All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:30
September 29, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh, no, how can this be?
This doesn't know.
No, no, this doesn't jibe, folks.
Doesn't make sense.
Well, I was a little late here getting started.
This doesn't make sense.
No, no, I'll tell you about it in a minute.
All right.
Well, I guess we should start, folks.
EIB Network, Hell Rush Mo Friday.
Move on.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Lime Friday.
Oh, yip, yip, yahoo.
Open Line Friday, some people's favorite day of the week.
Because when we go to the phones and turn the program over to you, it's basically your show.
You are host, producer, creator.
You talk about whatever you want to talk about.
It doesn't have to be something I am interested in, which is the case Monday through Thursday.
Look at me as a benevolent dictator.
Ladies and gentlemen, no First Amendment on this program.
You don't have a right to speak unless I grant it.
And you certainly don't have a right to be heard.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address today, rush at EIBNet.com.
Lots of great stuff on tap today.
Well, it didn't take long for this.
After only two episodes, producers CBS, the TV show Survivor, you know, they segregated all those tribes by race and by ethnicity.
But after only two episodes, the segregation has ended.
They have merged the black, white, Asian, and Latino tribes into two mixed race gangs.
There can only be one reason for this, ladies and gentlemen.
That is the white tribe had to be winning.
Were it not for that, there would be none of this mixed gang business going on after only two episodes.
Got an email yesterday from someone who had a great time listening to me dissect that idiotic piece from the San Francisco Chronicle on how we're just screwed.
If we pull out of Iraq, it doesn't mean the terrorists will stop.
I still can't get over this story.
And that if we stay, it's bad.
And if we leave, it's bad.
And Carol Hill wrote in Rush, I listened to you dissect the piece from the experts in the San Francisco Chronicle say that even if we pull out of Iraq, the Islamofascists will continue to fight us.
And if we don't pull out, we'll continue making them matter and cause them to continue fighting us.
And if we stay, we've got problems.
But in the final analysis rush, it probably doesn't matter anyway, since in less than 10 years, we're going to literally be toast as a result of our overindulgence in the use of fossil fuels and SUVs and the like.
So we might stick our heads between our legs and kiss our collective rear ends goodbye.
It's over, except for the cremation anyway.
Democrats in 06, you're going to die or you're going to die.
Vote for us.
We have confidence.
We're going to die.
If we stay in Iraq, we're going to die.
Global warming.
Have you heard about Al Gore?
Al Gore had an invitation to speak in the United Nations, extended by his old buddy, Kofi Annan.
He spoke.
There were a thousand people in the audience.
He spoke for three hours.
The audience was the audience ended up being numb.
Three hours.
Do you know what he said?
He said, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming even that cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming.
Here is sort of a transcript.
He was invited by an old friend, retiring Secretary General Kofi Allen, or Annan, and he spent the entire evening slamming anybody and just about everyone on planet Earth for the global warming dilemma.
He said Greenland runs a real risk of splitting in two.
And if that happens, substantial parts of Manhattan, Shanghai, and Bombay will disappear.
He didn't mention what might happen to Montreal, which is a lot closer to Greenland than Manhattan or Bombay.
Maybe he doesn't care about the welfare of Canadians.
Certain species of frogs and many other amphibians are decreasing at a rate 1,000 times greater than normal.
Cigarette smoking is a significant contributor to global warming.
About one-third of the audience left before he finished.
There was a Q ⁇ A after he finished.
Not one person asked him about the claim that cigarette smoking is a significant cause of global warming, significant contributor to global warming, because the audience was numb.
They were just literally numb.
The pictures, I wish I could show you the pictures accompanying this.
Now, here's what I was looking at when the program started.
Two stories here.
New study.
U.S. middle class in worse shape than ever.
Yes, it's election time.
It's doom and gloom time.
It's time for Bob Woodward book, which is predictable.
It's just doom and gloom.
So here's the results of the study.
A typical double-income family worse off financially than ever.
A study released on Thursday said warning that few Americans have saved enough money to brace for financial setbacks.
Middle-class families struggling to pay for a home, health insurance, transportation, and their children's college with wages that have not kept pace with higher prices, according to the study, die by a think tank headed by a former top aide to President Bill Clinton.
The middle class's financial condition has been a key issue ahead of the November elections.
In our estimates, it's becoming harder for families to afford what we consider a typical middle-class lifestyle, said economist Christian Weller of the Center for American Progress, the political think tank headed by political hack John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff.
All right, so U.S. middle class in worse shape than ever.
Now, here it is.
What is September 29th?
Story from Reuters.
It's only September, but inflatable Santa decorations were already on display at a newly opened Walmart store here in Chicago this week as U.S. retailers try to jumpstart what looks to be a decent but unspectacular holiday shopping season.
Falling gasoline prices have lowered price.
Chains feeling pretty good about the all-important November-December shopping period, but a wobbly housing sector will likely hold back sales at stores that sell big-ticket items such as furniture.
Most industry watchers think holiday sales growth will be more modest than last year, a surprisingly strong, surprisingly strong.
More doom and gloom.
It's already in the cards.
You people are going to make this Christmas so unmemorable for retailers and yourselves because falling gas prices have you suspecting a conspiracy.
Meanwhile, gasoline prices are falling, but the housing market's going to hell, which means you people aren't buying new houses, which means you don't need furniture, refrigerators, TVs, and all that.
Besides, you don't want to buy a TV anyway, because already this year, six of them have fallen over on young children and killed them.
It's just horrible.
It's rotten out there.
Already we are proclaiming the holiday season dead on September 29th.
But then there's this.
This just doesn't follow.
It doesn't make sense.
Suicide rates among the youngest and oldest Americans have steadily declined since the late 1980s.
According to U.S. researchers, in a finding that contradicts popular concepts about the fact that suicide rates were rising, the study suggests the new antidepressant drugs may not raise the risk of suicide after all.
Well, God, I would hope not.
So, Christmas is going to suck.
It's worthless.
You people aren't going to buy anything because you can't afford it because the middle class is in the worst condition, the worst shape it's ever been in the history of the middle class.
And yet, you aren't killing yourselves.
You are not despondent.
Maybe, my friends, it is because it's because things are so bad.
Not even suicide will help.
Yes, yes, yes, it's so bad out there, ladies and gentlemen.
Not even suicide will help.
Yes, I know.
We're going to get to the president.
We're going to get to a lot of stuff.
I got Bill Goertz talking about his new book at the top of the next hour, Enemies, since this NIE controversy is in the news.
Going to talk to the expert about the American Intel system.
The guy's more wired to depending on the Intel system.
The book features a whole lot of details about how the Chikom's stealing information.
Did you see what the Chikoms did the other day, by the way?
They grabbed this giant laser gun and shot it at our satellites, trying to take out the lenses, the cameras on our satellites.
And we're not officially complaining because we need the Chikoms in our dealings with Iran and so forth.
The Chikoms are going to shoot down the satellites.
Well, not trying to shoot them down, but they're trying to disable them with giant lasers.
I wonder where they got the lasers.
Laurel Space, one of Clinton's buddies?
Where did the Chikoms get their lasers?
Anyway, folks, after years of relentlessly rising heating bills, homeowners are likely to find some relief this winter.
But it doesn't matter because the middle class is toast.
Christmas is already in the tank.
You people in the middle class are destitute.
You may as well be living in Afghanistan or Mongolia somewhere.
But despite that, after years of relentlessly rising heating bills, homeowners are likely to find some relief this winter.
Supplies are plentiful.
Prices are falling for natural gas, heating oil, and propane.
Story goes on to lament that this is happening so close to the election.
And in terms of Al Gore's global warming speech, Castro complex, man, if you stand up there and talk for three hours and the audience gets numbed and half of them walk out.
I mean, Castro doesn't allow that to happen.
You walk out of one of his speeches, you get shot or imprisoned.
But here's a story out of, where is this?
It's the Chicago Tribune, Resolute Bay in Nunavut, which is in the Arctic Circle.
It's getting so hot up there, ladies and gentlemen.
5 to 11 degrees above average in this northern territory.
Temperatures are rising.
Hunters are falling through the ice.
Offices near the Arctic Circle using something they've never used before, air conditioning.
Now, wait, I thought air conditioning contributed to global warming.
Are they not compounding their problem up there by turning on the air conditioning?
All right, did any of you see E.J.D.?
Oh, before I get to that, how many of you have been watching television this morning?
There is an endless parade of people who just got back from a guided tour of Club Gitmo.
I have seen Rich Lowry on TV.
I have seen Monica Crowley on TV.
I'm sure that many more than just those two went down there.
And they're coming back and they're telling stories like we shared with you with Richard Mineter, who wrote in the New York Post about how cushy the treatment is, how the detainees, when they're interrogated, sit in lazy boy recliners.
But something about this is starting to rub me the wrong way.
We're running people down to Club Guitmo as though it's Coney Island and we're going on a roller coaster.
I have not been invited, ladies and gentlemen.
Why should I be?
I have a thriving merchandise business oriented around and I know enough about what's going on down there without having to go.
But what they're trying to do, obviously, is by having people troop through there like it's Six Flags Over America, is to illustrate and prove that we're not torturing people.
And it kind of understand the reason for it, but it sort of makes me mad that when you listen to the stories we're getting out of there, it does sound like a resort.
It sounds like a hotel.
All the food, all the meals, the variety of food that is being served.
Lowry, like we're supposed to celebrate here that Club Gitmo is getting so nice.
You know, I just think it's part of this political correctness is going a little bit too far to balance out some extreme criticism on the other side.
The place is a prison, but we're having it portrayed to us as something other than that, a resort being run by these inmates.
Lowry said, Rich Lowry of National Review, the most effective interrogator at Gitmo, is said to be an older woman who adopts a nurturing attitude.
Now, that's the way to go.
Nurture these guys.
Hell yes, let's nurture them.
Let's nurture these terrorists.
Now, some of you might have a problem with this.
Well, what Rush, what if it works?
I mean, what if we're succeeding in getting information out of them?
Don't you understand?
This is a response to the criticism.
This is a, and like I told you the other day, you've got to just look at a bar graph.
It's a straight left-to-right bar graph, and in the middle is where we would put normal, when the needle in the middle of graph is normal.
When something happens to move it left or right, in an attempt to get it back to normal, we often overreact and go too far past center, which is what we're doing here.
And it's, I understand, it's a propaganda campaign right now, but I understand the need for it, but something about it, I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about it strikes me as just a little too much, just a little unnecessary.
Just one picture of some hazing would satisfy me.
Well, maybe, yeah, maybe we are doing that stuff with the secret prisons and until they have started taking tours to the secret prisons.
But the secret prisons have been closed down, or so we're told.
At any rate, did you see E.J. Deion Jr.'s piece today?
Ladies and gentlemen, forgive me for talking about myself.
As you know, I don't really like doing that, and I don't do it very much.
But this column is essentially about me, and it is another piece on the Clinton reaction of Fox News Sunday and how it was justified and why he did it, path to 9-11, the movie, and my role in all this.
Bill Clinton's eruption on Fox News Sunday last weekend over questions about his administration's handling of terrorism was a long time coming.
It has political implications.
They go beyond this fall's elections.
By choosing to intervene in the terror debate in a way that no one could miss, Clinton forced an argument about the past that had up to now been largely a one-sided propaganda war waged by the right.
E.J., I am stunned that you miss the one-sided propaganda war that has been the effort to establish a legacy for a man who has none.
I'm stunned you don't see this.
Well, no, I'm not.
You're a liberal and you don't see what liberals do, and you certainly aren't critical of it.
The conservative movement understands the political value of controlling the interpretation of history.
Now its control is finally being contested by Bill Clinton.
How about, you know, Ronald Reagan?
Let's look at the eight years of Reagan, E.J. Ronald Reagan, the moment he left office, there was revisionist history going on.
His tax cuts ruined the economy.
His war in Nicaragua, you guys tried to recast and rewrite and to control, what do you call, interpret history on particularly tax cuts, because you can't stand any evidence that they work, such as what's happening now with all the revenue flowing in as a result of tax cuts that President Bush has signed into law.
Ronald Reagan never went out and defended his legacy.
Ronald Reagan never blew up at anybody.
Reagan never went out there and behaved like a petulant, narcissistic, selfish, out-of-control maniac.
Never lost his temper.
We never saw that.
Never grabbed a dog by the ears, a little beagle, and threw it in a White House gate like LBJ did.
We never saw that kind of stuff out of Reagan until he died.
You people on the left are doing your best to rewrite history and revise his administration to one of utter and total failure, even going so far as to eliminate him for having any role whatsoever in ending the Cold War and ending the threat posed by Soviet communism.
Now you're in the process of trying to write a legacy for somebody who doesn't have one.
You're trying to write a legacy for somebody who avoided big, important things throughout his administration so as not to tamper with the oh-so-important approval numbers.
A guy who did everything he could to make sure he ended office with a great economy who now realizes that's not how great presidents are judged.
And so he's trying to wrap up with your help the notion that he was tough on terrorism.
Hang on, there's a lot more to this.
All right, back to the E.J. Deion Jr. column.
How long have Clinton's resentments been simmering?
Well, we remember the period immediately after September 11th as a time when partisanship melted away.
No, it didn't, E.J. That's where you're fooling yourself.
Everybody who believes this is fooling themselves.
You actually believe that there was any significant time after 9-11 where the whole country was unified behind President Bush, unified liberals became moderates, conservative became moderate.
All these political people, ideological people, dropped it.
Didn't happen, E.J.
I know you people love to think that it happened, but it didn't.
I mean, you guys hated George W. Bush in the Florida aftermath on.
You were going to let that subside just because the World Trade Center got hit?
Hell, you guys are trying to act like today.
It never happened.
Like Iraq is happening in a vacuum.
Like the World Trade Center attack was the first time we'd ever been hit by terrorism.
It's absurd to think that there was any kind of melding away of partisanship.
That is largely true, especially because Democrats rallied behind President Bush.
For months after the attacks, Democrats did not raise questions about why they had happened on Bush's watch.
What was it, E.J.?
Two or three weeks, and Democrats are only trying to sabotage their president by saying, hey, where's the response?
What are we going to do about this?
What's going on?
And then there was a response a day later.
E.J., you know, the whole premise of your piece, and I haven't even gotten to the mention of me.
Just sit tight for this, folks, but I've got to respond to this in the correct timeline.
The whole point of his piece here is why Clinton pushed back, and it's been a long time coming.
The bottom line is, E.J., Clinton does not want a re-examination of his miserable failures, which is why he sought to stop the movie The Path to 9-11.
It is why he lashed out on Fox, because he doesn't want that re-examination.
A re-examination of Clinton's presidency shows that he was a miserable failure.
No left-wing defense of this man comes without mentioning me, ladies and gentlemen.
The next paragraph in E.J.'s piece, but not everyone was nonpartisan.
On October 4th, 2001, a mere three weeks and a couple of days after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon was hit, there was Rush Limbaugh arguing on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page: quote: If we're serious about avoiding past mistakes and improving national security, we can't duck some serious questions about Mr. Clinton's presidency.
To this day, E.J. writes, I remain astonished at Limbaugh's gall and his shrewdness.
Republicans were arguing simultaneously it was treasonous finger-pointing to question what Bush did or failed to do to prevent the attacks.
Why were they doing that if no Democrat was attacking him, E.J. Anyway?
It was patriotic to go after Clinton.
This is what Limbaugh was saying.
Thus did they build up a mythology that cast Bush as the tough hero in confronting the terrorist threat and Clinton as the shirker.
Bad history, smart politics.
History is history, E.J.
He didn't do anything throughout the 90s on terrorism.
A couple of missile strikes into Afghanistan and an aspirin factory ended in Baghdad on a Saturday that killed a janitor.
He didn't do anything, E.J.
And I'm not even suggesting wag the dog.
He just didn't do anything.
Moreover, when Democrats, notably former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, finally put their heads up in the late spring of 2002 to ask questions about that August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief memo warning of the possibility of terrorist attacks, the Republican pushback was furious.
Vice President Cheney addressed his Democratic friends in Congress, said on May 16, 2002, they need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks at 9-11.
Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible, totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war.
Boy, writes E.J., that was defensive, wasn't it?
Funny that Cheney didn't respond that way when Limbaugh made his incendiary attack on Clinton.
Opportunistic and inconsistent, sure, but again, smart politics.
Ladies and gentlemen, they cannot defend Bill Clinton without mentioning me.
I mean, throughout this path to 9-11 business, now it's me.
Not one hack that goes out there to defend Clinton.
Carville did it on TV that cannot defend him without mentioning me.
They are obsessed with me.
That was a brilliant op-ed that was published on October 4th of 2001, and we have remade it.
We have reposted it.
We have a link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
You can go to the website right now.
It's the top of the page, and you can read it.
And when you do, you will discover it could have been written and published today.
Still accurate, still applicable.
He quotes one line from that op-ed and calls it incendiary.
The one line about re-examining Clinton's presidency.
Can't do that way.
That's not fair.
This is why they want to perpetuate the idea that both presidents screwed up.
Because when you portray the idea that both presidents screwed up, you find a way to conceal all of Clinton's failures.
And the problem is, I refuse to do that, and I have refused to do it since day one.
I don't follow along with the script that the Clinton partisans write for everybody to follow.
So E.J. Deion Jr. sees a conspiracy here, and the conspiracy is none other than I am pulling the strings.
Yes, because I know the writer of the movie, The Path to 9-11.
Limbaugh had to be involved in this somehow.
It is, I don't know, there's some sort of paranoia out there about this.
The truth now is, though, E.J., is that Clinton has exploded.
And because he's exploded twice, he exploded in numerous letters to ABC and Robert Iger trying to get that show pulled and canceled.
He had his minions like Sandy Bergler.
EJ, do you realize how easy it would have been to get that show off the air?
Send Sandy Bergler to the ABC broadcast complex and put the show in his pants and walk out with it.
Steal the show.
Put something else back.
You know, put in, you know, path for Fahrenheit 911 and have ABC mistakenly run that.
You guys blew a great opportunity like you succeeded in doing at the National Archives.
Truth is that Clinton's been exposed.
He has exploded as a result.
His record is finally being looked at, and it is pathetic.
And would you like to hear a little bit of this op-ed?
Goes back to, as I say, 2001, October 4th.
Clinton's legacy.
He didn't do enough to stop terrorists.
The bill is coming due.
Since the September 11th massacre, there have been numerous press reports about Bill Clinton's attendance at funerals, visits to the rescue site, and his other activities as a former president.
What the media have largely overlooked is the extent to which Mr. Clinton can be held culpable for not doing enough when he was commander-in-chief to combat the terrorists who wound up attacking the World Center, World Trade Center, and the Pentagon.
If we are serious, and this is the sentence that upset EJ, if we are serious about avoiding past mistakes and improving national security, we can't duck some serious questions about Mr. Clinton's presidency.
Osama bin Laden already had the blood of Americans on his hands before September 11th.
He was reportedly behind the World Trade Center bombing that killed six, the killing of 19 soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the bombings of the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed 226 people, including 12 Americans, and the attack on the USS Cole at Aden, Yemen, killing 17 seamen.
Mr. Clinton and his former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said after September 11th that they had come within an hour of killing bin Laden when they launched cruise missiles against his camps in 1998.
Mr. Clinton also ordered the destruction of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan.
Many saw this attack as a diversion from domestic embarrassments because it took place only three days after his grand jury testimony in the Paula Jones case.
On September 24th, National Review Online published a report by Byron York that added considerable weight to this last charge.
Mr. York spoke recently to retired General Anthony Zinne, who had been U.S. commander in the region.
Although he supported the cruise missile attack, the general revealed that it was a million-to-one shot.
There was a possibility bin Laden could have been there.
My intelligence people didn't put a lot of faith in that.
His recollection is a far cry from the version of Mrs. Clinton and Berger, which is accurate.
Now we've since learned that bin Laden found out because somebody notified Pakistan that the missiles could be flying over their space, so they didn't think it was India attacking them.
And then somebody in Pakistan tipped off bin Laden, and he was long gone by the time our missiles arrived.
On September 13th, the Associated Press disclosed that in the waning days of the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intelligence about the whereabouts.
This is AP reporting this now.
In the waning days of the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intel about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and weighed a military plan to strike the suspected terrorist mastermind's location.
The administration opted against an attack.
The possible attack was discussed at a meeting last December, prompted by eyes-only intelligence about bin Laden's location.
A military strike option was presented at the meeting.
There was debate about whether intelligence was reliable.
In the end, the president decided against it.
Now, the day after this AP story, Hillary Clinton gave a different explanation of events to CNN.
She said that in the last days of her husband's administration, he planned to kill bin Laden, but that his location couldn't be pinpointed.
It was human assets, that is, people on the ground, she said, who provided the information.
My memory is that those assets proved unreliable and were not able to form the basis of the plan that we were considering launching.
Exactly what eyes on intelligence was provided to Mr. Clinton in December, and just how reliable did the information have to be to merit a military strike.
When Mr. Clinton ordered an attack on bin Laden's camps in August of 98, General Zinni said that it was a million-to-one shot.
Well, partial answer can be found in a September 27th report by Jane's Intelligence Digest, which sources suggested that previous plans to capture or kill bin Laden, which were supported by Moscow, had been shelved by the previous U.S. administration on the grounds that they might end in humiliating failure and the loss of U.S. service personnel, quote unquote.
As Jane's source put it, before the latest catastrophe, there was a distinct lack of political will to resolve the bin Laden problem, and this had a negative impact on wider intelligence operations.
September 27th report, 2001 by Jane's Intelligence Digest.
We don't make this stuff up, EJ.
Janes also claimed the fundamental failure to deal with al-Qaeda was due to, quote, political reluctance to take decisive action during the Clinton era, mainly because of a fear that it might derail the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
This was combined with a general complacency in Washington toward warnings that the U.S. itself, as opposed to U.S. facilities and personnel abroad, might be targeted.
President Bush is now leading a worldwide war against terrorism, focused presently on bin Laden and al-Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors, blah, We have no choice.
I close by writing, but to address the policies and decisions made at the very highest level of our government, which helped bring us to this point.
To do otherwise is to be irresponsible and unprepared in the face of a ruthless enemy whose objective is to kill many more Americans.
Now, obviously, this piece has been in the Clinton partisan hack database, and they have been seething over this for years.
Then the path to 9-11 hits, and they get it in their head that I was involved in producing and writing and getting that show on the air.
And Clinton tries to get it stopped.
It goes on Fox.
He blows his gasket.
And now today, E.J. Deion Jr., an op-ed columnist, comes off as a Democratic National Committee hack defending Clinton and explaining why he blew up and explaining why it's a good thing.
And, of course, saying the real partisan here and the real problem is Rush Lindbaugh.
I am flattered.
I tried.
I tried and I failed.
At least I tried.
I tried.
I failed.
I tried.
I really tried harder than everything anybody had ever done, but I failed.
I guess I should be flattered.
They just obsessed with me.
It's too bad they're not a woman.
You know, folks, I sit here, I tell you constantly, I'm on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
And if you listen to the program regularly, so are you.
That piece, setting the stage for examining the Clinton administration's failures to deal with terrorism throughout its administration, was published two and a half weeks after 9-11.
Here we are, what, five years later, and people are just now getting around to it.
That's what I mean by cutting edge.
And believe me, that piece, that piece has been, it's probably had a couple battery fires in their computers because of that piece.
They have just been, I've been trying to figure it out.
E.J. know about that piece.
Did he read that piece a long time ago?
Did somebody point him to it?
We never know how these things come out, but I would opt for the latter.
By the way, folks, Chris Wabas has shared with us an interesting call he got on his answering machine.
It's open Lion Friday on the EIB network.
Democrats are going nuts.
The president called them cut and run yesterday.
We have the audio sound bites plus their reaction.
We'll get into that in the next hour.
They are literally going nuts.
The media writing that Bush is attacking Democrats.
It's just, we've got Bob Woodward and his book out there, which is so predictable.
It's become formulaic.
Woodward writes book.
By the way, this book, Bob had to write this book.
This is Bush at War version 3, Volume 3, because Volumes 1 and 2 painted a pretty flattering picture.
Bob got to get back on the good side of his buddies inside the Beltway in a social scene, as well as in the drive-by media community.
And so Bob gets, the book comes out.
Somebody gets hold of it early before the Washington Post got scooped again.
He works there.
New York Times already has run excerpts, even though the Post have exclusive rights.
They've been too busy trying to ruin and smear George Allen.
So they got outfoxed by the New York Times.
Now the networks are dutifully saying, Bob Woodward has a new book out.
Bush is lying about Iraq.
Wow.
Really a bunch of news.
And the Democrats going nuts over the terror detainee bill, terrorist detainee bill.
Washington Post headline, many rights in U.S. legal system absent in new bill.
Hey, hello.
Can I tell you people in the Democratic Party in a drive-by media something that's helpful?
You understand this?
They are not citizens.
Terrorists are not citizens.
They don't have constitutional rights as citizens.
We will get to your calls, ladies and gentlemen.
I promise probably Monday.
E.J. Deion Jr., just kidding.
No.
Bill Goertz.
Bill Goertz coming up.
▲
Export Selection