All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:09
September 11, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi and welcome back ladies and gentlemen.
So so thrilling and so satisfying to have you with us here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am Rush Limbaugh meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Here is our phone number if you want to be on the program.
We never have open lines here, but if you know how to time your call and if you can figure out how long our broadcast is delayed.
See, we are We're on a digital delay here, ladies and gentlemen, not to protect me or protect you from me, but protect the audience from out-of-control callers.
I, of course, as a highly trained broadcast specialist, know the limits.
I know where the far can push the envelope.
Sometimes callers are outraged, sometimes they're pranksters.
And there are rare, rare times that we have to deedle them, as we in broadcasting say.
But if you know how long, and I'm not going to tell you how long that delay is, but if you know how long the delay is, you anticipate the end of a call and then call, you might get through.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
I'm getting some emails from people.
Would you stop playing these soundbites of these Democrats?
I will not stop playing the sound bites of these Democrats.
We are going to have to win the war without them.
We're going to have to win the war against Osama and we're going to have to beat the Democrats in the process, folks.
You've got to know it.
Well, you do, but there are fringe undecideds that listen to this program as well.
And many Democrats and many libs also tune in on a daily basis.
They don't admit it, but we know that they are out there.
And you've got to hear this.
We have an endless parade starting yesterday in the House, an endless parade of the lack of decency like I haven't seen in my covering of current events as a broadcast specialist before.
And it's startling here.
It's vulgar.
I know it's infuriating and enrages you, but it should.
So let's now go to the disgusting Robert Wexler, who, by the way, to tell you who he is, Robert Wexler was instrumental in the Florida recount in the 2000 elections.
Let me tell you what happened here, just to rehash this.
Because the Democrats, they are mad.
They think an election they were trying to steal in 2000 was stolen from them.
You remember the famous butterfly ballot?
This was a ballot designed by Teresa Lepore, the elections official here in Palm Beach County, and she was a Democrat.
And the ballot apparently, and the ballots are sent to all of us voters.
There's a booklet that comes in with all of the issues and the ballots in there and explains how to use it and so forth.
So what happened?
A bunch of people in southern Palm Beach County and northern Broward go to the polls and they end up claiming, claiming that they were confused by the ballot and that they actually ended up voting for Pat Buchanan when they intended to vote for Al Gore.
This took real effort, folks.
I used that same butterfly ballot and I, El Rushbo, was nowhere near confused.
Well, it turns out that there was a little strategery in place.
A PR firm had cooked up a scheme to make these people widely known.
Wexler claimed that he got an incredible number of phone calls in his office during Election Day from people who were scared because they had inadvertently voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore.
At the time, I said, who in the hell calls congressmen on Election Day?
I said, this just doesn't happen.
Not in hundreds or thousands of people.
It just doesn't happen.
And if it did, that's even scarier, folks, because look at how dependent those people are.
The first person they think to call when they got a problem is their congressman, not somebody at the polling place.
Anyway, it turned out that this was a scheme put in place to get this whole process of counting the chance and all that going.
That's who Robert Wexler is, among many other things.
So let's go to the audio soundbites.
Here is a portion of his questioning yesterday of General Petraeus.
The surge has failed based on most parameters.
In truth, war-related deaths have doubled in Iraq in 2007 compared to last year.
Tragically, it is my understanding that seven more American troops have died while we've been talking today.
Cherry-picking statistics or selectively massaging information will not change the basic truth.
It is my patriotic duty to represent my constituents and ask you, question you, about your argument that the surge in troops be extended until next year, next summer.
I am skeptical, General.
More importantly, the American people are skeptical because four years ago, very credible people, both in uniform and not in uniform, came before this Congress and sold us a bill of goods that turned out to be false.
Now, you have to understand Wexler's constituency to understand this.
Robert Wexler is talking to the relatively few number of people in his district down here and making it sound like he's representing the United States of America.
And if you want to know how kooky you audit, you pick up any South Florida paper.
You can do it online.
Read the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
Read the Palm Beach Post.
Read the Miami Herald.
Just go to the letters to the editor and you will swear you're at Daily Cause.
You will swear you're at the Democrat Underground.
You will swear you're at moveon.org.
They are deranged.
And yes, they are listening to me right now.
But they are, you, you people down, you are deranged.
You Democrats down here are absolutely delusional, devoid of any rationality or reason.
And so he's addressing his constituents here, folks.
He wants to get reelected.
He knows how wacko they are, and he's got to represent them.
And he does so with pride, does he not?
So here he just said that they got lied to four years ago.
Once again, Congressman, call this man up on charges.
Bring him up on charges.
He's lying to Congress.
You're tall, you're saying he's massaging statistics, cherry-picking statistics, selectively massaging information won't change the basic truth, meaning he's not telling you the truth.
He's lying to Congress.
And of course, if you read the letters to the editor down here, it's amazing.
It really is, folks, to read these things.
It's one of the reasons I don't cross the bridge here much, except when I have to, I like to go to the airport and get out.
But I mean, these people, you find two or three days, Bush lied.
Bush, go to, there was the letter to the editor today.
Bush phony bologna for going to Iraq was unnecessary.
Just doing a show.
Bush needs to be impeached.
You'll have two or three of those every day.
Still, that's who Wexler's talk.
So, I just want you to understand that.
I'm not trying to cut him some slack here, but you just have to understand it.
Now, here is, in fact, go back and play Wexler's.
I want Petraeus' answer.
No, play the next Wexler, and then we've got Petraeus.
Go ahead and play the next Wexler now.
This testimony today is eerily similar to the testimony the American people heard on April 28th, 1967, from General William Westmoreland when he told the American people America was making progress in Vietnam.
Stop the tape, stop tape, stop tape, stop tape.
This is the attempt to continue to associate Iraq and Vietnam.
And that's something else that you'll find that these lunatics down here are constantly harping on because they've drunk the Kool-Aid down here, folks.
And they drink it each and every day.
And they're fed this Kool-Aid to the editorial writers at these rags.
He continued.
General, there are 58,195 names etched into the Vietnam War Memorial.
20 years from now, when we build the Iraq War Memorial on the National Mall, how many more men and women will have been sacrificed to protect our so-called credibility?
How many more names will be added to the wall before we admit it is time to leave?
How many more names, General?
Here's General Petraeus.
Congressman, first of all, I have not said that the surge should be extended.
In fact, my recommendations are that the surge be curtailed earlier than it would have been.
My recommendations, in fact, include the withdrawal of the Marine Expeditionary Unit this month without replacement, and then a brigade starting in mid-December, and then another one about every 45 days.
And that's a considerable amount prior to, in fact, how far the surge could have run if we'd just pushed everybody for 15 months.
And with respect to the facts that I have laid out today, I very much stand by those.
Okay, so Wexler just got swatted away like a troublesome fly.
And what's obvious here is Wexler hasn't listened to what he's being told.
Wexler hasn't, he's asking these questions and making these pontificating speeches purely and simply for the newspapers and radio and TV station coverage down here for his constituents, not listening to what Petraeus is saying.
This is really aimed at George W. Bush.
What Wexler's doing is that's who they hate down here, and that's Wexler's district.
One more from Petraeus.
See what you think of this.
And lastly, I would say, Congressman, that no one is more conscious of the loss of life than the commander of the forces.
That is something I take and feel very deeply.
And if I did not think that this was a hugely important endeavor, and if I did not think that it was an endeavor in which we could succeed, I would not have testified as I did to you all here today.
You know, I'll bet it was everything Petraeus could do to not reach across that table, start strangling this little guy.
I'll just bet you he's sitting there, Wexler, making it sound like nobody cares that these 3,700 deaths matter.
Telling a four-star general in dress uniform.
But again, that's Wexler representing his district.
He's pontificating and making speeches for the media down here, show him on TV and so forth, because that's what they think.
And Folks, it's not far off from the rest of the kuk liberal population throughout this country.
We roll on with the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen.
Difficult though it must be to hear, it is something you must subject yourself to.
This is a little exchange, unbelievable exchange, in which General Petraeus has to explain to a U.S. congressman that Al-Qaeda really is in Iraq and that they're the same al-Qaeda that attacked us on 9-11 and that they are still a threat to us.
It is Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York.
Isn't it true General Al-Qaeda in Iraq formed in 2005, two years after we first?
Congressman, I'm not saying when it started.
I'm saying merely that Al-Qaeda-Iraq clearly is part of the overall greater Al-Qaeda network.
But they didn't intercept communications, and there is no question also but that Al-Qaeda-Iraq is a key element in igniting the ethno-sectarian violence.
They have been, in effect, an element that has poured gas on burning embers with the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque, for example, and with efforts that they have tried recently, for example, bombing the poor Yazidi villages in northwestern Iraq and so forth.
Are they a threat to us?
Al-Qaeda Central is a threat to us.
Are they a threat to us?
He asks him this on the day before the sixth anniversary of 9-11.
Are they a threat to us?
Now, ladies and gentlemen, we all know how smart I am.
You know it, I know it.
I don't say it, you know it.
I can't believe, though, that something I know is not known by a congressman from New York named Gary Ackerman, who I've met at a wedding.
Same place I met Mrs. Clinton.
That's beside the point.
We learned with the capture.
You know, we killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
They appointed some other guy to head up al-Qaeda in Iraq.
We captured the guy.
The guy started singing.
And he said, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not a homegrown insurgency.
It is Al-Qaeda from the Zawahiri bin Laden front.
And it is there specifically to make it look like there's a civil war in Iraq when there is not.
These insurgents that they're recruiting are coming from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, some from Jordan.
And they are all part of the larger Al-Qaeda network.
And this was told to us by a captured leader.
Even I, ladies and gentlemen, know this.
I can't believe Ackerman doesn't.
That's what Petraeus was talking about here.
They're trying to make it look like a civil war.
They're trying to make it look like a sectarian war.
And they know they can make it work because they've got the Democrat Party in this country and the drive-by media wanting to push that narrative.
They know how to feed the Democrats what they want.
The terrorists do.
They know how to feed the drive-by media in this country what they want.
So Petraeus, you know, it just swats another guy down.
Now, let's go to last night's Fox News channel, a special report with Britt Hume for a limbaugh echo.
It is from none other than Mort Kondracki, the fill-in host Jim Angle.
He says, Mort, an ad that appeared in the New York Times today, obviously an attempt to impugn the integrity, pretty harsh attack on General Petraeus, one that Democrats flirted with on Friday, but they weren't nearly this pointed.
Every time they've kind of leaned toward the center, Harry Reid or somebody like that, moveon.org has gone after them, have blasted them, and sure enough, they go back into line.
And the problem for the Democratic Party is that they're always siding with their left wing on nuclear freezes and nuclear disarmament and all that kind of stuff.
And that's why nobody trusts them on foreign policy.
Yeah, that's 80% right.
Where is Mort wrong, Mr. Snerdley?
As you listen to the, or did you listen to the bite, were your screening calls?
Where's Mr. Kondracki in error in what he said?
When's the last time a Democrats moved to the damn center?
You know, they're no different than moveon.org.
They're no different than Daily Cause.
There's one thing that, you know, this is another one of these myths that's being perpetrated out there that these Democrats are these, you know, harmless.
They just desperately want to be Fentrists.
They just want to be right in the middle, but they're being dragged to this ultra-extreme liberalism by a bunch of kooks.
They are this.
They are this.
They don't have to get dragged that far.
They may not, in some cases, some Democrats, I mean, they may not be as kook fringe as moveon.org's daily cause and all these other clowns out there, but they don't have to get moved far to be in bed with them.
You know, look at it as well.
They're in twin beds.
You know, the far left is on the left twin bed and the Democrats are in the distance between two twin beds, not that far away, unless it's your first date, then it's the longest distance in the world.
Terry in Monticello, Arkansas, welcome to the EIB network.
Well, it's a pleasure and an honor to speak with you.
I'm very happy to speak with you.
You are the voice of truth in a cacophony of lies and treason, and I appreciate your voice very much.
Thank you.
I appreciate you saying that.
Thanks much.
Well, this harks back to Senator Clinton.
As you know, there's always a mad scramble for a congressional investigatory committee to be formed for hearings on any perceived Republican or military misstep.
I'd like to know where the scramble is to form the same type of committee for Senator Clinton and her political support groups for this questionable money.
It is an excellent question, and it was tried once.
It was tried back in 1998.
The Senate Republicans, you're going to love this.
The Senate Republicans, this is where Fred Thompson's going to get hit during his presidential campaign.
By the way, I just want to warn you, he's going to get hit on this.
Oh, of course.
The Republicans wanted to look into this.
There were 22 people that fled the country.
I mean, there was money coming to the Clintons from the Chinese Liberation Army.
Absolutely.
It was traced.
And the Democrats said, you can't just investigate the Clintons.
You've got to investigate Republicans.
And Fred Thompson said, okay, we'll investigate Republicans.
Of course, it died because that was a tacit deal.
Okay, we'll investigate you, and you'll investigate us, and we will agree beforehand and won't find anything.
And that would be tried again.
Plus the Democrats are running the investigatory process right now and I don't think they like busted kneecaps.
Music That's right, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
All right.
Just had a call from a nice woman wanting to know why Mrs. Clinton is not being investigated on the fundraising.
And I have two stories here that have been published.
One was published two days ago, one that was published today.
No, take it back, both published today.
Not published, however.
That, my friends, is the key.
I have stories here from ABC News.
I have stories here from the Washington Post, but not the newspaper, and not the main website from their blog sites.
Isn't it fascinating?
And by the way, these stories are on Clinton fundraisers.
And like the ABC blog headline is on heels of 9-11, Clinton fundraiser raises eyebrows.
The Washington Post blog for Clinton's An Unwelcome Echo.
And it's a picture at Christmas time in the White House of Bill and Hillary with Johnny Chung and a couple of other ChaiComs.
Now, see, this way, the drive-by schizophrenic, what do you mean we didn't cover it?
Well, we most certainly did on our website.
We put it on our blog sites.
Well, the latest studies I've said, nothing against blogs.
You've got to be very careful, Buntus.
Be real careful.
But the latest studies I have seen suggests that blogs are still in infancy.
And they're growing, but they're still in infancy in terms of the reach.
They basically talk to each other.
Bloggers talk to each other and so forth, and their audiences are expanding, but they're not read as widely as newspapers or even newspaper websites are.
So the drive-by schedule, oh, yeah, we're covering it.
Put it on our blogs.
The first one is this.
Just days after the sixth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democrat lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9-11 Homeland Security spending, say watchdog groups.
On the sixth anniversary of the attacks, Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, it's today, by the way, slated to attend a sober memorial service near Manhattan's Ground Zero.
One week later, she is scheduled to speak at a Homeland Security-themed $1,000 plate fundraiser for her campaign downtown Washington at the offices of a powerful legal firm.
Being a week after 9-11, it appears unseemly and politically opportunistic, said Steve Ellis, former Coast Guard officer, now vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C. good government group.
Clinton's fundraising audience at this soiree expected to include many of the government contractors and lobbyists whose fortunes have soared in the years since the attacks, which triggered a massive government reorganization and billions in new government spending.
But that's not the only objective or objectionable feature of the event, say critics, for the price of a ticket.
And you can get a ticket for a $1,000 personal donation all the way up to a $25,000 bundle.
Hello, Norman Shu.
Attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon, an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long breakout sessions hosted by key Democrat lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security Subcommittee.
It sure as damn well is.
It's influence peddling, disguised as a fundraiser.
But you can do influence peddling under the new ethics bill.
It's not signing the law yet, but you can do this as long as it's a fundraiser.
You can do anything.
You can take a lobbyist to lunch.
He can take you to lunch.
You can have a lobbyist come by and give you 25 grand in bundled contributions as long as it's a fundraiser.
Then you give them a price briefing or a policy briefing and so forth.
This is Mrs. Clinton.
The Democrats said they were going to stop this when they came into office in January, but they are not stopping it.
In fact, the ethics bill that's close to being done, one of the you people are, you got mad at earmarks?
Huh?
You have no clue what's coming down the pike in a so-called ethics reform bill.
There is no ethics reform.
John McCain did not take the money out of politics.
All he did was change the meandering route of the river of the money of politics.
Nobody's going to take the money out of politics.
McCain Feingold certainly didn't.
All it did was restrict what average citizens could say within 30 or 60 days of an election on television.
Danielle Bryan, executive director of the Washington, D.C. Good Government Group Project on Government Oversight, said this is an outrage.
I mean, you never want to see lawmakers trading on their national security credentials to people making large donations.
So, anyway, my point here being, ladies and gentlemen, a thousand dollar lobbyists can afford these ticket prices, Mr. Sterling.
Don't sit in there and play naive with me.
It's the $25,000 bundle.
That is the one that humors me.
Now, yeah, you say, okay, it's being reported.
Yes, it's being reported.
On the this one is what?
ABC blog.
Can we, Cookie?
I know you're out there.
I want you, we'll do a little study.
We'll find out this shows up on the ABC television network in the, what do they call it, world news tonight with Charles Gibson.
I'll bet somebody on a couple of iPhones that it doesn't.
I'll bet it doesn't show up on Good Morning America.
And I'll bet they don't talk about this well, said Nightline.
Well, they might do it at nightline when everybody but the perverts are in bed.
Who knows?
I just, you want it, you want to make a bet about this.
They put it on the blog and they say, now let's go to the Washington Post.
For Clinton's an unwelcome echo, talk about deja vu.
Pressed by questions about a scandal-tarred fundraiser, a candidate named Clinton decides to return hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Why don't we put the figure in there?
860,000.
The politician's operation promises to conduct criminal background checks on big fundraisers in the future, and it leaks its decisions at night after a busy day in hopes of burying the news and minimizing the damage.
And I would suggest by keeping it in a blog, they succeeded in burying the news and limiting the damage.
Unfortunately, I read these blogs.
It is my job, men.
In 1997, the politician, of course, was Bill Clinton, and the tainted money came from folks such as John Wong, Charlie Tree, Johnny Chung, and Pauline Ken Chanillak.
A decade later, it's Hillary's turn to write refund checks to deflect attention from a bundler named Norman Shu.
The eerie echoes of the last campaign finance scandal to Clintons are what make this shoe case so problematic for the current Democrat presidential fundruzer frontrunner.
The shoe case illustrates the challenges for Hillary Clinton in defining her past.
Blah, There's the second page of this.
Anyway, they describe what went on in 1996.
It's actually pretty amazing.
You know, they know all this stuff.
They buried it back then.
Now they regurgitate it in their blog on their website.
The president used the White House to stroke donors in a more methodical way than any of his predecessors had ever done.
What a great double entendre that.
Come on, Dawn.
Is this a joke?
Don't sit in there and go all Victorian on me when I know it's not you.
He invited hundreds of top contributors and politically connected people to attend coffees with him in the executive mansion or even stay in the Lincoln bedroom.
Now, okay, this is the Washington Post.
Let's see how long it takes for this story to show up in the newspaper.
And let's see if it does show up in the newspaper where in the newspaper it shows up.
We'll wait and see.
But now, see, they've got cover.
They put it in their blogs as, hey, shut up, Limboy.
We covered it.
We're not hiding the news.
We're not giving Mrs. Clinton a pass.
This is Ann in Redding, California.
Great to have you on the program, Ann.
Thanks for waiting, too.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks a lot.
I'm Bob Dittos, and thanks for being there.
An honor to talk to you.
Appreciate that.
I'm really nervous.
Anyway, I saw some of that PMS 9-11 rerun today, and then I went and took the tape that I made of Fox back on 9-11, six years ago, and compared them.
Now, wait, a second.
You're talking about two six-year-old tapes.
What, yeah, right.
Okay.
Yeah, I saw the PMS one today, and then I.
That was NBC's.
That was the NBC Broadcast Network's version of the rebroadcast.
Right.
Then I got out my Fox and just, you know, us looking at it and comparing it.
And Broca and Katie Kuric were so unemotional and calm and no shock in their voices when they were describing it.
They're highly trained journalists.
They look at emotionally involved.
They don't care.
It was upsetting.
And then I go to Fox and they're all emotional and all this stuff.
And Brokaw's going, see the plane crash?
See the building falling down.
And it took them like almost one hour before either one of them mentioned that, oh, there may be people in the plane or there may be people at the top of the World Trade Center.
They didn't even mention that for like about an hour.
And then, of course, Brokaw went about.
Whoa, who?
Who didn't mention that there might be people in the plane?
In NBC?
Yeah.
Yeah, it took about an hour before they even said anything about the poor people in the plane or the top of the World Trade Center.
They were talking mostly about, oh, the glass and the metal and all these things.
I watched.
I wasn't able to devote this kind of attention to it, but I watched a little bit of it today.
I was reading the closed captioning because as I've said countless times prior, I don't listen to this stuff.
But I saw the closed captioning say that they were discussing how this attack could have been coordinated, that they thought it was no doubt a terrorist attack, which I thought, well, they're on top of things.
And they were.
I didn't know they didn't mention the possibility of people in there.
Well, it took them an hour or so before they did.
You know, I mean, it was like they were a non-entity, you know what I'm saying?
And then Brocal, again, was going on like on and on about our lack of security and why didn't we do this?
In other words, he was already blaming America then when he's sitting there watching the World Trade Center.
Well, no, you got to be careful.
Part of my rage was, how the hell did this happen?
And then the next day, I have to tell you something here, Ann.
The next day, it was the next day we had pictures and the names of the 19.
And I said, how the hell?
Those people were incinerated.
How do we know?
And then it was a few short days after that we found out about the flying schools that they were going to.
There was reason to be mad about that.
There was reason to be mad about how to do this.
That's why I wanted everybody to revisit their feelings today on that.
What?
Well, I think some of the terrorists did go to flight school in Bob Wexler's district.
I think there were, I'm not sure if it's his district, but his county.
Yeah, these were the terrorists that were going in these flight schools.
Say, I don't care to learn how to take off one of these things or land it.
I do want to know how to land, but I don't care about taking off.
And it raised some red flags to the instructors and they passed it and went nowhere.
Got to go, folks.
A little long in this segment.
You know the drill.
The next segment will be shorter than usual.
Saying more in five seconds than most hosts say in an entire career.
I am Rush Limbaugh saying it.
Bob in High Point, New Jersey.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you.
Bye.
I was reading about New Jersey the other day, Bob.
Big scandal.
Like 11 elected officials were found to be corrupt and sent packing.
Ten of them were Democrats.
But you know what?
None of the press accounts mentioned the party.
Yeah, greetings from the most politically corrupt and morally vacant state in the Union.
You're right about that.
It's a regular cottage industry with these politicians dominated, of course, by the Democrats that just can't keep their hands out of the public till.
Right.
And public other things.
What I'm calling about is Mr. Dennis Kucinich.
I served in Vietnam with the Marine Corps.
And Mr. Kucinich has been a bug since 1960s.
He's been inconsequential, but he's always managed to stay around.
And to borrow a term, a Marine Corps term, I think he should be designated the house mouse.
Seeing his job and his political stature and where he works, this is a fitting title for him.
What are you upset because he went over to Syria and on Syrian TV accused the president of an illegal occupation of Iraq?
Absolutely.
You're damn right you ought to be upset about it.
He scarries to Al-Qaeda Pep rallies, and this butcher Assad over there is tapping his foot as Mr. Kucinich does his little dance.
Can you imagine?
You know, folks, can you imagine what these people like Basher Assad and Ahmad Dinejad think about these people?
What fools they must think they are?
What puppets they think they are?
And they don't think their words or actions have any consequences, and they think they're over there really impressing these people and making them think they're smart.
It's just.
Well, lack of decency and vulgarity.
It's pure and simple.
Here's Jack in La Mesa, California.
Hi, Jack.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Mega Dittos, Rush.
Nice to talk to you today.
Thank you, sir.
A day without Rush is like a day without sunshine.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, let's test your fertile line here.
I got three names I'm going to throw at you, and you can correlate them.
Go ahead.
General David Petraeus, Admiral Jeremy, Michael, Borda, Craig Livingstone.
Let's see.
Let's see, a little host test here.
Well, I think the fourth name in this little quadrangle that you've given me here would be Tom Lantos.
Correct, Professor.
And what did Lantos even go over the line on with Livingstone?
Yeah, this is funny.
I'll never forget this.
Thanks for reminding me of this.
I should have mentioned this yesterday.
Craig Livingstone, the guy with the 500 FBI files in the Clinton White House, for a long time, nobody knew who hired him.
Nobody would admit it.
He's just there every day.
So finally, he gets his moment, and so they bring him up to testify before Lantos' committee that Lantos sits on.
I forget which.
And not long before that, Admiral Borda had committed suicide because somebody had done a story, forget the name.
David, the most decorated soldier in history, David, writing for Newsweek, had done a story saying that Borda had faked a bunch of things to get his medals.
And yeah, David Hackworth.
And Borda was embarrassed and shamed by this and took his life.
So you got Livingstone up there.
And Tom Lantos is talking to him.
And he said, at least Admiral Buddha.
What did he say?
He had the at least Admiral Burda committed suicide over his trans.
And you should have seen Livingstone's face.
Livingstone, you telling me I should kill myself?
And the Democrats probably wanted to because, I mean, he was really embarrassed under Clinton's and those FBI files out there.
Here's what Lantos said to Craig Livingstone.
He said, at least Admiral Burda committed suicide for far less than what Livingstone had done.
Livingstone's face just, he could not book.
He was another Clinton dupe just doing the dirty work.
Got caught.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection