
Uh Clinton wrote an autobiography called My Liefe.
Uh, and his first mention of terrorism appears on page 574.
His uh first reference to Al Qaeda happens on page 797 in a 957-page book.
Uh that doesn't sound like obsession to me.
No wonder he has to quote Clark, which, by the way, Clark's book does not do what Clinton thinks or says that it does, as we have demoed.
Hagerstown, Maryland, Howard, thanks for waiting and welcome.
Hey, Rush.
I want to say that uh Chris Chris Wallace interview reminded me so much of uh incident that happened a few years ago, and you broadcast it so well and repeatedly on your TV show when uh he was walking away, Clinton was walking away from the Ron Brown funeral.
Oh, he was walking to it.
He was walking into it.
Oh, into it, I'm sorry.
And you know, he was joking, yucking it up at Tony, and then all of a sudden he looked over and saw the cameras and you go, oh, you know, got the sad look.
And I thought, every so often we see the real face of Clinton.
You know, before the before he saw the cameras on him, he'd yucking it up with a buddy, and then all of a sudden he sees the cameras, and when the camera was on him the other day, it just we saw the face, they had the anger out.
But everyone's gonna be able to do it.
Look at it, in the in the in the past, the Ron Brown episode was unique, which is what made it stand out.
In the past, Clinton's temper was reserved for behind closed doors.
We only read about it in Stephanopoulos' book and a couple of others.
We never read about this stuff.
We never saw this side of Bill Clinton.
Well, we saw it once in a construction project when some uh some goofball.
Uh yeah.
Yeah, Eleanor Holmes Norton sent him up to some construction project, and uh it didn't go well, and he he sidled up to some underling and said, shaking his finger at him next time you do this, you don't do this to the president.
Next time you do this, you die, or sometimes you get fired or whatever it was.
But we really didn't see that side of uh of Clinton.
They kept it under wraps, and as did he, which is what makes this even more remarkable.
Uh is lost it.
Lost the Clinton composure.
There wasn't any biting of the lower lip, there wasn't any expression of sadness and sorrow when he said he failed.
Uh he is who he is.
I I you know what?
Uh there just isn't enough time.
If I were a caller and the host said we got 30 seconds, what do you want to say?
I, of course, as a highly trained broadcast specialist could do it.
But to expect that of many of you who've been on hold for so long and then to have the phone picked up, okay, 30 seconds, make it count, uh, is just not fair.
So I appreciate all of you.
Uh we'll try to get back some of you tomorrow, regardless.
What's will happen between now and then, whatever it is will be on top of it.
Back after this to wrap it up.
I know, I know these kinds of shows are somewhat painful having to relive all those horrors of the 90s, but somebody has to do it.
Not one major network has examined the factual lies told by Bill Clinton in that interview.
▲
Export Selection