All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
October 9, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right 98.5% of the time, I'm America's real anchorman serving humanity as a harmless, lovable little fuzzball here behind the golden EIB microphone and the EIB network.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I told you, well, I didn't tell you.
I was in my discussions over the weekend with people.
I said, because we were aware that the North Koreans might ramp up a test.
And sure as it can be, here comes Harry Reid saying it's Bush's fault.
Bush is taking his eye off the ball.
Bush preoccupied with a worthless excursion into Iraq and so forth.
Typically, everything that's happening here is the fault of George W. Bush, the one guy trying to do the hard work necessary to protect the country, and these guys keep dumping on him.
The South Koreans say they've spotted suspicious movement in North Korea at another potential nuclear test site.
And let me just cut to the chase here on this, folks, just so you understand it.
If we don't do anything about this, the Iranians are watching and they're studying.
And if we don't do anything about this, we may as well just ship them the nuclear weapons that they're going to get anyway and save everybody the time.
If we don't do something about this, the North Koreans are going to be, or the Iranians are going to be rubbing their hands in glee.
And this is something, if you go back to the archives of this program, those of you who are members at rushlimbaugh.com, you can go back, and I have warned of this possibility for many, many moons now, a little Indian lingo there, about the fact that the Iranians are watching what happened with the Israelis in the war with the Hezbos.
They're casing us.
They're casing the situation and our resolve.
And if all we're going to do is focus on the United Nations and letters and resolutions and condemnations and all that, they will not be deterred whatsoever.
Audio soundbite time.
There are those in the media who think that the North Korean nuke test is a Bush-sponsored October surprise.
Here is the Today Show this morning.
Matt Wauer talking with Chris Matthews.
Wauer says, is it your feeling that in a place like Wyoming, a place like Oregon, that local voters are going to blame their local Republican candidates for what happened in Washington?
I mean, obviously, if that person was directly involved, yes, but what about in a general sense?
Look, I've been watching these elections for years, and I do believe in trends, and the trend is against the Republicans.
That said, there's a wonderful old phrase besides all politics is local, which is October surprise.
And I've got to believe that the Republicans, especially Karl Rove and the president, see what's coming.
Right.
And they're going to focus, going to have to focus on North Korea, which helps them because it raises the specter of terrorism.
But they're going to focus on issues where they think they can win, and that's terrorism and tax cuts.
Well, what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with focusing on issues?
Notice how they're going to have to focus on North Korea, which helps them.
Everything is looked at through the prism of a political issue.
Then on Friday night, PBS, Washington Week in Review, host Gwen Eiffel, not Washington, it is Washington Week.
Is it Washington Week in Review or Washington Week?
The title, irrelevant, doesn't matter.
Gwen Eiffel talking with the Washington Post's John Harris.
And she says, the Foley episode, not an isolated event, is it?
Instantly became intensely partisan.
In an earlier era, probably this would have been a one-day story, and there would have been a bipartisan denunciation of the behavior, and we would have moved on.
Now, it's instantly become part either a weapon or a shield in this great, constant ideological and partisan war that defines Washington.
You saw that with Dennis Hastert when on talk radio, Rush Wimbaugh said, Look, see what the Democrats are doing.
So it instantly sort of sort of deteriorated into conspiracy theory and sort of mutual recrimination.
I tell you, you know, I don't know whether to believe this is spin or whether this guy's actually that dense to think that the Foley story is a one-day story.
The Foley story is a one-day story.
It's only because Hastert came on this program that it became a partisan story.
I don't even need a comment, folks.
I mean, this is patently absurd.
Saturday, reliable sources, CNN Howard Kurtz, discussing my interview with Denny Hastert, says this to Steve Roberts.
Here's what Rush Limbaugh had to say during his interview with the speaker.
It's clear to me that what the Democrats are doing here in some sort of cooperation with some in the media is to suppress conservative turnout by making it look like you guys knew this all along, but because you're so interested in holding the House rather than protecting children that you covered it up.
The media cooperating and trying to suppress conservative turnout?
That's totally absurd.
The fact is that this story broke when it broke.
Now, can this story have a political effect?
Can it suppress Republican turnout among conservatives Christians?
Yes, it could have that effect.
But the notion that this was somehow a liberal media conspiracy is ridiculous.
There's absolutely no evidence of that.
Really?
What do you call Brian Ross continually squirt out these little emails and instant messages here that have no journalism in them at all, have no journalistic quality to them?
They're just salacious details here.
What do you think that is?
It's designed to suppress turnout.
Somebody had these instant messages for a whole long time, Steve.
Somebody had them and somebody had to give them to Brian Ross.
Somebody had to get them.
And Brian Ross certainly knew what he was getting.
He says it's totally absurd.
The story broke when it broke.
Who's behind breaking the story, Steve?
As I said, I don't know whether these guys are just dense or whether they're just excellent spin.
Well, this is not excellent spin because the spin is totally absurd.
Here is the path, by the way, not to October 8th.
Path to October 8th, the sequel to the path to 9-11.
The path to October 8th, of course, that's when Kim Jong-il tests his little nuke.
1993, North Korea shocks the world by saying it'll quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and then later suspends its withdrawal.
In 1994, North Korea and the United States sign an agreement in Geneva, North Korea pledging to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for help building two power-producing nuclear reactors.
That was the sucker deal made with Madeline Albright.
Jimmy Carter did some advance work and with the Clinton administration.
So it was 1994, Clinton's second year in office, that North Korea ran the sucker deal to perfection against the United States.
Then September 17th, 1999, five years later, President Clinton agrees to a first major easing of economic sanctions against North Korea since the Korean War's end in 1953.
In July of 2000, North Korea threatens to restart its nuclear program if Washington does not compensate it for the loss of electricity due to delays in building nuclear nuclear power.
The reason they're not having delays in building nuclear power plants is because they took what we gave them and they're using it to develop weapons.
In July of 2001, the U.S. State Department reports that North Korea is developing a long-range missile.
December 2001, President Bush warns Iraq and North Korea will be held accountable if they develop weapons of mass destruction.
January 29th, Bush labels North Korea, Iran, and Iraq an axis of evil.
October 4th, 2002, North Korea tells visiting U.S. delegation it has a second covert nuclear weapons program.
When you look at this timeline of events, the path to yesterday, the path to October 8th, once again, you find a totally snookered United States of America making deals with communists and thinking they intend to keep them.
Back in just a second, stay with us.
By the way, folks, let me just give you a heads up on something.
For those of you who think that the North Korea nuclear test is essentially something good that is going to sweep Foley off the front page, whatever else Democrats are doing, if we don't do anything about it except talk, it's not going to serve any purpose whatsoever because nobody is going to take it seriously.
If all we do is talk about it, if we have the same reaction we have to virtually every other thing and do it diplomatically, well, we need to talk sanctions.
Nobody's going to think it's that big a deal, and it's not going to occupy that much time unless they keep testing.
If they keep testing, then all bets are off.
But if we don't do anything, I mean, if we get people on TV saying, well, you know, we've got the military option.
I don't think the military option is plausible right now.
Economics, we could go economic sanctions, might have a problem with the Chinese.
If you hear people on TV talking like that, I can guarantee you that the people in this country are not going to take this seriously.
If we don't react to it seriously, why would the people of the country take it seriously?
So in terms of it being well-timed to help Republicans by getting other news off the front page, it might for a day or two, but if it's just the same old, same old in dealing with this and just more talk, more video from the United Nations, I will guarantee you nobody is going to be worried about it because we're not going to act like it's that big a deal.
Here is Danielle in Indiana, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
Thank you.
Hey, I was just thinking you're being too negative about everything.
I mean, look here at Pennsylvania.
We've got Lin Suan giving Ed Randell a run for his money, and we've got Mirtha's competitors within 10 cents of him.
So, I mean, Pennsylvania is a pretty typical Democratic state.
So if we've got conservative votes coming through, we're doing something good.
Okay, I've got two ways I could play this, Danielle.
I could, of course, agree with you and say, you're right, there are really lots of reasons for optimism out here.
Or I could play it the way people normally react to me when I try to speak positively and say something like, come on, Danielle, grow up.
Do you really think anybody's going to beat Fast Eddie?
Get real.
And do you think that Mirtha's actually going to lose?
You're living a pipe dream, Danielle.
Get real.
It's over.
That's the kind of stuff I hear when I try to buck people up.
And I'm sick of it.
So I'm just going to join them.
We've lost.
Doom and gloom is our future.
Get used to it.
That's what people want to hear.
By golly, by gosh, I'll give it to them.
Yes, you're out there to set the standard for us conservatives.
Yeah, and I realize that the standard for conservatives is doom and gloom.
Woe is me.
It's over.
And so if I've got to set the standard, I've got to get on the bus.
I got to join the crowd.
Are you supposed to lead by example?
Look at the Democrats have the example of negativity.
You're right.
I've been leading by example for 18 years, and I still can't get away from negativism and doom and gloom wherever I go.
Yeah, but look at the last, I can't remember now, six years we've had a conservative majority.
Does it work?
I tell people that when they're all doom and gloom and they think, doesn't matter, we're going to lose it.
It's over.
Oh, Rush.
Some of them even say, what good's it done us?
The conservatives aren't conservatives anymore.
All they do is run around and keep spending.
They don't do anything on immigration.
What the hell good is it?
That's the kind of stuff I hear.
Well, I don't know what to say.
I mean, we've even got Republicans.
We've got conservatives out there, Danielle, who are actually the smartest among us.
They got the highest IQs, the biggest degrees, the greatest pedigrees, and they're actually writing in the New York Times and other places that it actually would be really good if we lost.
Because these guys need to be taught a lesson.
Well, I mean, that's what I hear.
Republicans need to lose.
Well, then we'd all have to pay for that.
The whole country would go for hell in a handbasket if we did that.
Yeah, I agree with you, but it seems to be what I think people, some people have a doom and gloom wish, not, you know, just sort of a death wish.
But it's a lot easier to complain than to celebrate.
A lot easier to complain.
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
But the smart people complain.
Have you ever noticed that the truly smart among us are the ones that are complaining?
They're the ones that see reality for what it is, and they know that it's a black hole out there.
I mean, they're the ones we ought to be listening to, not people like me.
Well, you need to stop with the negativity, Rush.
We need you out there helping us be optimistic.
Why?
Does it not sound good?
I mean, so many people are so negative.
I thought it was the preferred attitude to have.
You hear it everywhere, though.
I mean, I listen to you to bring my day up and to increase my optimism, not to bring me down and think the world's just no hope.
Yeah.
So it doesn't sound good?
Is it negativism and stuff?
I don't think so.
I think you're going to scare people away.
Really?
Nobody's going to want to listen to Rush because he makes them all depressed and they don't want to finish their day and need to go find some ice cream and feel better about it.
It's more like drink the Kool-Aid.
Yeah, that's you.
Okay.
Well, I appreciate your assessment, Danielle.
I really do.
I'll have more comments on this as the program unfolds, but I appreciate it.
Let's go to Pittsburgh as we stay in Pennsylvania.
Mark, you're next.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Good afternoon.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Hey, Rush.
You know, as we're making the assessments on the nuclear capability and testing of North Korea, but, you know, I was just looking at our local paper today.
You know, eight other states have now, you know, majority Western nations and Israel, of course, the other three being India, Pakistan, and Russia.
Of course, Russia has been a long nemesis on this during the Cold War with nuclear capability and assessed us that both countries, U.S. and Russia, have over 5,000 strategic ballistic heads and so forth.
But if you're so concerned about North Korea and Iran and these other, maybe as we consider them rogue nations or potential threats, and we're the only one, we're the first one of the first to ever develop this nuclear capability and actually use it in World War II in Japan.
What's the point?
Where are we headed here?
Where are you going?
Why are we always concerned about other, is it the global domination fear when we're concerned about other nations trying to develop nuclear heads, whether for prestigious economic or local deterrence?
Wait, are you basically, are you asking me why it's okay for us to have nukes and like North Korea and Iran not to have them?
Well, basically, I'm making that argument, yes.
I mean, and any other nation, I think if they were trying to develop today, now if Italy was trying to have one today, would we show the same reaction, per se, or some other Western regular nation?
Well, let me try to answer this for you, Mark.
Could you give us your assessment of the similarities between Iran and the United States?
Well, other than that, we're all people and maybe they want to use it partially for their nuclear domestic reactions.
No, no, no, we're talking weapons here.
You didn't compare.
I mean, you didn't bring in electricity or power.
Let's stick with nuclear weapons.
Okay.
Just tell me what are the similarities as nations between the United States and Iran.
Well, you know, other than they're, you know, people like us, obviously they have a, you know, very, you know, dangerous regime, as we assess it.
But I think they're also scared of us, to be honest with you.
Right.
Because, you know, if you go back to time of Mossadegh, the leader of that country before Shah, and it's a no-fact.
He was showing on even history.
Okay, so there is a moral equivalence that you believe.
They're people just like we are.
I don't agree with their regime.
I mean, don't get me wrong here, Russia.
I don't agree with the regime.
I think they are.
Why not?
Wait a second.
What does this regime do that bothers you?
Well, I think, you know, they use, I mean, again, this is a country with a long, you know, they have a history of the country.
Is it because they're terrorists?
Is it because that they're threatening to blow Israel off them?
What is it that they do that you don't like?
Well, I think it's those type of comments as well as, you know, how they took the country way back into almost Stone Age after Shaw.
Okay, now, can you give me an equivalent action to the United States?
Can you name a president who said, we're going to take you out, we're going to blow you up, we're going to eliminate you, we're going to wipe you off the map.
Can you name for me one United States policy that's similar to the Iranians in the area of foreign policy?
Well, I think in essence, we did that with Iraq.
In a sense, we made the cause to convince the people that they were a threat, and the nation's polarized by that.
If you made the right decision to go into that, and the CW.
You have to cite Iraq.
You're in quicksand.
There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Iran.
If you can't understand the concept that we are the good guys, that we feed the world, we clothe the world, that our productivity improves the standard of living for millions around the world.
If you don't understand that, if you think that the Iranians are just people like we are, that they're entitled to a nuclear weapon, despite their promises to use them, despite the way they have threatened to use them, then you don't understand your own country.
You don't understand the United States of America.
You have a problem with it.
And you obviously, to me, sound like you're obsessed with a raging guilt.
You don't think it's fair for one country to tell another what they can and can't do.
There is a leader of the world.
We are it.
Learn it, love it, lick it, or live it, whether you like it or not.
And understand that there are people who want to kill you.
And if it weren't for your country, you would be dead today.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Hillary Clinton, this afternoon at the Columbus Day Parade in New York, weighed in on the North Korean nuke test.
Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration.
And I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea.
And I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now.
All right, see, now this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Many of you hearing this, you just get frustrated and angry that the media doesn't criticize you and go, all is lost.
It's over.
Did you see what, Hillary?
Yes, we just played for you what Hillary said.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is ridiculous and it is bizarre.
And she will never get the question from the drive-by media that you ask or the reaction from the media that you have when you hear this.
Blame Bush for this?
The nuclear materials were delivered to Kim Jong-il by your husband, you dingbat.
Your husband and his Secretary of State and your fearless ex-president Jimmy Carter personally delivered the nuclear equipment for this test to take place today.
You did this starting in 1994.
Where's that story?
On Clinton, this is the funniest thing.
If you're just tuning in, I put this at the bottom of one of the stacks.
In 2002, Clinton was over to the Netherlands, and he actually said that he had plans to bomb and take out North Korean nuclear reactors.
He somehow just never got around to it.
But he had plans to do it.
So where is your comment on that, Mrs. Clinton?
Now, this is the kind of thing we are going to keep this in our archives, and we're going to be hauling this out whenever it is necessary.
But you have to understand, folks, that this kind of statement's never going to be corrected in the drive-by media.
It is never going to be challenged.
Nobody's ever going to make fun of it.
And so it's kind of pointless to get all down in the dumps and gloomy over this and think it's a sign of defeat.
This is standard operating procedure for the media, standard operating procedure for Democrats, more than standard operating procedure for the Clintons.
Do everything they can to wash their hands of anything that was other than just fun and frolic ever having attached itself to them during their time in office.
Glenn in Hanford, California.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Rush, good afternoon, Mega Dittos.
You bet, sir.
Thank you.
Rush, the timing of this nuclear test is perfect for Republicans.
This is the most significant event to happen on the Korean Peninsula in the last 50 years.
The fact that the media is only willing to give it two minutes of lip service this morning to be followed immediately by more Mark Foley is just a sign that they know the American public will never vote a Democratic majority given such a foreign policy crisis, even with the miscues of the Bush administration over the last few years.
All right, here's how the media is reporting this.
This is Associated Press.
North Korea may have the bomb, but the complexities of developing nuclear warheads from Pyongyang's claimed successful test explosion and the means to deliver them mean the country may be years away from posing an actual atomic threat to the rest of the world.
In other words, the story is that this test was just barely above impotent.
That it was so small, it hardly registered at the professional seismology labs where they measure these kinds of things.
Bottom line, don't worry about this.
This is no big deal, but I'm going to tell you something, Glenn, and I mean this.
You think it's the perfect issue.
The timing is the perfect thing for Republicans to reemphasize the president and his party's devotion to national security and strength.
If all we do is respond to this with more letters, even if we type the letters in all caps to show them that we are really mad, if all we do is pass resolutions, if all we do is go to the Security Council and condemn it and ask them to condemn it, I am telling you right now today, Glenn, nobody in this country is going to think it's that big a deal.
If our leaders don't treat it as a big deal with something other than words, then why should the people of the country worry about it?
Hell, if the people of the country don't think 9-11 was representative of something larger than 9-11, what in the world is a little podunk nuke test that the media is downplaying side-wise going to do to them, size-wise going to do to them?
If it's standard operating procedure that we respond with words and threats and condemnations, but don't do anything else, why in the world would people in Oshkosh think it's that big a deal?
Why should they worry about it if we're really not going to do anything about it?
This is Lana in Greeley, Colorado.
You're next.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Yes.
I keep hearing, I want you to prove me wrong here.
Please prove me wrong.
I keep hearing the military option is not an option because we're spread too thin.
We can't really do anything about North Korea because they'll invade the South.
And we can't do anything about Iran because the stuff is buried too deep and we're spread too thin.
And I find it very, you know, this isn't the nation I grew up in.
Where do you hear this stuff?
Oh, on the news, and even Fox News.
They interview pundits, heads, you know, talking heads.
I can't remember a specific person.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who they are.
They're usual suspects.
Usual suspects.
Oh, even some conservatives say that.
Well, I don't think that that's true.
I think it's totally bogus.
I think it's part of the overarching media action line and template designed to attack Iraq, the war on terror, Bush's policy there to blame military incapability in getting involved where they're really important issues.
A Democrat's position today is that this nuke test, wow, that is serious.
And the president has taken his eye off the ball.
And now the president's taken into a worthless, meaningless, never-ending excursion into Iraq that's killing Americans and killing Iraqis.
And it has no purpose.
And we're spread so thin now we can't really do anything about the real problems in the world because Bush has taken his eye off the ball.
That's the action line and that's the template that they're using.
Have you ever heard of the B-2 stealth bomber?
I used to live in Missouri.
I know about Whiteman.
Okay.
Well, you know how many of them we have.
You ever heard of the B-52?
Well, yeah.
They're old, though, aren't they?
Have you heard of cruise missiles can be launched from submarines?
Yep.
Do you know we have submarines out there?
Yeah.
To say that we're spread too thin and we can't do anything about this militarily is a total disservice.
It's not that we're spread too thin.
It's that we're worried about what other people will think.
It's that if we do take military action, what will the Chinese do?
What will the South Koreans do?
What will the Russians do?
What will anybody else with nuclear weapons?
So we're paralyzed not by our incapacity.
We're paralyzed almost because of our superpower status.
So we have to sit around.
We're caught in a trap, just like this guy that called from Pittsburgh.
Well, why shouldn't they have nukes?
They're just a small little country.
Oh, please.
They're just people like us.
They're just people.
And they, you know what?
They're afraid of us in Iran, and they're afraid of us in North Korea.
This makes total sense when you examine in a human capacity.
Of course, this little dictator in North Korea, he's scared to death we're going to bomb him.
Under this pretext, we should deliver some nukes to Hugo Chavez because he thinks we're going to overthrow him.
So if we give him some nukes, he'll stop criticizing us.
Now, that's what we're doing.
And that's what we want.
We don't like being criticized.
And by God, we're going to stop that because that hurts our feelings.
And so we can't do anything because our feelings are hurt.
We can't do anything because we're worried about what the reaction of the rest of the world will be.
FDR didn't have any problem asking what the rest of the world's reaction would be.
And Harry Truman, sure as hell, didn't, did he?
Well, we're going to have more than our feelings hurt if we don't do something.
More than our feelings.
Well, I know that possibility exists.
I mean, I think about people who have kids and what they must be thinking of the future as all of these truly, truly enemies of this country, sworn enemies, admitted enemies, ramp up with weapons that could do severe damage to us.
And the thing that bothers me about the guy from Pittsburgh who's unable to see the difference between a country like Iran and the United States.
And I tried to talk him through it, but it was a worthless exercise.
It was pointless.
It was a total waste of my time and yours.
Sorry, but I thought it might help.
Bottom line is this.
We have our nuclear stockpile.
We have our military stockpile for defensive purposes, deterrent purposes.
We build the B-2 and the B-1, hoping we never have to use them.
The fact that we have them is supposed to deter.
We have a nuclear arsenal that is designed to deter enemies of ours from even getting in the game because no matter where they start, they can't compete with us.
One launch of theirs, we wipe them out.
But if we're going to convey that we will not use what we have, then it's not going to deter anything.
If we don't demonstrate that we have the capacity and the will to use all of these weapons that we have built in our own protection for our own defense, if we don't demonstrate that, nobody's going to be deterred.
And what's going to happen is the day will come where we have to use them because we do get hit.
And people who have kids, I would think, are pondering this as what their future might hold.
Now, I'm no military expert, and I'm not, I don't want anybody to misunderstand, I'm not suggesting a launch of military operations on North Korea today or at this moment.
I'm more concerned over the fact that we're just going the usual pathway.
We're going to try sanctions, and we're going to try words, and we're going to try all caps letters, making really sure they understand how mad we are.
And we are going to go to the United Nations, try to get resolutions and so forth.
And in the process, nobody is going to take this that seriously.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are going to be running around blaming Bush for this.
Bush may as well go over there and lit the fuse or push the button that launched the test because he's taking his eye off the ball.
He doesn't care about it.
He's too bogged down on a meaningless, worthless excursion in Iraq.
And I know it's frustrating because he's the one guy in our government that has actually devoted his entire presidency to the national security of this country.
He's the one that called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the axis of evil.
And of course, the Libs went nuts with that.
It's unnecessarily provocative.
And now they've launched their nuclear test.
And they'll probably get around to remembering the axis of evil before the day is over and blame Bush for that.
See, they deserve this to happen to him at the Bush White House because they called these guys the axis of evil.
So we kind of have to sit by and we have to watch Kim Jong-il.
We have to understand it because we made him mad.
You're going to hear all of this come down the pike.
But I'm just telling you, Lana do not believe at all in any way, shape, manner, or form that we are too spread out, too depleted, forces are too thinned out in order to deal with this because nothing could be further from the truth.
This ridiculous Hillary Clinton soundbite from today, the Columbus Day Parade, New York, sent me back to the archives of the Limbaugh Letter, the August 2006 issue.
Here is, again, what Mrs. Clinton said this morning.
Some of the reason we are facing this danger is because of the failed policies of the Bush administration.
I regret deeply their failure to deal with the threat posed by North Korea, and I hope that the administration will now adopt a much more effective response than what they have up until now.
Mrs. Clinton, what is it like to be so sophomorically predictable?
If you're going to open your mouth about this, could you come out with something that might cause people to stop and say, hmm, I hadn't thought of that.
Instead, you come out with utterly predictable words.
Everybody knows that every Democrat's going to say what you just said.
It's the Bush administration's problem.
It's their failures.
Well, we put together in the section called Nailing the Lift in the Limbaugh Letter, the August 2006 issue.
I'm holding it up here now for those of you watching on the Ditto Cam, Clinton's North Korea legacy.
Bill Clinton said November 7th, 1993, North Korea cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb.
In the spring of 1992, North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung, who's the father of the current little pot-bellied dictator, allowed International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors led by none other than Hans Blix into his country.
Kim Il-sung claimed they had a tiny quantity of plutonium, far from the amount you need for a weapon, reported Blix in the Washington Post.
Covert tests showed that the North Koreans had actually reprocessed massive amounts of plutonium, enough for several bombs, reports Jasper Becker in the definitive rogue regime, Oxford University Press.
In 1993, North Korea declared it would withdraw from the nonproliferation treaty, which we discussed.
By 1994, tensions between North Korea, South Korea, the IAEA, the UN, and the U.S. were mounting.
Actual military conflict loomed, but then a savior appeared.
The Clinton administration sent in none other than Jimmy Carter, who Kim Il-sung once referred to as a man of justice, to take his own personal swing at peace, but only as a private citizen.
Clinton was worried about looking weak with the ex-president's help, so he didn't send him in as a government envoy.
From June 16th to the 19th of 1994, Carter rubbed elbows with Kim Il-sung for a few days and then dropped American demands that UN inspections resume and that North Korea surrender its spent fuel rods.
Carter even said that the U.S. was dropping its support for sanctions at the UN, which wasn't true, writes Stephen Hayward in The Real Jimmy Carter, a book published by Regnery.
It was at the Geneva talks that the Clinton administration bent over and grabbed the ankles despite the death of Kim Il-sung on July 8th, 1994.
The agreed framework was signed by the United States and North Korea October 21st, 1994, Geneva.
The framework promised to reward Pyongyang's breaches of international nuclear safeguards by giving it more nuclear power stations.
You heard right the Clinton administration gave in to the demands of a deceiving, nefarious, nuclear-hungry, gulag-building, people-starving communist regime in North Korea.
The timeline here goes on all the way through 1999.
Get this.
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing Madeline Albright makes a blink and you'll miss it admission that things weren't rosy in the agreed framework land.
Quote, we are also engaged in direct talks with North Korea on ways to resolve concerns regarding suspicious underground construction activities and long-range missile programs.
So Jimmy Carter was sent over there.
They basically started with this non-this agreed framework literally established the North Koreans as a nuclear builder.
Couldn't call him a nuclear power at that point.
But for Mrs. Clinton to say, and I've left out half the stuff in this because of time constraints, is Mrs. Clinton wants to say, as do all the Democrats, this is Bush's problem, you know what we ought to do?
I'm going to scan this.
I'm going to put this on the website today.
You need to read the whole thing.
We work diligently on this in our nailing the left section of the Limbaugh letter, the Clinton North Korea legacy.
And you need to read all of this.
And you need to be able to have it in front of you and digest it rather than just have me read it all to you.
So Coco scanned this thing.
Put it up there as a PDF when we update the website later this afternoon to reflect the contents of today's program.
Stay with us.
I can't believe all of you people emailing me saying I sound negative today.
I can't believe this.
Just sounding like everybody who speaks to me sounds.
▲
Export Selection