All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
September 29, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back right here in a cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
The doctor of democracy, America's truth detector, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
And when we get to the phones, what that essentially means is that the program is yours on Friday.
We throw the rules and the regulations out the window, and you can talk about whatever it is that interests you, even if it bores me.
I'll do my best to act like I care.
800 two eight two two eight eight two.
If you want to be on the program, email address rush at EIB net.com.
It's a pleasure to welcome back to the EIB network.
Uh Washington Times reporter Bill Gert's latest book is Enemies.
Bill, this book is chilling.
Um this book is uh is frightening.
All the things that are going on with uh with a terrorist detainee bill, the attempt to win the war on terror, and we've got if your book is accurate, if you're if you're right about this, we've got people inside our own government uh uh sabotaging and uh revealing secrets.
Uh is it worse than it was during the Cold War?
Uh it's pretty bad.
In fact, uh it's become much more politicized uh in recent years, and uh the book really highlights both the damage caused by spies and the kind of self-inflicted damage that some of our security and intelligence agencies have caused by by mishandling a lot of these cases.
All right.
With which country uh are most of our secrets being dispensed to these days?
Is it China?
Yeah, without doubt, uh the Chinese are at the top of the list.
From an intelligence standpoint, the Chinese are killing us.
Uh they're stealing secrets to the point where we don't know what's going on inside the communist political in Beijing.
They're also stealing our defense uh secrets, including uh submarine secrets, missile secrets, uh secrets about our aegis battle management ship uh ships, uh, and also they're doing influence operations basically.
Now wait, wait, wait, wait, you say stealing.
Uh I mean somebody's giving them this stuff, correct?
Well, actually, in the one case I highlight, uh, it was a spy in Los Angeles named Chi Mack, who is a defense contractor, and got in on the ground floor of a lot of this developmental technology.
Because he was a contractor, a lot of this technology wasn't classified.
It should have been classified, and he was able to pass that information to China.
Not only did the Chinese get the information, but they were quickly able to incorporate it into their uh ships.
They've they've already deployed two of their own version of the uh Aegis guided missile destroyer.
Well, uh with with uh the last five years, um particularly let's let's focus on the last three and a half to four.
Uh once it uh became clear that we were going to go go into a rock and during all the negotiations at the Security Council and so forth.
I recall reading leaks uh in the Washington Post and New York Times, it had to come from people in our government, State Department, CIA, Pentagon, wherever, about the war plans and the generals there and there's that it won't work.
We have no business going there.
Is it happening like that s like like that in in this kind of spying because you're talking about do we have leakers in the government who uh are actually conversing with uh with the ChICOMs, both over there in their in their own country and and uh agents here, or is it all literally just being stolen because we're not classifying enough stuff?
It's kind of a combination of the two.
One of the cases I highlight is a former defense intelligence agency analyst named Ron Monteperdo, who basically gave up top secret and secret intelligence to the Chinese military intelligence.
And uh, you know, he basically got off because he had friends in high places, but uh he gave information that really damaged wait, wait, wait, wait.
Don't l he he got away with it because he had friends in high places.
Yeah, it's absolutely like where it's an astounding story.
Uh I went to the uh sentencing hearing for Monte Pierto two weeks ago.
He got three months in prison, and one of the reasons he did was because a senior U.S. intelligence official who was his friend, the guy's name is Lonnie Henley.
He's the deputy national intelligence officer for East Asia, the same body that makes the NIEs, and he wrote a letter to the judge saying that uh poor Monte Pierto was uh misguided, he only made a mistake, and uh he wasn't trained, and the Chinese intelligence officers took advantage of us.
It's just a an astounding uh display of uh of uh official cover up for a spy case.
Traitorous uh activity, is that how this is best be described?
Well, Lonnie Henley right now is under investigation, but I'm not confident that they're not going to just cover that up as well.
Uh that's the guy that wrote the letter to the judge.
Well, it it sounds like nobody's concerned about this other than you.
Well, I've uh I've definitely blown the whistle in uh in the book, and I think uh like I say, there's two parts of that story, and my point is if spies can get into the government so easily, what about terrorists?
And that's happening as well.
I have a a number of cases where Al Qaeda people and Islamist extremists have gotten inside the government, gotten access to our secrets, and in a couple of cases have been able to use those secrets to help train and and help Al Qaeda conduct uh terrorist attacks.
Now, what is your reaction, knowing this?
What's your reaction when you see um the Democrats, Democrat Party attempting to shut down the foreign surveillance program of uh their actions on the military tribunal bill uh trying to kill the Patriot Act?
Um in in all of your career when you military and and uh and intel agency reporting, have you seen anything like this before?
Unbelievable.
Uh you know, the Democrats have traditionally been anti-intelligence, and it's reflected in most of their policies.
Uh if you go back to the Clinton era, you know, it was uh John Deutsch, the CIA director that imposed the most damaging rules on our human intelligence gathering.
He's he basically told our CIA officers abroad, you're not allowed to talk uh or recruit anybody who has an unsavory background.
Well, if you do that, uh the chances of recruiting anybody near a terrorist group or even a foreign spy are going to be very difficult.
Um Bill a lot of people uh because of the and I'm just an average Americans uh busy going about their day, may catch a newscast here and there, tuning to the show now and then uh uh are obviously focused on the war on terror and the Middle East.
Here comes your book with news about China.
Uh I think most people understand that the Chinese are a communist country, but they think we have good economic relations with them, uh and that those economic uh relations will eventually someday open up that system much as it did uh in the in the Soviet Union and brought in partly responsible for bringing about their demise.
Um what of the the I don't I don't think people look at the Chinese as a cutthroat enemy of ours.
Yet those uh who study it know that they're they're they're in bed with Iran, they're in bed with uh Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
What is the Chinese objective here?
Uh the Chinese have a very sophisticated strategy of undermining the United States.
They don't like the idea that the United States is the sole superpower.
Uh they want to push the United States out of Asia, and they want to be the dominant power, not just in Asia, but in the whole world.
Uh and uh this strategy is not well known.
Um, but dominant power in in what manner do they do they want to convert as many nations to communism as possible, or what do they want?
Well, they want yes, they do not want a democratic system.
They don't like the fact that uh we have a free and open society, and uh they understand that they want the this monopoly of the communist party.
They want to extend that.
And and a lot of nations are signing up to that because the communists have figured out that the Marxist economic system in China didn't work, but they haven't abandoned the Marxist-Leninist political system.
So they've got a fundamental contradiction there, which is very is very dangerous because it could lead to some miscalculation, whether it's over Taiwan or or some other issue.
Another question that people have when they hear stories such as those in your book, uh does the president, White House, the administration have any recourse here?
Uh uh this kind of thing stuns people.
Uh uh.
They don't understand why Americans would would would uh uh trade secrets uh sabotage and and and act traitorously uh toward their own country, and how can it be gotten away with?
Uh does the president know?
Is he fully aware of all of this?
Your book contained information that Yes, here's what happened.
Um the Bush administration, and a couple of the heroes of my book are Michelle Van Cleave and Ken DeGrafenreed.
Good conservatives served in the Reagan administration, and they headed something called the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive.
They drew up a new strategy, and the strategy said, look, we can't just sit back and wait for spies to come after us and then uncover them and and wring our hands when we realize how much damage they caused.
They said we need an offensive strategy.
We need to go on the offensive, go after the intelligence services and stop them before they get in the government and do the same thing to terrorist groups.
Well, the strategy was approved by the president, but it was sidelined by bureaucrats opposed to counterintelligence.
And and believe me, there is fierce resistance, not just in the FBI or the C or the CIA, but in the office of the Director of National Intelligence itself.
So that's the first time.
Now, is is is this an attempt to sabotage America, or is this holdovers from previous administrations just wanting to sabotage the Bush presidency?
Well, I think, you know, uh I would uh highlight what uh Rumsfeld was talking about recently that you know, a lot of the uh uh liberal F Democrats ascribe to the blame America First uh syndrome, and that's really the dominant guiding ideology behind the Democratic Party.
And I think that is uh that carries over when it comes to uh uh intelligence and counterintelligence, also when it comes to the war on terrorism.
You get the sense that the Democrats want us to lose the war on terrorism.
Yeah, I know uh uh everybody does, and when you call them out on that, they act mock, embarrassed, outraged, and uh and angry.
Uh the the the um total of this is that the ChICOMs are upset that we are the world's lone superpower, and a lot of liberals in America are upset about the same thing.
Their view is that our superpower stat Madden Albright has said this, destabilizes the world.
And be it makes people hate us.
And of course, liberals are a bunch of hand wringers that want everybody to love us and think they have the ability to make that happen with the force and the power of their personality.
Uh it's uh I think it's a hard reality for people to accept Bill, which is why.
And we're talking to Bill Gertz here, folks, whose latest book is Enemies that details shocking uh things about the leaks and the spying going on against us and our intelligence community and the cooperation our own intelligent community is giving these people.
It's why people need to read your book.
I uh it came out of nowhere, Bill.
I mean, I Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, it this is uh like I say it's an important expose because you know, everything right now is focused on the war on terrorism.
I'm telling people, look, you've got to be ready because down the road is China, uh Russia's going south on us, and uh and then are they going to attack us?
See that this is the the people will not believe.
Are they gonna have a military attack against us?
Will the Chinese actually do that?
Or are they just want to get in a position of being able to threaten to do so successfully?
Uh no, the Chinese have their strategy is to undermine us from within.
Uh it's the old uh Sun Tzu strategy that the acme of sk skill is defeating your enemy without firing a shot.
Uh the problem is that uh the elites in our country don't recognize that the Chinese are our enemy, and they view us as their main enemy, and they're actually a big trig trading partner to a lot of people.
How can they be an enemy?
Yeah, that's the argument.
If we just trade with China somehow, it will become a benign power.
Unfortunately, it's not working.
It's becoming uh uh kind of a giant fascist state with a military-dominated nuclear armed communist dictatorship.
What kind of reaction are you finding from people uh unlike me and others who are interested in your book?
What kind of reaction to it are you getting out there?
Uh interesting.
Uh one uh Intel official told me that uh someone uh circulated an email inside uh one of the military intelligence agencies with a one-word comment.
Ouch.
Hey, can I have to take a break, and I want to ask you about this NIE business.
Have you got a couple more minutes?
Sure.
Bill Gertz for the Washington Times' latest book is enemies, back in just a second.
Hey, welcome back.
We are back on Open Line Friday with Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, they're talking to him about his uh latest book, Enemies, which is a chilling uh account of all of the Chinese spies that are stealing and securing secrets, sometimes with the assistance of Americans in the intelligence community.
Bill, what what uh what can you tell me about this story that ran in the uh telegraph, UK telegraph on the twenty sixth three days ago.
China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by blinding the sensitive surveillance devices.
Uh the hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration out of fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran.
What uh this th this hasn't even appeared in the U.S. drive-by media.
This is uh that I've seen it's in the UK telegraph.
They're firing lasers at our satellites.
We're not doing anything about it because we need them with North Korea and Iran.
Where'd they get this kind of sophisticated equipment?
Well, there's no question that uh laser weapons are one of the key niche arms that the Chinese are developing.
They call them assassins' mace weapons.
Uh they include laser uh blinding satellite weapons uh and by the way, I I reported on this last year.
Uh oh, sorry about that.
That's okay, but uh it didn't get a lot of attention at the time, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in China affairs, but uh in the other press, but uh definitely uh this is the kind of thing they're developing for use against the United States.
It includes lasers, it includes computer network attack, it also includes uh exotic uh electromagnetic pulse weapons that simulate the bursts caused by a nuclear attack that basically just can disable all kinds of electronics.
It fries the whole system.
Yes.
Fries the whole grid.
All right.
Um National Intelligence Estimate, reading an investor's business daily uh editorial from yesterday, and have found this fascinating fact, and it it it they were writing this in response to to Hillary Clinton saying that if here if her husband had been given this kind of information that Bush was given on his October 6th daily brief, why her administration would have done something about it, her husband's administration.
Um listen listen to this.
Um report, quote, there was no national intelligence estimate on terrorism between nineteen ninety-five and nine eleven oh one.
There was no comprehensive review of what the intelligence community knew and what it did not know and what it meant.
So for six years, there was not even an NIE estimate on terrorism uh for all this talk about how you know Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden and how they were doing everything they could.
What is this NIE?
How long has it been around, and why does anybody pay attention to it?
Is it government agencies?
Is it outside contractors?
Is it a combination of two?
Who who are these people?
Yeah, the National Intelligence estimates are produced by something called the National Intelligence Council.
Uh and these are supposed to be the consensus view of all fifteen intelligence agencies.
But uh in most cases, uh they basically state the obvious.
Uh it's no secret that uh Iraq is the center of the of the international war on terrorism, and the fact that uh uh jihadists are rallying to that uh is no big secret.
And in fact, a week before this NIE was disclosed selectively in the New York Times, the House Intelligence Committee produced a public report which uh said essentially the same thing.
Um this is you know, clearly the Democrats uh uh playing politics with intelligence.
They did it right before the uh two thousand four election when they disclosed that uh somehow the Bush administration had let uh high explosives uh escape from Iraq.
Uh yeah, yeah, that was the yeah, the the New York Times again.
Well, this thing's been out since April, and members of Congress saw it, and yet it's been held for release to the election, but uh to affect the election.
But I mean you're absolutely right.
When you read this thing, it's on the one hand X, on the other hand, why?
On the one hand, if we leave Iraq, it's gonna be bad.
If we stay in Iraq, it's gonna be bad.
The Islamists are gonna keep coming after us, whether we're here or there or any it it sounds like it's a CYA document, Bill.
Exactly.
And and the problem with these estimates is that we don't have good intelligence on terrorism.
And if we did, we'd have good estimates.
But if you if there's nothing to analyze, uh you're gonna come out with uh two-handed uh assessments.
And as I say in my book, uh one C uh one CIA official summed up the CIA's problems in two words no spies.
And if you don't have spies inside of these terrorist groups, you're not gonna find out what they're doing.
Uh, you know, we know the first generation of Al Qaeda's leadership.
Do we know who the top leaders of Al Qaeda are now?
No, we don't.
It's a only when they put their pictures on the internet for us.
Yes.
Yes.
Bill, I have to run.
I'm down to precious few broadcast seconds, but uh uh thanks again for your time.
It's always uh pleasure to have you here.
You're you're you're doing uh not only great work, you're doing the Lord's work, and uh all the best in in in getting the information in your book out there.
Appreciate your time here again.
The book is entitled Enemies.
Uh, you got a lot of other interviews you're gonna be doing.
You probably won't need any after this one, Bill.
Uh yeah, I'll be uh I'll be I'll be doing quite a few.
Good luck to you, and uh, and stay in touch on this.
This is folks, this book is it i I'm afraid the impact it's gonna have on you because it's so shocking and surprising, and nobody suspects this kind of stuff is going on.
We're a trading partner with China.
Enemies, Bill Gertz, back in just a second.
Yes, and welcome back, folks.
It is Open Line Friday, a thrill and a delight to have you with us.
I'm gonna get to your phone calls here in just a second.
I'm gonna re-establish the the uh gotta re-establish a pace on this show.
And I want to go back to something I touched on just briefly, right before we had to go to a uh spot break.
First story in this uh in this little stack, uh Washington Post, many rights in U.S. legal system absent in new bill.
Now, this bill, the uh the uh military tribunal bill, a terrorist detainee bill.
Sixty-five to thirty-five.
The uh I mean, that is a skunk.
They got they all they needed was sixty votes for cloture.
They got sixty-five.
The Democrats get skunked on this.
And yet, many rights in U.S. legal system absent in new bill by writing into law for the first time.
The definition of an unlawful enemy combatant, which is what you people demanded.
The bill empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anybody it determines to have purposefully and materially supported anti-U.S.
hostilities.
Only foreign nationals among those detainees can be tried by the military commissions and sentenced to decades in jail or put to death.
So what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with foreign national?
You know, if i i the the headline here many rights in U.S. legal system absent in new bill.
They're upset.
Listen, written largely, but not completely on the administration's terms.
I thought McCain won this.
Hasn't that been the spin that McCain won this?
Now all of a sudden the truth comes out, written largely on the administration's terms with passages that give executive branch officials discretion to set details or divert from its protections.
The bill is meant to provide what Bush said yesterday are the tools needed to handle terrorism suspects.
That U.S. officials hope to capture.
This is a problem.
You understand.
The bill contains some protections unavailable to the eight Nazi saboteurs who came ashore in the U.S. in 1942 and were captured two weeks later.
Six were executed that year after a closed military trip.
It's what we've been trying to tell you.
This stuff's been going on for years.
And this bill's not as tough as what was going on then, and yet they're ringing their heads.
Oh no, these people are being denied rights.
The U.S. legal system provides these people are not citizens.
This notion that terrorist enemies, enemy combatants, have U.S. constitutional rights patently absurd.
LA Times, legal battle over detainee bill, likely.
Some lawmakers, Republicans as well as Democrats, called the move to suspend habeas corpus, an historic mistake and one that could cause the entire bill to be struck down.
Give me a break.
Abraham Lincoln, who to this day is considered one of the greatest presidents ever suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War for everybody.
And we got it back.
We are at war.
Senator Patrick Leake Leahy of Vermont said, This is wrong.
It's unconstitutional.
It's un American.
We're not talking about Americans.
Senator Leahy.
We are talking about the enemy.
They are not citizens of the United States.
They are not protected by the Constitution.
We've already gone overboard in claiming and allowing them protection under the Geneva Conventions when they already don't qualify for that.
Now you people want to somehow grant them citizenship rights in your hollow, hollow hand wringing here that makes everybody want to throw up.
Arlen Spector, Chairman Judiciary Committee.
Well, surely as we're standing here, if this bill is passed and habeas corpus is stricken, we'll be back on this floor again, grappling with a future ruling against it by the Supreme Court.
Senator Graham, military lawyer who helped write the bill said federal judges should not be permitted to interfere with the military's handling of prisoners.
Well, they already are, Lindsay.
And if we're not careful, the war on terror is going to be fought in courtroom after courtroom after courtroom.
And that's what this seeks to avoid.
Boston Globe, Senate's passage of detainee bill gives Bush a win.
Democrats say GOP capitulated.
What Senate's passage of detainee bill gives Bush a win.
Democrats say GOP capitulated.
John Kerry in this story is quoted as saying the bill gives an administration that lobbied for torture exactly what it wanted.
All the power remains in the president's hands, and all the while America's moral authority is in tatters.
American troops are in greater jeopardy, and the war on terrorists set back.
Back to the phones.
Jeremy in Annapolis, Maryland.
Glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rush Megadiddos.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
My comment had to do with the uh with Survivor and how they decided to end their ethnic experiments.
Yeah, after two episodes of segregation's over.
I know it.
And well, and after you led the show with it, I uh I read the AP story that was linked on Drudge.
And when I got about four paragraphs in, I had to laugh because uh AP found a way to get political with the story, and they found a way to comment on, I guess, acceptable forms of torture.
Uh four paragraphs in, the story says the two new tribes competed in a grueling challenge that seemed better designed to get prisoners of war to talk.
I saw that I've got it here, yeah.
Yeah, each person strapped on a 15-pound weight, trudged through knee-deep water and all this stuff.
And I just found it laughable that the liberal vi, you know, the bias was so pervasive that you can't even read a story about survivor without, you know.
Yeah, there's torture.
CBS engaging in torture on their show Survivor.
Look at the real people saying, what, this only lasted two weeks.
Two weeks, and they and they segregate everybody uh, or end the segregation.
They put everybody in these.
I gotta get let me let me get the uh phrase for that too.
I already put the story back in the stack.
But it's just right here.
What did they say?
Um because after only two episodes, producers merged the black, white, Asian, and Latino tribes into two mixed race gangs.
Now, when you when you hear the word gang, what do you think of?
Uh well, it isn't good.
Well, you you you you you you think of uh yeah, it's not good.
Uh you know, negative connotation, yeah.
It's a negative connotation to it.
Here's the thing.
After only two episodes, now, how long ago were were the episodes, except for the finale of this season's survivor shot.
Oh, it had to be a long time ago.
Months ago, months ago.
So when CBS is on the air promoting their racial segregation, they knew that it was only going to survive for two weeks.
And they didn't say that.
They did say, just wait and see how it unfolds.
Just wait.
Everybody, they haven't seen the show and they're complaining.
They could have said, hey, it's only gonna last two weeks.
Uh and you know why?
Uh why did they have to break them up so soon, do you think, Jeremy?
Um you know, I'm not sure.
I think it was just to get the political.
Come on, Jeremy, don't go gutless on me here.
Tell me why they broke up the groups, the ethnic groups by race so soon.
Well, I think it's because they were caving to uh to their liberal base.
No, no, because there was no there was no there was no liberal complaining going on by then.
Nobody knew what was going on when this show was being shot.
This is months ago, after only two episodes, something had to happen to make them think this doesn't have a season's worth of competitive value in it.
It had to be that some of the Teams were so bad and so pathetic that if they let it continue, they would have problems if they kept it segregated, which tells me.
The white tribe was winning big.
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting point about the uh uh about the torture as well.
Yeah.
My staff's rolling their eyes saying, I you didn't say that.
Oh no, do you realize that they're gonna take you out of context?
If they you know, screw them if they can't take a joke.
This whole discussion, this whole show has been about parroting and satirizing all this liberal political correctness.
Uh and I'm just taking it to its logical end conclusion.
Uh either that or the Asians were winning, but I guarantee it's who was losing, folks.
You know it.
You know, these are liberals that do this.
Um Jeremy, I'm glad you called.
Thanks, El Mucho.
Brian in Yuba City, California.
I was there once.
Welcome to the program.
Mega Ditto's Rush, long time listener.
I've listened to you since you started on KFBK in Sacramento.
Uh that's 22 years ago.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Um, I have always wanted to tell you it was because of you that I did not pass uh twice my accounting class at our local community college.
Um I just couldn't get out of the car and get into class.
I'd listen to you on the way.
That's all right.
I've become a wealthy Republican, and I have other people do that stuff for me now anyway.
So that's also some of the inspiration you got from the show while sitting in your car.
Absolutely.
Okay, on to the question.
I I actually need you to help me make some sense out of somebody in this cast of characters in the path to 911.
Yes.
Richard Clark came off looking pretty well in that program.
Yeah, that was one of our goals.
Oh, you were responsible for that.
Yes, yes.
Okay.
So what do you make of that?
I know he's had the flip-flop on the uh Iraq-Al Qaeda connection.
You know, he he actually came out um after the nine eleven commission and said that there was no report passed on from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Right.
Is he a good guy or a bad guy?
Where's he at?
Um well, I don't uh in the process of writing the program, I never got to actually talk to uh.
We'll do this in the next movie.
We'll straighten this out in the next uh telepick.
Actually, uh I was surprised too when I saw that.
Uh when I when I saw the movie, I w I was stunned to see that uh it wasn't just John O'Neill.
John O'Neill was the primary hero of the uh of the movie, but Clark um uh also was the was portrayed as the one guy in both administrations trying to sound the warnings that nobody would listen to.
Well, next to John O'Neill, he came out smelling the most like a rose out of anybody else.
Yeah, and and uh it's sort of it's sort of surprised me too, because it's not what I was led to uh to understand.
You know, of course, there's a there's another conflicting thing, too.
Everybody was of the belief that uh uh Richard Clark was demoted by Condoleezza Rice.
The movie even portrayed this as demoting him to some new cyber unit on terrorism before 9-11 hit.
That didn't happen until after 9-11.
He was still on the National Security Council as terrorist czar uh when 9-11 hit.
Now, the th something suspicious about that to me, somebody wants themselves taken out of the loop, or somebody wanted to take him out of the loop prior to 9-11 so that he would be immune from any of the criticism.
In fact, by taking him out, I don't even know where those stories originated now, I don't recall.
But the stories were out there that uh that Rice demoted Clark uh before 9-11, and had that not happened, why who knows?
Uh Clark might have been able to sound the clarion warning bells, but it also gave Clark some insurance and cover for not being blamable himself.
I but where where the uh the uh actual portrayal of Clark for the movie uh came from, since I did not have a hand in writing it.
Uh oh, I hate admitting that now.
Uh it's um I don't know.
Um the 911 commission commission report served as the as the foremost authority on this, and there's some other things too that you know Buzz uh Buzz uh Buzz uh uh the the guy that carried Clinton's nuclear football wrote the book uh uh Dereliction of Duty.
Um some of his stuff was uh used uh in preparing the uh the the screenplay as well.
So there were a lot of different sources here, and I don't know where the Clark character uh came from, specifically in in terms of naming just one source.
Well, it was interesting to me, and I just really don't know where I come down on this guy.
You know he's a Reagan appointee, and that kind of is a big plus in my book, but I just can't quite figure out where his loyalties are.
To himself.
And I don't say that in a critical sense.
Uh most people in Washington's loyalties are to them.
So Buzz Patterson's the guy that wrote the book.
Most people in Washington are loyalties to themselves, it's dog eat dog, it's cutthroat, uh, it's what have you done for me tomorrow.
And uh I I think that uh Clark is uh Colin Powell same way, they're very they're very skilled practitioners at working the uh the networks inside media socially uh inside DC, socially media and all that uh to uh keep themselves on a on a on a you know plane that uh is is non-ideological.
Uh and I I don't think it's uh unusual.
That's that's just that's how you survive in that town.
That's why Ronald Reagan was such an exception.
Reagan is the guy, among many other things, said you can accomplish anything if you don't care who gets credit for it.
Uh but the current crowd as this debate over Clinton and his explosions uh indicate that with Clinton, it's all about getting credit even when he doesn't deserve it.
Uh, for a host of psychopathic reasons.
Don't need to get into it now.
Look, Brian, I'm glad you called, have a great day in Uba City.
We'll be back in just seconds.
Stay with us.
Yeah, the audio sound bites of uh President Bush on fire.
Coming up in the next hour of Open Line Friday.
Here is Renee in Warren, uh Arkansas.
Hi, Renee, thank you for waiting.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
This is truly an honor or privilege.
I've listened to you for many, many years.
Thank you very much.
Uh the comment I want to make is on this video clip.
Um I saw it on MSNBC, and I believe ABC is running it, about a male convoy in Iraq that got ambushed in September of 2005.
Um when you say male convoy, you mean M-A-I-L.
M-A-Y, sir.
Because I didn't haven't seen this.
Uh well, MSNBC, uh, I saw their news report um of a civilian mail uh convoy uh big trucks, uh, which was escorted by their military um.
There was an instance where they came under enemy fire.
We lost two or three courageous unarmed civilian truck drivers.
Unarmed.
They are they're they're unarmed.
Yes, sir.
Uh my husband was a convoy commander for KBR in Iraq from 2004 to 2005.
He was there for 18 months.
By the way, I gotta tell you, I love those KBR people.
I ran into them all over Afghanistan.
They were um they were running the Chow Hall of Mess Hall.
They were fabulous people.
Uh our our truck drivers are very brave, they're very courageous.
While they are undercover, you know, they are under the protection of the greatest military in the world.
Um the 1544th Transportation Company, the 497th Transportation Company, whom my husband um was with the Well, there's gotta be there's there's there's gotta be a reason why they're not armed.
Yes, sir, there is.
Um I called KBR and asked them.
I'm very proud of my my husband's service.
First of all, we had this.
Well, so are we all.
Um I asked KBR why most of these men are former military, or in my husband's case, former law enforcement.
Why are they not armed?
What'd they say?
What we're running out of time.
What is it?
Uh due to the Geneva Convention, uh our truck drivers are considered noncombatants.
And noncombatants cannot be armed.
The Geneva Convention.
These men see combat every night.
Geneva Convention.
Yes, sir.
Geneva Convention.
Uh so this means that civilians in Iraq are also unarmed.
Right?
Uh no, it doesn't.
That's my point.
We sit around and we obey the Geneva conventions.
Well, if they if that's what they say, that's what they say.
But um it is uh then they're gonna have to ramp up protection around them uh even more, because I I was just handed the story.
I'll read this during the break.
I have to run here, Renee.
Thanks very much for the phone call.
Appreciate it.
We'll be back and mole right on right after this.
Try this headline sensing weakness.
Senate Democrats see strength in bucking the president.
No Democrats don't attack.
They buck.
But this is a story about the thirty-five votes they got on that bill that they lost.
▲
Export Selection