All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
January 31, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You guys have lost your courage.
You have lost your courage.
Okay, I'll do this.
I'll tell them what I was planning on doing.
Do it that way.
Greetings.
Greetings, folks, and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
Here we are already Wednesday, the fastest week in media.
I am a most dangerous man in America, the most feared, the most mimicked, the most imitated, the most envied, but never equaled El Rushbo here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, folks, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Senator Biden.
In the New York Observer, quote, I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who's articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.
I mean, that's a storybook, man.
I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic, although he has put one out now.
And everybody, you know, what, what, what?
I mean, clean?
He's a clean black guy?
He is a clean African-American.
If Biden thinks that Obama is clean, then he has to think that some others are not clean.
Does he mean that he knows that Jesse Jackson's not clean?
Does he mean that he knows the Reverend Sharpton is not clean?
I was debating how to handle this, folks, and I'll tell you how I was going to do it.
And everybody, the staff, people I ran advice, don't do it.
Don't do it.
It's too dangerous.
It's dangerous territory.
Don't do it.
And I said, all right, all right, all right.
But I'm going to tell you people what I was going to do.
And here's why.
Let me tell you why first, and I'll tell you what I was going to do.
Biden has put his foot in his mouth, I don't know how many times.
He once called Delaware a slave state, and the drive-by media yawned.
He then said something.
He was walking through a train station or somewhere.
And somebody helped my memory on this.
He was talking about the fact that every employee at a 7-Eleven in Delaware is Indian or Buddha, Hindu, or some such thing, and you had to speak a certain kind of language to be able to shop there.
Well, I mean, let anybody else say that.
Let me say.
You know, let me say that Barack Obama is a clean black guy and watch how few seconds it takes for this to reverberate all over the place.
Now, Drudge has it up, but it's going to be real interesting to me to see if this reverberates within the drive-by media.
Because I'll tell you what's going to happen.
Biden is going to be asked about this.
He'll go on Matthew's show or something.
And he will be given a chance to clarify.
He'll be given a chance to explain his remarks.
He'll come up with something.
Oh, come, I can't believe people are taking it this way.
No, I was an ultimate compliment.
I was trying to compliment the guy.
Oh, thank you, Senator Biden, for clarifying this for us.
And it'll be over with.
And so my plan was to open the program today by asking everybody what was so wrong about what he said.
I mean, he says Obama's a clean black guy.
Look at Obama.
I see a clean black guy.
What's so bad?
What's so wrong about what he said?
Now, my strategiery for doing this was to have Biden held accountable to it because, you know, if I agree with it, then the drive-bys and everybody will go bonkers.
I knew that if I did it, though, I would become the story.
Lindbaugh agrees with Biden.
I would become the villain while Biden would get the pass, but it would still call attention to it and still, you know, focus attention on him in a way that we'll just have to wait and see.
But I bet it is not going to become a big problem for him.
The other two incidents didn't at all.
And this, by the way, is by no means the first time Senator Biden has stepped in it.
But, you know, the thing is, if he thinks Obama is clean, it is logical to conclude that he thinks somebody else or some others are not.
So who did he mean?
I mean, it's a really, really odd statement.
And see, folks, this is the problem for the libs.
Once they get off script, they expose their idiocy.
They expose their prejudice.
They expose their bias.
It's like Hillary and her evil men comment, which Carville is trying to spin by saying, wow, you reporters, why, you just don't understand her sophisticated sense of humor.
James, you know I love you, man, and you know I respect you.
But come on, not even you can convince any of us that Hillary Clinton has a sense of humor.
I mean, she doesn't, when she smiles, they stop everything at old folks' homes and declare it Halloween.
I mean, there's just no sense of humor about her, even when she wears pink.
Or John Kerry trashing the education of our troops.
You know, when these people get off script, they tell us exactly who they are.
And they tell us of all their prejudices.
They let us know of all their own bigotry.
But more than that, they tell us that they're not that bright.
Now, it wasn't just Barack Obama at whom Senator Biden took aim.
Here's what he said in the New York Observer piece on Senator Clinton.
He said, quote, everybody in the world knows her.
Her husband has used every single legitimate tool in his behalf to lock people in, to shut people down.
Legitimate.
And she can't break out of 30% for a choice for Democrats.
Where do you want to be?
You want to be in a place where 100% of the Democrats know you.
They've looked at you for the last three years, and 4 out of 10 is the max you can get.
Well, okay, I understand that.
He said, but Senator Biden, it's not just three years.
The American people have known her since 1992.
It's more like 15 years, Senator.
And we've known Senator Biden a long time, too.
And he doesn't register near 30%.
But his point is he doesn't have Bill Clinton stumping for him.
He doesn't have eight years as first lady or as co-president.
His point is that she cannot improve name recognition.
She cannot get any more famous.
She cannot do any more than she's done.
She cannot lock down any more money than she already has.
And still she's only getting 30 to 40 percent on Senator Edwards.
He said, I don't think John Edwards knows what the heck he's talking about.
Now, I happen to totally agree with that.
Edwards is one of the biggest phony baloney plastic men and had a good time rocking rollers.
Have you seen the stories about his house in North Carolina?
He's got the largest house in the county that Raleigh, North Carolina's in.
The main house, 28,600 square feet.
It's got a rec room.
It's got a gym.
It's got all kinds of stuff.
And you ought to hear his wife's excuse.
Well, you know, John grew up always wanted a basketball court.
He wants to shoot baskets and so forth.
Every North Carolinian grows up wanting to shoot baskets.
He has his own gym.
He has his own enclosed gym.
Senator Kennedy has a lot, and he's always done a lot of things for the poor.
The excuses that they offer, look, it matters not to me where the Edwards live.
What matters to me is that he is this guy who's went around talking about two Americas and trying to create the impression that America is a soup line economy.
By the way, fourth quarter growth revised upward to 3.5%.
The economy is in really good shape, very healthy shape out there.
And Edward's running around trying to paint the picture here of soup line America while he's sheltering himself in this vast estate off the beaten path that nobody can get to.
The libs are just classic.
And I think Biden is right.
So I was going to say, what's so wrong about what he said?
I mean, by the way, the libs are demanding equal time.
The libs say their views are not being heard.
They want the fairness doctrine reinstituted.
Well, Senator Biden, he's getting it.
We need to let people know what he said.
And my question was going to be, what's so wrong with it?
But I was talked out of that by a linguine spine staff.
And so, only kidding in there.
So now that's on the table.
And I imagine that it's where it's been discussed.
It's causing phone lines to melt all over the country.
We'll talk about that.
We've got lots of other things on the program to do as well.
Sit tight.
Glad you're here, folks.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
Ha, are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I haven't talked about it a whole lot.
I'm going to spend some time on it today.
The Libby trial.
Ladies and gentlemen, the drive-by media covering the Libby trial leave at noon to go appear on television and make their deadlines.
They are misreporting totally what is happening in that courtroom.
They are making it look like Libby is being slammed and creamed each and every day, and it's just the opposite.
Every one of Patrick Fitzgerald's witnesses is being successfully challenged on the same basis Libby's been charged.
Faulty memory.
Libby's whole defense is, having so much going on with national security.
I don't remember who I told what when.
I wasn't lying to you, Mr. Fitzgerald.
And in the grand jury, I just don't remember.
Every one of his witnesses, Fitzgerald's, has been shown to have a spotty memory on all of this.
The latest is this.
Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller acknowledged this morning that she had conversations with other government officials and could not be absolutely, absolutely certain that she first heard about an outed CIA official from Scooter Libby.
This is a bombshell because yesterday in this trial, Judith Miller claimed that her memory was now button-tight.
It was buttoned down.
It was unassailable.
Yet her memory when she testified before the grand jury was spotty and sketchy.
And if you'll recall, she refused to answer some questions and went to jail for it and spent 48 days in jail or however.
And she says she slept on the floor, not even the cot.
Don't ask me why.
The story doesn't say.
Yesterday, it was all, it was just everything.
She was dead certain.
And then the defense team went at her and started making some progress.
And then the defense team said to the judge, look, Judge, we want to ask her about any other sources.
Because she was making the point that nobody yesterday, Libby was the only person she talked to about this.
And she wasn't even writing a story about Plame or Joe Wilson.
And yet she went to jail for not, you know, ratting out sources or what have you.
And the defense said, Judge, we need to be able to ask her about everybody she talked to.
And of course, Fitzgerald said, no, Can't do that.
What do the other sources have to do with Libby?
And the judge yesterday seemed inclined, according to reporters, to limit the scope of the cross-examination of these media members.
But I'm going to tell you something.
This is a United States citizen who is on trial and could theoretically, if found guilty, go to jail, go to prison for years.
And if a judge actually says, no, you cannot ask certain witnesses who are accusing you in order to challenge their credibility, which is the whole point.
I mean, Fitzgerald is trying to say Libby was lying when he said he had a bad memory.
Every one of Fitzgerald's witnesses that's come forward has been shown to have a spotty, sketchy memory that cannot be counted on.
And Judith Miller is the latest one today.
So I got a few other notes I made about this that we'll discuss as the program unfolds today.
But I just want to tell you, again, that what you're reading in the drive-by media about this trial is nowhere near accurate.
If you're watching Chris Matthews or CNN, you're not getting anything.
Matthews actually drooling on television the other night about that, actually had Spittle coming down on the chin.
So excited, so rapid-fire speech, such rapid-fire speech.
These guys are orgasmic over this because they think that Libby is going to take the fall and they're going to get Cheney once he's called to testify and so forth.
But the defense here is doing a good job.
I don't know yet if the judge has ruled on just how far the defense can go in questioning media members that are brought up here to testify for the prosecution.
And I just tell you what I think, excuse me, what I think is going on with this, ladies and gentlemen, is the prosecution, Patrick Fitzfong, has prepped his witnesses with testimony that fits nicely together, trying to tell a story of Scooter Libby as a liar.
But when pressed to actually explain what they remember, the witnesses can't.
Can you imagine today, under oath, finally, Judith Miller acknowledged that she had conversations with other government officials and could not be absolutely, absolutely certain that she first heard about an outed CIA official from Scooter Libby?
The sound you heard in a courtroom was a giant thud of defense feet hitting the floor.
And the prosecution just there, I would have loved to have been in the courtroom when this was said by Judith Miller.
They put this reporter on the stand, and they're going to put others on the stand.
Their credibility is being measured against Scooter Libby's.
Of course, their conduct respecting the play matter should be fully examined by the defense.
The government should have considered the ramifications of all this when they called these media people to testify against a U.S. citizen.
The defense has a job to do, and that's to grill Judith Miller and every other witness that comes up.
This is a U.S. citizen on trial for something that's a process crime, has nothing to do with the original charge that the special prosecutor had in this case anyway.
How can a citizen defend himself if he can't fully expose a witness to the jury?
If a witness can't be fully exposed as less than honest or with a faulty memory or what have you, then how does a fair trial result?
Now, somebody might ask, well, what does Judith Miller's discussion with other sources have to do with Scooter Libby?
And the judge even wondered that aloud yesterday.
But is this not a trial about memory and recollections?
Is she not on the stand to raise doubts about Libby's credibility?
That's why she's there.
That's why Fitzfong has put her up there and every other witness he's called is to shed doubt on Libby's credibility.
The whole trial is about who you believe.
It's not about some grand criminal activity.
It really isn't.
There's no grand criminal activity that took place here.
The government set this trial in motion.
Actually, you know who set this trial in motion?
It was a drive-by media.
They're the ones that demanded all this.
This was the one leak they had to get to the bottom of.
Any other leak, they couldn't care less.
So this leak, they had to get.
And all the while, it was Richard Armitage, and many of them knew it.
So they wanted this trial as a means of getting at the Bush White House.
Now, if Judith Miller had only spoken to Libby, that's fine.
But this issue is going to arise with all the other media witnesses that Fitzfong plans to call.
What they want to do, the prosecution is a prosecution.
They want to fix the case by limiting what the jury can know.
But of course, now we know that Judith Miller has acknowledged today that she had conversations with other government officials and could not be absolutely, absolutely certain that she first heard about an outed CIA official from Scooter Libby.
That's dramatic.
By the way, Scooter Libby is clean.
Scooter Libby looks clean to me.
Ted Kennedy looks thirsty to me, increasingly so.
Yeah, you got to wonder what Biden meant.
By the way, here's the bite.
This is August 15th last year.
This is Senator Biden, and he's walking somewhere in a train station.
In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian Americans moving from India.
You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.
I'm not talking.
Now, yeah, okay.
He said it.
And you might be saying, so what?
What's the point?
Is he brought on some PMS NBC show?
And the Info Babe reporteret pleaded with him.
Senator, can you explain to us what you mean?
Oh, yeah.
Look, I love these people.
This is the fastest growing segment in population in my state.
I love these people.
I didn't mean it.
And she batted her eyelashes, whoever it was.
Thank you, Senator Biden, for clearing this up.
And it was over.
Wash your hands of it, and it was over.
We'll see what kind of legs Barack Obama is a clean black guy has.
Because that's got to mean that Biden looks at some people and sees them not clean or dirty.
Who would they be?
Thank you.
I know.
Somebody has to be.
Why not me?
Right, Brian?
Good answer.
Here behind the golden EIB, microphone.
Rush Limbaugh, talent on lawn from God.
I mean, you do.
You've got the first mainstream African American who's articulate and bright and clean.
Barack Obama.
Nice looking guy.
Clean.
Jim in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes, I'm here.
Mega Dittos.
Thank you.
I was just giving you a quick call.
One simple, quick clarification.
John Edwards' big retreat palatial mansion is in Chatham County, not in Wake County.
Well, in my North Carolina source misinformed me, I'm never wrong.
It's my sources who are.
Okay.
Well, anyway, but I don't know all the details about Chatham County, but my guess is that per capita, it's probably poor, so it's actually a worse indignation than Wake County.
And then another thing, just a little detail about John Edwards' wonderful new house, $309,000 spent on the gym/slash basketball court.
Right.
That's really nice.
And then just one thing about this.
Well, no, wait, wait, wait.
Let's not just gloss over this, Jim.
You sound like you sound got a problem with how much a basketball gym can cost.
Oh, it's a lot.
It's too much.
Well, no, it's not too much.
I mean, it's not too much.
It's only too much in some people's judgment.
Most people wouldn't spend $300,000 on a gym, but he's got the money to spend on it.
That shouldn't be the complaint.
You start going down the road that people don't have the right to spend their own money the way they want, then you're going to become a liberal, and you're going to try to limit salaries and pay.
The problem for Edwards is he's a hypocrite about all of this.
Exactly.
That's the point.
Exactly.
And then just getting to the articulate, the Biden stuff, it's just incredible.
But I just had a small anecdote to share with you.
Back about 10 years ago, I was working for a newspaper in North Carolina.
I won't tell you which one, or I'll be completely run out of the business, which unfortunately I'm still in.
Although, who am I kidding?
They don't listen to your radio show anyway.
No, but they'll hear about it from media members.
Exactly.
They'll end up all over Pointer or whatever think piece they have.
Anyway, so the headline will be: Reporter calls Limbaugh trashes journalism.
Who is this guy so we can find him?
Exactly.
And so anyway, about 10 years ago, the newspaper did some profile piece on a black person of some stature in the community.
I can't remember if it was a sports figure or a community leader, something like that, whatever.
In that, they described the person who wrote the story, described the person as articulate.
And the next day, in the meetings upon meetings, the newspapers have, there was, of course, a meeting to talk about the newspaper from that day and talk about the story and blah, blah, blah.
Well, the sports editor, who was black, he's now moved on to be another major editor at that paper.
I won't tell you which one, or then we'll get into exactly which paper it was.
My God, I've never heard such fear from a caller in my life.
You have no idea what it's like to work at news.
It is incredible.
I don't tell anybody I'm a Republican.
It's terrible.
You know what?
Actors in Hollywood who are Republicans feel like.
Oh, yeah.
So anyway, we're sitting there talking about this story.
You know, it just comes up, and the sports editor is just, there's this righteous indignation that, oh, my gosh, we never should have described this person, this black community person, as articulate.
Because, well, we would never describe when we're doing profiles of white people, but we never use the word articulate to describe them.
You know, this is an excellent point.
Everybody talks about how articulate Barack is.
They talk about how articulate Tiki Barber is.
Yeah.
Now, what that, your esteemed black editor was insulted because, by implication, that means some people aren't articulate.
Right, that you have to point out the ones that are.
It's incredible.
Yeah.
And so Biden has done it here.
My don't worry, we have a clean black guy.
We got one who can talk.
Yeah, over the top.
Well, anyway, Rush, I'll just leave you with those parting thoughts.
And then just one more thing.
I don't want to take up too much time, but anybody who wants to think that John Edwards has a shot, although at times I am frightened of him, it needs to just look at what happened in North Carolina in 2004 when he was on the ticket from 2000, the presidential ticket, got only 0.02% more of the electorate to vote for it with someone who's North Carolina, you know, from North Carolina.
I know that my instinct, my instinct, too, is that Edwards is nowhere and nobody.
But, you know, there's too much time to go here in this campaign.
There are too many things that can happen, too many decisions that can be made.
It's just impossible here to start handicapping this based on all the conventional wisdom and data that people use.
Well, let's examine this policy position that Edwards has versus this.
Let's look at the charisma and the articulation and the cleanliness that Obama has versus the lack of articulation, say, of Hillary Clinton.
All these things just don't matter yet.
There are too many other factors nobody can anticipate.
I don't rule any of these people out.
I mean, in all candor, it'll shake out pretty quick, but at this stage, I understand people in North Carolina who are conservative Republicans just have no respect or affection for Edwards at all.
Anyway, Jim, I appreciate the call.
Thank you so much.
It was a cold January evening, and a security patrol responded to the latest shooting in a neighborhood that is deadly even by the standards we hear about in the media today.
A man in his early 20s is talking on a cell phone about somebody who had just shot him.
Several security officers surrounded him trying to get a description of the assailant who had fled the scene about five minutes earlier.
At the scene of the shooting, a couple of hundred yards away, police found bullet holes all over a wall.
A woman emerged from a nearby little house, says she heard three shots.
She shakes her head in shock at the latest violence that's going on.
39 people were killed there last year.
Violent crime just seems to be on the rise again.
It just, it's no matter what we do, no matter how we choose to fight it, we just don't seem to be able to stop it.
I mean, these deaths rose 7% up to 406 last year alone.
Talking about Philadelphia.
And I'm reading to you from a Reuters story.
Yep, in Philadelphia, homicides rose 7% to an - you thought I was talking about Baghdad, right?
You thought I was talking about Iraq.
Well, that was my point.
I wanted you to think I was talking about Iraq.
I'm talking about a U.S. city.
In Philadelphia, despite the fact that Donovan McNabb lives there, homicides rose 7% to a nine-year high of 400.
Donovan McNabb is a clean black guy.
It's articulate, too.
Philadelphia, homicides rose 7% to a nine-year high of 406 last year, giving it the highest murder rate per 100,000 people among America's 10 biggest cities.
Philadelphia, with a population of about 1.5 million, also has the highest poverty rate, 25% among those cities.
Headline to this story, on the streets of Philadelphia, crime is back.
So I suppose we should ask this question.
If the Democrat Party, which runs that city, if a Democrat runs that state, if the Democrat Party can't keep relative peace in one of the nation's largest cities, how in the name of Sam Hill are they going to be able to keep peace in the rest of the world?
Will Nancy Pelosi hold hearings into the murder of U.S. citizens in Philadelphia?
What about Arlen Spector, who represents Philadelphia in the Senate?
How much time has Senator Specter spent on hearings dealing with the rise of violence in Philadelphia?
Don't tell me it's a local matter.
Don't tell me it's state matter.
We're concerned with death here.
We're concerned with body counts.
We're concerned with the breakdown of law and order.
We're concerned with insurgencies, gangs, whatever you want to call them.
They're out of control in major American cities, and Philadelphia is just one example.
And where are the hearings on this?
Oh, I know Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi are too busy trying to weaken the commander-in-chief, so we can't win the war in Iraq.
They are not only invested in defeat, they can't allow victory.
Politically, they cannot allow it.
406 Philadelphians murdered last year.
Unbelievable.
We have lost just over 3,000 soldiers in Iraq in nearly four years.
About 600 of those were due to non-combat accidents.
There were 821 deaths in Iraq, troop-related deaths last year.
406 in one American city.
And consider the media attention.
We hear about how out of control Baghdad is.
We hear about how nobody can control it and Bush can't control it and the U.S. military can't control it.
Let's get a little proportion and let's talk about the fact that it is not safe to walk in parts of our own American cities.
Democrat-run cities, liberal politicians.
The contrast in big media coverage, especially the TV networks, is sickening.
If we were to follow the way Democrats want to deal with Iraq and apply it to how we should deal with Philadelphia and other crime-ridden big cities, we should do the following.
Cut off all federal funding for Philadelphia.
Withdraw all federal agencies and FBI offices, any federal law enforcement.
Get them the hell out of there by 2008 so Hillary Clinton doesn't have to deal with it when she's inaugurated in January of 2009.
It sounds to me like there's a civil war going on in Philadelphia and in other major American cities, and we ought not be in the middle of it.
We need to, well, diplomacy.
Okay, I guess that's, yeah, try diplomas.
Send some diplomats in there.
Negotiate peace between the gangs and the citizens who are at war with them.
But before anything, before anything is done, a resolution.
We need a resolution from the United States Senate, which forces President Bush to remove all federal presence from Philadelphia and now.
He is not the decider.
Senator Specter said it yesterday.
He's not the sole decider.
They have co-deciders in the United States Senate.
Senator Specter, maybe you should take your eyes off of Iraq and Baghdad and focus on your hometown.
All right, we got a little movement out there, ladies and gentlemen.
Somebody did call the clean and articulate spokesman for the clean black guy, Barack Obama, and ask, what do you think about Senator Biden's comments that he's clean and articulate and so forth?
And the spokesman for the clean and articulate Obama said, Senator Biden's words speak for themselves.
And he said it very articulately.
So that's kind of a slam.
You know, I mean, that's kind of the dagger going in.
Up next will be Mrs. Clinton because Biden took after her today on Good Morning America.
Diane Sawyer said, Senator Hillary Clinton, she's talked about a proposal to cap American troops, also threaten Iraqi leaders with cutting off funds if they don't meet some of the benchmarks.
You're quoted as saying in the New York Observer that the results of her position would be, quote, nothing but disaster.
It would be a disaster if that is her plan to, one, cap the American forces.
I think we should lower American forces.
And two, cut off funding for the local Iraqi forces.
They're the people we're supposed to be training so that we can rely on them to aid us in the efforts that we undertake.
The next president of the United States, because of the policy of this president, is going to have no margin for error.
He or she, the moment they take office, is going to have to figure out how to extricate us from Iraq without making the Middle East even more destabilized.
Okay, the Clinton camp now is figuring out how best to respond to this salvo.
Remember Kennedy or Kerry's joke, a botched joke supposedly about the stupidity of the troops?
I forget what Hillary said, but leveled him.
It was the end of Kerry once Hillary came out.
And the same thing can possibly happen here.
Regardless, I mean, regardless what Biden has said, I don't think, I'm going to have to ask Cookie because she was rolling tape on this whole interview.
Good morning, America.
I don't think Diane Sawyer asked him about Barack Obama being a clean, articulate black guy.
Just about Hillary.
Now, let's go back in time, shall we?
July 31st of 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the possible military campaign to evade Iraq to remove Saddam.
Just a few comments here from Senator Biden.
President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that he may use them or share them with terrorists.
Are the regimes hostile to the United States and our allies already have or seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction?
So you see, it's easy for these guys.
They say it in 2002, they say it in 2003, then they pretend they never said it or they blame Bush for tricking them into saying it.
Then they can change their minds because they don't have any accountability.
They don't have any responsibility for it.
So here's Senator Biden on Good Morning America Today ripping Hillary's plan, ripping Bush's plan.
Bush has put us in an untenable situation.
Back in 2002, Senator Biden was just one of countless Democrats who couldn't wait to walk to the floor of the Senate and get on board with this whole notion of taking out Saddam Hussein.
Back in just a moment.
I saw this yesterday on the web at www.bayoubuzz.com.
And I haven't seen it anywhere else, but this byoubuzz.com is reporting that yesterday, Senator Mary Landrew, Louisiana, had an outrageous outburst in which she remarked, quote, we would have been better off if the terrorists had blown up our levies.
That's what she's reported as having said we'd be better off if the terrorists had blown up our levees.
You know, Kathleen Blanco is out there, you know, whining and moaning about all the federal money that hasn't shown up.
And this, you've got local officials down there that botch this left and right.
It's just easy to dump on Bush.
That's all you have to do today is deflect attention from yourself if you're a politician in any part.
Just dump on Bush.
But what is this?
Louisiana would have been better off if a terrorist had blown up the levees.
Does she think there would have been aid money coming faster?
Faster efforts to rebuild the levees?
Would there have been more national sympathy if terrorists had blown up the place rather than a hurricane?
But think of a U.S. Senator saying this.
Not that far from 9-11, folks.
We'd have been better off if terrorists had blown up our levees.
Anyway, sit-tight, lots to go.
▲
Export Selection