All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:03
October 1, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I'll tell you what, I don't know if there has ever been a heavier day than today in terms of what's out there, in terms of things that we need to discuss.
So much going on today, folks, so let's just get started with it.
Greetings, Rush Schlimbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, a telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
A hearty welcome to those of you watching at rushlimbaugh.com on the DittoCam.
All right, here's what we got coming up.
We have a 90-minute interview with Justice Clarence Thomas starting one hour from now.
I taped the interview last Wednesday before the 60 Minutes show aired last night.
I don't know how many of you saw it, but did you see it?
Oh, well, you probably didn't think you needed to watch it because you had, you've already heard the Justice Thomas interview here we did last Wednesday, but it was amazing.
It was literally amazing.
It's one of the few times I can recall that 60 Minutes didn't go out and feature.
And it was two segments, by the way.
It was an expanded 60 Minutes last night.
He got two segments.
Justice Thomas did.
And they didn't go out and talk to any critics.
The only critic they had in there was some file footage of Al Sharpton and a bullhorn from the megaphone some some years ago.
But it really is a great discussion coming up, and it does go 90 minutes.
And to tell you why I'm doing this, he's such a genuine, decent man, and people don't know this better idea of it now, having seen the 60 Minutes interview last night.
So that's why the length of time with Justice Thomas, a friend of mine, and I just want people to be able to hear him and get to know him as people who know him and love him do.
Also, the stock market, over $14,000 a day, despite the credit crunch stories coming out of UBS and Citibank.
And this, of course, we need to put a suicide watch out on the Democrats, ladies.
And this is not supposed to happen.
Stock market's not supposed to be doing this well.
The economy is not supposed to be doing this well.
Also, today is October 1st.
This is the day that the new fiscal year begins.
So there's some kind of a budget deadline going on here.
How about the, did you, did you know that the Democrats, remember that 12-year-old boy that asked President Bush at a press conference not long ago, I don't have any health insurance, so why don't I have any health insurance?
The Democrats had that 12-year-old boy do their Saturday radio address, and this is a pure stunt.
We know a little bit about who this little boy is and his family, and they are not poor.
They are not poor.
Well, yes, I did hear it, Mr. Snerdley.
It is nothing more than a typical Democrat's nut.
So we'll get to that.
The Clintons, the other Clinton was on TV this weekend.
Which one's the other one?
You know, I'll tell you what, Bill Clinton's out there.
He said that he hopes there's a bunch of Jack Bowers out there doing terrorist acts and torture and this kind of stuff.
He actually said that.
Also, there's a little problem brewing in New York for Mrs. Clinton.
For example, sure winners in New York do not win.
Look at the New York Mets.
They had a seven-game lead with a seven-game lead, 17 games to go.
They lost 13 of the last 17, playing the worst teams in the league at home, and some of them on the road as well.
And they lost.
The first time they haven't been in first place in 282 days or so, whatever the number is, it was a long, long time, and they just totally blew it.
And this is leading people to suspect, hmm, surefire bets in New York may not always win.
And we've got a Frank Rich column from the New York Times yesterday is Hillary Clinton, the new old Al Gore, worried about, hey, I don't like this conventional.
thing I've been telling you.
I don't like this conventional wisdom.
It says she got it all locked up.
We thought that about Al Gore too.
And Al Gore ended up going south.
The Politico.
More Hillary worries.
This one more accurately describes Frank Rich's imagery of the new old Al Gore.
And the way the Politico describes it is she is so infused with ambition and artifice that she cannot connect to voters.
This is just another way of saying what I've always said, and that is that she just feels entitled to it.
And I'm sure that in a Clinton camp, going through this campaign is an insult.
It's a waste of, why should we have to do this?
Why doesn't the country just bow down and accept me?
Because they know I'm the next president, and they know they love me and they know they want me.
And so because of that, you know, this, and then Rich even talks about the laugh.
The New York Times did a whole long piece on Hillary's laugh, trying to sugarcoat it, make it sound human.
We all know what the laugh's about.
That laugh is a signal to whoever asks her a question she doesn't want to hear, your testicles could end up in my lockbox if you keep persisting in this way.
We have a post-mortem.
I think it's a post-mortem on this whole phony soldier thing.
There hasn't been any news made on it since Friday.
Don't know what the House is going to do.
House Democrats with their resolution castigating and condemning me.
House, I don't think, goes into session until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
I haven't heard anything about it since it was first mentioned as something that was Mark Udall from Utah is the guy who wanted to do this.
And I think we can sit and hope that they do.
We sit around and pray that they do, but they may have come to their senses on this.
Newt Gingrich not running, and it was a last-minute decision.
And it's because he's got this group called American Solutions.
And because of McCain Feingle, they find out he couldn't, he found out he couldn't use any of the money it had raised for his presidential campaign.
That would have been illegal.
So he made the decision to opt out of the presidential race, which means that this American Solutions idea of his is serious.
If he really wanted to run, he would have dumped American Solutions and gone about running for president.
But this is obviously what he cares about.
The Christian right claims that they're so distressed with Rudy Giuliani, the presumed Republican frontrunner because of his abortion stance, they're thinking about running on a supporting a third party candidate out there because they're just not happy with anybody in the field.
And Rudy is a convenient excuse for them to go third party.
We will talk about that as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears today.
A Marine Corps sergeant has accused Jack Murtha, 16 term, that means 32 years, congressman from Pennsylvania, of falsely accusing him of cold-blooded murder and war crimes in connection with the deaths of Iraqi citizens.
The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker.
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Hennellt said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.
However, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collier said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself.
She didn't set a date for Murthy's testimony, but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.
Collier, the judge, said she was troubled with the idea that lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.
Now, you know, I hold no brief for Jack Murtha.
I think it's kind of funny to watch the left run around and try to rip me and others for being critical of the troops on a total lie and a total smear and yet ignore their own side.
Actually, they're not ignoring it.
What they're trying to do is get back on board the boat that says they support the troops with all this by trying to find these erroneous and made-up incidents of people like me criticizing the troops.
Anybody listening to this program knows that that has never happened and would never happen.
And if anybody is owed an apology on this, it is I, ladies and gentlemen.
But I don't expect one.
Now, as I say, I'll hold no brief for Mirtha.
And Congress does realize, I mean, they recognize no limits in its demand for executive branch officials' documents and testimony.
But there is a fine line to walk here.
You know, where did Mirtha make these comments?
On television?
He has been critical of the troops on TV.
Whether or not he called them murderers on TV, I don't know.
But he did it at a Capitol Hill press conference, not on the floor of the House, which is where traditional legislative business takes place.
Now, I don't think those comments outside the floor of the House are protected under the speech and debate clause because, among other things, his lies about these soldiers had nothing to do with his legitimate legislative responsibilities.
So that's how I look at this.
I mean, what was he doing at a Capitol Hill press conference or on television being critical and assuming the reports of murderous behavior on the part of our troops?
What legislative engagement was he behaving in there?
If the comments that Mirtha made were made on the floor of the House, regardless how defaming they were, they would be protected.
If they were made on TV or in a press conference, but related legitimately to a legislative function, they would be protected.
But it appears neither of those circumstances applies here.
But really, it doesn't matter how this turns out.
It doesn't matter because it doesn't matter where he said it.
Fact is, he said it.
What does it matter where he said it?
As far as the American people are concerned, as far as the U.S. military and its personnel are concerned, as far as the morale of the troops is concerned, what does it matter where he called the murderers?
In fact, to me, it's even more detestable that he would do it from the floor of the House.
It's even more irresponsible that he would do it from the floor of the House.
But wherever he did it, he still did it.
He still said it.
And the defense is, well, he'll say anything he wants to the floor of the House.
We understand it, but he still said it.
Nobody has to make up or twist or take out of context what Jack Murthy said.
And now we've got a judge that wants to talk to him about this and a judge who says she's troubled by the idea lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.
But look, it's clear that they are.
You can't, if you allowed tort lawyers to sue everybody on the floor of the House, only Republicans would be sued.
And there's a reason for that rule or that law.
Okay, quick timeout as the time is moving fast here on the fastest three hours in media.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Hi, welcome back, Rushland Book.
Great to have you with us here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
800-282-2882, Frank Rich, the New York Times, is concerned about the future electability of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
He opened his piece in the New York Times yesterday with this.
The Democrats can't lose the White House in 08, can they?
So nothing can go wrong for the Democrats, can it?
Of course it can.
Not just because of the party's perennial penchant for cutting off its nose despite its face.
Witness the Democrat National Committee's zeal in shutting down primary campaigning in Florida because the state moved up the primary state.
You know, let me talk about that for a second.
I've had that on the list of things to explain.
The dirty little secret about this, you know, Florida moves up its primary date.
The Democrat National Committee says, you can't do that.
We're in charge of primary dates here, and you're screwing up the system.
If you do that, we're going to deny you delegates a convention, and we're not going to allow any campaigning in Florida.
Well, guess who that benefits?
Give you one guess who that benefits, folks.
Who is leading in Florida by 30 points?
Mrs. Clinton, she doesn't need to campaign here.
She doesn't need to spend any money here.
It's the other guys that do, the Barack Obamas and the Brecht girls and so forth.
They are not permitted to campaign against her.
She's got a 30-point lead.
So for all this talk about the DNC penalizing Florida, yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo!
What they're actually doing is cementing Florida for Mrs. Clinton.
And she, you know, this is crucial because she's trailing by four points in Iowa right now.
Of course, this is still way, way early to Barack Obama.
But Rich says that the biggest indicator of potential trouble ahead for Mrs. Clinton is the already codified beltway narrative for the race that so favors the Democrats.
Given the track record of Washington's conventional wisdom, it's not good news.
And he's exactly right about that.
These are the same political pros who predicted that scandal would force an early end of the Clinton presidency and that mission accomplished augured victory in Iraq and long-lasting Republican rule.
Rich talks about how everybody praised Mrs. Clinton's appearances last Sunday, a week ago, on all five Sunday morning shows.
But Frank Rich says what I saw on television last Sunday was the incipient second coming of the Camp Miss 2000 campaign of Al Gore.
That Mr. Gore, that Mr. Gore, some may recall, was not the firebrand who emerged from defeat speaking up early against the Iraq War and leading against global warming.
It was instead the cautious Gore, whose public persona changed from debate to debate, whose answers were often long-winded and equivocal.
Incredibly, he minimized both his environmental passions and his own administration's achievements throughout the campaign.
Then he goes on to talk about some more things about Mrs. Clinton.
And then there was that laugh.
The Clinton campaign's method for heeding the perennial complaints that its candidate comes across as too calculating and controlled is to periodically toss in a smidgen of what it deems personality.
But these touches of intimacy seem even more calculating.
Let's chat, the Let's Chat campaign rollout, the ostensibly freewheeling but tightly controlled web conversations, the supposed Vox populi referendum to choose a campaign song, which yielded a plain vanilla Celine Dion clunker.
Now Mrs. Clinton is erupting in a laugh with all the spontaneity of an alarm clock buzzer.
Mocking this tick last week, the Daily Show imagined a robotic voice inside the candidate's head saying, humorous remark detected, prepare for laughter display.
But here's the real kicker.
None of this would matter if the only issue were Mrs. Clinton's ability as a performer.
Not every president can be Reagan or JFK, for that matter, Bill Clinton.
But in her case, as in Gore 2000, the performance too often dovetails with the biggest question about her as a leader.
Is she so eager to be all things to all people, so reluctant to offend anyone that we will never learn what she really thinks or how she will really act as president?
Hey, Frank, let me help you out on that because, and I really want to.
I mean, that's a good question.
It's not that she's afraid to offend anybody.
She is afraid to specifically tell people what she wants to do because that would be the end of her, Frank.
She is a hardcore liberal.
Hardcore liberals do not win national elections.
She knows this.
She's not going to be honest about what she really thinks.
She's not worried about offending anybody.
Mrs. Clinton is worried about being offended by other people or gets angry when she gets offended.
She's not worried about offending people here.
She has no desire to open up about what she really thinks or how she will really act as president because it would be the end of her.
So far, her post-First Lady record suggests a follower rather than a leader.
Frank Rich writes, she still can't offer a credible explanation of why she gave Bush the authority to go to war or why she voted against the Levant Amendment or Levin Amendment that would have put on some diplomatic breaks.
And that's because her votes had more to do with hedging her political bets than with principle.
Yep, that's probably exactly right.
She figures she needs to be pro-war to win in the general election, Frank, and she can't win the general election as an anti-war candidate.
Ask George McGovern.
It just isn't going to happen.
And so she has to hedge her bets on it.
That's why she won't apologize for it.
This primary season, it's just something for her to have to endure and put up with and get through.
And she's not going to blow it in the way you want her to.
As was proved again in Wednesday night's debate, her opponents have not yet figured out how to seriously challenge her.
Yes, they know how to seriously challenge her.
They're just afraid to because she's a woman.
And so they're sending their wives out to do it.
At the same time, her campaign works relentlessly to shut down legitimate journalistic vetting of her record.
That's not a good thing for Hillary to hear from the New York Times.
Because it's true.
Politico.com reported last week on the murky backstage machinations by the Clinton camp before the magazine GQ killed an article by Joshua Greene, whose Atlantic Monthly profile in 06 judged Mrs. Clinton a practitioner of systematic caution with no big ideas.
You hear about the Clinton campaign, cancel the cover story.
So you guys better, if you run that story, Bill Clinton will not be granting access to GQ.
But it's not just GQ because GQ is owned by Condi Nast.
And Condy Nast owns what?
Vanity Fair, the New Yorker.
And if Bill Clinton says, hey, hey, you know, you run that story, and I am not giving you any publication access, you can forget it.
You can write me off.
Well, they see, I can't put him on the cover.
I can't make any money.
So, geez.
So that's how they killed the story.
And the Politico.com.
More worries on the same concerns that Frank Rich has.
She's so infused with ambition and artifice, she cannot connect the voters.
She doesn't dare try to connect the voters because it would be the end of her.
She's sitting here almost royalty-like, just demanding to be coronated.
That's her attitude about this.
Hey, folks, also, if you want to see what the country would be like with today's liberals in charge, not the JFK liberals and Democrats, but today's liberals, take a look at Michigan.
They had a government shutdown, or close to it, for a few hours over budget problems, and the governor up there came up with the last-minute solution to solve the problem.
The last thing the state of Michigan needs is a tax increase, and they got one, a sizable, healthy tax increase to on paper shut the budget deficit or close it.
It's just going to continue to stifle economic activity throughout the state.
I feel for you people.
I really do.
But you know something?
You people in Michigan, you are great patriots.
Are doing something very valuable, and you need to take pride in your own suffering and pain because what you are doing is demonstrating to the rest of the country, the other 49 states, what will happen to this country if people like Jennifer Granholm and the Democrats in your legislature up there get control of the United States government and the Department of Treasury.
So, while I know it's tough and I know you're irritated, I know you've got to be fitting, spitting, fuming mad up there.
Understand that you are providing a visible laboratory.
You are doing a great service.
Please don't leave the state just yet because this is going to, especially going into the election next year, your suffering.
Your poverty will be a dynamic example for people like me to illustrate to the rest of the country just what will happen if today's modern liberals end up in total control of the U.S. government.
How about the president at Duke University?
Is this not rich?
Richard Broadhead apologized Saturday when nobody was paying attention for not better supporting the men's lacrosse players falsely accused in last year's highly publicized rape scandal.
Wrong.
The AP wrote this: there was no rape.
There was a highly publicized fraud scandal.
I'll tell you who still hasn't apologized is the drive-by media, for whom the narrative fit.
The facts just didn't work out.
Broadhead, who was speaking at Duke's Law School, said he regretted the university's failure to reach out in a time of extraordinary peril, quote unquote, after a woman accused three players of rape at a March 2006 party.
Given the complexities of this case, getting the communication right would never have been easy.
But the fact is, we didn't get it right, causing the families to feel abandoned when they were most in need of support.
This was a mistake.
I take responsibility for it, and I apologize.
But that's fine.
It's all fixed now then.
Good.
This comes out at a time they are negotiating a settlement with these families.
This is about dollar signs.
This was reprehensible.
It wasn't, Mr. Broadhead, that you didn't better support them.
You didn't support them at all.
These were your customers.
These were your students.
The parents of these students or scholarships or something found a way to get these people, these young men, into the university, and they were your students.
And you didn't defend them.
You bought the words hook, line, and sinker of somebody not from your university because your mind and heart told, hey, this is what happens with poor black women and rich white jocks.
Still unheard of, the 88 members of the Duke faculty who also embarrassed themselves and discredited themselves like so much of the left is doing today.
And bad news, ladies and gentlemen, Winkle Paw has gone missing.
Nobody knows where Winkle Paw is.
You don't know who Winkle Paw is?
Is the name Norman Shu?
Ring a bell.
The Paw family, lots of pets, no money.
Winklepaw seems to have vanished.
Winklepaw, as you may recall, is a close business associate of Norman Shue and a fellow Big Bucks contributor to Democrats.
Winkle Paw has, I think this is Paw Paw.
I think you're actually right, Mr. Snerdley.
Winkle Paul has served as everything from project analyst to CEO at a handful of shoes companies.
Well, no, this couldn't be the, Paul Paul was a mailman.
So this has got to be, well, I don't know, it's Winkle.
You've got to be a guy.
Paul has served as everything from project analyst to CEO at a handful of shoe companies, including Components LTD, Next Components, Next Electronics, and Cool Powers.
We also don't know for sure that Winkle Paul has deliberately vanished.
It could simply be the authorities aren't looking for him.
He's also not listed as wanted in California.
But if they are not hunting for him, maybe they ought to be.
The Orange County investors haven't been able to reach him since the morning Shoe lit out for Denver.
And that was three weeks ago.
If, let's say, that Winkle Paul was on that train, too, keeping his cool a bit better than Norman Shu, and if he had access to even a small fraction of the millions in liquid assets at Shu's disposal, Winkle just may have winked out of this story for good.
This is Clarice Feldman at American Thinker.
Of course, the coming mantra from the drivers, well, there was no evidence found of any wrongdoing here involving Winkle Paul.
Oh, right, no.
But anyway, Winkle Paul of the Paul family has gone missing.
All right, let's go grab some phones.
This is Billy, Fort Worth, Texas.
Your first, nice to have you on the program.
Hey, how are you doing, Mr. Lila?
Fine.
Thank you, sir.
Yes.
Oh, first I want to say, I know you really think you're bringing America together, but really, I think you separate America.
You know, America is polarized because we split right down the middle.
I'm 57 years old, and I've never seen America unsegregated, well, not segregated, separated in my 57 years.
Yeah, you know why?
I know you think.
I know you think.
I'm going to tell you why.
This country was forever poisoned when the Clintons arrived in Washington in 1993.
That is when this partisan poison began.
You want to tell me that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were not subject and targeted for total destruction by liberal Democrats?
I don't know how old you are, but you may not, you know.
I'm 57 years old.
Listen, I don't think this is a good idea.
You know that you're old enough.
Hey, you're old enough.
Mr. Reagan was a, he was on a right hand.
You got to slow down.
You got to slow down out there so that I can understand your words because of my hearing problem, Billy.
If you just slow down a little bit.
But you call me, you call me, would you call me?
I'm segregating the country because of partisanship.
That's what you're doing.
Look at it.
And I'm not, I should, instead, I should be reaching out, trying to bring America together.
That's right.
I really believe so, sir.
I'm going to answer a question.
Can you define a conservative and a liberal?
It might.
You can define those two words.
Yeah, I'll define a conservative liberal for you here and just.
Sign up for me.
I'll define them both for you.
But the first thing I want to tell you, I am attempting to unite the country by telling the country the truth.
The truth you believe is true.
No, What you believe, sir, is not true.
Not the truth, I believe.
The truth.
I don't want to be wrong.
Do you think I want to sit here and base unity and people agreeing with me on lies?
That's the last thing I want.
That won't hold up.
I am based in total truth.
I want the country to know the truth about Mrs. Clinton and who they are.
Now, definition, conservative and liberal.
There are many ways to attack this, Billy.
Basically, let me try this.
I'll try two different ways.
Liberals want to control everybody's lives so that they live as liberals want them to live.
They don't want them to smoke.
They don't want them to drive certain cars.
They don't want them to eat certain foods.
They don't want them to live certain places.
It's about total control with the government having the last word on what anybody can eat, drink, say, or do.
Liberals also hold most people in contempt, Billy.
They have done everything they can to keep as many people from reaching individual prosperity as possible.
They want people dependent so they'll continue to vote for Democrats.
Conservatives look at individuals and see the opportunity for greatness in each and every one of them.
If we get out of their way, we believe in the ability of people to overcome the obstacles in life.
We want them educated so they can triumph over this, so they can understand achievement, they can understand pride, they can understand the concept of meeting and surpassing expectations.
We want a great country.
We don't want a country full of wusses and wimps who could be much better than they are because they have been told they have no chance and they have been told to depend on Democrats in government.
That is not the recipe for a great country.
It's basically boil it down to control versus liberty.
I'm for liberty.
Liberals are for control.
And I don't want them controlling my life.
And you shouldn't want them controlling yours, although it sounds like they already do.
A programming note.
Just a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, the next hour will feature 90 minutes, the next hour and a half, starting at the top of the hour, 90-minute discussion with Clarence Thomas about his life and about his book, My Grandfather's Son.
And I've got to address this head-on.
And I want to thank you all very much.
I'm getting some emails from people saying, look, we love Clarence Thomas, but 90 minutes, no, we tuned into this program to listen to you.
And I understand that.
Believe me, I understand that better.
That's why it's very rare to have a guest here, and he's setting a record here for going longer than an hour.
And very few guests even go that long.
But this is pretty powerful.
It's inspirational.
It's motivational.
It's the first time outside of 60 minutes he's talked about himself and his life.
He's not responded to any of these criticisms over 16 years.
And do me a favor, I want you to hear it.
I just want you to hear this.
I mean, we could have cut this down to 45 minutes.
We could have cut it to 30.
But I wanted to hear the whole thing as it panned out.
Second thing I want to do before this hour ends, I want to apologize to all of the members of the United States military, both in uniform and out, active duty and retired, for Media Matters for America.
They will not apologize to you, and they will not apologize to me.
I want to apologize to you on behalf of them.
As all of you military personnel know, I, since the beginning of time and since the beginning of this program, certainly 19 years ago, have been one of the most ardent, loyal, in-awe supporters of any and all who wear the uniform, including those who disagree with the mission.
I found a couple of them when I was in Afghanistan on a troop visit.
I went over to five base visits in Afghanistan and did QA, sometimes for two hours with assembled troops at the various bases.
Not all of them were happy with me in terms of my politics and so forth, but I told every damn one of them that I was in awe of them and that I wanted to come speak to them.
I purposely asked to go on this trip.
And I'd been asking for a long time, and it was the first time I'd been granted permission.
But I wanted to go on this trip because at the time this is all happening, Afghanistan had sort of cooled off and there wasn't much news coming out of there, but Iraq was roiling.
And the news out of Iraq was, well, you know what it was?
It was bad.
We can't win.
We're losing too many deaths and all this sort of thing.
And I wanted to go tell them, personally, as an American, how small and of a minority those thoughts about them were.
That there was love and respect and adoration for all who wear the uniform in this country, active duty or not, but I was specifically referring to people who are in the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I stood up before them and I said, even to the ones who let it be known that they disagreed with me politically, not on the war, but politically.
I mean, they all wanted victory, and they all were doing their duty, and they all said they were there to protect their country.
This is what they chose to do after 9-11 happened.
And I stood before them and I said, you know, there are a lot of people, by the way, who were thanking me and all of that.
It ran the gamut.
But I said, I don't care who you are.
I stand before you and I feel, you know, six inches tall compared to what you're doing.
I'm just, you know, uttering words here.
I just wanted to come convey support because you're not getting a whole lot of it in the mainstream media in our country.
And the attitudes toward you of the American people are being misrepresented to you in droves.
I said, when you get back and walk into most airports in this country, you are going to be given standing ovations and applause.
Of course, this story coming out of Oakland, and it's, I guess there's some controversy about it, but apparently some Marines getting home, landing at Oakland, were spit on by people in the Oakland airport.
I haven't been able to confirm it, but it's on a couple blogs, and apparently there's some witnesses that say that they did see it.
Bottom line to all this, and I've, you know, I've been, I've described to you that the visit I took to Washington, Walter Reed, Army Hospital, and the amputee rehabilitation unit.
So many of these men and their wives were thanking me for what I'm doing, and it makes me feel six inches tall as well.
In fact, Justice Thomas, and I discussed this in the interview coming up that you'll hear, as I'm just uttering words, you guys look at you.
No, They were upbeat and have one guy lost both arms, couldn't wait to get married six months down the road.
Say, look, we all have our roles, man, and you keep doing what you're doing.
The bottom line to all this is, is that last week with this smear and this phony accusation regarding something I had not said about active duty military personnel, or even those who oppose the war, was that once again, the integrity of the U.S. military was brought into question when the integrity of the sourcing group, Media Matters for America, should have been brought into question.
The Hillary Clinton front group, they will continue to be used as an accredited source by the drive-by media, despite the fact that they have now been demonstrated to make things up, take things out of context, and embarrass those who report what they say.
They will continue to be a source because this is the 08 playbook that we saw break down last week.
And the Democrats may still introduce their resolution in the House castigating me.
I don't know.
The House doesn't go into session until 2 o'clock.
We'll have to wait and see.
Don't know if they will do that or not.
If they do, it's just an effort to try to portray themselves as pro-military because they know they have to, because they know the impression they have accurately created is that they're not pro-military.
From Jack Murthy to Harry Reid claiming defeat, John Kerry's lifetime of criticism of the soldiers.
So they're going to try, and they're trying to deflect the criticism away from their pet organization, MoveOn.org, whose betrayalist ad backfired totally on them.
It was a well-stone moment for them, as will this be.
But since you will never get an apology from Jack Murthy for mischaracterizing you as murderers, since you'll never get an apology from John Kerry, since you won't get an apology from Media Matters for America or anybody who works there, to all of you in the U.S. military, I want to apologize to you for them, For the again firestorm over something that did not happen regarding your valor and your commitment to freedom and democracy last week on this program.
I really regret that it happened, and I apologize to you on their behalf since they won't.
Okay, we got a little wager going here.
How long will it take Media Matters for America to report that I, Rush Limbaugh, apologize to the troops?
Period.
Which is not what I did.
I apologize to troops on behalf of Media Matters because they will not.
Let's see how they distort this.
They're totally capable of it.
Clarence Thomas is coming next.
▲
Export Selection