3.08.2003
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:00:00
[01: Kilroy] [edit]
[ad: National Mortgage Company]
[ad: Emory Vison]
[WGST 640]
And stop the music! Ladies and gentlemen, greetings. It's the Rush Limbaugh program. We open today with a news flash, a news alert, breaking news, a bulletin. Big news, in fact. A Democrat has announced he isn't running for president.
Yes, it's true. This is huge news, ladies and gentlemen. A Democrat has said he will not seek the office of President of the United States. This Democrat, Senator Christopher Dodd seeks to stand out from all of his colleagues by doing something none of them are doing. He is not running for President. He's decided against it, according to the Associated Press.
Sources in Washington and Hartford tell the EIB Network, on condition of anonymity, that Senator Dodd will not join the crowded field of Democratic candidates. Nine candidates have either announced plans to run or created committees to begin fundraising for a possible White House bid.
There you have it. Huge news. A Democrat not seeking the White House.
Nice to have you, my friends. Hope you had a wonderful weekend. We got a full week of broadcast excellence straight ahead. Here's the phone number, if you'd like to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
So all day, Sunday, we get all these anti-war pansies -- we get all these anti-war protestors and so forth -- and it's just fabulous, the news.
While these people are all talking about what the United States can't do, what the United States shouldn't do, the United States captures Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Number 2 Al Qaeda. Probably the number one planner. Probably the guy that was the architect of all the Al Qaeda acts, particularly 9-11.
Have you seen this guy? Have you seen the picture they're putting up? Not the graduation picture. Not the high school picture. But the -- I mean, you talk about somebody who's had a bad experience at the Hair Club for men.
Ho! This guy looks like an he's an extra in a Marx Brothers movie. Either that or a French janitor. One of the two.
Gee, this guy does not look happy.
I understand, by the way -- You know, there are Americans worried about where he's being kept. Is he being treated with respect? Are his rights --
Oh yes, some locoweed on CNN this morning, some civil rights activist --
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Cap'n Mike] [edit]
says that Khalid Muhammed not get mistreated here. He has no constitutional rights. Because he's not an American! I understand that there going to keep him in a secluded area with a lot of stairs 'cause he's gonna have a lotta accidents...and, uh, (laughs, crumples paper in background).. and that's what I'm hoping.
Anyway, they said we could not do two things at once you know, I've, and I've been making the point the past month. What about World War II? We fought Germany over there. We fought Japan over there. We fought Italy over there. It was all World War II. They were not connected. We didn't say, "Wait a minute, we can't do Japan yet we gotta finish with Germany, wait, we can't do Germany we gotta finish with Italy, wait a minute, we can't finish (mumble) we gotta go finish Northern Africa, wait a minute, we can't finish that 'cause we gotta go do Japan, oh we can't go do Japan, 'cause we haven't finished Germany, oh we can't do that we gotta go to Burma,.. we did it all, and nobody asked what it was gonna cost."
All of these klutzes on TV yesterday from Mike Farrel to this guy Andrews, former Democrat from Maine who now heads up some opposition protest group... All concerned about the cost. How long is it gonna cost this is the first time I've been aware they want to put a price tag on the freedom of the American people as they say, "Well, if it costs too much maybe it isn't worth it." Did we ask how much Clinton was gonna spend in Kosovo? Did any of these people care about that? Have these Democrats ever given a rat's rear end to what Medicaid is gonna cost, or Social Security, or any other entitlement they never care about what things are gonna cost except the military.
So, anyway, folks, we have on the website today, we have, um put up a special Saddam page... this is at RushLimbaugh.com It contains everything you need to convince people you might know that don't believe Saddam's a threat. If people sez "Oh, he's (mummble) such business that he's got weapons of mass destruction I haven't seen any proof, I haven't seen any evidence, I don't think Bush has made the connection, I don't understand what the big deal is..." Well, we've, um, a whole Saddam page and its up there. A free site so everybody to see in fact there's even a link to a State Department page that describes the method of torture... the methods of torture that Saddam uses. And as you go through it this is uh this is the guy you know the Mike Farrels and the Dan Rathers of the world are working so hard apparently here to save. But we've been working on it since late last week and over the weekend and it's now ready to go. This Saddam page is loaded too...more than you, well, more than you thought probably existed .. and again it is at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
The human shields continue to flee Iraq ...ladies and gentlemen,.. they're all,.. they're just getting outta there. This is hilarious ...you can't help but laugh at this.
This is from the UK Telegraph... "There's something richly comical about the mass exodus from Baghdad. The Western pacifists who offered themselves as human shields to protect Iraq from attack. Their flight betrays an extraordinary failure to think things through when they first set off for the Middle East in their double decker buses. It seems not to have occurred to them that standing in the way of missiles might put their lives in danger. Remember last week, on Friday, we had this story, this one human shield sez, "It's not about dying!"
Ya see, they got over there, they over there to Iraq, and they said, "hey, Saddam, we're here, we're gonna be human shields" and Saddam sez "Well, fine, I want you to go over there next to that refinery, You go over there next to that army regiment, you go over there next to that power plant," and they said "Oh, no no no, we're here to shield the children, and the schools,"
"Oh, that's where they are....our schools are in the power plant, our schools are th..."
And these human shields say, "Well, wait a minute." They actually thought they were going to be throwing frisbees over there, frisbees for peace, in their spare time, eating fried goat thighs and kebabs, you know, having a good old time with Saddam and his merry band over there, acting as human shields. Folks, they did. They actually thought their presence would ward off any attack. When they found out where Saddam was going to put them, they have high tailed it out of there. They are making tracks. Those that hoped that Saddam Hussein would allow them to shield "screwells" and hospitals rather than refineries and power stations clearly had not bothered to find out anything about Hussein. Well, Saddam's never made a secret of his feelings about innocent Iraqis, he's murdered tens of thousands of them.
So, this all continues to happen within the context of our action in Iraq moving forward.
The capture of Al Qaida bigwigs -- which is huge, you probably heard a lot of experts over the weekend talking about how huge that capture is, and it is, it's monumental. And it shows there is worldwide cooperation with the United States. This is Pakistan that helped us out here. This is also a validation of the work done by the CIA. It's all tremendous. Now, there were some setbacks over the w(eekend)
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Tom] [edit]
- yeah, I want to talk one of them, because I, I think there's an explanation for it. Everybody's all hot to trot here about Turkey. Turkey had that vote in their Parliament, you know, and originally were going to be let in there. Troops gonna be allowed to stage in Turkey.
Then, of course, the uh, the guy who runs their legislature said, "Wait a second! There's an irregularity here." Yes, they had some votes, but you didn't have enough. Because, um, there were some people who weren't present. So there wasn't, the-the equivalent of a quorum.
Uh, this-this vote, therefore, is not official, and the original word was: we're not gonna put out. They're not goona have another vote. So, uh, Turkey will not be used as a staging base for the United States. So, what went wrong? Because everybody thought that Turkey had been bought off. We're gonna give them six billion dollars in cash, twenty billion dollars in loan guarantees.
And of course the Mike Farrell's, and the protesters of the world running around. Saying "Well, yeah -- of course we've got whatever we want. We have to buy people off."
You know what I think happened? I actually, I actually think that, um, and -- Joel(sp?) MulBrea(sp?) -- writes about this in National View Online today, to -- to an extent. There are some who suspect that this whole thing was sabotaged by, uh, state department leaks.
That it was elements of the State Department who leaked all this stuff about money. Making Turkey look like a bunch of money-grubbing uh, mercenaries. Uh -- I mean -- and they were -- and Turkey is offended at this. Whether it's accurate or not, I don't know. And - but -- the point is that the -- the real reason that the Turkish parliament did what it did, and the reason their parliamentarian did what he did, was because they didn't want to end up looking like what they had done was for money.
And whoever it was that leaked, and kept talking about, well we're giving Turkey this, we're promising them that. It caused other nations: well, we want a piece of that action too! Um, there are some who suspect -- that -- the State Department was actually leaking and maligning Turkey. And Turkey's intentions here. Making them sound purely mercenary when that wasn't the case.
Um, somebody - I forget -- somebody made a case that actually, um, a case could be made that Turkey is owed some money by the United States for previous things that they've done for us. I can't -- I'll have to see if I can find that. But, um, never the less, this is all gonna get fixed.
The -- the point is, we're gonna use Turkey, and if we don't, there are ways to get troops to the, the northern staging area north of Iraq. Anyway - the northern part of Iraq.
But, um, all of this news -- people just seem to rejoice at all the - uh -- the negative news that seems to mount up for Bush over the weekend. When in fact it's -- it's not all that bad, and will be rectified anyway.
You know the - the - people forget so many crucial things, uh, in all of this. Turkey's gonna be there. Every body is going to be there probably at the end -- except for France. And, you know folks -- I -- this is important, I think. You get caught up in the news of the day.
And, let's face it. We have a news media here that relishes reporting anything negative about this country when it comes to international news. You have a bunch of journalists, and a bunch of members of the elite, who just are obsessed with their own guilt at the prosperity we as Americans enjoy.
And, in order to make themselves feel better about having all this prosperity as the result of the accident of their own birth, they feel like they're doing a service, by giving voice to all these people that criticize this country.
Fact of the matter is that Turkey, and all the NATO countries, and pretty much all the nations in the world, know the value to the world of the United States. We feed the world. We clothe the world. We protect all of these nations if they are ever in trouble. We do it without asking questions.
The -- the truth of the matter is that there's probably a tremendous amount of love and respect for the United States in the world that doesn't get reported. It isn't fashionable to -- to do so. And I get sick of it. Frankly, get sick and tired of all the news that is focused on anti-American comments.
Uh -- I understand people are free to make those comments, but I think that they're overdone, they're overblown, and they are -- providing - an impression that is not accurate. It's not representative of the people of these countries, nor the governments of these countries, in mass. I'll give you an example. Although it's a domestic example.
Everybody! All you people -- well, you know who you people who are doing this, know who you are. All worried at all these anti-Bush protests, and anti-war protests are gonna take the president's approval numbers down. And that the left is gonna succeed, just like they did throughout the nineties and the eighties and the seventies and so forth.
And you've been panicked. And you've been upset about it. And I told you: it's a new day. Don't worry about it. It's not gonna be the case. There's a Gallup poll out which proves me right.
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: zzyzx] [edit]
I'll give you the details when we come back. Hang in there, be tough. We've only scratched the surface here today. The Rush Limbaugh program returns momentarily.
[Station id]
[ad: CLR]
[ad: Blue Emu]
[ad: Lending Tree]
[ad: Peachtree service experts]
[ad: American Equity Mortgage]
[station id: EIB Network, WGST]
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, it's el Rushbo, the all knowing all caring all sensing all-feeling all concerned Maharaji. Yes, the Gallup poll's got some new data out. The popularity of President George W. Bush has slipped over the past several months. Amid lower public ratings of the economy. And certainly over when a war with Iraq might begin. But his declining popularity would appear to be related more to the economy than war. And support for an invasion of Iraq has remained fairly stable.
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Drew] [edit]
Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, told ya. I've been telling you all along.
I've been asking you not to panic over these protestors and over the anti-war movement and all this is not going to affect - it's a new day out there, folks. It's a - And I hate to be repetitive on this score. I know this is becoming a cliche itself, but it's, you know, these people are just not going to get away with their monopolistic point of view and their 90% persuasion of the American people.
You know, they run around saying we've got a nation of warmongers and this sort of stuff. Well, that's probably what they will say now, when they discover that their protests aren't working. They'll call us all a nation of warmongers. Let them talk. You have to understand that they're making abject fools of themselves and it's become - gonna become obvious, when all of this does start and play out over whatever period of time it plays out. Which is not going to be all that long.
In fact, it would make sense that the president's approval numbers are slipping when it comes to the economy - that's reality. It's reality, and it always happens. I don't care who the president is. When the economy is slipping or not as strong as it ought to be, the guy in power takes the hit. When the economy is going through the roof, the guy in power gets the credit, a la Clinton.
But this business of the war - people have been worrying about the anti-war protestors and the effect they're going to have on public opinion regarding the president - it isn't happening. This is according to Gallup themselves. You know, it's - again, over the weekend, there were two stories.
You remember back in December. I came to the golden EIB microphone one day to do this program. And I was stunned, because they had discovered - the inspectors, the Clouseau, the Blix brigade had discovered - nuclear weapon project papers at a scientist's home in Iraq. And it was no big deal.
It was reported in the UK Telegraph just as though it was common, ordinary news. And everybody knew. And then at the time, everybody's looking for smoking guns. My gosh, if this isn't smoking, what is? They just found nuclear project papers in a scientist's house. They'd been moved away from the building where the research was being done. Ho-hum. What have you heard about it since? Nothing.
Two more stories this weekend along the same vein. And they're both reported in British papers. They're both reported as though it's common knowledge and not a big deal. It's - let me sum it up for you before I get to the details of these two stories.
You've got these UN inspectors who can't find these stocks of weapons of mass destruction. You have the libs here and abroad demanding proof of their existence, and you've got some of them, like Janeane Garofalo and Mike Farrell, demanding - or insisting that they don't even exist. They don't exist. Farrell says he knows. He knows Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. Janeane Garofalo says the same thing. Other libs are demanding proof.
Meanwhile, while all that's going on, the Iraqis threaten to unleash these weapons against the troops. And the Sunday shows yesterday, one of these clowns got a question, these anti-war guys not convinced that Saddam's got all these weapons - he levels the possibility that if we attack, that Saddam's going to retaliate with these weapons of mass destruction on our troops.
And I keep standing here - so wait a minute, you people say he doesn't have them. You people are the ones that keep demanding proof. And yet here you cite the fact he might use them. And of course that is a refrain that continues to pop up. Are there people saying - and there are - I don't know if you've heard them - there are people - we shouldn't have captured this Mohammed guy. Because that's just going to make the al-Queda guys even angrier. You heard that?
The left is nuts, folks. Do not worry about them. Learn to keep laughing at them. I'll have the details of these two stories coming up. I didn't forget.
[ ad: Lifequote ]
[ ad: Culligan ]
[ ad: ClearChannel ]
[ ad: John McKnight, News Radio 640 WGST ]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Michael] [edit]
[local news: America's showdown with Saddam]
[ad: EGP for office copying and printing needs]
[talk radio ad]
[ad: Free "Trade Secrets" seminar for stock investment. Evolution in action.]
[ad for local news]
[bump music]
And we're kicking off a brand-new week, broadcast excellence from behind the golden EIB microphone. Now listen to these-- listen to these two stories-- yeah, we're loaded-- folks, one of these days, y'know Mondays are getting increasingly challenging here at the EIB network (chuckling) and getting it all in. There's a lot of stuff to hit the fan over the weekend on this Estrada nomination, and I've got that for you all in due course. I mean, I can't do it all in the first half hour.
Y'know, I could tell you about how great a golf game I had Saturday-Sunday, but I'm not even going to do that because of the time --
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:30:00
[07: Preston] [edit]
...constraint there we got a- oh yeah. Fabulous. It was ninety degrees out there, yeah, both days. We played both days. What do you mean ninety degrees? It was hotter than that out in Palm Springs. And I was walking out there, played in the old, fashionable golf carts here. It wasn't bad, it was cool, nifty.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, get this. This is, this is again the UK Telegraph, this is not one of these tabloids over there. I think the Telegraph is the UK version of the Wall Street Journal. "If war comes to Iraq the Kurds will be right in the line of fire. Iraqi officials threaten that the moment that the first American bomb lands they'll reply with a chemical assault on the town." So, I mean, here you go, Hussein has just promised to gas another Kurdish town the minute American bombs drop.
Now, meanwhile, we got the inspectors say they can't find this stuff and anti-war activists saying it doesn't exist. We've got others saying we need more proof; Bush hasn't made the connection. And Iraq keeps claiming to use these things on our troops or on the Kurds or on anybody else that happens to be in the way. And the same people who are denying or professing they have seen no evidence that Saddam has these things are the same people that worry that Saddam will use them if we provoke him.
It's surreal! It is totally surreal. It is though there are two worlds out there. You would think that the mainstream press, which is gathering all of this data, would have some incredulity at this, at some point. I mean, they report this stuff and they dig it out, they find it, and they participate in reporting this as though it's just commonplace and no big deal.
Get this second story. Now this, it first appeared in a London tabloid the Sun which, I think, a 100% pure gossip newspaper. I could be mistaken but this I think whole paper is like Page Six of the New York Post. The whole thing is gossip but it's been backed up now by the Telegraph. Here's the story. Listen, this is how it opens. I am just going to read this story the way it ran on March 1st, which was Saturday. "Saddam Hussein's top missile expert has been murdered to stop him blabbing to the UN". Hah, ok. Ok. "General Muhammad Sa'id al-Darraj died Thursday after Saddam's men poisoned his drink. Relatives say he was ordered to hide details of Iraqi Scuds from the UN but devious Saddam didn't trust him. The revelation came as President Bush warned that war was imminent. He said that Saddam would be forced to give up his weapons whatever the UN decided".
Anyway, it picks up on the General. It says "General al-Darraj was murdered hours before Saddam agreed to the destruction of the al-Sammoud II missiles. The engineer had been called to a meeting at one of Saddam's palaces for talks about how to mislead UN scientists over the Scud missile program. Moments before he died he managed to tell his family that Saddam's officials had poisoned his drink with poison. British intelligence chiefs said that the murder was another example of Saddam's ruthlessness. They say that it underlined his total disregard for human rights."
At least that. Did you hear about this anywhere over the weekend? Let me back this up then here with the story from the Telegraph: "Western intelligence agencies are investigating claims that Saddam Hussein ordered the murder of a senior Iraqi missile engineer to prevent him passing vital information to UN weapons inspectors. General Muhammad Sa'id al-Darraj, who was in charge of the Scud missile program until three months ago, died 24 hours after talks with Saddam's officials according to Arab newspaper reports. The officials wanted to discuss how the General would conceal his knowledge if he were called for an interview with the UN. The London-based al-Zaman newspaper said that General al-Darraj told "indignant" relatives shortly before he died that he had been slipped a poisoned drink during the meeting at one of Saddam's presidential palaces. "Iraqi opposition groups suspect that the general's loyalty to Saddam was in doubt after he was removed from his post at the end of the year. "British Government officials said yesterday that they were still trying to corroborate the report."
So it's appeared twice here. The sickening truth is that this stuff just gets reported as commonplace. Big media, the libs don't seem to offend easily anymore. I mean, this doesn't seem to bother them. Really. Republican tax cuts or speech codes on college campus or not including a prescription drug benefit that will really offend the left. That will really offend Democrats and so forth. Here comes news that Saddam poisoned the Scud missile director to keep him from talking to the UN weapons inspectors.
(Yawns) I hadn't heard that what else have you got for me?
(Laughs) This coming --
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Kim] [edit]
evils(?), or that Saddam promised to gas another Kurdish town, if American-- and meanwhile, I'm telling you, it's like there are two worlds. Meanwhile, the surreal nature of this is that you've got all these people on television, defending Saddam's honor-- saying that they have not been convinced Saddam behaves this way, has any kind of weapons that could do these kinds of things to people. I've-- I've *laughing*-- "We will gas you when U.S. bombs fall, Kurds told." is the headline.
I -- I-- you know, by the way, I don't know if you saw this or not, but Howard Kurtz did an interview with Dan, on CNN's Reliable Sources, and Dan didn't-- he was not comfortable. You know, Dan got very defensive-- cause it wasn't a Larry King interview. You know, this--this wasn't the king in his court and those underhanded softballs.
He asked him some--some--some questions and other-- Rather got defensive right off the bat-- Rather said well look, I was there and nobody else was, YOU go to the palace, YOU sit in those circumstances and YOU do a better job of it--if you think you can do a better job, then you go do it and I'll sit back here and critique you. Now he didn't say that to Kurtz, he said that to his critics-- that he was--you know, in the Kurtz interview, but he wasn't responding to Kurtz personally, but that he--he, that's what he said to people.
He's--hes, you know, uh, who was it? Um, Clifford May, who used to be with the RNC and now runs an anti-terrorism--uh, think thank or whatever-- had an interesting piece on the national View Online website last week. He said okay, alot of people trying to figure out here--did- did Rather do a good job or not? Well here, you don't need anybody to tell you that, you can decide for yourself. Here, verbatim, are Dan Rather's questions. Without any answers, here are the questions.
It was pathetic-- when you look at it that way, it was pathetic. There must have been, uh, I'm sorry Mr-- we really thank you, we so appreciate you, love you for your time, Mr. President-- and-and I-- it was the unedited transcript and it was--*laughing*-- I mean it was just devastating-- it was just devastating. That's the way to look at it, or at least one way to look at it-- to find out what kind of job Rather did. Let's go to a phone here quickly. Asheville, North Carolina-- Matt-- hello sir, welcome to the program.
Matt: Rush, more than ever, mega-dittos and thank you. This, this-- this whole poisoning story-- this is why we listen to you and and we listen to talk radio in droves. We can't get the truth from our normal newspaper. If you hadn't just broke this story, we would have never heard about it here in the United States of America.
Rush: Well, you have-- you might not have for awhile--um, although you could have gone to the website that we use and found it yourself, but I appreciate your comment-- I really-- I'm not trying to um, talk you out of it, cause I do--I do appreciate it. But I-- I just want to let it be known that this is no super-secret source that we have that nobody else does.
Rush: This information IS out there, and I-- while I appreciate your comment Matt, and I really do, please do not misunderstand. The fact is, anybody could see this, and I'm sure there are-- alot of-- I can't believe, for example, that I'm the only person, in--in the so-called media, or news business-- that ran across this story over the weekend. I can't --I can't belie-- oh come on, you're telling me that I'm one of the few who reads the Telegraph? You can't tell-- you're telling me that I'm one of the few that reads the Sun?
Rush: You telling me that you don't think people in the newsrooms at the networks now, with all this ability to-- information resource gather all over the world are not taking advantage of it? You-- *unintelligible* don't even read the Washington Times, maybe-- maybe not. Well, you may be right, maybe-- I find it hard to believe I'm the only one reading this stuff. Um, and I-- but more than that, heres the thing, heres the real question. It's--its not, are they or are they not, reading this-- when they see it, what do they do with it?
Rush: I mean, I -- I'm-- I've been very careful how I brought this to your attention. You had one newspaper alleging, or making it sound matter of fact-- it did happen, that was the Sun. And you had the Telegraph saying they're trying to corroborate it. It's so bizarre that people just don't believe that, off the cuff, off the top of their heads-- it's not that bizarre is the point. But to so many people it's bizarre, they can't-- "Saddam Hussein would poison-- a SCUD missile director in the midst of inspections? Why, nobody would be that stupid, this is propoganda."
Rush: I mean, who knows how they're looking at it. Uh, the idea that-- that nobody would bring this to your ATTENTION is what's interesting to me. The fact that they would stumble across it doesn't surprise me-- the fact that they would not find some way to bring it to your attention is what amazes me. Because, to ME-- I mean, just like that-- that story of the-- of the nuclear project papers that was found-- uh, were found in December.
Rush: Uhh, that seemed to me to be important, both of these stories-- not just the poisoned scientist, but the-- the threat to gas another Kurdish town. I mean, to me that's important stuff, given the uh-- the polarization of the debate here. And I--you can only conclude-- you know, I-- this is risky. But you can only
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Tracy] [edit]
... that there are people that if they do know this, and choose not to report it or allege it, or whatever, because they're afraid of the impact it might have on the outcome of events. So that's what worries you. What kind of editorial quote-unquote judgment might be utilized in determining whether or not -- see, this is, the guy's got it right. The caller's got it right. That's why we say "doing the job the mainstream press used to do."
Quick break, we'll be back. Don't go away, my friends.
[ad: Rush for Select Comfort]
[ad: National Mortgage]
[ad: Marietta Dental Care]
[ad: WGST]
RUSH: She's done music, she's done film, she's done an explicit sex book, now Madonna is branching out into children's books, ladies and gentlemen. Signing and publishing a deal with Penguin to write five children's books. Ok -- now how did it go? When my first book came out, Madonna's book was number one, mine was number two, Schwartzkopf was number three, right? And then mine eventually became number one after four or five weeks, and then it was accurate to say that I, Rush Limbaugh, sit atop Madonna. On the bestseller list. That's the line we used. That was the "Sex" book, correct?
Now she's coming out with five childrens' books, ladies and gentlemen. The first book, "The English Rose," will be published in September based on the adventures of a red fox, a red fox, the little prince. Ok. What about the other four books?
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Tracy] [edit]
... there's nothing mentioned about the titles of the other four books here. Well, why don't we come up with our own titles? The first book is going to be called "The English Roses." How about the next Madonna children's book entitled "Little Debbie Does Dallas?" Then, "Mommy Has Two Boyfriends." Or more. Next book, "Who's My Daddy, and Does It Matter?" And finally, "The Little Singer Who Could, Would and Did." That's what we need. Children's books from Madonna.
Dayton, Ohio. This is Ed. Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
ED: Thanks Rush. My question is this. How does it benefit us as a nation to know about the capture and arrest of Mohammed? Doesn't this hurt us now that they've released this information to the media and to the nation? Here they were telling us over the weekend that they were able to find phones and computers --
RUSH: Yeah.
ED: -- that hopefully this'll lead us to his cronies. Now doesn't this tell those people to take off and get lost?
RUSH: Wait a minute. I want to understand the context here in which you are calling. Do you -- are you upset that we tried to capture him, or are you upset that we did capture him, or are you only upset that we announced his capture?
ED: I'm only upset that they announced his capture. I'm thrilled to death that they caught him. It shows that the war on terror is proceeding as the President's saying it is. I'm just upset that they released the information to us. It wouldn't hurt to gather some of the information that they found, wherever they found him, to lead us to the people that are getting ready to start the problems.
RUSH: Actually, I think there are some better reasons for announcing it. I can understand your thought process on this, but I actually think there might be at least two, and maybe more, better reasons to announce it. Number one, do not discount the value of momentum in this game. We have captured over a thousand Al-Qadea underlings, maybe more, and the leadership continues to take huge hits. Particularly in the Phillipines and in the Middle East. And capturing this guy and announcing it is a huge momentum builder, or at least it sustains existing momentum on our side. It is also depressing to his charges. It is deflating to those in his orb.
And contrary to -- and this is the second reason -- I think it actually might cause the rats to squirm and flee. I think they'd be easier to track and follow. The information we're going to be able to glean about his associates from his computer, cell phone, and all that, we'll identify who they are, I think we already know. And I think the fact that he's captured is going to cause these people to -- you know, they're not going to be able to stay underground, they're not going to be able to get directions. They're going to have to flee and do something, try to reorganize somewhere, and it's probably easier to catch them as they're on the move and flushed out. And then you also see where they go. And they may lead people to other cells.
And I'm sure this was thought of. You know, this is -- always caution people to think that don't care what's reported. There's always a lot more we don't know than what we've been told. And who knows? We don't know where the guy is. There were conflicting reports all through the weekend. In fact, first conflicting report I got was, yeah, we captured him and then all of a sudden Pakistan decided not to turn him over to us. And I said "That can't be. Who's putting this out?" I got all angry about it, then I found out that wasn't true, had been turned over to us.
And now people are demanding to know where he is, because we haven't announced where we've taken him. So people are speculating: "Well, is it Guantanamo Bay, or maybe is he still in Pakistan somewhere? Have we taken him somewhere else?" Nobody knows. And that's probably for the best. Let them wonder where he is. And then let all of these underlings wonder if he's gonna talk. Let them wonder what he's gonna say. They know what he knows. I think this creates all kinds of instability amongst a group that's probably taken a huge number of hits already. And I think there are a lot of such captures as this or such successes as this that we haven't announced, for the exact reasons that you give. But this is a big enough one to cause even more confusion, and for lack of a better word depression, amongst this group of people than they've probably experienced here before.
I think there's a reason this is happening. There's a reason it's being done. I trust the people doing it. And I think that it's only going to lead to more arrests, more captures, and less likelihood of further terrorist events. That's another thing that I keep -- this weekend, it was -- I ran the gamut of emotions over the weekend, because it's becoming increasingly difficult to tolerate stupidity. That I'm beginning to hear more and more we shouldn't capture this guy, because it's only going to make all the other terrorists mad, we shouldn't go to Hussein, it's going to sponsor more terrorist attacks against the United States, we shouldn't do this, we shouldn't go after these guys period, it's just going to make 'em angrier than they are.
That's stupid. It's asinine. Anyway, well, I gotta ...
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Kim] [edit]
take a break here because it's *unintelligible*--be right back, don't go away.
[ EIB network id]
[News Radio 640-station id]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad:Priceline Hotels- Priceline.com|
[News Radio 640 news promo]
[ad: Charity Motors]
[ad: Lending Tree.com]
[promo for the Kimmer-Kim Peterson show]
--rules media CAN legally lie. It happened on February 14th, the Florida Appeals Court ruled there's nothing wrong with the media lying. *snickers* We'll have details coming up-- whoa--what's -- the news...
[News Radio 640-station id]
[ad: AAA Mortgage]
[News Radio 640- promo]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Craig] [edit]
[News Break]
[Weather]
[ad: Mid Atlantic Financial Services]
[ad: Kimball's Irish not the snowball Event ]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:00:00
[13: Craig] [edit]
[ad: unknown]
[ad: Metro Directories]
[ad: Atlanta Motor Speedway]
From high atop the EIB building, in midtown Manhattan, our broadcast signal shoots skyward to a geosynchronous orb satellite, which then beams the broadcast signal, a giant worldwide footprint. Enabling literally millions to get truth. We call it the truth starved millions, and they are fed daily here at the EIB network. Great to have you, from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, Rush Limbaugh, at 800-282-2882. Email address: rush@eibnet.com.
Continuing on with weekend news. I'm telling you folks, this was -- we had humongous news over the weekend. From Saddam poisoning the scud missile scientist to keep her from talking to the UN, to Saddam threatening another Kurdish town, to gas them the minute US bombs fall. To asinine protests and comments by protesters on television. To the capture of the number two Al-Quaeda guy behind bin Ladin.
There was this: On Saturday, in the New York Times, might have been published Sunday, might have been Saturday's news. This just -- I had to throw up my hands again in just utter, well, not despair, but -- what the Hell has this whole past 14 months been about then? I don't know if you will have the same reaction -- you should have the same reaction. Let me share with you the news.
As opposition to war in Iraq stiffens in the United Nations Security Council, the Bush administration set a new standard for avoiding war that could be out of reach for Saddam Hussein, and perhaps the world body.
That appeared to be the unmistakable message conveyed by the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer when he said that Bush would be satisfied only with Iraq's complete disarmament and the departure of Saddam Hussain to exile.
Did you hear this over the weekend? Now I'm saying to myself, now wait a second. What is going on? First this thing started out as a regime change, then we didn't hear anything about regime change, then we heard disarmament. If he disarms, everything is fine. We go to the United Nations, we start this stupid worthless little fan dance --
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Kim] [edit]
....about disarmament, inspectors and all this sort of stuff, and then late Friday or Saturday, Bush says oh, by the way, even if he totally disarms, that ain't enough. He's gotta go into exile-- aha- ha-ha-ha-- and I'm thinking, where is Dominique de Villepin today when he hears this? Where is Herr Schroeder, when he hears this? Where are all these other namby-pamby wusses from the UN Security Council when they hear this?
So, if you've had any doubts-- that a war is imminent, let there be none. Because now, stated policy is-- Saddam Hussein could totally disarm, give up everything, and if he doesn't leave and go into exile, it's all for nothing. Alright, I stood up and cheered-- fine and dandy, I'm all for that, but I still can't help but wonder why all of this-- showmanship with the United Nations?
It appears to me that we were far too clever, maybe too clever by half-- in going to the UN Security Council because all we've been doing is pretending that this was about U.N. resolutions being enforced-- and--and upholding the U.N.'s authority-- do you, do you realize what this means, folks? If we're not going to tack on the proviso that he HAS to go into exile-- that's not in any resolutions, is it? Has that been debated? At the U.N. Security Council? Has that come up? Is that in any of the resolutions? It isn't !!
So what's all this with the U.N. about? It-- what it--what it boils down to here folks, is the inspection process has nothing to do with our true intentions and it never did. This--this-- this has the chance-- now I know some of you might not want to hear it up this way-- but this has the chance to go down as one of the most diplomatically absurd processes that we have ever been involved in. Because despite all that's been said, this is not a war to enforce U.N. resolutions.
Yet, despite that, we have empowered the--the likes of the French and the Germans to formally oppose us --in the Security Council. We've initiated an inspection regime that turns out to be irrelevant, by our own statements. It's an inspection regime that never had any confidence in it in the first place, the outcome of which is not even relevant to our real intentions anyway. Our real intentions WERE-- from the get go, Hussein's gone. One way or the other he's gone. He leaves or he's forced out, but he's gone. Disarmament? Not even cover it, not even the half of it.
September 11th-- you know, it--it--it revealed the real potential-- for an alliance between uh, Iraq, which is a terrorist state-- and Al Queda and other terrorist groups. It revealed the need to fundamentally change the environment of the Middle East-- which, by the way, the President formally acknowledged in that AEI speech on Wednesday night.
And I also think that the-- this last point-- this-- this whole business of reordering, if you will, the Middle East has hardened the Russians-- because they're more outspoken now about their opposition to us using force against Iraq-- than they have been-- cause, I--I think they probably fear our larger ambitions for the region They look at that region, you know, as-- as being one thing, if we're going to go in there and democratize it, as we announced, then that--that throws a monkey wrench into what they may see as the future of the-- of the region.
And also, *sighs* what is this, what are we going to make of this diplomatic approach? Colin Powell urged it, Colin Powell promised Bush-- he'd get all these guys in line. Bush was assured that France and Germany would be brought along, Powell told him that. And --it turns out now to have been -- the only-- the only thing you could say about it-- is that we needed to stall anyway because it took some time to deploy forces-- to stage the base of operations, as it were. But, it-- it's--it's--it's still real puzzling.
Maybe-- maybe it's not puzzling to you people, maybe some of you can help me out here. But-- and--and maybe you think I'm making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary to be made, but I don't think so. I think when--out of the blue? We say for the first time "Oh, by the way, disarmament doesn't cut it, he's gotta go into exile --to stop a war." We've never said that before, not officially, it's not part of anything we've been debating at the U.N. There is no resolution which says so-- there's not-- you think there is? You think there's an U.N. resolution that says he's gotta go into exile? Well, there's not.
Um, we had this alliance here of James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, Lawrence Eagleburger-- they had this personal investment in putting together a giant coalition and putting together this worldwide force and not acting until-- but--you had that force, but
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Kim] [edit]
...here you have-- back then that was Iraq invading Kuwait. The President of the United States-- this time around, George W. Bush, has linked American safety to what happens in Iraq. He has linked the lives of the American people to what happens in Iraq. And in that-- now, you can agree or disagree with that, if he's right or wrong-- what I'm saying, he's done it-- and I'm not-- arguing about that right now. I'm just saying that if that's the case, if taking action against Iraq is to protect the lives of the American people, than what, pray tell, does it matter?
What Cameroon or Angola or Spain, or even Great Britian think? If it's the lives of the American people-- if it's just to kick him out of Kuwait, that's one thing, that's what the first resolution in ' 91 was about. Just get him out of Kuwait, get him back to his own borders and the job's finished. But the President has linked American safety to this operation, because of the links to terrorism and this sort of thing and Al Queda.
And so, this-- this whole business of messing around with the U.N. frosts me. Because folks, let me-- let me find something here-- um, it's not just me. One of this-- in fact the worlds, perhaps, pre-eminent historians, a guy named Paul Johnson-- has written of the U.N., and there are-- yes, here it is-- five vital lessons from Iraq, and I read these, and it is-- it's nice to know, that the-- perhaps the most outstanding historian of our times is in agreement with me. Here, I took great comfort from this-- and let me just read-- I'm not going to go through all five of them here, but listen-- here's lesson three.
" The Iraq crisis has already pointed up a number of valuable lessons, so far I've identified five, here they are." --- number three is this. " The assumption in many minds seems to be that whereas individual powers act on the world stage according to the brutal rules of real politic, the U.N. represents legitimacy and projects an aura of idealism. That's the assumption. In fact, more than half century of experience shows that the U.N. is a theatre of hypocrisy, a sink of corruption. A streetmarket of sordid bargains and a seminary of cynicism."
"It is a place where mass-murdering heads of state can stand tall and sell their votes to the highest bidder. And where crimes against humanity are rewarded. For many people, the true nature of the U.N. was epitomized by the news that Libya, a blood-soaked military dictatorship of the crudest kind, is to chair the U.N. commision on human rights. It's people like Khadaffi who benefit from the U.N., who are legitimized by it's spurious respectability."
This is a great description of the U.N. It's worthless, it's made up of dictators. Tinhorns and thugs who are legitimized by virtue of their membership. Not by anything in which they've done, ruling their countries, leading their people or whatever. And this is the outfit that we try to make diplomatic nice with, when it comes to protecting ourselves.
And so we come out now and say "Oh, by the way Saddam, you've got to go into exile, in addition to disarmament, that's the only way you can stave off war." We are, in essence, admitting that all of this at the U.N. has been a feint-- for whatever reason, I still don't know. But it's been a feint. Take a quick break, we'll be back-- don't go away.
[promo: Rush on the EIB network]
[ News Radio 640, WGST]
[ Rush: spoken promo for Citracal]
[ad: Derrick Cope, Nascar driver: for Avacor Hair Loss products]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Craig] [edit]
[ad: Alzheimer's Research project]
[ad: D. Gallion and Sons Jewelers]
The story, Five vital lessons from Iraq, by noted historian Paul Johnson, is in the March 17th issue of Forbes Magazine, in case you are wondering. And here's lesson number five:
The U.S. must not really possess the means to act alone, if necessary. It also must cultivate the will to act alone, if necessary. Fate or divine providence has placed America at this time in the position of sole superpower, with the consequent duty to uphold global order, and to punish, or prevent the great crimes of the world.
That is what America did in Afghanistan, is in the process of doing in Iraq, and will have to do elsewhere. It must continue to engage the task imposed upon it, not in any spirit of hubris, but in the full and certain knowledge that it is serving the best and widest interest of humanity.
I think that is brilliantly put.
And I want to go back to something in the first hour that I was eluding to when I was discussing Turkey. There were a number of people over the weekend upset that the Turks reversed their vote in their parliament allowing us to stage a northern battlefront in their territory. A number of people were livid at the Turks, and first, when I heard this, I was too.
I did some research, and found out that it may be the Turks are just a little upset because they have been portrayed as mercenary here. The only reason they did this was for the 26 billion, and that was never the case. They were offered the money up front. They didn't demand it.
Regardless. What Paul Johnson here says is right. We have a duty. It is incumbent upon us, whether we want it or not, we are the lone superpower, and what do we stand for? This is why it's so crucial who wins elections. Not only, is it what do we stand for, what do we defend? What is it that we protect? What is it that sets this nation apart from all the others in the world?
I don't know how often you ask yourself this question, but I do constantly. We have been around as a nation but a mere speck of historic time compared to European and far Eastern civilizations. They have centuries on us. They ought to be the equalivant number of light years ahead of us in so many ways.
Both physical lifestyle, enlightenment...
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Preston] [edit]
...culture, all of these things, economics. But they're not. There isn't a nation on the planet that's even close to us. And they all know it. And the people of these nations all know it. I don't care about the governments from one nation to the next but the people who live on this planet are fully aware of what is represented by the United States and they vote with their feet every year trying to get here.
The people who run this country, who lead this country have a duty to defend that which has made this country what it is. Of course it's freedom and it's source from God. Because if it's not defended here it's not going to be worth anything anywhere. And if it is to be maintained here it must be fought for and maintained elsewhere.
These are awesome and heavy responsibilities, that's why he writes here: "Be it fate or devine providence America is, at this time, in the position of sole superpower with a consequent duty to uphold global order and punish or prevent the great crimes of the world." We find ourselves in an argument with the UN, with all these lesser nations, over what role the United States is to play. And they are filled with resentment. They are in these constant little power struggles with us for dominance. But when you strip all that away it's kids kicking sand in a sandbox because even people like Chirac or Schreoder or de Villepin or whoever know: if you take the United States out of the world they stop existing as they exist today. Every nation on the planet knows if the United States ceases to exist as it does so does the rest of the world.
"Whaddya mean Rush, whaddya mean?"
This is not a world which is governed by nice thoughts and flowers and doves and good vibes and all that. This is a world that's always been governed by the aggressive use of force. And when the aggressive use of force is taken to oppress, rather than liberate, it must be stopped. There is only one nation on the planet that will do that. There is only one nation on the planet with the will and the resolve to do it. And this is a great testament to the American people- not just the people who lead this country- but a great testament to the American people. The American people pay for it, the American people support it with their lives, the American people have made the world what it is.
And a lot of people don't understand why there is such resentment for us but it's just human nature. If you don't understand it- I hate to use this for an example- but don't you oftentimes have to catch yourself resenting somebody you don't even know who may have a lot of money or a big house or a lot of physical, tangible objects that you don't have. Isn't there a built-in resentment and you have to guard against it, you have to constantly run checks and balances. Part of human nature.
Like I said the other day, it's much easier to dislike somebody or hate somebody than it is to like or respect them- you have to work at that. It's much harder to think positively than it is to think negatively. Thinking negatively comes naturally, thinking positively- there are a lot of people who have made millions of dollars writing books telling you how to do it. Because it isn't easy- it's not something that comes naturally. To the same token with all these lesser countries around the world. You would think that the massive appreciation, love, and respect for us.
And there is when you get down to a certain level and when you get to certain circumstances. If France were attacked- if September 11th had attacked in France they'd be totally different from they way they're approaching us today than it being us. But you can't take liberals out of this equation either but when all these arguments set aside and stripped away enough of the world knows the value of the United States and will maintain it.
[ad: Scottrade]
[ad: Nexium]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Galen] [edit]
[local news & weather brought to you by Emery Vision]
[ad: Emery Vision Laser Surgery]
[ad: WGST.com]
[ad: Gutter Helmet]
[ad: Tires Plus]
[ad: Kerasol]
[ad: Atlanta Cooks/Harry's Farmer's Market]
Mr. Snerdly posed a question. I am somewhat troubled, but --
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:30:00
[19: Galen] [edit]
The irrefutable (?) in the United Nations and our role in the world.
Mr. Snerdly posed the question, "So what does that say? Is it authorizing nation building?"
What good does it do when the people we're doing it for don't even appreciate it, such as Kuwait? We liberated them from the evil Saddam Hussein, and even now, 10 years, 12 years later, some of them are still mad at us and trying to kill us and voting against us.
And look at the French. People have never had to defend their own freedom, we?ve done it for them, still don't show us any appreciation.
You know how I look at this? This may not be an analogy that will suffice for you, but I look at them as kids. I look at Kuwait and the French and all these other little bickering nations as children who don't know what they're doing, and shouldn't be listened to as a result. You don't let kids determine the rules of the household's going to be run. You don't let kids determine the rules that their lives are going to be governed by when they're 12, 14, and 17 years old. 'Cuz they don't know. Despite what they think they know, they don't know. They haven't lived long enough to know what's good for them, what's best for them or not. If you throw into the mix the fact that you're not trying to punish kids, you're trying to protect them and you're trying to prepare them for eventualities that they'll be able to best be prepared to deal with, then you're doing a good thing.
In the case of nation-building in Iraq, I don't think that what Johnson was saying here was making a blanket case for nation-building around the world; going in, liberating, and then building an empire. There's a huge difference between nation-building and empire-building. If we're going to go into Iraq --- You could also have the wrong people doing this. If you had a bunch of liberals doing this, then it would be for what I think would be not wholesome reasons.
But I trust Bush. I think the whole motivation that underlines our action here is indeed one simple thing. A promise he made and an oath, by the way, that he took. And that is to defend and protect the Constitution and the people of this country. He's got a job. And the people have said, and I've seen this on TV. And in fact I've had people ask me this personally, "Rush, here you have the Pope, who's a man of God-a. And as a man of God-a, the Ten Commandments, one of them is 'Thou shalt not to kill-a'. And the Pope is being true to his religion, 'thou shalt not kill-a, and war kills-a, and so you shouldn't go kill-a, and therefore there should be no war.' And Bush plus professes to be a man of God-a. A man of faith. Why is Bush so ea- ea- able to ignore that commandment and go kill people, particularly if they happen to be Iraqi children." (?) people are asking me this. And people are saying maybe do you think this is why Bush is so reluctant to pull the trigger? Maybe his faith is going to get in the way of him pulling the trigger, because he knows people are going to die, innocent people, no matter what we do, innocent people are going to die. Here's the Pope, saying, "We shouldn't do this."
And here's my answer to it. For better or worse, the Pope has an entirely different portfolio than the President of the United States. The Pope doesn't care -- no that's not the right way to put it. The Pope has not sworn an oath to protect the people of the United States.
You think we're messing around in the Middle East just to do it? If we were just messing around in the Middle East to do it, for the wielding of our power, and the exercise of it, then this program would be the first voice against it. But I do believe that all that's happening there, and in Israel and Palestine and all that, is ultimately aimed at the safety of the American people. It's all oriented toward making this a safer place world-wide, for freedom-loving people. It is for guaranteeing that freedom shall survive, thrive and prosper. Not only here in the United States, but elsewhere, because it is believed that is, quote, unquote, a natural yearning of the human spirit.
So we're not nation-building in Iraq, we are liberating. We are going to attempt to establish circumstances where those people can finally benefit from the same agreements that other human beings have made in democratic societies. To try to --
By the way, do you remember, somewhere in the stack, I've got to find this. I read to you this notion that somebody's all upset, that somebody's trying to make the case that we're really losing favor in Saudi Arabia 'cause all of our troops are coming out after the Gulf War. And I said, "No, the reason is there are internal reforms taking place there. They're oriented toward democracy and the Saudi royal family knows they?ve got to do this, and it'll be easier to do if we're not there which makes it look less like they're being forced by us to do it."
By gosh, there's a story today somewhere here in the stack about the ongoing need and desire on the royal family if they're to stay in power and they've gotta reform some of the aspects of their society and their country. This is true of this whole region over there. This whole Middle-
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Kilroy] [edit]
seeks to land in the 1400s or worse, 1200s or whatever, in the 21st century. That can't work. Once--something's going to have to give, and, I'm going to tell you, the world is not going back to the 14th century. Just isn't going to happen, folks.
I don't care what you want, what you think, what you think would be sweet and lovely and nice. I'm not saying any of you want that to happen. But some people are so abhorred--abhorrent--of any notion of conflict, that--it--. We must find another way. These kind of disagreements are not going to be solved any other way.
We're not going back to the 1400s or the 700s like these militant Islamists want to do. They're the ones that are going to have to change or cease to exist.
It's just--that's not because some human being like George W. Bush or anybody else is ordering it. That's just the natural inertia of human evolution--cultural evolution. It's just--they can't survive this way. They're not going to survive. It's not possible to survive and thrive in a backwards culture like that, surrounded by all this modernity. "Modern-inity" for those of you very limited.
"What's modernity, Rush? I thought it was pregnant women." No, no. Just think of "modern-inity".
The bottom line to me is is that all of this is taking place under the predicate of September 11th. There's a whole new world now. This--after September 11th, three thousand Americans die and then the--various pockets of population around the world applaud it. And encourage more of it. And say they want more of it.
And they're going to be happy to see more of it. Well, to hell with that.
And wherever that stuff pops up, and wherever those people take action to bring about their desires, they have to be stopped. You can't wish those people away. You can't hope they just continue to live in their caves and don't do anything. You got to root them out and stop them.
And this is--I think what Paul Johnson--I'm sorry to interpret for you, but what he's saying--we have a duty to ourselves. Once we're threatened and attacked this way, and all who want to live as we do, we're the guarantors and protectors of it.
Nobody else can--We cannot and should not depend on the French. We cannot and should not depend on--even the U.K. God, we love them, but they're not capable of it worldwide. Same thing with Germany.
They have indicated it by virtue of their actions. We know it intellectually. We can't build a wall around this country and keep the world out. We can't build a wall around this country and keep ourselves in. We can't pretend the rest of the world is the way it is, but we're the way we are. We can go on hunky dory, and the rest of the world can crumble around us. That doesn't work either.
But I don't believe all this is about making the rest of the world like us. I think it is about protecting the institutions that make us possible to be us, or the country possible to be the country. And it's under attack.
Don't care what you want to say. Don't care if you're going to believe Mike Farrell or Martin Sheen. This country is at risk. We are a great nation at great risk in a dangerous world.
I thank God we have some leadership that understands it and is mature enough to know it's got to be dealt with wherever it rears its head. Be it the Philippines. Be it Afghanistan. Be it Iraq. Be it in the West Bank. Wherever it is, it has to be dealt with.
And, I think it's abundantly clear that you just can't clear Hussein out of Iraq and then leave. Just like you couldn't clear the Taliban out of Afghanistan and then just leave. You're just going to have to keep doing that if you don't do something at the same time. Because the evildoers--the appropriate term--are just going to continue to surface until they're defeated. Or until they're shown it's just not worth rising to power because you're just going to get slapped down like your predecessors.
And I think it's important that message be sent. And that's why the Pacifist message and the Human Shields, these people are in the process of being--they don't know it yet--entirely discredited and humiliated.
It's like I said a little while ago. These people are not doing anything courageous. They are not even doing anything brave. So they march in capitals where there's free speech. Well, yip yip yip yip yahoo. They're not even engaging in dissent.
These people are not leaders. These are not people you want to hitch your wagon to and say, "Yeah, I want to tie my future to you. You, human shields, and Martin Sheen, and Mike Farrell. Yeah, you. You're the people I want to tie my future-- I want to tie the future of my freedom to you."
Sorry, not me.
I mean, I'll do what everybody else does, fight to death for their freedom to be stupid, but I'm not going to hitch my wagon, and my freedom, and all that, to them.
They have yet to demonstrate they have the slightest understanding of what's necessary to keep it. Maintain it.
All they do is denigrate those who do seek to fight for it, or profess that it's necessary to fight for it. And had these people prevailed over the course of the last forty years, I could draw you a map of the world and show you where the power centers would be, and you wouldn't like it.
Soviet Union would still be around. Communist China would be even larger than it already is.
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Jim] [edit]
?a far less tranquil place. But we're in the midst of trying to bring all this about. It's not easy, and it never is. And I hear all this talk too 'Well these leaders of these foreign countries you know they're up against it too because 90 percent of their populations are opposed to what they're doing.' Let me pose you a question.
I know that this is said to be a democracy. Let's assume just for a second that all these antiwar protests were working and lets assume for a second that 90 percent of the American people were against what we're doing in Iraq and against Al Quaeda.
And let's also stipulate for the sake of our hypothetical that those 90 percent were wrong. 90 percent of the American people think we shouldn't be fighting a war on terrorism, cause it's only going to bring more acts of terrorism, but instead we should be reaching out to talk to these people, establish dialogue, relationships, shown them we don't mean them any harm, do seminars on why they hate us, and try to eliminate those things that we do that make them mad at us, and the same thing with Iraq, let's just show him we intend him no harm, let's just sort of contain him and so forth, but let's stipulate that that thinking is wrong - 90 percent of the American people want to do something but they're wrong.
And the President, I don't care who it is, in that circumstance knows the American people are wrong and knows that if that 90 percent viewpoint prevails, that great harm will eventually come to the country, what should he do? What should he do? Well, this is a democracy, no no no that's not such an easy question, what should he do?
Because if you listen to the Martin Sheens and the Mike Farrells, he should listen to the 90 percent no matter what. These protesters are trying to say they represent the majority opinion around the world. They're trying to say these populations are speaking and these leaders are not listening. Well what if these people are wrong?
What should these leaders do? Ignore them? Yes, no question, they should ignore them. Well then we're not a democracy, are we, 'cause in a democracy 90 percent should rule, shouldn't it? Just something to think about, because we're not really a democracy, we're a representative republic and so forth. But public opinion polls are public opinion polls, you know the media would just jump on this 90 percent, they'd never let go of it.
But, what would a responsible, good leader do? Knowing that the 90 percent - well forget why they're wrong, forget what made them wrong; just accept that they're wrong. 'Cause they are, I don't care if the number is 90 percent or what. You can't listen to them, when the subject is the survivability of the country, as we've known it. And so that's why I say Mr. Snurdley, all these nations are just like children who don't know any better, and we can't afford to listen to them.
Precisely because they haven't had to defend themselves and so forth, you can't let people who are wrong, despite their motivations, prevail. If you're going to remain where we are, if you're going to remain a leader, and if you're going to you know stand foe the thing that have made this country great, and will sustain it, you just can't, you can't listen to them. Quick break we'll be right back.
[Station break]
[ad: Rush voiceover for Theragesic analgesic cream]
[ad: V Max - oil additive]
[ad: Trade Secrets]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Drew] [edit]
[ ad: Jerrod Jewelers ]
[ ad: News Radio 640 WGST ]
Well, as usual, my friends, I've had diarrhea of the mouth today, and we haven't had all that many phone calls. Let's go grab a couple here. And still beaucoup stuff remaining in the stack of stuff.
This is Mark in Canada. Yes, sir, nice to have you with us.
Mark: [indistinct] dittoes, Rush.
Rush: Thank you.
Mark: Bush's primary objective has always been regime change. And I think that what we're seeing with the UN is just another example of the new tone: giving in to the governing bodies on secondary issues to the point of absurdity.
It's just like his primary issue was the tax cut. He gave in on everything ,else and he implemented the tax cut right away. His primary issue here is regime change.
Rush: Well, he's stated it was regime change. Let's go through this now. You're right, stated regime change was it from the get-go. Then after a while, regime change vanished and disarmament became the operative objective. And for months there was no mention of regime change, to the point that people were saying, "What happened to regime change?" Inspectors [indistinct] up, and they go in there, and they start [sniff] [sniff] fuddy-duddying around. What happened to regime change?
And regime change was not even mentioned all during the UN business. All of a sudden, over the weekend, "Hey, by the way Saddam, not only gotta you disarm - you gotta go into exile." The Iraqis, by the way, have said this, further complicating matters. I should have mentioned this earlier. The Iraqis - wait a minute, we're in the process of destroying our Al Samood missiles.
And we got a hundred of them, in violation of a stupid resolution, they got a hundred of them. Still, Mike Farrell and these jerks say they haven't seen any evidence he's in violation of the resolution. He's got a hundred of them.
But the Iraqis said, "Wait a minute. We are only going to continue the disarmament of these things if the U. S. will sign a pledge there will be no war."
Well, there's not going to be such a pledge. So the Iraqis are going to say, "Why should we disarm?" And the answer is, "Because you signed surrender papers promising to, and there have been seventeen subsequent resolutions you've agreed to in which you've said you would." Nobody's answering that way.
There are now people saying, "Yeah, Rush, that's right. I mean, just like those inspectors probably were spies. Now, this is nothing more than a trick to disarm Iraq so that when we attack they can't defend."
No, you lamebrains - the reason they should disarm is because they promised they would do it. It's a matter - they made the agreement before the world at the United Nations that everybody thinks is so valuable.
Now, I think since you bring up the new tone, you may have swerved into a bit of truth there in this way: there is an election in 2004. And, don't forget, there are people in the White House whose job it is to make political calculations on things. Just as every White House, every political office has such people that make such calculations.
I'm sure it has been calculated that when it comes time to run for re-election, it will not hurt to be able to say, "We went to the security council. We offered up a bunch of more resolutions. Still, we went the world route. We did all this, but we got no cooperation. We were lied to once again." It just dispels this notion of unilateralism, which is a straw dog anyway. But it's the game that has to be played.
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Kim] [edit]
[station id: WGST]
[ad: Midwest National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee]
[promo for Paul Harvey's show]
[ad: for a tracking service at a Hartsfield, Georgia airport]
[ad: Southeastern Home Mortgage]
[ad: Xerox Digital Copier]
[promo for the morning show--News Radio 640-WGST]
Rush: I'm trying to get some audio bites from, uh-- the Sunday show, some of them are pretty good-- in the next hour-- and review continuing exciting items in the bulging Rush stack of stuff. All coming up in the next hour here at the EIB network--sit tight, it'll be on you before you know it.
[station id]
[ad: Hill Aircraft Inc.]
[News Radio 640 news update: top story--Turkey says no to the U.S., it doesn't slow the military buildup one bit...]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Kim] [edit]
[news update coming up]
traffic update-]
[weather update]
[News break- update on the showdown in Iraq- recap of weather forecast]
[News Radio 640 promo]
[ad: American Equity Mortgage]
[promo for the Kimmer Show- charity event]
[ad: ......
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:00:00
[25: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Miguel Estrada United Arab Emirates Bahrain Qatar Muammar el-Qaddafi (NYT spelling; it varies a lot) ]
[ad: back pain institute of atlanta 770-964-7246]
[ad: Nextel 800-nextel9]
[station id]
The views expressed by the host of this program documented to be almost always right, 98.5 percent of the time. The reason? The views expressed by the host of this program are the result of a daily, relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth. And we find it. That means, my friends, you need courage - you need the courage to face the truth if you are going to listen to this program. Otherwise, you'll be like these leftists - anti-Bush, anti-American protesters, and you go nuts at the sign of truth.
The phone number if you want to be on the program, and glad to have you, is 800-282-2882; the email address rush@eibnet.com.
And I think I understand what's going on with this Miguel Estrada thing, finally. And I'm going to 'splain it to you here in a second, but first - a couple more things about the Middle East, before we leave this - You know, when the whole subject of Iraq comes up, I'm sure many of you have encountered media reports, and perhaps liberals, who are convinced that the Arab world is totally united against us, and the Arab world is very cogent, and they have a sense of purpose, and ain't gonna put up with what we do, and we'd better be careful, and on and on and on.
The Arab world is about to fall apart, ladies and gentlemen, and we seek to hasten this. There was, in Egypt, a meeting of the - what is it called? - yeah, the Arab League, and they were going to come up with a resolution, denouncing the US, and denouncing imperialism, and denouncing the usual suspects. And they started arguing with each other, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain both told the other Arab League nations, "Hey, we're with the United States on this."
Qatar is also on our side, and is allowing us to build and use bases for operational staging, but there was - the thing that really happened is this Arab League summit, was that Muammar el-Qaddafi - now try to picture this - this to me is one of the fun aspects of all this - is these guys actually get together, just like the Star Wars bar scene to me - the UN or the Arab League or whatever, these guys all get together in their meeting rooms,
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Muammar Qaddafi Crown Prince Abdulla Saud al-Faisal Aljazeera ]
all wore native dress, the Bedouin costumes or whatever, Qaddafi is there - Muammar Qaddafi, you know, the world thugs, the absolute - the terror masters - the sponsors, the people that run the training camps, they're all there, and everybody's expecting them to be united and come out with this anti-American statement, and Qaddafi pipes up, to Crown Prince Abdulla, that he is nothing more than a puppet of the United States. And he warns Crown Prince Abdulla that he'd better get his mind right, because no Arab with pride and all that can be a puppet to the United States.
And Crown Prince Abdulla interrupted Qaddafi and said the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is not an agent of imperialism like you and others are. "Who brought you to power?" he asked Qaddafi. "Who brought you to power?" He angrily pointed a finger at Qaddafi, and then he said, "Don't speak or interfere in things which you have no luck or chance at. A grave is marked for you if you keep this up," or something to that effect.
Don't talk to us about imperialism. Don't talk to us about being puppets. Who brought you to power? You keep this up, and you're going to end up in a grave that has your name - your lies precede you here. And there is a grave with your name on it.
And of course the meeting then fell apart - they turned off the TV cameras. All that was on television. Then Aljazeera said, "Oops, this is not on the agenda," and they cut the TV cameras, so the Arab world could not see their united leadership hunky-dory, all getting along.
Then there's this: Liberals and conservatives - oh, don't you love that? - talking about Arabs - this is a Reuters story, liberals and conservatives are vieing for the upper hand in the heated debate on reforms in Saudi Arabia. Fueled by a rare meeting last month between de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdulla and reformers - at least a dozen pro-reform articles have been published in a local newspaper, since the meeting in late January.
Western diplomats have described it as a radical document for Saudi Arabia. This is all oriented from what I told you last week - everybody's trying to say that our military will be leaving Saudi bases after the Iraq war is over, say that we're being kicked out; they don't want us there and we're losing power and prestige. No! Saudi Arabia is in a dangerous, precarious situation. The crown prince, the royal family is trying to hold on.
They know they're going to have to have some reforms internally and they're going to be democratic more than anything else, not, probably, our full definition of democratic, but compared to what they've got now it'll be democratic, and the royal family thinks they'll have a much better chance of pulling this off if there's no US presence there, making it look less like they're being forced to do it.
If it's perceived by the population as coming from the top, without any outside influence from us, then they'll have a better chance of passage, and that's why we're going to get out of there. Is to enable some reforms to take place in Saudi Arabia.
This is my whole point in the last hour. This region cannot remain as it is. They can't remain in the 12th Century. Whether we're putting pressure on them or not. They just can't. The human nature argues against it. So, just keep a sharp eye on that, because this is, it's not what you're hearing. There's not total unity, it's not total unanimity against the United States, by any stretch, in the Arab League.
In fact, even when you bring the Palestinian-Israeli situation into this, there's not total unity on it, because the United States has some backers in the Arab League when it comes to the reforms Bush has proposed for Israel and the Palestinian state that has yet to materialize.
Oh, and that guy, the Foreign Minister, Saud al-Faisal, he had a run-in with somebody else at the Arab League meeting. I forget what he said, but he in effect pointed fingers of blame at Qaddafi and others, threatened to in effect nuke them if they didn't shut up and this sort of thing.
So I - the truth of the matter is that we're winning this on the ground and in the air and in the media and everywhere else. Like I say, you just have to have the courage to face that and believe it.
OK, Estrada. Let's retrace our steps here to last week. because this is what caused hell to break loose last week. There was a Fox news story, you'll recall, we talked about it on Friday. It was a story posted on their website. And it said that essentially the Republican Senate leadership had decided they weren't going to win this battle, and they were going to call for a cloture vote. Supposed to be called for tomorrow, with only 55 votes for Estrada, which would mean, he would lose. With 55
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Preston] [edit]
which would mean the Democrats would be successful in corrupting the Constitution. The Constitution says that judges need only a simple majority, 51 votes, to be confirmed. But Estrada, if they call his vote is gonna get 55 and lose. ThatÂ’s tearing up and shredding the Constitution. And we heard all along that the Republicans are going to hold fast and they are going to make sure that the Democrats continue to filibuster until they tire of it. And President Bush said last week what was going to happen is that you stand by this nomination until Estrada is confirmed.
Then this Fox story came making it look like the Republican leadership was going to just bomb. This caused us to get a couple of phone calls. We got two phone calls, one from Rick SantoramÂ’s office, Senator from Pennsylvania, and another call from the office of Orrin Hatch saying the Fox News story was not totally correct. That there wasnÂ’t going to be a vote, that theyÂ’re not caving or anything, theyÂ’re going to hang tough and all this.
So, over the weekend, it became a little clearer, a little more in focus, as to what the agenda is, or what the strategerie here is. Now I gonna take a quick commercial time out here and IÂ’ll do my best to go through it when we get back and make it plain as I can right after this. DonÂ’t go anywhere.
[ad: Limbaugh Letter/EIB]
[ad: General Steel]
[ad: Geiko]
[ad: Stresstabs]
[ad: Taylor Construction Co]
[ad: Aamco]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Kim] [edit]
[News 640 news update- local weather forecast- top story, the latest on the showdown with Saddam, Iraq today has destroyed another six Al Samoud missiles- promised to produce evidence that it's destroyed biological weapons- White house reaction skeptical- rescue mission in the Berkshire Mountains of Massachussets, plane crash- stock update]
[station id]
[ad: Gutter Helmet]
[promo for Kim Peterson show- after Rush]
[ad: D.Geller and Son Jewelers]
[promo for FM sister station- 96 Rock]
[another promo for "the Kimmer" the Kim Peterson show- follows Rush]
One of the- one of the things I ought to mention about this strategy on- on uh, coming up with cloture votes- um, in the past when cloture votes have been taken to break filibusters, the opposition party usually held their senators together from the first one or two votes- this is some of the thinking that goes along here.
But, as more votes are taken, it has- historically now, it has become increasingly difficult for, in this case, the Democrats to hold their forces together- vote after vote after vote, because it's- it's one thing to give a vote or two to the party here. Because your- your special interest groups are opposed to Estrada, in this case. Or your leadership- Daschle is opposed to Estrada, but -
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:30:00
[31: Kim] [edit]
and the while (?), doing what you have to do for the party--uh, pales in comparison to your own re-election --uh, opportunities, chances-- whatever and you eventually, as the senator's start thinking about that --and some of these guys are gonna realize pretty soon,--"It just doesn't do me alot of good to be on record twenty times, voting against the first Hispanic nominee. You know, once or twice-- I mean, I can pass that off as party unity, but it's going to make it look like I really have something against this guy, if I vote against him fifteen or twenty times."
So again, that's part of the uh, potential strategy at play here. We'll go back to the phones now, from Westchester County in New York. Hello Pete, thanks for waiting and welcome to the program.
Pete: Hello Rush, may I say? If I was President, you'd be in my cabinet any day.
Rush: Thank you, sir. *laughing* I appreciate that.
Pete: Yeah, I just want to say-- I think this whole thing with Estrada is really smart planning by the Democrats-- it's really more about further obstruction. Because if, basically, it's almost like a win/win situation for them. The longer this gets held up-- remember, there's only so much time before the election. Basically, Bush's economic agenda has slowed down, it was introduced--if the filibuster continues, nothing gets done, or the odds of all that going through are--or at least he loses momentum.
Pete: Or, if they win-- basically, then they set the tone of who's going to be selected for judges. Uh, yet they will lose Hispanics, but they probably figure that they've got them anyway, in their pocket-- or down the road it will be easy to get alot of those people back.
Pete: It's more about a high-stakes game where it's, really too much to lose-- in other words, if they don't band together and do this right now, because obviously if the economy takes off--uh, that doesn't make them look good. Uh, but it's about control, it's about obstruction and I just think that going forward, that-- um, it's-it's really kind of smart strategy on their part.
Rush: Well, you know, you say that and I- I can understand why you say it. But I still wouldn't want to be a member of a party whose definition of smart strategy is harm to the country. Because, then they're going to have to make it look like the harm to the country came about because of the President. And it is- it is obvious here that the Democrats are the ones obstructing things.
Rush: And you can tell in Daschle's language-- Daschle is sitting out there blaming everything in the world not getting done, on the President's insistence that this guy be placed on the court. The fact of the matter is nothing getting done because the Democrat's are standing in the way of Senate action taking place.
Rush: The um-um-- you know I--if- if-if they eventually fold on this, then their special interest groups are gonna be in a FIT of rage against them. And, you know, the-the-the Hispanic population is not nearly as unified for any particular party, as uh, black Americans are unified toward the - toward the Democratic party. That's- that's a factor here too, but I um-- I subscribe-- look, I understand why you're saying what you're saying.
Rush: If Democrat's know full well that-that there's an election coming up, and the less Bush is able to do, the less momentum he'll have, the less he'll be able to claim he's- uh, he's earned re-election and all this sort of thing. But, I can't help-- you know-- so much- so much here is going to change once the Iraq war gets underway- I mean, all this- the- the Democrat's are going to be portrayed as simply irrelevant. They're going to be portrayed and- and betrayed, as just small-minded, selfish little power-mongers.
Rush: And---the- it's-it's- I don't know, I'll tell you, the best way to define the Democrat's positions right now is this. And I think this is why I think they're in a lose/lose-- they will not do anything--ANYTHING- they won't vote for anything, support anything that benefits this country right now. That's the trap they've gotten themself into.
Rush: Now you can look at this as something that's benefitting them, but in the process nobody else is being benefitted. Estrada's not being benefitted, the Hispanic's aren't being benefitted, the country can't be said to be moving forward. They are in a situation here where they are institutionally incapable right now-- politically, institutionally-- however you want to describe it-- incapable of engaging in policies, participating in policies, being supportive of policies that end up helping the country. And that's why they're gonna lose on this and everything else they're trying.
Rush: Because everything they're doing, if they succeed, sets the country back-- that's ju-- and-and it's their doing, it's not because of who they naturally are, although more and more it's becoming that way. It's the set of circumstances they've carved for themselves, and the position vis-a-vis those-those positions--that they have uh, they've chosen. Here's Gustavo, in Ryewood (?) California. Hi Gustavo, thank you.
Gustavo: Uh, I'm calling in regard to Miguel Estrada- uh, nomination.
Rush: Yes
Gustavo: You know, I'd like to give you back--my background. I am Spanish, originally I came from Venezuala and Columbia. Um, I remember when I was a kid- uh, I remember living under the ruling of dictators, most Americans, I don't think realize how good this country is. You know, uh-- I was a Democrat, I voted....
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Kim] [edit]
for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and in 1990, I voted for Ronald Reagan. You know, at this point, I would like to encourage the Spanish-speaking people to turn against the Democratic Party. I-- I think that if that happens, we will have over 60 Senators who will support a conservative Spanish judge.
Gustavo: You know, I'm so angry, to say the least--you know, these Democrats are blocking--blocking his nomination. You know, if Miguel Estrada was for abortion, if he was against God--uh, and things like it, the Democrats would love him. There's no doubt in my mind. Most likely, he's a man of faith, like I am or President Bush is-- you know, that is like being a terrorist in the eyes of those Democrats in Washington.
Rush: You know, that- that's another thing--I have to tell you that I cannot--he has-he has reminded me of something else, two other things actually. If Estrada were pro-abortion, he'd sail through. This party, the Democratic party had become trapped and identified by it's- the pro-abortion movement. It can't possibly win on that, this is not a winning thing, to have a- a party which is animated by loss of life-- and that's how you have to look at it. They just cannot- they cannot prevail. They can't- they may be able to survive, but they not going to prevail.
Rush: And I want to take you back to something else. Do you remember when- when that three judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "Under God" was unconstitutional-- the Pledge of Allegiance? Who was the first bunch of people who ran to the microphones to trash that ruling? Democrats- they ran to the microphones as quickly as they could to trash it. Now, what happened last week? The full Ninth Circuit came out and said "You know what? We're not going to reverse ourselves on this. We think that that ruling stands. It is unconstitutional to have "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance."
Well, now these Democrats that ran to the microphones last time-- now are faced with opposing the first Hispanic nominee and that ruling coming down from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which they said they disagreed with- if they don't come out now and oppose it- here-- the dilemma they're in is- the judges that are on the Ninth Circuit, who agreed "under God" is unconstitutional are the kind of judges the Democrat's want on the courts.
And so- they- they- now in opposing Estrada- if the Republican's are smart and wanna play hardball, the Republicans will be able to say "If you want more judges who think "under God" is unconstitutional, then let the Democrats continue to choose them.' Because that's the case here. The Democrats have now become trapped and if they don't come out in opposition to the Ninth Circuit again, they're in trouble. And if they do come out in opposition to the Ninth Circuit, then they're opening themselves up to the question- well then, what's wrong with Estrada?
What's- what's your problem *unintelligible* - they're facing a trap here. In addition to everything else that Gustavo says- uh, about understanding who these people really are, so- it may be tempting- I understand it folks, I understand because for years Democrat's got away with all that they do, and whenever they made a pronouncement, 90% of the American people agreed with it.
They said the school lunch program was gonna be--uh, starving kids and everybody thought that, oh, that's horrible and terrible and the Republican's paid the price. But it's not that way anymore and these guys- uh, the liberals just do not have the free pass that they once did and- I have thought for the longest time that these guys are in the process of doing- look it, they're either opening a door in their faces every day or they're digging their own grave, maybe both. Just- just let time play itself out on all these things and THAT will be cemented.
It's - uh, it's- it's- it- it- sometimes, it's breathtaking to watch the- I saw Daschle- I didn't see him say it- I think it was Russert, interviewing somebody on the Sunday show yesterday on Meet The Press. And he put up a quote, a graphic of Daschle- and it's gotten so pitiful- it's gotten so pathetic- that Daschle is now saying Bush is going to rob the Social Security and Medicare trust funds- in order to fight the war in Iraq that nobody wants.
If- you talk about desperation, I mean, the country isn't even opposed to the war on Iraq. And now he's trying to- to once again scare the seasoned (?) citizens of America- into thinking, that if we go to war with Iraq, there are not going to be any Social Security or Medicare checks. Um- this is desperation folks, this is- this is a hail mary. I mean, this is- this is all they've got, that's the best they can do. if you- if you- if you've never known what the definition of demagoguery is- Tom Daschle is fulfilling it for you. defining it for you daily. And we'll be back.
[EIB network- station id]
[ad: ]
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Maui.com- promoting travel to Maui]
[ad: Black Swan (?) wine]
[ad: Just Brakes]
[ad: Metro Directories]
[News Radio 640 promo]
Rush: Lets go to Richfield, Ohio next. Jim, hi- you're up on the EIB network. Great to have you with us.
Jim: Hi *laughing* I'm laughing about the bits between the show
Rush: Yeah
Jim: Just for example, the lack of good national news coverage is- yesterday in Cleveland, ten thousand people gathered in the freezing cold, next to the frozen Lake Erie- at a "Stand Up for America, Stand Up for the Troops" rally. There was another eight thousand in San Antonio, ten thousand, I think, was in Dallas and thousands in other cities. But there wasn't a thing on the national news.
Jim: But Rush- uh, I've been a peace activist and an anti-war activist for 30 years. Twelve years ago, I led a delegation to Baghdad of Native American elders and medicine people, to pray for peace. Since then I've become a pro-war conservative- at least, in this case.
Rush: Wait- wait a second, what is a delegation of medicine people?
Jim: Well, they're Native Americans- uh, they're spiritual leaders.
Rush: Oh you- actually like witch doctors..
Jim: Well no, I wouldn't..*laughing*
Rush: Well but- okay but- okay, medicine people..
Jim: In a very vague way, sort of like that, yes- but...
Rush: Alright, that's- alright, but you didn't mean the medical community, per se, as we would understand it, okay I..
Jim: Ancient traditional medicine people, and they're traditionally elders- they go to Baghdad to pray- uh, now I'm a pro-war conservative- at least in this case- and that's partly because of the left's complete lack of common sense and consistency. Such as, their usual demands- women's liberation, on races, ethnic equality. When the left is now saying no blood for oil what they really mean is no blood for freedom.
Jim: They're not willing to make any sacrifice at all, to get for the Iraqi people what the activists here in America enjoy every day. If the left had any consistency and honesty at all, they'd be leading the charge to dispose of Saddam and free Iraq.
Rush: What caused your 180? Do you recall?
Jim: Well, it's partly- just simply that, that they're- the complete lack....
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Zim's Crack Cream]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wines]
[News Radio 640 promo]
[ad: Hertz Car Rental]
[ad: Triple A Mortgage]
[ad: Black Swan wine]
[News Radio 640 promo]
Rush: Well that's it folks, for another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in the can and on it's way to the armored courier- to the future Limbaugh wing of the museum of broadcasting. But we'll be back tomorrow, more of the same- a mere 21 hour break upcoming, if you just be patient and sit tight, we'll be back at it before you know it. Thanks for being with us today and we look forward to being back with you- hasta manana.
[station id]
[ad: ALT Communications]
[News Radio 640 promo]
[news break- the latest on the war against terrorism- traffic report....
Monday, March 3, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Galen] [edit]
[News and weather]
End of show.
Thursday, February 27, 2003. 00:00:00
[01: Kilroy] [edit]
[ad: News Radio 640]
[ad: National Mortgage. Tim Burfoot Owner of National Mortgage]
[ad: Champion Windows Siding and Patio Rooms in Atlanta]
[ad: News Radio 640]
Yeah. Yes Yes. Thirty(?) that means it's time to go. Greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, fun seekers all across the fruited plain. Yes, you know what's straight ahead, don't you? It's why you're here. Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence In Broadcasting network. Happy and delighted to be with you today, folks. As I am sure you are ecstatic to be here today with us.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882. And the email address, rush@eibnet.com.
So last night, here you go, Dan Blather sitting there with his interview with Saddam Hussein. By the way, you've probably heard that Saddam Hussein and Iraq have total editing rights over this. That they ran the cameras, and that they were in charge of the final translation, and all that.
We have, my friends, because we've got -- I mean, our cameras and microphones are everywhere. We have sources all over the place. We have, just for you, some of the raw footage. Some of the things that you--- you wondered why Iraq was.. what was there to edit? I mean, there's two guys sitting in a room. No, it wasn't.
DAN RATHER: Poised on your border....
BACKGROUND SCREAMS AND SOUND OF WHIP
DAN RATHER: ...a tremendous armada ....
MORE SCREAMS
DAN RATHER: ... they can deliver ..
SCREAMS CONTINUE
DAN RATHER: ... destruction...
SCREAMS CONTINUE
SADDAM HUSSEIN THROUGH TRANSLATOR: Yes. I understand. While I hear...
MORE SCREAMS
SADDAM HUSSEIN THROUGH TRANSLATOR: .. the final truth ..
SOUNDS OF TORTURE AND SCREAMS
SADDAM HUSSEIN THROUGH TRANSLATOR: .. by God Almighty. Here, in Iraq...
SCREAMS CONTINUE
I know, it's amazing. It's amazing. Rather did not comment on any of that that was going on. I guess certain deals were made in order to secure the piece.
Anyway. Here's old Dan last night, he's playing the interview.... (chuckles) Bush shows up at the American Enterprise Institute for a speech ... (more laughter) and old Dan's speech gets interrupted.
You know, you should have seen old Dan's face (laughter). Cut out of his Saddam interview. It just made the whole Saddam interview irrelevant.
If you didn't see the speech last night, don't fret, my friends, because our microphones were there, and we've got some audio soundbites from this speech. One of the things that I'm noticing ....
Thursday, February 27, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Tracy] [edit]
... you can't deny this. After every Bush speech, you got people who come out and say, this was the best speech he's ever made, this is the best speech in thirty years -- David Frum said the best speech in thirty years today. Lot of people, oh, this is the best speech we've heard yet. UN speech was the best speech we've ever heard. Colin Powell speech was the best speech we've ever heard. Now this. Best speech we ever heard.
There's some things about -- look, I love the content of this, because the content of this speech validates exactly what I told you yesterday. I mean, I mentioned to you yesterday, you know, a lot of people asked me why I'm so universally optimistic just about things in general. And well, if you were me, you would be too, that's about all I can tell you. But in this whole episode of going to war with Iraq, one of the things I said yesterday, people are all doom and gloom about this. Oh, my gosh, it's going to cause new terrorism attacks. Oh my gosh, we're going to be placed in harm's way for decades. Oh, this is going to destabilize the region. You've heard all that.
And you might recall my saying yesterday -- folks, I think this is the last step towards modernizing these backward peoples. You know, these people are trying to live in the 14th century, we're in the 21st century -- or maybe the 12th century, for all I know, they're trying to live in -- and they're surrounded by advanced civilizations. They're not going to survive the way they are. Once these mullahs and ayatollahs are deposed and gotten rid of, the people that they are currently oppressing are going to do what human beings do. They're going to yearn for freedom. It's the natural yearning of the human spirit. How often, my friends, have you heard me say this? It doesn't matter where you're born, it doesn't matter what your skin color is, it doesn't matter what your gender is, it doesn't matter what your transgender was. You, as a human being, have this yearning to be free. It's fundamental. It's part of our creation. It has nothing to do with governments, it has nothing to do with policies, it has to do with the way we were made, created, put together, whatever you want to say that won't offend anybody. And these people are being denied all that in all these regions of the country.
And we have been given the impression that all of them, or really, most of them, are just a bunch of angry, bitter, anti-American anti-freedom people, they're all oriented towards supporting terrorists, and the vast majority of them probably aren't. They are oppressed. And once they get a taste for freedom it's going to be over. You're not going to be able to keep the modern world from these people for long, and these mullahs and ayatollahs are on their last legs. And lo and behold, here comes the President last night, and finally said this.
Now, I have to say, there's an observation I need to make about this and some of you are probably going to, I know, react negatively to this, and I hope you don't. Just a brief summary here. It is clear now, if there were any doubters out there amongst you, it is clear we're going to attack Iraq soon. It's clear that we have a huge coalition. The President mentioned we have 90 or more nations supporting us, in his speech last night. You're acting stunned, did you not see this last night? Ok, you're anticipating what I think is negative about it, all right. Well, I'm getting to that.
The President said again that the UN needs to step up to the plate, you know, I said I think this speech [indistinct] the second resolution is more a last-chance resolution for the UN than it is for Saddam, Saddam's had all these last chances, and it doesn't make intellectual sense that this country would engage in giving him another one. We've been responsible for giving him 18. It's a joke to say he has one last chance, that's for others like France or Germany to say. I also think it's clear from the tone and the look on the President's face last night that he does not expect any support from the Security Council on this, and I don't, at this point I don't think he really cares, but probably some Administration members of his do.
He also said that we, we're not going to stay a day more than we have to. But -- and this is where it gets interesting to me -- he's clearly planning for a sizable occupation of Iraq, tens of thousands of troops, be a fairly lengthy stay. And this is an ambitious goal. The goal here -- and this goal has transformed, or transmogrified, or evolved, if you will, over the course of the 14 months that we've been talking about this. First, it was regime change. Then it was disarmament. And then it was -- people were speculating. This is the interesting point, speculating that what we were going to try to do is come up with a pro-American democratic Iraqi regime, but it is interesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, but until last night I don't think it has ever been mentioned by the President as part of our policy.
So this speech last night -- here we are, 14 months into this, almost 15 months into this, and we got a brand new policy objective in the speech last night. Now this to me is stunning. 15 months into this and on the verge on the outbreak of war, we get -- ... you can't deny this. After every Bush speech, you got people who come out and say, this was the best speech he's ever made, this is the best speech in thirty years -- David Frum said the best speech in thirty years today. Lot of people, oh, this is the best speech we've heard yet. UN speech was the best speech we've ever heard. Colin Powell speech was the best speech we've ever heard. Now this. Best speech we ever heard.
There's some things about -- look, I love the content of this, because the content of this speech validates exactly what I told you yesterday. I mean, I mentioned to you yesterday, you know, a lot of people asked me why I'm so universally optimistic just about things in general. And well, if you were me, you would be too, that's about all I can tell you. But in this whole episode of going to war with Iraq, one of the things I said yesterday, people are all doom and gloom about this. Oh, my gosh, it's going to cause new terrorism attacks. Oh my gosh, we're going to be placed in harm's way for decades. Oh, this is going to destabilize the region. You've heard all that.
And you might recall my saying yesterday -- folks, I think this is the last step towards modernizing these backward peoples. You know, these people are trying to live in the 14th century, we're in the 21st century -- or maybe the 12th century, for all I know, they're trying to live in -- and they're surrounded by advanced civilizations. They're not going to survive the way they are. Once these mullahs and ayatollahs are deposed and gotten rid of, the people that they are currently oppressing are going to do what human beings do. They're going to yearn for freedom. It's the natural yearning of the human spirit. How often, my friends, have you heard me say this? It doesn't matter where you're born, it doesn't matter what your skin color is, it doesn't matter what your gender is, it doesn't matter what your transgender was. You, as a human being, have this yearning to be free. It's fundamental. It's part of our creation. It has nothing to do with governments, it has nothing to do with policies, it has to do with the way we were made, created, put together, whatever you want to say that won't offend anybody. And these people are being denied all that in all these regions of the country.
And we have been given the impression that all of them, or really, most of them, are just a bunch of angry, bitter, anti-American anti-freedom people, they're all oriented towards supporting terrorists, and the vast majority of them probably aren't. They are oppressed. And once they get a taste for freedom it's going to be over. You're not going to be able to keep the modern world from these people for long, and these mullahs and ayatollahs are on their last legs. And lo and behold, here comes the President last night, and finally said this.
Now, I have to say, there's an observation I need to make about this and some of you are probably going to, I know, react negatively to this, and I hope you don't. Just a brief summary here. It is clear now, if there were any doubters out there amongst you, it is clear we're going to attack Iraq soon. It's clear that we have a huge coalition. The President mentioned we have 90 or more nations supporting us, in his speech last night. You're acting stunned, did you not see this last night? Ok, you're anticipating what I think is negative about it, all right. Well, I'm getting to that.
The President said again that the UN needs to step up to the plate, you know, I said I think this speech [indistinct] the second resolution is more a last-chance resolution for the UN than it is for Saddam, Saddam's had all these last chances, and it doesn't make intellectual sense that this country would engage in giving him another one. We've been responsible for giving him 18. It's a joke to say he has one last chance, that's for others like France or Germany to say. I also think it's clear from the tone and the look on the President's face last night that he does not expect any support from the Security Council on this, and I don't, at this point I don't think he really cares, but probably some Administration members of his do.
He also said that we, we're not going to stay a day more than we have to. But -- and this is where it gets interesting to me -- he's clearly planning for a sizable occupation of Iraq, tens of thousands of troops, be a fairly lengthy stay. And this is an ambitious goal. The goal here -- and this goal has transformed, or transmogrified, or evolved, if you will, over the course of the 14 months that we've been talking about this. First, it was regime change. Then it was disarmament. And then it was -- people were speculating. This is the interesting point, speculating that what we were going to try to do is come up with a pro-American democratic Iraqi regime, but it is interesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, but until last night I don't think it has ever been mentioned by the President as part of our policy.
So this speech last night -- here we are, 14 months into this, almost 15 months into this, and we got a brand new policy objective in the speech last night. Now this to me is stunning. 15 months into this and on the verge on the outbreak of war, we get --
Thursday, February 27, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: zzyzx] [edit]
...new policy objective. Don't- now it may well be that everybody's always assumed this was going to be-I know I have, and there have been a number of others who have too, but the administration's never said so. They've never said they were going to go in there and democratize this place and re-do the whole region. An-and then they certainly never made it part of the policy and in fact, to buttress my point for those of you who think I'm wrong, you go look at any of these recent U.N. resolutions, you'll not find this in any of them. There's nothing in these resolutions about democratizing Iraq, there's nothing in them about democratizing the region. There's nothing in there about staying in Iraq and occupying it with thousands and thousands of troops for how ever long it takes to do this.
Can you imagine what the reaction in the U.N. would have been if that had been something we had sought. Can you imagine, I mean, just the-- the world wide protesters have have geared up late, albeit, but they geared up. Uh, and all they're upset about is th-that w-we're ex--execute a war. Can you imagine the level of outrage the protesting community would have had worldwide if they had known 15 months ago that our plan was to go conquer this place, stay there, and turn it into a democracy? [shouting] Wh--What gives you the right? All these people would have been in the streets eight months ago instead of three weeks ago.
By the way, interesting stories here about how these people are totally screwing themselves, they're totally ruining their own cause, and about how protesters over the years have. There's an interesting st- I'll give two- I'll get to all this stuff today folks, as we always do there's there's a fascinating story here about how protesters arguably cost the lives of 70 million people in WWII. Counting the slaughters in Russia. In the Soviet Union. The -- the people who protested and appeased these uh---dictators, barbarians and thugs, these communist dictators way back then arguably, kept them in power, and allowed them to kill upwards of 70 million people. The--the blood, can uh-- can arguably be said, arguably be said to be on the hands of many of these protesters. I'll share this with you in-- due course.
So, as-- as I say, the-- the whole policy the president laid out last night is not a particularly new notion, it's been discussed, and suggested in the past but this is the first time, my friends, and this to me is crucial, the first time the president has actually acknowledged it as a central objective. He's not- he's not talking about simply liberating Iraq, he's talking about liberating an entire region. An entire people. That's a hu- that's a monumental objective. He's thinking big. He's thinking strategically. He- he's decades ahead of the Democrats. I mean he's- literally- and his critics here... decades ahead of them. And it's obvious here Bush refuses to accept the world as presented to him.
He's thinking outside th- the box. The so-called box. The way Reagan did. You know- who--who, Reagan talked about the Soviet Union will implode, due to it's own lack of morality"ho ho ho, ha ha ha, he he he, he's senile, ho ho ho ho Reagan doesn't know beans. He's stupid, he's a madman. Remember- and what happened-? Reagan had this giant vision that communism just would implode, on itself and lo and behold he was right. Bush has this, this this this vast vision of taking this cauldron, of human despair, misery and crime and backwardness. And he actually sees it as a flourishing, productive, happy region of the world. And everybody goes "hohoho hahaha Bush cowboy, he's crazy. He's only in it for oil. No blood for oil. Hohoho." Same thing, it's-- it's amazing and you gotta love these big vision guys, you know, you have these big visions, big objectives, I mean the only way you're going to get to these places if you-- is if you try. And there's all these naysayers, and they think it's not possible, well, they're right, if they're in charge. Y'know they'll never take us there.
Now, I- I don't want to get too far off this point, though. Throughout all of this, none of this has, I want to know why we've been messing with the U.N. This is what, I can not tell you how frustrated this makes me at the same time. While I am very impressed with the objective and policy, because I in fact predicted it. Ahem! My friends, why have we been screwing around with the U.N. Why have we been going through this fan dance?
I, you-- I know all your predictable answers, but this, this, this isn't, it's never been about that. With the, this is, this is just, it's been such an abject waste of time. To mess around with the U.N. If this, if this has been the objective all along. Anyway, let me, a little long here. Ah, speaking of the first broadcast segment, let's take a quick time out here. We'll be back, and resume.We've got sound bites of the speech, you'll hear all this in the President's own words when we come back, stay with us...
[Limbaugh newsletter spot]
[EIB id]
Thursday, February 27, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Tom] [edit]
[ad: General Steel Corporation]
[ad: Priceline Hotels (Priceline.com)]
[ad: Ester- C by Larry King]
[ad: Jared's Jewelers]
[ad: WoodCraft]
[station ID WGST 640AM]
We're on the cutting edge of societal evolution, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Rush Limbaugh. The EIB Network. And, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Um, just a little more here on this, this whole -- what I'm beginning to call here, fan dance with the, with the United Nations.
So -- the president announces last night his massive new policy. Massive new policy! Something that has never been part of the, ah, UN resolutions. Something that has never been debated. Not - not that I care about that. I just -- why did we waste all this time with the UN?
I'm... I'm sorry, that whole thing has bugged me and, and this makes me even-- more and more curious. I mean, I can come up with some, you know, lay person answers, uniformed answers as to why, but they're no better than any -
Thursday, February 27, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Drew] [edit]
wild guesses and it just seems to me to have been a -- excuse me for these sniffles here -- but just a little bit of a waste of time.
And also, what are we messing around with this second resolution here for? Okay, Tony Blair, yes yip yip yip yip yahoo, but Blair's gonna survive anyway. This is all gonna work -- oh, he's gonna survive. All it will take is victory over there. The left's gonna have egg on their faces. I don't want to hear this pessimism here. I don't want to even see pessimism on your faces in there on the other side of the glass.
You what? Well it is - yeah, it's nation-building, and you gotta -- you gotta -- you know, you gotta be honest, this is something that Clinton was criticized for by Bush himself. And we're involved here in nation-building.
But look -- see, I can understand the optimism. What is the objective here? What's the objective? No, no, you tell me. What's the objective? Don't just nod your -- but why? What's the objective? Why are we doing this? Why are we nation -- if you're concerned about nation -- there's a reason for this. National security is right. We're doing this because this is how we wipe out terrorism.
Look, we've got to get rid of these mullahs. We've got to get rid of these ayatollahs. We've got to get rid of these clerics. We've got to get rid of these mosques. And these sheiks, and these mosques who are taking these uneducated kids and are turning them into absolute missiles of hatred for anybody who disagrees with them. The only way terrorism is going to be rooted out is to change the whole top-down or bottom-up, however you want to call it, structure of these countries.
This is a huge -- look, this is a huge mission. We are not rebuilding a nation here because we want to occupy it forever-- because we want oil. We're not nation-building in the sense of empire. I don't think this has anything to do with empire.
Pat Buchanan had a column in the L. A. Times yesterday decrying all this because this is empire, and we don't do empire, he said. We know the British -- the British even bombed out doing empire. At one point they couldn't maintain their own.
I don't think this is about empire. I think Bush is being true to his original intention was to eliminate -- which is to eliminate as much as possible the opportunity for terrorists to strike us.
And the -- one of the key elements in eliminating terrorist strikes is eliminating terrorists. If you're going to eliminate terrorists you've got to eliminate their breeding ground. You've got to eliminate the soup here that's, you know, effervescing or boiling there on the stove that's constantly overflowing. Gotta turn the heat down on that -- pardon my analogies here -- but that's what has to happen. I think that's what this is all about.
But the -- this -- what we've been doing at the same time here with this United Nations business is to me -- and we may pull a majority vote out of this second resolution -- but it seems to me that we've actually lowered the standard for victory at the U. N. specifically to avoid holding them responsible. You know, I think if we want to hold them -- if we want to make them irrelevant -- we don't even let them vote on anything. We don't even let them play ball in this. We go in and do something without them and show how irrelevant they are. By voting, by going and debating, by listening to all this tripe, by listening to all these Dominique de Villepin and these Germans and these Russians tell us what they think of us, we're making them relevant. And I don't -- this objective to make them irrelevant would mean to not involve them.
And yet here we are, playing this game. I, you know, to a portion understand -- to a degree understand -- the need here to give Tony Blair some breathing space. He's worth it. I mean, he's stuck his neck out. But you know this argument that somehow this coming war is tied to the enforcement of some U. N. resolution -- it's not. You know, that's another -- that's another misrepresentation that's finally been made clear to me.
We are going to war to liberate 23 million Iraqis and diminish the threat to our own national security. We are not going to war for anything having to do with the U. N. Pure and simple. So why all this fan dance? I can't help but come up with anything but Colin Powell.
[ad: Avacor]
[ad: ClearChannel]
Thursday, February 27, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Michael] [edit]
[local news: terror alert dropped, drizzle, high in mid-40's]
[ad: later news on American's showdown with Saddam]
[ad: ALT Communications]
[ad: Money Talks radio show]
[ad: SouthernLink.com]
[ad: Phil somebody appearing at local Lowe's]
[ad: Dr. Laura]
There's some other news out there, and I want to just mention it so that you know we're on it here, folks, because once we start the Bush soundbite it's going to take a while.
Last night there was some awesome debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Orrin Hatch and the Republicans took it to the Democrats on this, uh, Estrada business. And this is, um, this is serious, folks, this is about the Constitution now.
| 
