All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 3, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
October 3, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks, and greetings to you.
Welcome.
Great to be back with you.
Here it is, actually, Wednesday today.
I thought yesterday was Wednesday.
Week moving along even faster than I thought, but today is Wednesday.
It's the middle of the week.
And we've got three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead for you.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
There are certain elements of the media that just will not drop the phony soldier smear that is going on out there.
So we are forced to continue, not really forced, because this is an opportunity to continue to discuss this.
Today, all over television, after posting on the internet yesterday, was the mad bomber of Bosnia.
That would be General Wesley Clark, known affectionately here as Ashley Wilkes.
And General Clark is lying through his teeth today.
His impetus, his purpose for going on television is to get me taken off of Armed Forces Radio.
On MSNBC this morning, General Clark said that I have a long history of disrespect and criticism of uniformed military personnel.
A long history.
This is Kafka-esque.
They have taken the Hillary Clinton front group, Media Matters for America, have taken two of my words, phony soldiers, and used hundreds and thousands of words now to manipulate it into a smear.
They are even saying I selectively edited a minute and a half from my show transcript to hide some nefarious thing.
Hid nothing.
The edit was simply for substance and brevity.
What happened was I was talking to this caller, Mike, who we discussed the phony soldier thing, and he wanted to go talk about the weapons of mass destruction.
And he starts talking while he's talking, if you can, and you people watching on Diddleham saw this, you know, I'm waving into Mr. Snerdley.
I'm saying, and I'm on the IFB.
I'm talking to him.
Nobody else can hear me because it mutes my microphone going out.
I said, print out the phony soldier commentary for me that we did yesterday.
Print it out.
So he's printing it out, and the caller is vamping and going on.
I'm reaching back to the printer.
I grabbed the update.
I said, look, I don't want to talk about weapons of mass destruction.
Mike, it's moot right now.
It doesn't have any relation.
We're there.
This is about something much more.
Then I read the commentary.
The minute 37 was simply vamping to pick up the commentary off the printer for Mr. Snerdley's computer in the other room.
Pearance, and now they're trying to make some big scandal out of that.
So now I am also hiding from you truthful in their minds evidence that I have referred to all of these soldiers who disagree with the war as phony soldiers, which was never uttered, was never said.
I'll tell you what's happening here.
Bill Bennett put this well to me in an email today.
He said, we've reached a new day when anything said, no matter how violently torn from context, is presented as however one wishes and accepted as fact by the interpreter.
It's the death of meaning.
And I'll tell you what else this is.
This is a reflection on the thinking and tactics that'll be employed with the full weight and power of the federal government should Hillary Clinton become president, because all of these people that are working at these front groups that she has founded along with George Soros are going to end up being in her administration.
And they are going to be rewarded with high government positions from where they can unleash investigations on people that they want to deal with one way or the other.
And so what we have here is a dry run, sort of a rehearsal for if she wins, the little people at Media Matters for America, and John Podesta will be back as chief of staff at what, the Center for American Progress, all these different think tanks and organizations she set up.
These are little schools for people to learn how to conduct investigations on people that Mrs. Clinton doesn't want to deal with.
So that's what's happening here.
This is also a great example for the Campaign 2008 playbook.
Now, back to General Clark.
We have a couple soundbites from General Clark from the, let's see, today show today.
Actually, what we're going to do, two, three, and four, Mike, here is Wesley Clark, Meredith Vieira talking to him.
Says, you started this email campaign to get Limbaugh off the Armed Forces radio.
It's a drastic step.
Why do you think it's necessary?
His comments just cross the line.
I think there's a lot of people serving in Iraq, a lot of veterans who've served, a lot of veterans who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan who have thoughts about the war that aren't necessarily in agreement with President Bush.
That's their right as American citizens.
It doesn't mean they weren't great soldiers.
And it doesn't mean that I have ever criticized them as soldiers.
I've never criticized them as phony or anything else.
Never, never, never, never.
General Clark, not only is there no long history of me showing disrespect and criticism for uniformed military personnel.
You know, I'll tell you what, another thing going on here is you've got all these watchdogs, but who examines them for honesty and credibility?
Who examines, why is it that the watchdogs are simply accepted as infallible instantly after they publish something?
I think that it's because they're all liberals on the other side of this.
It's amazing what people who really wanted to learn about this could learn.
If you just visited my website or even better, listen to the program.
Rather, these little excerpts that they're playing on television, I still think it's really surreal.
When they play the excerpt, I'm talking to caller and I say, yeah, phony soldiers.
From that, we've got this.
We've got denunciations on the House floor or on the House floor.
We've got a condemnation letter sent by Senator Reed and a denunciation on the Senate floor from two words.
In fact, some of the drive-bys are getting a little upset now that I'm occupying so much attention.
All morning long on MSNBC, they've been asking their guests, why are we focusing on Limbaugh here in the move on that?
Look at what we want out of Iraq, and why isn't the Congress doing anything about it?
And that's the crux of this.
Congress can't get us out of Iraq if we've got 72% or whatever the number is of people in the country saying they want the war to end.
How come the Democrats can't pull it off?
They're trying to distract from their own failures.
They're trying to distract from lying and deceiving their own believers, their own kook lunatic fringe.
That's all they're doing is trying to muddy the waters so people don't understand what's going on.
They're just feeding them red meat because they can't follow through on their commitments and their promises.
So people are starting to wonder.
In the drive-bys, it's a little jealousy.
You have to understand this, that most everybody else, the drive-by media would love to be censored on these for the Senate.
They would love that kind of attention.
They'd love to be able to stir things up like, what?
People don't believe that?
You think people don't believe that?
Oh, Mr. Sterdley is telling me that you people mostly won't believe that.
Oh, do you realize I'm getting emails from people?
Would you quit hogging the limelight?
You know, I got a book out this week and you're distracting from it.
How come you always do this?
How come I can't get this kind of, I'm telling you, the drive-bys would love this kind of thing.
They would love to be sent.
They love being on Nixon's enemies list, for example.
It's the same thing.
So, yeah, you must believe it.
By the way, Dingy Harry sent his letter.
He asked all these senators to sign the letter to Clear Channel's chairman, chief executive officer, and asked him to force me to apologize and to admit that I had said something so over the top.
He got 41 senators to sign it, not even all the Democrats.
No Republicans signed it.
Now, some people say, Senate condemns Limbaugh.
Bottom line, it's another dingy hairy failure.
It's another dingy hairy defeat.
He could not even get all the Democrats to sign the letter, folks.
41 out of 100 senators is all that sign it, no Republicans.
And so he sends the letter to the chairman and the CEO of Clear Channel, who responded to it.
Page and a half.
It's on our website if you want to read it.
And basically, well, just read it.
Basically says, look, Senator, we believe in the First Amendment here, and we're not going to impose.
Mr. Limbaugh has said what he meant, and that's it.
And I think they sent the letter trying to just, Reed sent it out so fast, trying to put this behind him.
So it's a huge defeat and failure for Harry Reid.
MSNBC reported this morning that their Capitol Hill correspondent reported that the House Democrat resolution has been put on the back burner because the Republicans have a competing resolution ready to go if the House Democrats offer theirs.
So they may be in retreat up on Capitol Hill.
They're not in retreat at Media Matters for America.
They're still over there trying to gin this up for a bunch of host of reasons.
I've got a couple more sound bites that I want to play for you.
First from Wesley Clark and then Ted Koppel.
Here's the second bite from today's show today.
Meredith Vieira says, well, what response have you been getting to your email campaign to get Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio?
It's a good response.
We've had 15,000 people come back and sign up on the website.
There are a lot of people out there who see this as an important issue where Congress should set the tone in condemning this kind of rhetoric, which disparages our men and women in uniform.
They got more votes to condemn moveon.org in the Senate than they got to condemn me.
This just frosts them.
It just frosts them.
And General Clark here, Ashley Wilkes, was asked, why should Congress be refereeing?
Well, we've got to have the other side represented here.
If we're going to condemn moveon.org, we've got to condemn Limbaugh because Limbaugh has a long history of disrespecting and abusing uniformed military personnel.
And they're throwing their head.
Is this what Congress does?
Referees disputes?
Why in the world don't we just get out of a rock?
Well, I think we should get out of Iraq, obviously, but we need civil discourse in this country.
It's just funny to watch these make total, blithering idiots of themselves.
Ted Koppel on the Today Show following Ashley Wilkes, the mad bomber of Bosnia.
Matt Wauer talked to him and said, I watched you smiling as we were just discussing this Rush Limbaugh thing.
And with all due respect to the general and to Rush Limbaugh and the members of Congress, is this really, in your opinion, what Americans want their senators to be talking about on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
No, let's have them focus on something really important.
It's ridiculous.
I cannot understand.
I mean, this is not the first time Rush Limbaugh has said controversial things or foolish things.
Certainly not the first time I've said foolish things.
But if that's the best that the U.S. Senate can confine to debate and discuss, God help us.
Putting it in perspective.
Now, General Clark, let's talk about him just a second here before we go to the break.
The mad bomber of Bosnia.
Is this the same Wesley Clark who did nothing to try to prevent the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans?
Is this the same Wesley Clark who was in a position?
He was in a position to insist the Clinton administration and the United Nations send help to that region to try to stop the mass murder of 800,000 Rwandans.
Is this the same Wesley Clark who has never had to answer for his indifference to that genocide and worse, in the face of this genocide in a public investigation, has never had to answer for it?
Is this the same Wesley Clark who was once a Republican, who supported President Bush but then changed parties so he could run for president and then attack President Bush?
Is this the same Wesley Clark who could not muster any popular support for his hilarious run for the presidency?
You see, this is why the mad bomber of Bosnia can't read a transcript or listen to an audio and speak truthfully about them.
He's no longer a general.
He's just another in the long line of liberal hacks, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, General Clark, we all appreciate your service in the military, but what you're doing now has nothing to do with your service.
It has to do with your decision to play mud ball with the left.
I don't know about you, Mr. Clark.
I go to bed at night.
I go to bed at night with zero problems.
How do you sleep, sir?
How do you and the rest of the Clinton administration sleep knowing you did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda?
Well, the president followed through on his promise and vetoed the vetoed that children's health care bill, the state children's health insurance program, known here as the bullship program, vetoed it today as promised.
The AP refers to it as a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded the health care insurance for the children.
You know, it is a true stealth plan to institute the whole concept of socialized medicine throughout society.
If you go back to 93 and you look at Hillary's health care plan back then, one of the strategies was do everything for the children because nobody's going to vote against children.
Nobody is going to oppose the children.
And nobody is suggesting the program be cut.
The program's 10 years old.
Something I think a lot of people don't understand about this is we're just up for renewal.
And what the Democrats want to do is include all kinds of people who in no way meet the definition of poor or children.
And the president said, nope, we're going to expand the program to handle those who are poor, but we're not going to go any further.
We're not going to waste taxpayers' dollars.
And he knows what's going on.
So on cue, the Democrats took to the floor of the House this morning during one-minute speeches.
We have the reliable Jan Schakowsky, Democrat Illinois, Peter DeFazio, Democrat Oregon, Rob Emanuel, Illinois, Allison Schwartz, Democrat Pennsylvania, William Lacey Clay from Missouri, all crying about Bush's veto.
The president just vetoed the children's health insurance program.
Let's be perfectly clear.
The president is refusing to spend $7 billion a year on children's health while insisting on $10 billion a month in Iraq.
He's going to cast the first veto of his presidency.
His target, 10 million low-income kids.
Nearly 1 million children would create a very long line in America's emergency rooms.
The emergency rooms are President Bush's answer to America's health care crisis.
The president's veto makes it clear that health care for America's children simply is not his priority.
President Bush just vetoed this bipartisan legislation.
The president's opposition to this bill puts him squarely in the minority.
Well, then override it.
They've got override protection in the Senate, but they don't in the House.
So what's going to happen here is they have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that the president will sign.
There will be an expansion of the program.
It will cover poor children.
It's just not going to cover kids up to the age of 25.
It's not going to cover income.
Well, the states can do this if they want to.
I think 10 or 11 states have.
And the Democrats are going to go out there and try to pressure 15 Republicans to change their votes in order to get veto-proof majority on this.
And they're going to lobby them.
They're going to put pressure on them to get them to change their votes.
And we know how that works.
Now, the Democrats and the liberals cannot get me to change my mind.
They can't get me to change or buckle to them.
But elected Republicans sometimes are a little different, especially when you put children in the bill.
So we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Now, the Politico notes a 1993 memo from Hillary Clinton's Healthcare Task Force proposed using children as a mechanism in order to take control of health care delivery for all Americans.
The Politico is a website that was started up by a couple of guys who used to work at the Washington Post.
Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff saw federal coverage of children as a precursor to universal coverage.
In a section of the memo titled Kids First, Clinton's staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.
One of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn't qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.
Well, that idea sounds a lot like the current S-CHIP program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.
Under this approach, the Clinton memo says, health care for reform is phased in by population beginning with children.
Kids first, really a precursor to the new system.
It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so it can be easily folded into existing or future program structures.
So this document that the Politico has uncovered tells the world exactly what Mrs. Clinton's plan is.
There are people out there calling the S-CHIP expansion and a renewal a Trojan horse.
It's exactly what it is.
It is nothing more than a trick.
It is a precursor.
It's designed to get this country to a full-fledged government-run, socialized health care system.
And the hook is to do it for the children.
The president vetoed it today.
Look, all of this stuff works together.
The smear of me, and this is telling you this and giving you this and giving this wide berth and loud amplification is precisely why me, people like me, are considered dire threats to Mrs. Clinton's future plans.
So it's all rolled in together to try to keep people from standing in her way on her way to her coronation.
Pumping up the volume.
Turn it up 800 decibels, ladies and gentlemen.
That's how loud.
What are you guys laughing about in there?
What?
Uh-huh.
Oh, well, he probably, Brian has got a Rush Limbaugh shirt and nobody else.
He probably had it made.
He was probably pretty creative.
He probably spent his own money to go out and have it made.
Did you ever think of doing that?
If you wanted a Rush Limbaugh shirt that you don't like in the prize closet, did you ever think about going, spending your own money?
What does it cost?
20 bucks.
We're in the middle of a firefight here, and you guys are distracted by where Brian got his shirt.
I cannot believe this.
I want to go back.
I want to stay on the mad bomber of Bosnia for a moment, ladies and gentlemen, and that is General Wesley Clark.
Do you remember Michael Moore called George W. Bush a deserter?
And Wesley Clark stood up for Michael Moore's right to say that.
And this is a newsmax story.
January 22nd, 2004, during General Clark's ill-fated run at the Democratic presidential candidacy, in a response that could turn out to be General Clark's worst blunder yet, and that's a tough call because there were so many of them.
The Presidential Hopeful said his supporter, firebrand filmmaker and propagandist Michael Moore, had a right to call President Bush a military deserter.
We have the audio soundbites.
It was a debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, January 22nd, 2004.
Peter Jennings said, General Clark, a lot of people say that don't you?
It's really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends.
The other day, you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you, the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore, you said you were delighted with him.
At one point, Mr. Moore said in front of you that President Bush saying he'd like to see you, the general President Bush, who he called a deserter.
Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts, and I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him and whether or not you think it would have been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.
Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this, but to me, it wasn't material.
This election is going to be about the future, Peter.
And what we have to do is pull this country together.
And I'm delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, of a great American leader like Senator George McGovern, and of people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton.
We've got support from across the breadth of the Democratic Party because I believe this party is united in one.
That's enough of that.
We got to the point of it.
So General Clark, fully supportive of someone's free speech rights, to call the president of the United States a deserter, which is a lie.
It's this old National Guard story, folks, that they had to cook up forged documents to try to convince people was accurate.
And by the way, that Dan Rather forged document story may as well come out of media matters.
It may as well, it's the kind of stuff that's happening now.
Accuse people of doing things they didn't do, accuse people of saying things they didn't say, accusing people of meaning things they didn't mean.
Liberals have not yet won the right to define meaning from the words people say.
And they have appropriated that right for themselves, and it's not going to stand, folks.
And so here is a giant hypocrite, General Clark, who sat around and did nothing during a genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, the mad bomber of Bosnia, fully in support of Michael Moore's right to lie under the context and the pretext of the First Amendment.
And yet, General Clark's all over television yesterday and today suggesting that I need to be taken off of Armed Forces Radio because I have a long history of disrespect and criticism for the brave men and women in the United States military.
No more ridiculous, worthless, totally untrue charge could be made, but he is making it.
Now, Peter Jennings, after the answer that you just heard from the mad bomber of Bosnia, said, Let me ask you about something you mentioned then, because this question and answer, which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts.
You still feel comfortable with the fact that somebody should be standing up in your presence and calling the President of the United States a deserter?
To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter.
You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion.
He's entitled to say that.
I've seen, he's not the only person who's said that.
I've not followed up on those facts.
And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.
Down the tubes went General Clark's campaign.
He really was never a serious candidate in that race, but this finished it off.
So there he is admitting the facts don't matter to him.
He didn't look at the facts.
No, this guy can say what he wants when it comes to me.
Didn't look at the facts.
He's out there making an absolute blithering fool of himself.
Doesn't even know it.
I really think in his case, he doesn't know it.
I think he's that dense.
I think he is that lazy.
I think he is just, he's become a political hack now, trying to get noticed.
Speech fees, this sort of stuff, getting all the accolades from the kook lunatic fringe out there that loves these kind of guys.
Here he is admitting in 2004 the facts didn't matter.
Free speech is all that mattered.
But now, in my case, free speech doesn't matter, as well as the facts not matter.
Thank you, General Clark.
You people on the left are making this too easy.
To the phones, we go, this is Tom in South Holland, Illinois.
Tom, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
You know, I've been sitting here listening to this stuff for the last few days about you, but what really made me mad a little while ago is when you're talking about Jan taking the floor of the House.
That would be Jan Schikowski.
Is she your Congress, babe?
In Illinois here?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think so.
I know she's from Illinois, but she in your district.
No.
You're lucky.
We can't hold you accountable for the fact that she's in Congress.
So you don't need to apologize.
Oh, that's right.
And then what I'd like to get off my chest is that I'm so tired of the Democrats like her taking the floor and wanting to make things perfectly clear when I would like them to make it perfectly honest for a change instead of clear as they see it.
And I believe in my own heart that this bill that was forced on President Bush, knowing he would veto it, he was set up.
And what really makes me irritated about the fact that he was set up to veto it so they could slam him is now they're using children as shields in their fight against Bush, as you would use a child as a shield against a murdering shooter.
Hell, that's nothing new.
They've been using the children for a long time.
They've been using the children.
You know, congressional hearings, they bring up these poor kids to be paraded in front of media.
Have they no shame?
They bring up the elderly.
They bring up all their activists that use the pictures.
Nothing's out of bounds with them.
They are not.
Look at, Tom, they are not about truth.
No, they're not.
You nailed it.
They are about power.
Keep it up, Rush.
This is not...
In fact, folks, I'm going to say something that might surprise you a bit.
I'm...
I'm beginning to consider the possibility that the Democrats have just moved beyond ideology in terms of what propels them.
And by that, I mean I don't think that it's just liberalism that's propelling them.
There is something further and more disastrous and more dangerous going on.
And I think they're just, they've become Stalinist-like.
What we're seeing here from Wesley Clark, Media Matters for America, all the Democrats on the floor of the House and Senate denouncing me a private citizen.
This is not just liberalism.
It's Stalinist.
The power of the state using the power of the state to intimidate citizens.
I have mentioned to you, I don't know how many times, and I've asked you to conduct this experiment.
When you are with a group of people at a party, I don't care where it would be, even your friends and maybe some in the group you don't know, but most of the people you do.
Notice how scared everybody is to say anything for fear of making others uncomfortable or for fear of being offending somebody or for fear of being ripped to shreds for making somebody uncomfortable or offending them.
We are allowing ourselves to be shut up by virtue of political correctness, not willing to offend anybody and so forth.
And you just, you try this test.
And if you really want to try the test, the next time you're one of your situations like this, don't hold back.
Say what you really think about something and gauge the reaction.
I guarantee you that you are going to stand alone.
You're going to stand out.
And people are going to go, how can you say that?
What do you mean?
My mouth opened, a tongue moved, and syllables came out.
That's how I said it.
It's what I think.
No, I don't mean that.
I mean, how can you say that?
Because it's what I think.
So few people are willing or unwilling to tell anybody else what they really think because they are scared.
Now, right now, they're just scared of controversy.
They're scared of other people not liking them.
They're scared of other people being offended.
They're scared of other people criticizing them.
But in a lot of places in the world, this same fear exists, but it's fear of the state.
That's why I heartily recommended last week you go out and rent the movie Other People's Lives or the Lives of Others.
Lives of Others It Is.
Won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film.
It's just, folks, it is a gray and depressing movie.
It ends on a warm note.
Don't watch it with your kids.
It's an I-rated movie.
It's got some sex in it, which is totally unrelated to the story.
They just put it in there for the art aspect of it.
Just watch it.
It is an accurate portrayal and depiction of what life was like in East Germany before the wall fell.
I'm not suggesting we live in East Germany.
Don't miss it.
I'm saying this is the kind of thing that can happen over time while people aren't even aware of it, shutting up and not telling people what you think, and you think it's virtuous.
We've been led to believe it's virtuous not to offend anybody.
We've been led to believe it's virtuous not to cause controversy.
Everybody wants to get along.
Don't make waves.
Don't make.
So the result of this is fear shuts people up and they think it's virtue at the same time, which is asinine.
You don't think that Harry Reid's trying to shut me up?
You don't think Harry Reid is trying to intimidate the company that syndicates this program, shut me up and denounce me?
You don't think the Democrats in the House, you don't think that that's what this is about?
And to show everybody else what can happen to them next if they succeed?
And that's why I'm fighting this.
I am not going to cower in fear of anybody in government.
I'm not going to cower in fear of people in the state.
And I'm not going to cower in fear, especially when I'm being smeared and lied about in terms of what I said and what I thought.
Now they're even questioning what was in my mind when I said phony soldiers.
What were you thinking when When you said that, and they are interpreting it for everybody, so they're granting themselves the power to interpret my thoughts and rework my words.
Two words they've turned into hundreds or thousands of words.
And we have now something more than liberalism going on.
I'm not saying that liberalism isn't there.
Liberalism is a central component to all this.
But what's happening here is Stalinist fear of the state, people shutting up, fear of other people.
When you've got, you have the state, be it the federal government or the state government or your local government, can even get involved in using that power to tell you what you can and can't say and where you can and can't say it, and what you can and can't eat, and where you can and can't eat it.
They may not be issuing direct orders.
They're trying to make you feel guilty about driving what you drive, eating what you eat.
It's all designed to control your behavior using fear of punishment if you disobey.
And that's who today's liberals are.
That's who today's Democrat Party is.
They are not about truth.
They don't want to have to deal with the truth because the truth to them is whatever they say it is, hour to hour, day to day, week to week.
And the truth is going to be whatever they want it to be and whatever benefits them.
So when they say in the House, let me make this clear.
What they're saying is, this is how I want you to think of this.
They're not interested in truth.
If they were interested in truth and if they engaged in attempted truthful discussions, they would lose in landslides.
They cannot be honest about who they are.
This is serious stuff, folks.
It may appear to be a game, and I know the way I deal with these things sometimes is to have fun with it.
But I'm telling you, you put Mrs. Clinton in the White House and every damn one of these little minions and all these little organizations of hers that are out trying to destroy her enemies right now are going to be given high government positions to do their investigations and their seek and destroy missions from high government positions.
And make no mistake, this is the bunch that had 500 FBI files during their eight years.
Make no mistake that that's what's happening here.
You can choose to believe it or ignore it.
It's tough to face.
Gosh, it would be this bad.
It is.
It is.
It portends real problem.
Look, I'm way long here.
This next segment's going to be real short.
I apologize in advance.
But when I'm on a roll like that, folks, it's not worth stopping.
Hi, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network to the phones, Berea, Ohio.
This is Al.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
I appreciate it.
Hello.
Pleasure to speak with you, Rush.
Thank you.
Well, we're talking about who supports the troops.
I think it would show by the troops supporting them.
And if I recall, you went over there and the troops took you on planes and took you everywhere and they ate with you.
And the media reported when Hillary went over there, about a half dozen people had a meal with her.
Now, how many is about a half dozen?
You know, I'd forgotten that, and my memory may be a little foggy on this.
I think she was there just prior to my arrival.
I'd have to check my reports in Afghanistan on my website, but I think she was there before my.
I remember the first night we got into Kabul, went into one of the bases over there and had dinner with everybody.
I mean, as many people were free to have dinner.
And I think one of them told me that Mrs. Clinton had just been there and only met with six or so people.
It was a photo op visit.
In fact, it's interesting that you call now, Al.
Do you remember me talking about this?
Oh, absolutely.
Okay.
I just got an email from Jeffrey Mull, who was one of the C-130 pilots from, I think, the Texas National Guard that was flying me all over the place in Afghanistan.
He says, Rush, with regard to the real attacks from phony critics and everything else is being said about phony soldiers and you support for the troops.
I have never been more honored to fly anyone in a C-130 as I was when we had the privilege of flying with you during your trip to Afghanistan in 2005.
Your commitment and support of the troops is without reproach.
Thanks again for your support for the troops and service to this country.
He's now with Lockheed Martin, but I think he was with the Texas Air Guard.
And they let me sit up front, you know, in the jump seat up there in the cockpit in the C-130, the HERC, as they call it.
And that was the rest of the party was back in a cargo hold, but I was the VIP up in the front.
I said, this is the way it should be.
The State Department people should be in the cargo hold, and I should be up here in the cockpit.
I'd never been, obviously, in a C-130 before, but I remember Jeffrey taking pictures.
He's showing me family pictures of his, his wife and daughters, his children.
And I made it a point.
Every one of these guys, I asked him, why are you here?
And he was on his second tour, I believe.
I said, why are you here?
He says, this is what I'm doing to protect my family.
I mean, this is what I want to do.
He was in the Guard, the Texas Air National Guard.
So the letter that he sends here makes my heart melt.
I got notes from Vince Flynn today.
I'm hearing from all kinds of military personnel that I've met over the course of it.
Well, Snerdley said, why don't you read some more of it?
It's too self-serving.
Yes, it's too so.
I'll try to post them on the website.
I got to take a break.
Be back after this.
All right.
The first hour is in the can, ladies and gentlemen.
I just got a reply from Jeffrey Mull that I want to share with you in the next hour.
And a Republican presidential candidate has issued a statement on his website in support of my support for the troops and expressing regret over the condemnation of me in the U.S. Congress.
▲
Export Selection