All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
September 11, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Nice to see everybody seated in there on time and ready to go.
I, of course, always on time.
We can't be late in broadcasting, ladies and gentlemen, not with live presentations.
Cannot be late.
This is why most non-professional media people quit after one week when they find out there's no lunch break, there's no coffee break, and you can't be late.
Greetings.
Great to be with you.
Here we are, Rush Limbaugh.
I am fernally ensconced behind the prestigious Golden EIB microphone here at the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
This being the largest free education institution in the world, free or oppressed.
There are no graduates.
There are no degrees from this prestigious institution because the education never stops.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
You know, I was stunned today, ladies and gentlemen, watching television.
I came in here, you know, I turned on the TV.
It's a necessary evil.
Most of the time, it's just drivel.
Now, what did I do?
You know, this is crazy.
I just organized this stuff mere moments ago.
Anyway, I was watching PMSNBC.
I was literally stunned by what I saw.
We did a morning update today in which I plainly stated and predicted that the drive-bys would show us no pictures of 9-11.
And PMSNBC all morning has been running at the exact time it aired six years ago, or is it, yeah, six years ago, NBC's coverage of the attacks of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
They've been running that coverage from six years ago, uninterrupted all morning long.
I am stunned.
I'm glad they did it.
It's too bad nobody saw it because it's PMS NBC.
But I think one of the problems that we have in the country here today is, and people complain about the lack of unity and so forth, is that we've been allowed to forget it.
We've not been reminded of the images.
Pearl Harbor was an entirely different thing.
We kept being reminded of that, and it kept us energized and outraged.
It's like today.
You know, we're going to get to some sound bites from the Petraeus hearings before the Senate and the House yesterday, as we spent a lot of time yesterday doing as well.
The Democrats are just over the top.
You know, I think the way to look at these people, you remember how Joseph McCarthy was shut down, and they clearly are the new McCarthyites, as is moveon.org.
And it was this, it was a Pentagon lawyer.
Was it a Democrat?
It was a Pentagon lawyer or somebody, State Department lawyer, finally said of Joseph McCarthy, have you have no decency, sir?
Have you not a shred of decency?
And I'll tell you, the Democrats just are exhibiting none, folks.
Yesterday I was searching in frustration.
If you were here yesterday, you know of my controlled rage.
Led to a hot show.
There's no question about it.
One of the all-time greats will be in the archives for many, many moons.
However, I was looking for a word to describe what I, and the fewer words you can use to make a point, the more powerful the point.
Brevity is the soul of wit, William Shakespeare.
And I just, it finally hit me.
There's just no decency.
After watching some more of the stuff that happened yesterday afternoon, the stuff happening in the Senate this morning, there's just no decency among these people.
It's vulgar.
It is indecent.
It is unseemly, and it is certainly not helpful.
Today we get another tape from Osama bin Laden.
By the way, I don't know if you've noticed this or not, ladies and gentlemen.
I have, because I actually turned the sound up to watch some of this stuff.
I don't normally do that.
You read closed captioning.
And I have noticed that the cable news networks, not so much Fox, but they do it graphically, but the cable news networks are pronouncing his name Usama.
Now, I wonder if that is to avoid any comparisons with Obama.
When did this Usama stuff start?
Now, Fox has been graphically spelling his name as Osama bin Laden with a U at the beginning of the word, but the pronunciation of his name is Usama bin Laden.
That's new, is it not, Mr. Snerderly?
Fairly, fairly new.
I mean, fairly new to coincide with the Democrat presidential primary.
I think.
Just guess.
Anyway, so we've got this new Osama bin Laden tape.
And in it, and he does this every 9-11, he releases a videotape of one of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 with the so-called final testament.
And it was, I forget which one, it doesn't matter.
And this guy's going on and on and on about how you're going to come at us from the front, from the back, from the left, from the right, from the up, from the down.
Surround it.
It was last year's tape.
Well, whatever.
This year's tape is going to be more of the same.
We're going to hunt you down.
We're going to kill you, you infidels, you dirty, rotten, filthy pigs, goats, chickens, whatever.
We're going to wipe you out.
And on the day that this is released, you have these indecent, vulgar Democrats.
Essentially, I mean, this is hard to say, but it's obvious.
On the day this testament comes out, this hijacker and Usama and everybody gloating about their achievement and their promise for more, you've got Democrats in the United States Senate who are sounding more like they are interested in advancing Osama bin Laden's cause than the general who is trying to defeat Usama's boys in Iraq.
Now, General Petraeus more than held up his hand, as you will hear on the audio soundbites that will be coming up later on in the program.
Before we get to that, I'm going to discuss Mrs. Clinton giving back the $850,000 to Norman Shu.
Because the drive-bys, the drive-bys, they're just marveling.
Mrs. Clinton, oh, how clean and pure is the wind-driven snow.
Wait till you hear Andrea Mitchell.
We have a couple of audio soundbites on this.
And she had to do it, of course, because Obama is raising so much money.
Barack Obama is raising so much money that she had to do this to keep up.
So she's being praised, ladies and gentlemen, for giving back the $850,000.
But has anybody noticed what I have noticed?
Two things.
Giving it back to who?
We don't know who the donors were other than the poor Paw family out there from California, the bunch with a lot of pets but no money.
And we don't know where this money is being sent back.
We were also told that $26,000 of it originally went to charity.
I want to see proof of this.
I want to see the canceled check.
I want to see the evidence.
You know, it's easy to say.
I gave $26,000 of it to charity.
To whom?
Well, I don't recall.
I'm surprised by your question.
You don't trust?
No.
I want to know who you gave the money to, and I want to know where this $850,000 went.
And did any of it go back to China, ladies and gentlemen?
Do you realize how many people pled guilty or fled the jurisdiction in the 1996 scandals, 96 and 98, with Bill Clinton?
So that's my large question about the $850 grand.
And by the way, Howard Wolfson, who is Mrs. Clinton's spokesman, said, hey, the donors can redonate the money if they choose to.
Well, I wonder what the hell is going to happen.
I think the money.
Why even send it back?
The drive-bys are not going to be investigating this.
They're not going to be examining this.
People have been asking me, asking me yesterday and last night, what are you going to do on 9-11?
You know, I remember back on that day, I was flying to Omaha for a golf tournament.
It turned out to be the last charity golf tournament that Warren Buffett put on.
And I left here, South Florida, about 8 a.m., I believe, something like that.
And we got a phone call aboard the plane around 9.30, 9.45, saying, you got to turn around.
You got to get back.
You've got 90 minutes to get where you're going.
And if you don't get there, put down in 90 minutes.
The air traffic control was clearing the skies.
And what happened?
Well, the World Trade Center's been hit.
Are you kidding?
But we had no pictures up there at the time.
I didn't have direct TV on the plane.
This is why, by the way, I broke down and decided to put Direct TV on the plane.
Sorry for the self-absorption, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a personal story, however, and it's relevant to events of the day.
So we landed at some out-of-the-way place near Orlando, rented a car.
Flight attendant Jody drove me back here to the hangar where my car was.
It wasn't until 2 o'clock that I saw pictures of what had happened.
And I was just stunned.
And I remember I got here behind the golden EIB microphone maybe for a half hour, 45 minutes.
And the next day, on September 12th, after having a night to think about it, one of the things that I concluded was that the worst thing we could do would be to shut down the country every 9-11, because that's what they tried to do.
I remember saying to you on this program that what were those almost 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon doing at that time, that morning were going to work.
And I think we can get too self-absorbed, if you'll pardon the use of the term, with constant memorials that shut down everything.
Go ahead and memorialize it as we are.
But don't stop going to work.
Don't stop making the country work.
Don't let this every year shut down the United States of America.
That's what keeps America working is Americans working.
And that's what we all need to keep doing.
But here's what I do want to ask you to do today.
And this is something you can do yourself.
We don't need to spend a whole lot of time here on the radio reliving it in order for you to be able to accomplish this.
I want you to take, especially with what is happening in the country today and around the world, the threats that we are faced with, take just a few seconds and recall how you felt on that day when you first saw pictures or when you first heard what had happened.
You know, we usually don't want to dwell in feelings.
We like to deal in thoughts here at the EIB network, but this is an exception because I think we've lost the feeling.
I think the feeling has, and naturally so.
I mean, these are not the kind of feelings you want to revisit.
These are not the kind of feelings you want to stew in.
I think you should, though.
You should take your time whenever you have time today.
Just think back to how you felt.
I don't care what the feeling was: shock, sorrow, disbelief, rage, anger, desire for immediate reciprocity.
I think the whole country needs to be yanked back into the memory of how we all felt that day.
How scared, how helpless, how stunned, and how shocked, and how sad, and how mad everyone was as the event unfolded right before our eyes.
This is one bad memory that we need to keep as a bad memory and never forget it if we are to deal with these people who perpetrated this act effectively in the future.
Brief time out.
We will continue here on the EIB network right after this.
The views expressed by the host on this show, documented to be almost always right 98.7% of the time.
It's great to have you with us today.
800-282-2882.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
As I said, I want to start with Mrs. Clinton and fundraising, and then we're going to move into the drive-bys, desperate to find out why we haven't gotten bin Laden.
I will give you the answer to why we don't have bin Laden first on Sunday night.
This is the big, this is the big, what was this?
The Univision debate?
It was the Democrat-Spanish debate.
I don't know what network was on.
Was it Univision?
I, ladies and gentlemen, was watching football.
Didn't bother watching this, so it came as a bit of a shock to me that Mrs. Clinton trashed me in this debate.
Well, it's not a shock, because it happens all the time, but I didn't hear about it until the next day.
Here is a question from moderator Maria Elena Salinas.
Senator Clinton, a negative tone of the immigration debates left the country polarized and has created certain racists and discriminatory attitudes toward Hispanics.
Well, I think this is a very serious problem.
And as I said earlier, there are many in the political and frankly in the broadcast world today who take a particular aim at our Latino population.
And I think it's very destructive.
You know, I tell you, these people have done their best.
They shoot at me constantly.
Blame me for the Oklahoma City bombing.
Now, hey, Rush, aren't you a little bit big for your britches here?
How do you know that she was talking about you?
Well, because of the New York Times.
The spokesman for Mrs. Clinton after the debate, well, who was she talking about here?
Political and frankly, the broadcast world.
And the spokesman said after the debate, she was referring to Lou Dobbs at CNN and radio host Rush Limbaugh.
Naturally, I hear that she's got a problem with broadcasters, and who else is there that she's going to be concerned or worried about?
By the way, it's silly to have to defend this.
The illegal immigration is not about anything but American culture.
Nothing to do with racism or anti-Latino or anti-Hispanic.
That's just how the Democrats want to play it.
This is pander, pander, pander.
But ladies and gentlemen, to illustrate, I mean, anybody can claim anything.
Anybody can say anything, but I want to demonstrate here my lack of prejudice and bias.
I am going to play for you illegal immigrants in this audience what Mrs. Clinton said with the Spanish translation.
I think it's a very serious problem, as I said earlier.
There are many people in the political side and in the world of the communication media who also are dealing with the Latin population as white, and I think that's very destructive.
How is it?
Very well.
And see, I, ladies and gentlemen, hardly a racist at all, just exhibited max fairness here, making sure the illegal immigrants in the audience can understand what Mrs. Clinton was saying.
All right, Mrs. Clinton.
By the way, it's not just Mrs. Clinton that Norman Shu was giving a lot of money to.
He gave a lot of money to Obama, Barack Obama as well.
And both Hillary and Obama claim that they want disclosure of bundlers and their cash hauls.
They both voted for disclosure of future bundlers like Norman Shu last month.
But when it comes to Norman Shu, they're stonewalling.
They might release or say they can't release actually records that would provide media a roadmap to Shu's friends and what they might have wanted.
And this is, folks, it's right out of the twilight zone.
This is a repeat of 96.
You know, 1996 and 2008 in the Chinese calendar are both years of the rat.
And something does stink here.
Her refusal to reveal her donor information just invites all these comparisons to back in 1996.
Johnny Chung, remember these names here?
James Riotti, John Huang, Charlie Tree.
There were 22 people in all who pleaded guilty after the 1996 scandal.
And it seems like the Clintons are trying to repeat history.
Whenever they get in money troubles, they seem to go to Asia.
They seem to go to China.
Now, Mrs. Clinton is getting all kinds of praise here.
In fact, by the way, the LA Times had a fascinating story.
Donors' business under FBI scrutiny, an investment pool run by Norman Shu raised profits and questions.
This is the LA Times.
Listen, listen to a couple of quotes here.
One investor, quote unquote, said that she made donations to Clinton via Shu solely to stay in Shu's good graces.
And she knew others who did so as well.
They knew they had to do it or they were out, said the investor, who asked to remain anonymous.
There were people who maxed out every credit card they had to give the maximum $4,600 in donations.
She said she opposed Clinton's presidential bid, but she gave money to her campaign anyway.
I can't stand the woman, the investor said.
So here's just one story.
It's anecdotal, but she's making it clear that she was forced into this for fear of retribution from Norman Shu.
Then the AP story here, Senator Hillary Rodham, Clinton's presidential campaign.
By the way, she didn't say it.
The campaign said it.
The campaign now has the human ability to talk, do you know, just like the White House?
The campaign said Monday it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Norman Shu.
And oh, they're going to vigorously review their fundraisers in the future.
They're going to really vet these people.
Now, folks, I'm from Missouri.
And the campaign's going to have to show me where this money went.
They're not telling us who the donors are, and that's the key.
And they're not telling us where this money is being returned to.
And as somebody from Missouri needs to show me, as usual, my friends, half my fertile brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, all everything.
Maha Rushi here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Speaking of more this 400,000, whatever it is, $850, $850,000, $860,000 in donations from Norman Shu to Mrs. Clinton, she's going to send it back.
You know, you have to figure that it's either going to go back to Shu or it's going to go back to the people he bundled.
In which case, one of the people that he bundled was this family from Daly City, California.
I keep talking about the mail carrier.
The Paul family, Ma and Paw Paw.
Lots of pets, no money, makes $45,000 a year.
But in two years, the family donated $244,000 to the Clinton, well, to the Democrats, and I think $55,000 or $60,000 of it went to Mrs. Clinton.
Now, you would think that these people are going to go to their mailbox one day this week and they're going to get a huge amount of money in their mailbox.
You know, I want to know, folks.
I want to know who these donors are.
And she's not saying, and neither is Obama.
Barack Obama.
And I don't know if Mr. and Mrs. Paul and their children, the Paul kids, will be allowed to keep the money.
They donated it.
It's going to stop.
They donate.
Hey, you got to hear how the drive-bys are dealing with this.
Andrea Mitchell marvels here at the Smart Clinton Inc. dumping the shoe money on the eve of 9-11 and the Petraeus testimony.
He's on with Joe Scarborough today, and he said, my gosh, this Hillary Clinton story just continues to move like a freight train going from Los Angeles to Chicago.
This is one of the biggest refunds in political campaign history.
Clearly they've figured out that there is likely criminality involved in this on the part of the...
Take a minute.
That's not that what they did.
They discovered this likely criminality that's going to be found.
To say that the Clintons have discovered criminality is like saying Newton discovered gravity.
The bundler, Norman Shu and some of the contributors, not the campaign itself.
And they're trying to get out in front of it.
Of course, they release this at night quietly on the eve of 9-11 and the day of the Petraeus report.
So you have to think that the smart folks over at Clinton Central figured this would not get very much attention.
Yeah, the smart folks over at Clinton Central.
Oh, how we marvel at the brilliance of the Clintons, ladies and gentlemen.
Drive-bys, they just bear them.
They just undress and say, please do me.
Yes, Mr. Sterdley.
She doesn't know.
Mr. Snurdley's question, the official program observer, says, how does Andrea Mitchell know that the Clintons are not involved in this for a certainty?
Very simple.
I'm surprised that you would ask such a question.
The answer is, I mean, sure, if Andrea were here, she'd say, because the Clinton team told her.
The Clinton team told her.
They don't doubt the Clintons.
I mean, the Clintons are oracles.
The Clintons are the gods of the Democrat Party.
So Scarborough says, well, they knew what was going on.
The Clintons did.
Now, obviously, Barack Obama is her challenger.
Would we expect Barack Obama to come out and attack her on this fundraiser, or is he concerned about his own Chicago fundraisers?
Barack Obama's political action committee accepted money from Norman Shu in previous years, not in this presidential campaign, but before he was a presidential candidate.
This was when Hillary Clinton was desperately trying to compete with Barack Obama to draw in the most money, and actually she lost in that round to Barack Obama in this recent campaign cycle.
And they were just taking money from wherever they could get it.
Oh, yeah, that's it.
That was just as innocent as it could be.
Obama was mounting a challenge that Mrs. Clinton wasn't prepared for, had to go out there, just get the money wherever they could.
Whatever Democrats have to do to win, folks, you have to understand the drive-by media narrative and template as such.
So whatever they have to do to win is fine.
We don't question it.
You think the coverage of this would be anywhere similar if this were, say, Rudy or Mitt Romney?
I mean, they'd be delving into Norman Shues' religion.
Is this guy a Mormon convert?
You know, they'd be doing all kinds of, they wouldn't be stopping.
They wouldn't even be paying attention to Petraeus.
Yeah, with Rudy, is there a mob ties in this money?
Is that why Rudy is giving it back?
Where's this money going?
The drive-bys would say.
And of course, with Fred Thompson, is it lobbyist money?
We're going to find the roots of this if Fred Thompson's being forced to give back $850,000 or $60,000 with Mrs. Clinton.
It's just, wow.
Are they not sharp?
They saw what happened and they knew they had to get rid of this money and they did it the night of Petraeus' testimony.
Whoa, they are really smart over there at Clinton, Inc.
Let's go to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
We'll go to the Bronx.
We'll start with Bob.
Glad you called, sir, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
Yes, I was just flashing back.
I was actually two blocks away from the World Trade Center when it went down.
I watched it from a consulting job right through the windows.
And again, the horrific, horrific scene it was.
But I just can't believe when I listened to the Hillary Clintons of the world and all of the other so-called wannabe presidents that they would have any question that what Mr. Bush did here was the right and only way to proceed to retaliate against this evil empire.
Well, then, if you have that opinion, then you, and I, look, I'm being facetious here, but you obviously don't understand their political objectives.
They have a narrative, they have an objective, and it's purely political, and it's got far more importance to them than national security does.
I mean, look, the people you're talking about are actively trying to secure the defeat of the U.S. military here.
And I think, I'll tell you what, that's, you know, 9-11 comes around, and I said at the beginning of the program, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time in memorial on this.
I want you to reflect on it personally with your feelings.
So I got to tell you something, folks.
It's a hell of a day for the Democrats to be urging defeat up on Capitol Hill.
We've got a couple soundbites coming in addition to our regular roster here of Barbara Boxer today.
You will not believe.
Just indecent and vulgar.
Now, once again, here you have this four-star general in full military dress being accused of being a liar, being told he's a patsy, even after his testimony yesterday.
I'll tell you something.
Let's put the when the rubber meets the road here.
Let's let's challenge these Democrats.
If he's lying, isn't it time for a court-martial?
If General Petraeus is lying and is a patsy and is simply engaging in a political process here above and beyond what his charge is, can't they suggest that there be charges brought against him for misleading the Congress, lying to Congress?
You know, there is a very, very strict law.
You lie to Congress and you are in deep doo-doo.
It's worse than a hate crime.
You lie to Congress and they will come after you.
If they claim he's lying, let's see the proof.
Let's hear their experts.
Let's find out, you know, these Democrats in both the House and the Senate, both these committees, they are the military experts of the world.
They're the ones that know how to fight the enemy.
They're the ones that know how to defeat an enemy?
Don't make me choke.
These are the people that know how to give up.
These are the people that know how to quit.
These are the people, I'm going to say this again, they are trying to rerun the Iraq war as Vietnam.
They are trying to cast this administration as the Nixon administration.
That is what they're trying to do.
And for them to be doing this on the sixth anniversary of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon being hit by Osama bin Laden's 19 hijackers, how tone deaf must they be?
How, you know, one thing you can do with Democrats, this is a projection.
It's called in psychiatric terms.
The Democrats are accusing Petraeus of being a patsy.
The Democrats are accusing him of lying.
I've suggested to you that if you ever, because, you know, I'm talented here, folks, I can read the stitches on the fastballs.
I can see between the lines.
I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body.
And I am telling you that when they say Petraeus is lying, it means they are.
When they say that Petraeus is a puppet, they are.
And I'll tell you who's pulling their strings.
Moveon.org and that contemptible, indecent ad that ran yesterday in the New York Times.
The kook fringe left-wing blogosphere.
That's who they're afraid of.
They're not afraid of Usama.
They are not afraid of the enemy.
They're afraid of Fox News.
They're afraid of me, and they are afraid of their kook, insane, lunatic left-wing supporters.
And who are these people?
Well, in the case of moveon.org, moveon.org is basically, and it's a small grunch of people.
I mean, they try to make themselves sound like they're millions strong with all their donations, but the people running that show over there are basically a bunch of elitists who hold every American in contempt.
And in fact, I would go so far as say Ralph Peters wrote about this today in the New York Post, and I would agree with it when he said, these are people who are not even interested in you voting because you don't have a sense to do that.
They want to anoint the people they think should be running the country.
You don't have the sense to get out of the way of anything.
You don't have the sense to make the right decisions in life.
You don't have the sense to vote right, as evidenced by the last two elections.
These are pure totalitarians.
And that's who's pulling the strings of these Democrats in the House and the Senate.
They are the ones who are puppets.
They are the ones who are lying.
They are the ones who don't have a policy or a strategy for victory.
Just the opposite.
Learn it, love it, live it.
Hi, welcome back, Rushlin Boy.
As always, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have as your highly trained broadcast specialist.
I want to ask you, do you guys remember this was a short, well, it might have been a week, two weeks ago, could have been a month.
Time flies when you're having fun.
We always have fun here.
And I do remember that just a couple days ago, I was in sort of an intense conversation with an environmentalist wacko about alternative fuels.
And you remember I told you, I don't know how long ago, it was very recent, I said, you watch before it's all said and done.
The alternative fuel source that we're going to discover out there for propulsion is going to be water.
Remember that?
And I told this environmentalist wacko, I said, you think we're going to be able to fly airplanes with wind farms and solar panels?
You got everything coming.
This environmentalist is going nuts on me on oil and how it's polluting.
We've got to stop using it.
It's as natural as your hairspray.
In fact, it's probably more natural than your hairspray.
Well, guess what?
And I told this just two days ago to this environmentalist Wacko.
I said, some American sitting in his basement, utilizing the unique freedom and creativity that we Americans have is going to come up with a way to make water usable to produce hydrogen and propulsion.
Lo and behold, radio frequencies help burn saltwater.
An eerie Pennsylvania cancer researcher has found a way to burn saltwater, a novel invention being touted by one chemist as the most remarkable water science discovery in a century.
John Kanzi has happened upon the discovery accidentally when he tried to desalinate seawater with a radio frequency generator he developed to treat cancer.
He discovered that as long as the saltwater was exposed to the radio frequencies, it would burn.
The discovery has scientists excited by the prospect of using saltwater, the most abundant resource on earth, as a fuel.
Rustam Roy, Penn State University chemist, has held demonstrations at his State College, Pennsylvania lab to confirm his own observations that radio frequencies act to weaken the bonds between the elements that make up saltwater, releasing the hydrogen.
Once ignited, the hydrogen will burn as long as it is exposed to the frequencies.
This discovery, the most remarkable in water science of 100 years, and I told this environmentalist wacko, I said, you know what's going to happen if we ever do discover a way to make all the water on this planet provide pretty much the same energy that oil does, you are going to say we're depleting the oceans and we can't use it.
And you're going to give us predictions about how in 35 or 40 years the oceans are going to be depleted.
And I'm going to say back to you, no, because they're melting up there in the North Pole.
And for every bit of the saltwater we use, there's ice melting from glaciers and so forth.
So it's going to replenish itself.
We're saved, folks.
We're saved.
Radio once again saves the day.
Radio frequencies happen to be that which will ignite seawater.
Now, naturally, this is in its early stages, ladies and gentlemen.
All right, let's go back to the audio soundbites.
We're going to get to more of your phone calls, the Petraeus soundbites, in the next hour.
Wait till you hear these two Barbara Boxer bits.
I don't want to play them out of rotation here.
They were uttered by her mere moments ago, but I'll tell you something.
One of the things that, as you listen to these as they come up in the next hour, one of the things I want you to recall or keep in mind is that these words are disgusting and they are vulgar and they are indecent.
But the most amazing thing is Boxer Kerry Biden, I don't care who you're going to hear, they act as if their words have no consequences.
On 9-11, the sixth anniversary, they act as though what they are saying about their country and about our abilities in Iraq and about their desire to lose in Iraq have no consequences with our allies, with the Iraqis themselves, with the enemy.
The hubris, the arrogance here exhibited by these people and the danger at the same time will startle you.
Brief time out.
Much more ahead after this.
Hi, welcome back.
I'm going to violate my own rule, ladies and gentlemen.
I've got to play you this one Barber Boxer soundbite.
This is the second of two lecturing General Petraeus today before the Senate committee.
Please, General, I ask you, please don't do what you did in 04 when you painted a rosy scenario in an op-ed piece.
turned out to be wrong, like you did in 05 when you told us, and we believed you, that the Iraqis were just about there.
They were going to take over their own defense.
And please consider that others could be right.
The Brits, General Casey, Comptroller General, Lee Hamilton, and Tom Kaine, who just wrote in an op-ed piece that our presence in Iraq is recruiting terrorists for al-Qaeda.
Listen to the Iraqi people, the American people, the majority, the Congress.
Now, you might say, where does this woman get off?
Well, she's a United States Senator.
She's an elected to say what she wants, but she's acting like her words have no consequence.
They all voted for this guy in unanimity.
They confirmed him.
I didn't know they had all these problems with him.
And here's the thing.
I asked you a moment ago, put yourself in the position of asking yourself, do these people think their words have any consequences?
And to me, I'll tell you the best way to characterize this, it sounds to me like Barbara Boxer and others that you will hear in the next hour are auditioning for roles in the next video released by Osama bin Laden.
And I mean that.
▲
Export Selection