3.10.2003
Friday, March 7, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Kilroy] [edit]
[Colin Powell talking] edited: Michael
[local news]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Betsy] [edit]
[News] edited: Michael
[ad: Sun Trust Bank]
[ad: Amoco Transmission]
[ad: Nextel]
...ago, the AP -- or actually the French version of the AP -- said that Pakistan's interior minister denied reports by a provincial minister, that two sons of Osama bin Laden have been arrested in a joint operation by Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. forces in southeast Afghanistan. Then CNN reported that U.S. official told them that they cannot substantiate and don't believe a report that two sons of bin Laden have been captured.
U.S. officials said they're still investigating the reports from wire services which quote the Pakistani provincial officical, but they don't believe that the story is accurate.
So, here's where we are now, is that a whole bunch of Al Queda big-wigs are gone, dead. Two have been captured but everybody now in the thick of things, is denying that...
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Betsy] [edit]
...they are Osama bin Laden's sons. And they could well be. We're just denying it for a bunch of reasons that we don't want to admit yet.
Let me take a brief time-out. I want you to hear some of the audio sound bytes from the President's news conference last night. Some of these answers -- gee, I don't know how to say this -- well, some of these answers echoed things that had been said on this program, in the past couple -- for example: What's this all about? It's about defending the constitution. What's this all about? It's about protecting the American people.
We talked about this earlier this week, and I got a little heat over this from some people, but I had a question early this week. "Hey Rush, the Pope says that we shouldn't go to war and the Pope is being what he's supposed to be because of 'Thou shalt not kill.' The Pope says nobody should die. How come Bush can supersede the Pope?"
I got all kinds of questions like that. And I said, "Well president's got a different job than the Pope. The president's job is to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and defend and protect the lives of the American people. And we are acting now in a theatre, after which we have been attacked, and after which three thousand of our citizens have been killed -- and are dead.
And so the president associates weapons of mass destruction being produced in Iraq with the possibility of being given, sold, whatever, to terrorists, who would then use them against American citizens. And his job is to protect the lives of the American people and the national security of this country.
I thought it was very, very convincing case in terms of what his responsibility is as he sees it, and very convincing when he said he's gonna do that. That's what he's gonna -- he raised his hand, he swore in oath on the Bible.
Did that remind you of anybody my friends? [Drums fingers] Did that -- I mean, who is that violated their oath not long ago? [Chuckles.] And, and, and -- and by the way, there's another thing, too, and this one -- I almost stood up and -- we had people over for dinner last night, so we had to Tivo this thing. I didn't watch it until ten o'clock last night. We had peop -- in fact, the friends we had over from Germany -- it was quite an interesting discussion that we had, but at any rate, I almost stood up and cheered when I heard the president say, "We don't need the permission of any other nation to defend ourselves."
[Murmuring]... I loved that. I luuuuuved that -- ladies and gentlemen, because that is spot on. That's leadership. Leadership's what we got last night. And all these people that said the president looked tired, or worn-out, or medicated or whatever, are the same people, they're the same people who routinely call this guy an out-of-control cowboy who can't wait to kill, can't wait to punch that button that launches missiles and so forth.
And you saw a president last night, who, I think it was obvious, is as reluctant as anyone has ever been to do what he may have to do.
We'll be back right after this short time out. Stay with us as open-line Friday continues on the EIB Network.
[Ad: CitriCal -- Rush reading]
[Ad: PriceLine.com]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Kim] [edit]
[transcribe: Kim; edit: Drew]
[ad: Priceline Hotels-Priceline.com]
[ad: Fox News Channel]
[promo for First News on News Radio 640]
[ad: Charity Motors]
[ad: Season's Best-heating and air conditioning]
[promo for News Radio 640]
Rush: Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair, even on a day with such huge import as this, ladies and gentlemen. It's the Rush Limbaugh Open Line Friday - 800-282-2882.
Still getting conflicting reports over whether or not one or both of Bin Laden's sons have been captured. A U.S. official in Washington would not immediately confirm a report of bin Laden's sons' capture. He said, "We don't have any information to substantiate that." The date and time here is today at 12:03.
However, two sons of bin Laden were wounded and possibly arrested in this operation by U.S. and Afghan troops in Afghanistan today. So you know, we're getting close. I mean, whether it is bin Laden's sons, one or both, it will be eventually, if not today. It will be bin Laden, if he actually is still sucking air.
And the bottom line is that when one or either of those happens, it's just going to add further nails into the coffin of people like Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats, who are going to have a lot of stuff they're gonna have to eat. After the things they said last November and in days since.
I wanna grab a phone call quickly here, this is Brenda in Cleveland, because it touches on something I mentioned mere moments ago. Hi Brenda.
Brenda: Hi, thanks for taking my call.
Rush: You bet.
Brenda: Hey, you know, I was really bothered at that news conference last night. The fact that Bush, I felt like, did not answer in a specific way, why, given all the same intelligence that's been given to our other countries and to - from what we are seeing, why - he just did not justify to me why we need to go to war. And I am a Bush fan and I'm on his side. I was longing for him to give me a reason why this is so justifiable.
Rush: You mean - well, wait a second, you say you're a Bush fan and you're waiting. Now, hold it a minute now. You're waiting for a reason.
Brenda: I wanted him to tell -
Rush: - to make it justifiable, and you think the reason will be found in Bush answering a question as to why other countries don't agree with him?
Brenda: Well, I felt like he could have said -
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: zzyzx] [edit]
...hey, Bill, here's this, this, this and this. And this is why we feel like it -- I want him to give me some information --
RUSH: Brenda. Brenda, Brenda. Y'know, this is the problem the president has -- and by the way, please, I don't mean this personally, but the same thing is going on at the United Nations today as is happening with Brenda.
The president was as clear as a bell last night, Brenda.
BRENDA: I felt like the reporters asked him in ten different ways, how --
RUSH: No, no no -- wait, wait wait -- the president was clear as a bell. There is one criteria. One. Has Saddam Hussein disarmed? Has he fully complied with 14-41? No! End -- of - question. Where is the evidence? That's the evidence. If you're looking for more, he's presented that. There have been all cites of -- or all kinds of citations over the past months about what Hussein has, what he's been working.
For crying out loud. Where is our ability to think on our own? Up until two weeks ago, Hussein was denying that had any Al Samoud missiles. Then all of a sudden he found some. Now all of a sudden, there are over a hundred. No he's disarming them. He shouldn't have had them in the first place. He's getting credit for disarming, but he's not going to get rid of all of them. He shouldn't have had them in the first place. This is called progress? This is called, in my book, a material breach.
Now as to the question that -- you're not the first to raise it -- "Why didn't the president answer these questions about why he thinks other nations disagree with him?" If he weren't president, he could answer it. I can answer it for you. But he can't, as president. He's not supposed to be analyst. The President of the United States is not supposed to stand up there and analyze for us why other nations disagree. That's not his role.
If he were to do that, it would inflame whatever tensions already exist between us and those countries even more. And it would not be wise in the terms of diplomacy -- it's for others in the administration to answer that question, but not the president.
He was asked two or three times why he thinks there are countries and people who disagree with him. And he didn't touch it. I don't think he should. I don't think it would have been presidential to do that. I don't think that he's supposed to get into characterizations of other nations. That's not his job.
He's made it clear that we're going to do this anyway. He's made it clear what his standard is where Iraq is concerned. He's made it clear they have failed. He's made it clear that if you're with us, you're with us, and if you're not, you're against us. He's made it clear that he's not going to allow his job to be determined by the opinions of others. He determines that his job is to protect the people of the United States. To defend and protect the constitution of the United States. And he is not going to subordinate his job to the opinions or the concerns of others.
Said it clear as a bell, I think, for the first time, in fact. There have been a lot of people who have been saying -- and frankly, I have been making for the past number of weeks -- the minute I detected that he's linking the safety of the American people to Iraq, to Hussein, then that, to me, raised once question. And that question is, what is this U.N. fan dance all about? If the protection of the American people is linked to Hussein, then why are we messing with this at all? Why do we care what any of these people think?
We're not going to let the French stop us from protecting ourselves. That's what the president said last night. We're not going to let the Germans stop us. We're not going to let the Russians stop us from protecting ourselves. So, in essence, it doesn't matter why they disagree or even what they think, in terms of his determination, what his job is, and how he's going to do it.
[Ad: Avacor Hair Loss 800-876-9495]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Tracy] [edit]
[Local News: WGST 640] edited: Michael
[ad: "The Pentagon Papers" on FX]
[ad: WGST Rally for America]
[ad: 105.7]
[ad: The Timmer on WGST]
RUSH: From his press conference last night declaring the United States and a coalition of willing nations will disarm Saddam if the UN fails, the President assured Americans, quote, "If we need to act, we will act, and we really don't need United Nations approval to do so. When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
I mean, folks, I stood up and cheered. It was a hubba-hubba, that was a dubba-dubba. Been saying this all week long -- the minute I detected that he started linking Americans' safety to Iraq and Saddam Hussein, then all this is irrelevant. You may remember me making the point probably earlier this week. And I'm still wondering what this fan dance at the UN is about. And I'm sorry to keep using that word, I just don't know what else to call this. But it's obviously a diplomatic exercise, it's a total waste of time.
Elizabeth in Johnston, Rhode Island, hi. Thanks for waiting. You up next on Open Line Friday.
ELIZABETH: Hi, Rush, I want to [indistinct] and I want to give an applaud to the President. I think he convinced most of the people ...
Friday, March 7, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Drew] [edited: Michael]
Elizabeth: ...he is a leader who knows where he's going. I don't want another 9/11 to happen.
Rush: Did he strike you last night as being medicated?
Elizabeth: No, he struck me as a man who was resolute, who knew where he was going, and he didn't need any approval by the United Nations.
Rush: Did he strike you as a man who was tired or worn out?
Elizabeth: No, I - he struck me as a man who was in control. And I want a leader who's in control. I'm a leader, so I'm looking for leadership that knows where they're going.
Rush: He struck me as somebody looking at this with a lot of gravity, with a tremendous amount of solemnity, if you want to know the case.
All right, let's listen to this. We're talking about it enough. Let's listen to a couple of these bites. Here is one of the bites about defending the American people. The setup here is a bit lengthy, but it's necessary for me to do this.
Last night, the question here came from Dick Kyle from Bloomberg News, he said, "Mr. President, you and your top advisors, notably Secretary of State Powell, have repeatedly said that we've shared with our allies all the current, up-to-date intelligence info that provides the imminence of the threat that we face from Saddam Hussein, and that they've been sharing their intelligence as well."
"If all these nations, all of them our normal allies have access to the same intelligence information, why is it that they are reluctant to think the threat so real, so imminent, that we need to move to the brink of war now?"
"And in relation to that, today, the British Foreign Ministry suggested at the UN it might be time to look at amending the resolution perhaps with an eye toward a timetable that would give a - set a firm deadline to give Saddam Hussein a little bit of time to come clean. Also, obviously, that would give you a little bit of a chance to build more support with any members of the Security Council. That's something that the government should be pursuing at the UN right now."
Bush: Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September 11th changed the strategic thinking, as least as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our county. My job is to protect the American people. Used to be that we could think we could contain a person like Saddam Hussein. That oceans would protect us from this type of terror.
September the 11th should show the American people that we're now a battlefield. That weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home. So, therefore, I think the threat is real, and so do a lot other people in my government.
And since I believe the threat is real, and since my most important job is to protect the security of the American people, that's precisely what we'll do. Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm. We hope he does. We have worked with the international community to convince him to disarm. If he doesn't disarm, we will disarm him.
Rush: Our next question, or bite, is the answer to a question from John King (ph) of CNN. His question was, "Sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place."
"And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worst case scenarios in terms of the potential cost in American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home?"
Bush: My job it to protect America, and that's exactly what I'm going to do. People can ascribe all kinds of intentions. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution. That's what I swore to do.
Rush: Yes!
Bush: Put my hand on the bible and took that oath.
Rush: Yes!
Bush: And that's exactly what I am going to do.
Rush: Yes!
Bush: I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe that.
Bush: He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction. In his neighborhood, and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed al-Queda-type organizations before - Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully.
Rush: And he also said something else that I stood up and cheered. 'Cause there are a lot of people demanding to know. We play the sound bite yesterday from Stephanie Tubbs Jones, when she was talking to the Secretary of the Treasury, "How much is this deployment costing? How much is it gonna cost? Where are the dollars and cents here? What is the cost to the economy? What about retaliatory strikes? How about the cost of manpower? How many lives are we gonna lose?"
All these questions that no president was ever asked before. Clinton didn't get -
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Tracy] [edited: Michael]
these questions before Kosovo. He didn't get these questions before we went into Haiti. He didn't get these questions before he launched his attack on Iraq himself in 1998. The President's answer was, in my own words here, have you people forgotten September 11th? You want to talk about cost?
What about the cost to the US economy that's already happened? What about the cost of 3000 lives? And then he said, the price of doing nothing is far greater than the price of fixing the problem. Because doing nothing doesn't solve the problem. Doing nothing equals containment, which will not work. Doing nothing equals our continuing vulnerability. The price of doing nothing is far greater than the price of fixing the problem.
And that -- I don't -- that answer was so good, that answer would be applicable to this situation, it would be applicable to any conflict that a family is having in a neighborhood, or two individuals are having amongst themselves in an office, or whatever. The price of doing nothing in the midst of something like this is so great.
And of course the question itself -- the people who pose these questions, it betrays their mindset as well. This idea -- I would like to know where this comes from. This idea that if we respond we are going to simply increase the terror threat in this -- would somebody explain to me what 3000 people dead? We've had the 1993 World Trade Center, we had the World Trade Center in 2001, we've had a number of other acts of terrorism against us. We're already at a threat level.
The idea that dealing with the problem is going to increase it -- it may increase it initally, for a short period of time. But is that a reason not to do it? You want to sit around at the current threat level? I raised this question on this program two or three weeks ago -- do we want to face a color-coded alert system for the rest of our lives, or do we face the future without one of those things someday?
Do we always want to have to wake up one morning and check to see what the color-coded alert day is? Is it yellow, is it orange, is it red? Or do we want to get rid of that? Well, if we don't do anything, we can just adjust ourselves and adapt, and so we can live like they live in Israel. You want to live like they live in Israel where it could be a pipe bomb or a bus explosion or a homicidal maniac bombing himself to death every other week? You want to live that way or you want to fix the problem?
Of course when you strike out against these people they might retaliate. What --that's the nature of things. But they're retaliating anyway. I don't understand -- it's like there's a parallel universe in this country, and the people with the stupid gene are on one side of the parallel universe and all the rest of us are on the other side. But to me, this is a no-brainer.
You can come up with any analogy you want. I heard one the other day I liked. You got a nest of rattlesnakes in your basement. You want to just live with them and hope they're happy in your basement? Hope they never try to come up to where you live? Or do you take 'em out? And if you go down there, and you take out the first rattlesnake, are the other five going to be so mad at you that they're going to be even more dangerous? Or are you going to take all six out and take care of the threat of rattlesnakes in your house?
Same thing with a rapist in your neighborhood. You just going to sit there and make a deal with him and hope he doesn't attack your daughter, or your wife? The hell with what he does to the rest of the neighborhood? Or you gonna take him out? You know what you would do in a situation like that.
It's no different from nation to nation. The idea that we're going to place ourselves at greater risk by trying to rid ourselves of the threat and the problem -- we're already at risk. I don't know why people don't see this, when I am intent on doing as much as I can to see that as many as possible do.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second. Stay with us.
[ad: The General]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Tom] [edit]
[end of general steel corp ad] edited: Michael
[ad: trade secrets course]
[ad: JustBrakes]
[station ID: 640WGST]
Rush: Yeah. Welcome back to open line Friday. Rush Limbaugh here, from the, uh, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Our next bite is in response to a question from Jim Angle, of Fox News. Thanks, Jim, for one of the briefest questions of the night.
He said, "Sir, if you haven't already made the choice to go to war, can you tell us what you're waiting to hear or see before you do make that decision? And, if I may, during a recent demonstration, many of the protesters suggested that the U.S. was a threat to peace. Which prompted you to wonder out loud why they didn't see Saddam Hussein as a threat to peace. I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies."
POTUS: I appreciate societies in which people can express their opinion. Uh, that society, uh, free speech stands in stark contrast to Iraq. Secondly, I'm - I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been the president.
POTUS: I remember the protests against trade. A lot of people didn't feel like free trade was good for the world. I completely disagree. I think free trade is good for both wealthy and impoverished nations. That didn't change my opinion about trade.
POTUS: As a matter of fact, I went to the Congress to get trade promotion authority. I- I recognize there are people who- who don't like war. I don't like war. I, uh- I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the demands of the world, and disarmed. That was my hope.
POTUS: That's why I first went to the United Nations to begin with, on September the 12th, 2002. To address this issues, forthrightly as I knew how. That's why - months later, we went to the Security Council to get another resolution called 1441 which was unanimously approved by the Security Council demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm.
Rush: (voices over) And it was worthless.
POTUS: I'm- I'm hopeful that he does disarm.
Rush: (voices over) Uh, uh, uh (drinking sound?)
POTUS: But in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him. And other nations will join him- join us, in disarming him.
POTUS: And that- that creates a certain sense of anxiety. I understand that. Nobody likes war. The only thing I can do is assure the loved ones of those who wear a uniform: that if we have to go to war, if war is upon us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the best equipment available for our troops, the best plan available for victory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq.
POTUS: The risk of doing nothing--
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Kim] [transcribe: Kim, edit: Drew]
The risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul. Or the risk that somehow inaction will make the world safer is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.
Rush: And he did not answer - he didn't answer the question that Jim Angle posed: "Why do you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies do?" And again, I know why - it's - he's not going to get into a position of analyzing people.
He's President, he's not an analyst and he doesn't - look, he's gotta be President of all the people. He has to be President of all the people, even the people who disagree with him on this. And he's - I don't think - gonna run the risk of insulting them personally.
See, if it were me, [laughing] I wouldn't hold back, but that's why I'm not President. I wouldn't hold back, I'd just define these people. I'd explain to people who they are, I'd explain that they don't know what they're doing. I would explain that they are willfully, blissfully ignorant. I would explain that they are aiding and abetting the one person who's causing the problem here - Saddam Hussein.
I would ask the question. Yeah, I kind of wonder about that too, Jim. That's a good question. Ya know, I've watched these protesters out there. I've seen - it's not all that many by the way, Jim. I mean, the population of the world is 6 billion and they say they had 2 1/2 million. I mean, it's zero - .004 percent of the world. It's not that many, Jim.
It really isn't that many, despite what people want you to think, and the bottom line is, as I looked at these protests, I didn't see one demand to Saddam Hussein. Ah, Saddam Hussein's the one's killing people, Saddam Hussein's the one that has all the weapons. So, I can't take these people seriously. I respect their right to dissent and disagree, but their job is not what mine is - to protect and defend these people and the Constitution of the United States.
My job is to continue to do what has to be done, so they can be stupid and be free to be stupid and be idiots all they want. Well see, he can't say that folks, but I can and just did. I was - I noticed something also yesterday - somebody - and I'm going to have to print this out during the next commercial break.
I don't remember who - I know where it is, I'm going to go get here in just a second - but somebody has taken a look at major universities around the country where there are protest marches and compared the total enrollment at the school with the number of people marching on campus.
And it's miniscule. I mean, the idea that there are millions of people - that are opposed to the policy and taking to the streets is another example of how the minority, the miniscule minority of opposition, is amplified and blown up to proportions and sizes far, far outweighing reality by the media. For the sake of creating conflict, irony, news, or what have you.
Let me go get that here during this break - I'll give you the details right after this. Stay with us.
[promo for the Limbaugh Letter]
[EIB Network id]
[station id]
[ad: Nexium]
[ad: Z-Max (engine lubricant)]
[promo: News Radio 640 WGST]
[ad: Hall's Cough Drops]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Kim] [edit]
[ad: promoting events promoting drug-free communities- brought to you by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Ad Council] edited: Michael
[promo from the Georgia Society of CPA's- computer housekeeping tips- deleting unnecessary files, virus software, etc]
[promo for WGST.com]
Rush: Okay, to source this for you- by the way, welcome back- Open Mind Friday- this from OpinionJournal.com- Best Of The Web by James Taranto yesterday.
"High school and college students across the country walked out of class Wednesday to protest a war with Iraq, holding a series of rallies organizers predicted would be the biggest campus demonstrations since the Vietnam War," the AP said. So um- they, at the Bestoftheweb.com- compared reports of the number of protesting students to the enrollment figures in the Information Please Almanac and they came up with the following table.
There are 7,886 students at Stanford. On Wednesday, 300 protested. The percentage of students that didn't protest- 96.2. University of Maryland- 24,600 students- 500 protested. 97.9 percent did not. Marquette University- 7,500 students- 40 protested, 99.4 percent did not. Penn State- 34,000 enrollment- 1,500 protesters, 95 percent of the enrollment did not protest.
Miami of Ohio- 14,000, almost 15,000 students- 125 protested, 99 percent did not. At Rice University, 2,800 students- 200 protested, 93 percent did not. At Berkeley, 22,593 students- 300 protested on Wednesday- 99 percent of the enrollment at Berkeley did not.
Yet, if you watch- and there are others- the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill- 15,000 enrollment, 100 protesters. 99.3 percent of the enrollment did not. And it goes on- Rutgers, New York University- and all these numbers are almost identical- in terms of the percentage of the body- the student body that did not protest.
Yet if you watch the media and listen to the reports, you would think that it was all over- like the 60's again. Burning bank buildings and half the student body off in a protest march and it ain't the case, folks. It's not the case in this country with the general population- it's not the case with the student population- it just ain't true.
[promo: News Radio 640]
[ad: Metro Directory]
[station id]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Kim] [edit]
[news break: top story- Colin Powell says grudging cooperation isn't enough and proposes a deadline for Saddam Hussein to disarm] edited: Michael
[weather update]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[ad: Pete Davis for Aamco Transmission Centers]
[promo for Kim Peterson- the Kimmer- radio show that follows Rush]
Friday, March 7, 2003. part three
01:00:00. [13: Kim] [edit]
[station id] edited: Michael
[ad: upcoming at Phillips Arena- Yanni concert]
[ad: The Back Pain Institute of Atlanta]
[station id]
Rush: How was that cigarette, Mr. Snerdley? Wonderful? Did you get enough of it done? No? (laughing) I hear that. Greetings my friends, welcome back. Rush Limbaugh, the second hour of broadcast excellence is underway. It's Friday and- oh, well we have turned on the Dittocam here for this hour, ladies and gentlemen. So welcome to those of you watching the program. Rush 24/7, at www.rushlimbaugh.com. (applause)
Announcer voiceover: "Live from New York, it's Open Line Friday!" You know the drill, my good friends- if you haven't heard it discussed on this program and you think it needs to be discussed, this is your day to go for it. Monday through Thursday- program's devoted to what I care about or what I think about- (lowers voice) Friday too.
But on Friday, we'll also throw into the mix the things that, uh- you think, may have- not been been touched by my *unintelligible*- on my behalf- that are important. So, let's hear from you - 800-282-2882- e-mail- at risk- rush@eibnet.com.
As I was watching this um- U.N. (banging noise) By the way, this is just my glasses I'm flicking- I get notes, people get irritated at the noises I make here. But this- y'know, it's the way it is. I'm sitting here- I watch the President's press conference last night- abundantly clear- Saddam, there's only one question: "Have you totally disarmed?" That's the only thing that matters.
So- and his timing of this press conference last night is not coincidental, it's not by accident. It's the night before this fan dance here at the United Nations Security Council. So here comes the oblivious Hans Blix- who's living in a total Swedish fog.
And he comes out with his summary of the latest examples of partial disarmament- the inspector's are able to report some progress here- not enough pro- and I'm sitting here saying, "You lunkhead- do you not get this? Do you not get- last night- I mean, the- the gauntlet was thrown down- if there's no total disarmament, that that's all that matters. When it comes to protesters and people who would disagree, it doesnt matter- I've got my job to do and I'm gonna do it- and I frankly don't care what you say, Hans Blix- unless you say that you can prove total disarmament."
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Tom] [edit][edit: Michael]
I don't care what El-Baradai has to say, I don't care what Martin Sheen has to say, I've got my job to do, and I'm gonna do it! Well, wouldn't you rather have somebody like that, folks? Do you want somebody wishy-washy who's always changing what their core belief is, based on somebody's outside opinion? Is that really what you want?
You want somebody who's so unsure of themselves, that the slightest disagreement, it could cause them to -- (weird voice) "Oh, geez, well, uh -- I hadn't thought about that." Ah, yes- somebody -- you want somebody that insecure? Is that what leadership is? Somebody that claims to have a core belief. Somebody that's made a firm and rooted decision. And here comes long haired maggot infested dope smoking FM types, throwing stones, and (weird voice) "Oh, wait a minute -- I better listen to what those long haired maggot infested dope smoking FM types are saying."
Is that what you want? Not in a circumstance like this. You may want it in a president who's trying to avoid the consequences of history. Speaking of a president trying to avoid the consequences of history, my friends, you know what I was doing yesterday afternoon after the program? I was minding my own business. I was sitting here. In fact, those of you watching on the dittocam -- I was sitting right here!
And- I was- there was something I was, I was watching- oh! I was watching a little bit of the Doral golf -- and the Ford, Ford -- whatever it is, the Doral. And, just closing out some um, some work before I decided to take my leave. And, I got an email from Howard Kurtz. At the Washington Post. And he said, hey, I just interviewed Bill Clinton about this, you know what, this CBS gig with Dole.
And he brought your name up without even bring prompted. He invoked your name, and he, he made some comment that, um, you will continue to take what he says, and use it as fundraising for groups that disagree with him. And Howard wanted to know if I had ever signed any fundraising letters.
So, I wrote him back. I said, Howard, I've -- no, I've never knowingly signed a fundraising letter. I've- I've studiously avoided - I- I said there are two examples recently of fundraising. I told him what they were. I did an appearance for John Carlson out in Seattle. Actually, Puyallup (?). And I did a fundraising appearance for Republican Senate candidate for John Cormyn last September.
But, aside from that, that- that's it. And I said, uh, the truth of the matter is, Howard, that it is Clinton who invokes my name. In fundraising. I mean -- he's the one -- at these White House coffees, which where fundraisers, started complaining about me, and how the Democrats don't have their version of me.
And he called Cable X one day to complain about me. And - he's always, he's always mentioning my name in this context, but, but I've -- I've never signed any letters. So, he said, I thought that was right, I just wanted to double-check. Thanks for clarification.
So the story comes out today. The story comes out in the Washington Post today. Clinton, Dole ready for 120 seconds. And, I'm gonna go through the whole thing here, parse by parse here in just a second, but let me, let me just get to the, um, the relevant paragraphs of the story, that have to do with the back and forth email I had with the writer of the story, Howard Kurtz.
Asked if it was unseemly for a former president who has such a high TV profile, and to criticize president Bush. Clinton said, it's a matter of public record that he has expressed my differences with the current administration on such issues as the Kyoto global warming treaty.
And then Clinton said, if I get up, and tie my shoes in the morning somebody criticizes me. This will enable Rush Limbaugh to help raise another forty five million dollars for groups I don't agree with. Limbaugh, who says he almost never engages in fundraising, was quick to slam Clinton on his radio show.
And Kurtz quotes me as saying this: The stuff people really want to hear Bill Clinton address will not even be brought up. Juanita Brodderick, uh, North Korea, contempt of court citations. This is just more of the Bill Clinton rehabilitation legacy tour, Limbaugh said. Then the next paragraph: former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart said Limbaugh should keep his mouth shut.
And the - the debates are just one way to continue being part of the public service system. In addition to Clinton's global work on AIDS and other issues. So, I should just shut my mouth! This is the former spokesman for Clinton at the White House, Joe Lockhart. Does this sound like a threat? I'm the -- I'm -- this- I'm the subject here of verbal stalking.
I may want to go for a restraining order on these people. I can't wake up without Clinton mentioning my name. I can't wake up without Daschle mentioning my name. I can't wake up without hearing about the Democrats targeting me! Every day, I get up, and they're trying to get rid of me! They're trying to harm my success. They're trying to duplicate my success, or whatever.
Now, Clinton's chief spokesman has warned me I had better shut my mouth. I'll tell you what it does. It does -- ladies and gentlemen -- it's reminiscent of hate speech. This is extreme, don't you think? Limbaugh should just shut his mouth. Keep his mouth shut. Um, this is just -- this is - is just -
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Kim] [edit]
[edited: Michael]
...no good. Y'know, as I say, I- I'm sitting here minding my own business. Here's Clinton- he's got this new gig- he's gonna debate Bob Dole, 45 seconds- each one of them's gonna get. And in an interview with Howard Kurtz, my name comes up- Kurtz didn't even ask him about me.
So- verbal stalking, is that what this is? Do I need a restraining order? Well, I would never actually seek one, my friends- I'm just trying to uh- make an analogy. But, this- this piece- some of the quotes in this piece, besides this- are really priceless. Let's- let's take a break here and we'll come back and we'll parse this- it's always fun to parse- things that Clinton says- uh, and of course, his spokespeople. So sit tight, we'll be back- Open Line Friday will resume right after this.
[promo for Rush on the EIB network]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[ad: Rush voiceover for Theragesic analgesic cream]
[ad: Geico Auto Insurance]
[ad: Culligan Water Filters]
[ad: D. Geller and Sons Jewelers]
[ad: The Lipizzaner Stallions tour at a local arena]
[station id]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Kim] [edit]
Rush: I'm not gonna say that. Welcome back folks, it's the EIB Network and El Rushbo. At the press conference last night- uh, this is great, the Washington Times reports- says here press corps- and I know it's corps- *pronouncing it corpse*- I know it's corps- *pronouncing it as core*- but when we're talking about this story it's "corpse."
"Press corps doyenne gets no notice- a long running Washington tradition apparently ended last night, when for the first time in memory, the doyenne of the White House press "corpse" was not called on at a Presidential press conference. Syndicated columnist Helen Thomas. who's covered every President since JFK, was relegated to the third row in last night's event- and received her first Presidential snub. One reporter who has covered the last six Presidents says "I don't remember a press conference in which Helen didn't get a question."
Well tell me, I don't know what the- it's accidental or not- but she's all over the place lately saying that Bush is the worst President in history of the country. And uh- this was a serious event last night to him and he took his share of dissenting questions, so BIG DEAL.
And uh- also snubbed last night, Mike Allen of the Washington Post. The second straight time that the- the uh, President has skipped over the Post correspondent, who was seated last night in the first row- Mike Allen. That might explain why Tom Shales piece today is the way it is- Shales has written the piece that Bush was tired, worn out- maybe medicated- um, what does he call it?
It's a snooze alarm, Bush's wake up call was a snooze alarm was the headline- very critical of the President's demeanor last night. Also- and I'm trying to get tape of this now- it uh, just concluded.
Jack Straw. the British Foreign Minister- just reamed Dominique de Villepin of France. In the Security Council, de Villepin- well, let's listen- uh, is de Villepin's speaking English- lets listen to this, it's our microphone here..
Dominique de Villepin: ... 1441..
Rush: Yeah, he's speaking English.
Dominiquie de Villepin: We think also that we all should keep the pressure on Iraq.
Rush: There isn't any- there isn't any..
Dominique de Villepin: That's why we made several proposals..
Rush: There isn't any!
Dominique de Villepin: In order for the inspectors..
Rush: They're a joke..
Dominique de Villepin: to give us- originally, one of the key tasks
Rush: *unintelligible* this guy looks shaken up...
Dominique de Villepin: for Iraq- have a clear timetable on the part of Iraq..
Rush: Okay, that's enough- folks, you oughta see this guy- he looks totally shaken up. Now I- uh, he- he doesn't look like the confident and full of bravado Dominique de Villepin from France, that we have seen in recent weeks. And uh- Jack Straw, during the monologue of the previous hour- well, mere moments ago- I mean, got to the point of pointing his finger at de Villepin- in this, and uh, read him the riot act.
And uh, it's- it's been commented on, so we're looking for, um- audio from that, and we'll have it for you as soon as we're able to- tp edit it down. Also, do you remember- I guess it was last week some time- yes, uh, last week I shared with you a theory of mine about Colin Powell- and Bush, and the rope-a-dope scenario that I thought the administration had been using in order to- to uh, lasso some Iraq critics and uh- get them on the administration's side- and I thought they used Powell to do it.
Y'know, Powell's been the dove in the administration- been holding out for diplomacy- and of course, all the opponents of Bush in Washington, all the liberal elites have been pointing at Powell- as, he's the smart guy, he's the reasonable guy, he's the one- we should pray that Powell prevails. And then when Powell did the 180 and goes to United Nations and joins Bush in calling for war and everything else- then some of these liberals are kind of caught. "Oh no, we can't diss Powell, we've already talked about how much we love and respect him."
So Mary McGrory wrote- wrote a piece she's just been convinced- "Powell convinced me." And I said, this is so specious- Powell didn't say anything different than Bush has been saying. Not one word. All Powell did was echo everything Bush has been saying now- but that gives the all-clear to Mary McGrory and others to agree with him.
Well, apparently Mary McGrory was inundated with hate mail from her readers, and she's now changed her mind. Uh, this was- this was her column yesterday. I- I just discovered this last night- I didn't- I normally don't read Mary McGrory. To tell you the truth, it's part of show prep- I know what liberal's think, so I don't need to read them every day.
And, so I just- had some time last night and I was struck by the headline of her column- "To My Very Persuasive Readers" - and I said hmmm, what's that about? So I read it, and sure as it- folks, she's got- she quotes letters from people who read her column are just frosted at her. And she has apparently changed her mind again, she's no longer with uh, Powell.
But when you listen to some of the letters that have changed her mind, you- you just can't help but laugh. Some of these people accused her of being taken over by an alien. Some of these uh, letters accused her of being threatened personally by the White House. Uh, and again, I'll get- I'll get to that in due course- I just don't wanna parse some of the things and
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Tracy] [edit]
Kurtz's Washington Post column today. One of the things Dole says here (reads) -- "'It's not going to be a screaming match,' Dole said. 'We're not going to get a hatchet out and beat each other up. It'll be provacative.'" I thought, really, Bob? You gonna wear a thong? Is that how this is going to be provacative?
(reads) "'Asked if it was unseemly for a former president to have such a high television profile and to criticize President Bush, Clinton said, 'It's a matter of public record that he's expressed my differences with the current administration on issues like the Kyoto global warming treaty.'" You'll note there he didn't answer the question. It's already established he criticizes the President all over the world. The question was, is it the right thing to do, and he didn't answer it. And it's not the right thing to do, especially about this kind of thing. Not about international national security issues.
And then -- "If I get up and tie my shoes in the morning somebody criticizes me. This will enable Rush Limbaugh to help raise another 45 million dollars for groups I don't agree with." Oh -- I guess it's okay for Clinton and everybody to criticize Bush, but it's not okay for me to criticize Clinton. Is that right? And then Lockhart said that "Limbaugh should 'keep his mouth shut' and that the debates are 'just one way to continue being part of the public service system,' in addition to Clinton's global work on AIDS and other issues.'"
So let me see if I understand this. I have to keep my mouth shut, but debates are just one way to continue being part of the public service system? So Lockhart says Clinton should be part of the debate but I have to shut my mouth. So much for the liberal perspective on free speech.
(reads)"'I'm going to be anxiously awaiting Sunday nights,' Hillary Rodham Clinton said from Capitol Hill yesterday." That's right. It's the one -- well, it's -- no, it is a chance to your husband. It's the night you'll actually know where he is. And what he's doing for those 45 seconds. At least you'll have peace of mind for those 45 seconds.
(reads)"The New York senator said her husband was drawn by the prospect of a civilized discourse that would not be ranting and raving." Yeah, like the Forehead and Carville do on Crossfire. Yeah, I mean, ranting and raving, you know, who does that on TV anymore? Who does it? It's all these liberals hosting these shows, and it's those people who have always done it.
Of course, Barnett -- this is Clinton's lawyer -- and by the way, Rob Barnett -- I guess his name is Rob Barnett -- Clinton lawyer, agent -- is, what's her name, Rita Braver, at CBS -- Rita Braver's husband. Did you not know that? Oh yes. Rob Barnett, White House lawyer and agent, is Rita Braver's husband. You didn't know that? I can't believe you didn't know that. Well, it's true. And he has played the Republican in mock presidential debates for several Democrats including Clinton. Of course there's no liberal bias in the media here whatsoever.
(reads)"'During the discussions it became obvious to everyone that it should be Senator Dole,' Barnett said. 'He's a war hero, he's a presidential candidate, a Senate Majority Leader, a party chairman, and he and the president have a great relationship.' Don Hewitt said he got the idea from Clinton's former White House counsel, Lloyd Cutler, and former Nixon Cabinet member Pete Peterson."
This has to be a load of doo-doo, folks. You telling me these people care about Dole being a war hero? This is insulting. To say that -- you know, war hero as a valid opponent for Bill Clinton? Come on, give me a break. I'm not falling for that. What they wanted to do was get the oldest guy they could to put up against Clinton so Clinton will forever look young, virile and youthful as his legacy tour continues. The focus is all going to be on Clinton in this thing, that's the whole point.
[ad: Autozone]
[ad: Zin's Hand Cream]
[WGST: local news]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Galen] [edit]
[local news]
[ad: WGST radio station]
[ad: EGP digital document machines]
[ad: Cigar Dave Show, Saturdays at 5]
[ad: Lenox Financial Mortgage]
[ad: 105.7 Cool Oldies Radio station]
[ad: WGST "the Kimmer", Kim Peterson]
Rush: And you've got Open Line Friday, ladies and gentlemen. El Rushbo here, from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Sad thing about that, the Clinton team claiming they want a guy like Dole, because he's a war hero. The implication is clear, they need somebody of that high status and stature, to be equal, on equal footing with their boy Bill.
Here's Lee Ann in Mobile, Alabama. Hi Lee Ann. Welcome to Open Line Friday.
Lee Ann: Hello Rush.
Friday, March 7, 2003. part four
01:30:00. [19: Galen] [edit]
Lee Ann: - had to, I had to call you, because . . .
Rush: You know, I just love, I love your accent.
Lee Ann: Well, thank you.
Rush: You bet.
LeeAnn: You're not far away from me, are you? You're in Florida, correct?
Rush: I'm in Florida, I'm in Florida, that's right.
Lee Ann: I'm in Alabama.
Rush: Alabama, I know that.
LeeAnn: I need to ask you a question because I feel like I'm not the only person that heard this last night. And some of your listeners probably want it cleared up, also.
Rush: Uh oh. This sounds ominous.
LeeAnn: You're going to love it, Rush. You're going to love it. And if it's so, then I just, it totally caught me off guard, so I need you to clear it up for me. I was watching to Hannity and Colmes last night. And the Reverend Al Sharpton was on. And Alan Colmes was kind of, you know, telling him how these, some Democrats were against his, you know, running for President, you know, and uh. . .
Rush: And what did he say about me?
LeeAnn: Well, OK, this is the part. He says that you were endorsing. That you were one of the people that are endorsing the reverend for President.
Rush: Yes? Well, I wouldn't say, no, no, no, no. I didn't, I didn't say that.
LeeAnn: Well, I knew that.
Rush: Yeah, well, well, no, but, look, Here's what happened. This is what Colmes heard. I'll tell you exactly what happened. Yesterday, or the day before, I guess it was, I gave a sneak peek of the soon-to-be-published March issue, soon-to-be-received March issue of the Limbaugh letter. And in that issue, I endorse the Reverend Sharpton for the Democratic nomination. What did Reverend Sharpton say, when, when Colmes told him that I endorsed him?
LeeAnn: Well, Colmes said it. Well then, you know , how the Reverend sorta runs on, and talks the talk. So, he didn't really, he said well I don't need to hear endorsements. And so it kinda got lost, the comment got lost in the shuffle of the. . .
Rush: Wait a second. Did the Reverend Sharpton, did he reject? In your impression, now, in your opinion, did the he reject my endorsement?
LeeAnn: Well, he didn't want to hear it. So I guess you could take it however. He just said I don't need to hear endorsements.
Rush: Well, that's offensive!
LeeAnn: And sort of rambled.
Rush: I'm trying to help him out. I tried to help out Carl McCall. Look at, I am. Nothing would make me happier than to see Al Sharpton get the Democratic presidential nomination.
LeeAnn: Well, the other thing. (sp? 2.08)
Rush: Oh, well, a number of other things as well.
LeeAnn: It would be entertaining.
Rush: This saddens me. What, what would you say? Huh?
LeeAnn: I didn't know if you had heard.
Rush: No. I hadn't, you're the first to tell me about this..
LeeAnn: But, well, I also didn't know you had endorsed him, so it just caught me off guard, as far as, you know, I just thought, I thought it was sort of phony.
Rush: No, no. There's nothing phony about it. I, I, there's just an article coming out in the next issue of the Limbaugh letter about my endorsement of the Reverend Sharpton for the Democratic presidential, uh nomination. I've been on record here as defending the Reverend against all the assaults, and the attacks against him, and all these plans that the Democrats have, to try to harm his candidacy.
I've been alerting him, and everybody else to this. And, uh, to have the Reverend Sharpton simply reject me, why, you know that hurts my feelings, ladies, and it doesn't matter. My feelings are not hurt enough so that I won't play the Al Sharpton update theme. [Theme begins]
[Rush talking over theme:] I do want to play that. 'Cuz I'm going to continue my effort to get him the Democratic nomination whether he wants me to or not.
[Theme ends]
Rush: They can call me Al. That's our new, our brand-new Reverend Al Sharpton update theme. You know what would be funny, fun, interesting? How about this? How -
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Tracy] [edit]
in the first half-hour of this program I answer Bill Clinton from 60 Minutes the night before, and dedicate my commentary to Joe Lockhart. How about -- would that not be cool? My very own response to Clinton every Monday, first half hour of this program, El Rushbo responds to whatever Clinton says the night before on 60 Minutes. And we dedicate it to Joe Lockhart, who tells me to keep my mouth shut.
Here is Sharon. Shreveport, Louisiana. Hi, Sharon, welcome, nice to have you with us.
SHARON: Hi, great to be here.
RUSH: Thank you.
SHARON: You know, first of all, I'd like to say if I had been your dinner guest last night I would have insisted we turn the TV on and watch the press conference. I'd love to have been there to see your responses.
RUSH: Well, I'll tell you, I was a couple times I was jumping up and down and going "Attaboy." I was cheering.
SHARON: Hey, about the press conference, I think one of my favorite comments by Bush, one of the reporters, I don't know what he had asked him, something about current disarmament. And Bush said, basically he said that true sincere disarmament would only take a handful of inspectors in a parking lot. And he said that Saddam would bring his weapons to him and they would observe the destruction. You know, and I think that should be the standard for defining disarmament. Nothing less.
RUSH: Yeah. I'll tell ya, Colin Powell said something similiar today at the United Nations. He said, if I understood you correctly, he said that if there were disarmament going on, instead of 166 pages today, Blix would have had 10,000 pages with documents and documentation about everything Saddam had done. The parking lots of Iraq would be full with the weapons that they were showing they had and were getting rid of as they've been promising to do for the last twelve years.
He said if they were really disarming there wouldn't be any need for Blix and Al-Baradei to report the incremental progress that Hussein is making. And there wouldn't be any need for the French and the Germans to celebrate and applaud this incremental process -- uh, or progress -- as meaningful.
And it's -- you know, Hussein is -- look it -- people are saying, folks, that Saddam is playing the French and Germans like a Stradivarius. That's not what's going on. They are acting in concert. It's not that the French and Germans are buffoons and idiots on this and are having the wool pulled over their eyes. They're both deeply in bed with Hussein, economically, ideologically, and in -- probably some other ways as well.
And Hussein knows full well that all he's got to do is dribble these things out and Germany and France will say, "See? The inspectors are working. Even if it takes another six months or another year, this is far preferable to violence. Far preference to war." The difference here, what's going on is that French and Germans are not concerned about Iraq. 9/11 did not happen on their property, on their country. It didn't happen to their people. They don't have the same perspective on this.
And there's also -- there's something floating around, ladies -- and I have it in one of yesterday's stacks, sorry, I don't, I can't access it immediately, but apparently Saddam was livid at the French for joining us in the Gulf War of 91, and sent a letter to the French promising blackmail, or threatening blackmail, promising to divulge the total detailed involvement of the French in the construction of Iraq's nuclear and WMD programs. I don't know whether this is true or not but it's circulating from a couple of reliable sources.
But it's not that the French and the Germans are being duped here. Don't think that. This is all happening in concert. And the aim of the French and the Germans is real simple. It's to de-neuter the United States -- or, to neuter the United States. It is to take us down a peg. It is to eliminate the notion that we are the world's lone superpower. It is also this move they're making to be the two dominant forces of the European Union over the United Kingdom.
So there's so much at work here that's beneath the surface and is not obvious, but while they look idiots, or idiotic, while they look like buffoons, that's not -- and they may well be, but that's not the case here. It's not as though they're being fooled by these momentary incremental releases of weapons and disarmament and are buying it totally. They're not, in this case, analogous to the useful idiots that constitute these protest marches. This is a coordinated plan to give substance to the French and German position that "Saddam's disarming. The inspectors are working. We need more time. Why resort to violence? Why resort to war when we are proving it's not necessary?" That's their aim.
And that's why the president last night was insistent. There's just one question. Is there total disarmament? Has he abided by Resolution 1441? Had to come clean December 8th.
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Kim] [edit]
he came clean December 7th, if you recall, he beat the deadline by a day. And we now know- do- do you know that- um, of the- what was it? Thirteen thousand pages- or fifteen thousand pages of documents- some of those had been plagiarized.
They- they found out that- the-the thing is half fake? The- the point is, that ALONE constitutes a material breach. But not in the eyes of the French- not in the eyes of the Germans- uh, nor the, uh- the Belgians, the wafflers and uh, whoever else. Quick break, be back in a moment with more on Open Line Friday, stay with us.
[promo: Rush Limbaugh on the EIB Network]
[coming up: the Kimmer]
[ad: Onstar Global Positioning Technologies available at your Chevy dealer]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[ad: Hill Air Charter]
[promo for a movie "The Pentagon Papers" an FX original movie]
[station id]
Rush: Uh, grab- grab- grab Jeff up here in San Francisco. This is an excellent point too, very quickly, before we get to the soundbites. Hi Jeff, welcome to Open Line Friday.
Jeff: Dittoes Rush, thank you.
Rush: You- you bet.
Jeff: My point is that Saddam Hussein only needs one weapon of mass destruction, to launch it against a city and wreak chaos. And um, that's why I support the President fully when he says we need a regi- regime change in, uh, Iraq.
Rush: That is the key point- see Jeff, you're exactly right and you're the caller of the day. Are you a subscriber to the Limbaugh website?
Jeff: No, I'm not.
Rush: Well, you are now. And I'm gonna throw in a bonus issue of the Limbaugh Letter and two freebie items from the EIB store. Hang on, we'll get all the information necessary- uh, to uh- to make- to make that all happen.
And- and I'm getting alot of e-mail, everybody thinks I oughta do the Clinton rebuttal. Well, one person thinks I shouldn't- that- that it would be lowering myself. *laughing* and my- I'm the future and the present, Clinton's a has-been, that I shouldn't mess with it. Now, you gotta stop and think about that- that it does- it does
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Galen] [edit]
some resonance with me. But a lot of people say, "Yeah, but if you do it, you gotta to do it in 45 seconds, otherwise it wouldn't be fair. Clinton only has 45 seconds , it wouldn't be fair, so you've gotta to do it in 45 seconds." Most people are urging me to do it.
Jeff's point here is right on the money, and I have been neglect in pointing this out to you today. Because the key is "regime change", and the President has revived that, now. In the past two weeks, regime change -- Saddam has to go, even if he totally disarms, remember? Early this week, even if he totally disarms, he still has to go into exile, that's the only way he can stave off war. So "regime change" is the key. It's not about inspections, it's not about progress, incremental or otherwise, It's not even really about total disarmament, now, according to the precepts of 1441. It is about regime change. And I thank you, Jeff, for reminding me of that.
All right, a couple of sound bites, here, quickly. First here is the Al Sharpton bite, from Hannity & Colmes, last night. I haven't heard these two bites that I'm going to play for you, so I can only, I only go by what I've been told. The roll of the dice on this. The Sharpton bite here is eight seconds.
Hannity(?): "And he says you're being sliced and diced by Democrats. Do you want Rush Limbaugh's endorsement?"
Sharpton: "No, I didn't [ask, pronounced, "axe"] anyone like that for it.
Rush: He didn't what? "He didn't axe?" He didn't "axe" for anyone like that endorsing him? OK.
Sharpton: "No, I didn't "axe" anyone like that endorsing me."
Rush: Is that what he said?
Sharpton: "Yeah, OK."
Rush: Uh, [laugh]. We'll keep working on the rib. I only have his best interests at heart here. You people think I'm kidding. I think he's the second black American of prominence to seek the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. The first was the Reverend Jackson. And they bought him off with a campaign plan and a couple mil.
And I think that if the Democratic Party is to be perceived as the party of minorities, the party of the disenfranchised, the part y of the poor, the thirsty, the hungry, the whatever, the Reverend Sharpton is owed this shot. And I know they've got the sharp knives out for Sharpton. They're sharpening the knives for Reverend Al.
And I'm serious. I think he needs as much help as he can get to secure the party nomination. And I'm pretty serious about this. I wouldn't say I'm as serious as I've ever been about anything. Serious about Al Sharpton getting the Presidential nomination would be a great thing. Seminal moment for the country, and American history. Something I actually wouldn't mind being a part of.
And now here is another sound bite, ladies and gentlemen. This is Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister. I asked the guys to give me Straw really fired up here. I was watching this, during a monologue, and Straw was pointing his finger, to look like he was really ripping the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, of France, Let's see what we've got here.
Straw: "the first question, therefore, before this council, is "Has Iraq taken this final opportunity to disarm?' And I've been very struck, listened with care to all the speeches. And of course people have different points of view. But nobody, not one minister before this council, in my hearing, has said that Iraq is now, fully, actively, and immediately in compliance with 1441. They have not, so far, taken this final opportunity. If anybody in this chamber, or outside, has any doubt about that conclusion, then I do commend to members this so-called trustee's report, "The Outstanding Issues," concerning Iraq's proscribed weapons program, which, as a member of the commission behind UNMOVIC [UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, ed.] I've already had the privilege of reading. And I have read Dr. Blix's notes, all 167 pages of that report, in every particular. And it's a very painstaking piece of work."
Rush: Alright, alright. If this is the guy fired up, then I didn't see what I saw. It was a mirage. I mean, he was a little animated there. That wasn't it? OK. Quick break here. 'Cuz, he was pointing his finger it looked like, at de Villepin,, the Foreign Minister of France. Quick break, my friends, we'll be back. Sit tight.
[Ad: Get Rush's radio show when you want it, with Rush 24/7, available any time 24/7 exclusively at www.rushlimbaugh.com. You're listening to the EIB Network. ]
[Station identification: News radio 640 WGST.]
[Ad: Lending.tree.com ]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Lending Tree]
[ad: Stresstabs]
[promo for Dr. Laura show]
[ad: Sunshine Mortgage]
[ad: Blue Emu Topical Pain Reliever]
station id]
Rush: I've put- a- a minor little problem here in the possibility of me responding to Bill Clinton. And that is this- I'm not going to be here Monday. I've got a charity commmitment that I made long ago, and it's- it's during the day and I have to do it.
But I will be back Tuesday, so my response to Clinton will have to be Tuesday of this next week. Uh, but after that, we'll be able to do it on a Monday, so- we'll ponder this, uh, over the weekend and it could be fun. And alot of people-you know something- Clinton may only have 45 seconds, true, on 60 Minutes- but, by the time the press fin- finishes amplifying what he's said and talking about it for 13 hours afterwards- you never know.
[station id]
[ad: Econolodge and Rodeway Inn Hotels- Choice Hotels International]
[promo: News Radio 640]
[news break]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Tom] [edit]
[local news]
[national news]
[warmongering propaganda]
[ad for Trade Secrets seminars]
[right-wing station-sponsored rally on March 15th]
[ad for Dale Carnegie courses]
Friday, March 7, 2003. part five
02:00:00. [25: Brandon] [edit]
[ad: Dale Carnegie Institute]
[Station ID]
[bumper: ]
RUSH: Yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yip-yahoo! Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, it's the Rush Limbaugh program on the excellence in broadcasting network, it is Friday.
JOHNNY D: Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, via New York City, it's Open Line Friday!
RUSH: Hubba hubba! Way to go Johnny D. on the spot - uh - update. 88 degress here under sunny skies at the EIB Southern Command. Great to have you along, folks, Open Line Friday, you choose that which we discuss on the program today, the callers do.
Junior Pakistani government minister said Friday that two elder sons of Osama bin Laden had been captured in a bloody operation in Afghanistan; the White House immediately cast doubt on the report, however, CNBC has cited this afternoon government sources allegedly confirming that a single son of bin Laden's has been captured - both reports disputed by the Pakistani interior minister. And Reuters has quoted Abdul Karim Barawi, the governor of the Afghan province in question, saying that US troops are present in his area but that they have not started any operation. (crinkles paper loudly)
So, we don't know, I mean - it's, uh, reverberating all over the place out there - I wanna get Gary from Stonewood, West Virginia, this is a good question, hi Gary, welcome to the program.
GARY: Lemme start by saying megadittoes from the Mountain State, Rush -
RUSH: Thank you very much.
GARY: - it's a pleasure to speak with you. I'm a young veteran and a long time listener, first time caller, and for my birthday last month, my wife got me a subscription to your website and your newsletter, so I'm really happy to talk to you today.
RUSH: Well, that's great, thank you very much.
GARY: Um, my question is this - last night, uh, the president made it very clear that regime change was synonymous with disarmament.
RUSH: Right.
GARY: And the UK has kind of disputed this, saying that if he were to fully disarm, that he could stay in power; my question is, when it comes down to the final objective, is this going to create some kind of conflict between the two countries?
RUSH: No. No, I, I, I, I don't know what to make of the UK thing. This is- unfortunately the, um, the thing that Gary is talking about here, that the, uh, the Brits saying they want an additional period of time here before an ultimatum is released, I'm not able to fully research that while on the air. Um, and I'll have to get to the bottom of it. But I can just, I, I'm - look, I don't know, but I'm confident that the Brits are not sabotaging anything here. Regime change is indeed the order of the day along with disarmament. I think the reason, uh, Gary, and this is why I wanted to take your call.
The reason that the Brits are making this point, and this is again another illustration of just how utterly pointless this whole diplomacy at the United Nations has been. See, this Resolution 1441 that everyone is debating today again says nothing about regime change. All it says is disarmament. Eh, gets to regime change if, you know, it authorizes the use of force to disarm.
But, uh, earlier this week, or late last week, when the president added a new thing to disarmament. He said "Look," - he was asked a question, Is there a way to stave off war. He said, "Yeah. Saddam disarms and goes into exile." Remember we had a big deal on that here when that happened, because that's not in the resolution, Saddam going into exile, Saddam leaving; there's nothing in the resolution about that. I think that's why...
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Mary McGrory Lowell, Mass Burke, Virginia Richard Perle Ari Fleischer Caspar Weinberger David Hilfiker
If you'd like a de-indented version of the McGrory column, just let me know - I wasn't sure how best to format it, but this looked pretty good to me. It's very easy to reformat, if you want something different. ]
the work they're doing, what they're doing, they're just trying to remain on topic as it were, where 1441 is concerned. But the fact that the president said that, is just another of many indications that it ultimately doesn't matter what is happening here at the United Nations. We're going to do this whether France and Germany and the rest are on board or not. And that regime change is the ultimate aim, not just disarmament.
I'm glad you called, because I appreciate that question.
I've got to go through this Mary McGrory bit with you folks, it's just too funny. Mary McGrory wrote a column not long ago saying that Colin Powell had finally persuaded her that Saddam's got to go, that we've got to go do it ourselves, that military action is called for, because he had changed his mind and agreed with the president, and that made Mary McGrory say, "OK, if Colin Powell says it, then I'm convinced." Well, she's been deluged with complaint and hate mail. From her readers.
And apparently she has now changed her mind. And her column of yesterday is thus:
Dear Readers, We have been through a great deal together; the Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, El Salvador. Grenada, Lebanon, Florida. [RL: Come on, these people are too much!
Jeez! Comparing Florida... This is the Gore election? The Clinton and Bush Gore election? To Vietnam? The Kennedy assassination?] For the first time I can remember, we are estranged. That is, you have been, since I wrote a column February 6th about Colin Powell's UN indictment of Saddam Hussein.
You've declared yourselves to be shocked, appalled, startled, puzzled, and above all disappointed by what you thought was a defection to the hawk side. "I'm persuaded," said the headline - which went a little beyond my column - but it was my fault: I did not make it clear enough that while I believed what Powell told me about Saddam Hussein's poison collection, I was not convinced that war was the answer. I guess I took it for granted that you would know what I meant.
The flow of letters has abated somewhat, but last week I had a call from a woman who identified herself as a long-time reader and asked me sternly, "Don't you think you should explain yourself? This schoolgirl crush on Colin Powell?" Well, I hope it's not too late. I write about this outrage because the letters tell you, if the demonstrations didn't, that opposition to the war is deep and widespread. I received just two letters commending me for being a turncoat. One was from Germany, from a man who said he was glad to see my position was evolving.
A man from Lowell, Mass, urged me to break away from the left in this country. I regret to say that several members of Congress who cravenly voted for the resolution sent word that my column had liberated them. Otherwise, it was all reproach and dismay: "What happened to you?" asks San Diego. "Has the White House threatened you?" "Did they torture you?" Springfield, Virginia enquired.
Or had I been intoxicated by my paper's pro-war editorials? A woman from the District made me flinch with just two lines: "How could you? Truly, how could you?" Burke, Virgina said, "We were very disappointed to see you so duped by Colin Powell." "George Bush and Richard Perle are gloating," wrote another reader from nearby Virginia.
And in fact I was mentioned for the first time ever with approval by Ari Fleischer, who cited me as Exhibit A in the newly convinced. I have thought well of Colin Powell since I heard him say that the most important lesson to teach the young is that they should do whatever job is assigned, and do it well. As a teenager, he mopped the floors of a soft drink bottling factory so well he was promoted to the bottling line.
His role in the Iran-Contra scandal as an aide to Caspar Weinberger was not glorious, but I was ready to vote for him if he ran for president in '96. I was grateful he was Bush's Secretary of State, and more so, when I read in Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" that he was the buffer between the two gung-ho Bagdhad cake walkers Dick Cheney [RL: Laughs, repeats] Cheney and Rumsfeld.
He was not a peacenik, but he was all we anti-invaders had. But now Powell, apparently convinced by his own speech, has joined the "time is running out" crowd, and the Pope and Ted Kennedy are the high- profile holdouts. Powell convinced by his own speech, Mary? You mean he didn't believe it when he wrote it? He only believed it when he gave it?
One disillusioned local enclosed a letter from a public health physician named David Hilfiker who has helped the homeless in Washington. From Baghdad, the doctor describes the misery of children who are dying for lack of pure drinking water. Sanctions forbid importation for parts for water treatment plants
Oh, be still my - this is infuriating - the children of Iraq are starving and going thirsty because of the United States and the United Nations embargo! Thats...
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Kim] [edit]
... yeah, then we can all go to the bank on that. Anyway, by contrast the letters were reproving (?). Some thanked me for having, in the past, at least, gotten it right and given them comfort.
I failed as a writer to take time to make myself clear. And I did something that George Bush never does- I offended my base. Oh Mary- oh Mary, you know not of what you speak. President Bush has offended his base oftentimes. You see how sorry I am, she writes- I hope now that all is forgiven and I can come home again- yours, the unintentional wanderer.
Now I question, my friends- is this the kind of leadership you want? Somebody writes a column- says okay, I've been persuaded, Colin Powell made a great case. Then she hears from some crackpots- in the form of complaint mail- accusing her of being tortured or whatever else. And she gets so frightened that she might have some people disagree with her, that she backtracks.
And further says, by the way, I never did really say I was gung-ho on this. I didn't make myself clear, I'm sorry you didn't understand me. I read the piece, it's- Colin Powell persuaded me- it was clear as a bell what she had said. This is a classic example here of the wishy-washiness of the left and it's a great contrast.
You, um- what-what would you rather have? You want somebody who is bendable, shakeable, flexible- at the first sign of anybody who might disagree? Or do you want somebody with conviction- and is going to those convictions and those core principals because that person KNOWS that they're right, regardless of the criticism. To me it's the latter, it's not even a choice. We'll be back and continue in moments, stay with us.
[promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[reminder that the Kimmer is coming up after Rush]
[spoken promo by Rush for Hotwired.com]
[ad: Blue-Emu topical pain reliever]
[ad: Xerox Digital Copier]
[promo for the morning news on News Radio 640]
[ad: Jerrod's Jewelry]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Brandon] [edit]
[ad: Men's Wearhouse]
[Station ID]
[bumper]
RUSH: And we are back, it's Open Line Friday, RUsh Limbaugh, well-known radio artist, practicing my craft, the highlights of which will be in a museum which means this is art, my friends. Nice to have you with us, here is Crystal in New York City, hi Crystal.
CRYSTAL: Hi Rush. You mentioned me yesterday on your radio show. I just wanted to call in and say that the fact that your only response to my statement was to call me a valley girl only gives credibility to my position because you failed to respond maturely or rationally. You insist the movement is propelled by naive, idiotic young fools, but if that were true, why are you so concerned and so obviously threatened by us?
RUSH: Well, I'm not threatened.
CRYSTAL: Well then, why do you spend so much time on your radio show name-calling?
RUSH: I don't name-call.
CRYSTAL: You called me a valley girl, I'm originally from New York.
RUSH: That's not name - that's a descriptive term for the way you sounded in the bite.
CRYSTAL: (simultaneously) All right, do you remember what I said, Rush?
RUSH: (simultaneously) I'm not calling you a name by calling you a valley girl.
CRYSTAL: Okay, what is it that I said, do you recall? Because you did combine two statements from two different people into one, and then -
RUSH: Well, we have the bite, we, we have the montage of protestors, in which you were one -
CRYSTAL: Uh-huh.
RUSH: ...you were in the montage with Ben Curtis, that bright-as-hell Dell Dude...
CRYSTAL: Yes.
RUSH: Do you know him?
CRYSTAL: I don't know him, but we do go to the same school, or used to.
RUSH: Well, (unintelligible)...okay, um, here's the bite, and, um, we'll talk after the bite is completed.
CRYSTAL: Sure.
MONTAGE:
PROTESTORS: What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!
WOMAN 1: I think it's wrong that we spend millions of dollars on a bomb that will be used once while we're having millions of dollars being cut from our school budget...
WOMAN 2: I want to live, and I feel that if we go to war, that, um, I might not have that long of a time to live...
WOMAN 3 (CRYSTAL): I think that we have reason to be concerned, and that's an issue that definitely needs to be addressed; however, I don't think that it calls for military action...
MAN 1: Killing doesn't end killing. Killing only causes more killing, and as long as that goes on, where's our world gonna go? Nowhere but down, so that's why we're here today.
WOMAN 4: The money could be better spent on education, on health care, on child care, on training for jobs, on anything; the money could be better spent on anything but war.
END MONTAGE
RUSH: (sighs) All right, you were the -
CRYSTAL: The third one.
RUSH: You were the third person, right, "We have reasons to be concerned..."
CRYSTAL: Yes.
RUSH: "...the issue should be addressed", others were talking about how we could better spend this money on education and, uh, health care an all that.
CRYSTAL: Right, well there have been severe budget cuts throughout - especially at CUNY schools here. There are students that are going to school full time, and working two jobs, and they can't afford a $1400 tuition hike. These are real concerns for people, especially students; but the movement isn't entirely composed of liberals and students, it's people from various political backgrounds, including conservatives like yourself. You cannot, you know, call me a valley girl based upon what I said, I don't understand how you get that.
RUSH: Well -
CRYSTAL: Weeell?
RUSH: - I called you a valley girl based just on the way you were speaking, not what you were saying...
CRYSTAL: Okay, so why don't you respond to what I was saying, now?
RUSH: Well, you were talking about, "We have reasons to be concerned, and the issue should be addressed." I think that, in a nutshell, see, I am opposed to war; I don't like it any more than anybody else does -
CRYSTAL: Mm-hmm.
RUSH: - but I'm also a realist, and the idea that we are not spending enough on education is absolutely wrong, and a joke, we're spending more than we need to be spending -
CRYSTAL: Well, do you deny that there have been budget cuts, there are proposed budget cuts, and that these things are inhibiting people from getting the education that they're supposed to be getting in this country?
RUSH: I do.
CRYSTAL: Yes? You do deny?
RUSH: I do de - we are spending more -
CRYSTAL: (simultaneously) Well then, I would say that you need to be at home more, because this is a serious problem -
RUSH: Crystal - Crystal - Crystal -
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Brandon] [edit]
RUSH: So, Crystal, has the federal budget ever once gotten smaller, from year to year? It hasn't. We are spending more on education than we have ever in this country's history spent. The amount, we have almost a net fifty percent increase from one year to the next when President allowed Senator Kennedy to, in essence, write the current education bill.
CRYSTAL: And how much are we going to be spending on this war? How do you , and not only justify the war, but justify where that money is going to be going when it could be going to causes throughout this country
RUSH: Crystal, let me ask you, could you name the price for me for national security. What is a price that you would not pay -
CRYSTAL: Well, I think that in order to do that you need to define what national security is, and I think that -
RUSH: Now don't, don't, we all know what we're talking about here when we talk about national security -
CRYSTAL: No we don't, no we don't -
RUSH: Yes we do, yes we do, are you telling - you do not -
CRYSTAL: No, because there's many different ideas as to what that means, and what, you know, when you're talking about national security (disappears under Rush's speech)
RUSH: Okay, let's, I'll define it for you since you insist on being obstinate, since you insist on being - I'll define it for you -you ever heard of 9/11, September 11, I'm sure you know about that...
CRYSTAL: I was here for 9/11, and I understand what happened....
RUSH: Okay, then you know that 3,000 Americans - hold it - you know that 3,000 Americans died -
CRYSTAL: Yes!
RUSH: And we were unprovoked, there's nothing that we did...
CRYSTAL: Thank you, but Iraq is not connected to September 11. There is no proof that that is true, there's no proof that al Qaida has anything to do with Iraq, those are all speculations -
RUSH: (underneath Crystal at various times) No, not true, not true, and that's not, it isn't, it, no, look, that, Crystal, Crystal.
CRYSTAL: - you cannot impose a war on our people and on the people of Iraq due to speculations and accusations and suspicion that not only are not proven, but are, you know, haven't even begun to justify a war, it's absolutely absurd what is going on right now.
RUSH: It is not absurd, you should be thankful that there are people willing to take the steps necessary to protect you so you can utter all these platitudes...
CRYSTAL: I am thankful -
RUSH: ...in the future in relative safety and security. You wanna get sidetracked in whether al Qaida was connected to Iraq or not back then, ignoring full well that Saddam Hussein is manufacturing weapons that he would be more than happy to sell, or give, to al Qaida operatives to use just as they did, or in ways that are worse, in future attacks.
CRYSTAL: (indistinct under Rush's words)
RUSH: The purpose of this, wait a minute, Crystal, wait a minute. Now listen to me once. Listen to me one time here. The whole objective here is the safety and the protection of the American people. President Bush is charged with saving and protecting American lives and defending the Constitution. 3,000 American died in one terrorist attack, and it was by no means the first. It was the first big one on this country's shores other than the first one in 1993.
There are all kinds of evidence, bits of evidence, that suggest the al Qaida people are now in - 400 al Qaida people are in Iraq, but I don't want to get sidetracked on that because it's not the point. The point is that terrorism is linked, regardless, you wanna - Iraq, Iran, or wherever. We fought World War II, and Japan and Germany were not linked at all, but we fought 'em both at the same time, we didn't say, "Why are we going off to World War II? Japan has nothing to do with Germany".
There were people that were attacking the United States, there were people that had designs on us. They still do. The threat level is continually high. The President's decision here is to defend and protect lives of the American people. Iraq is linked to this. Hang on a minute, we'll continue after this time out, don't go away.
[ad: Metro Directories]
[News]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Kim] [edit]
[traffic report]
[weather update]
[news break]
[this hour brought to you by Dr. Soy Protein Bars]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[ad: Tires Plus Stores]
[promo for 94.9 Lite FM]
[promo for Dr. Laura's show]
Rush: Here we are, on Open Line Friday- from the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. We welcome back Crystal, from the protest march of a couple days ago.
Crystal: When you're talking about national security, Rush, I'm wondering WHAT you're thinking about securing- because when here in the U.S., we're being stripped of alot of rights and liberties that we're supposed to be defending? Have you heard of Patriot Act I and II- detention, special registration? All going on in this country. If we're trying to defend liberty, that what we need to be doing is questioning what exactly is going on- I mean, what is...
Rush: Let me- let me ask you a couple questions here...
Crystal: Uh-huh
Rush: Before the break, you were adamnant that there were no linkages whatsoever between Al Queda- say, and Saddam Hussein- and Iraq. And that there was no- I guess, from that, that we really- in terms of the uh, war on terror- we got nothing to fear from Hussein, correct? Well, who are your intelligence sources? I wanna know who it is that tells you this- that you think has more credibility than Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice.
Crystal: Well okay, I read the transcripts- every one that Colin Powell has come before the U.N. There is no proof- HE has no proof, what he has presented isn't proof, so I don't understand. Where-where are YOU getting your information, because, e-mail it says- *unintelligle because Rush is talking over her*...
Rush: Well no, no- no, I'll tell you...
Crystal: ..page after page
Rush: No- no, I'll tell you...
Crystal: I don't understand where...
Friday, March 7, 2003. part six
02:30:00. [31: Drew] [edit]
[ Rush talked over Crystal several times during this segment, and he likely muted her at least once. I tried to transcribe as much of what she said as was audible. ]
Rush: Would you please? Can we have a conversation here, instead of -
Crystal: All right, all right.
Rush: You know what you're proving here is that we're wasting the money we've spent on your education.
Crystal: Okay. All right.
Rush: One of your big concerns here is that all your education - and based on the way you're carrying on here, whatever we're spending on yours has been totally wasted. Now,
Crystal: All right [indistinct] excuse me.
Rush: I'm gonna answer this. You've said that you've read the Powell transcripts. Well, I've listened to Powell, and I listened to him today. I listened to him two weeks ago when he addressed the UN. I listened to him when he spoke to CSIS a few days ago. I trust Colin Powell, and I trust this administration.
Crystal: I -
Rush: I want to know who you're listening to that you trust over this administration.
Crystal: I trust myself. I don't trust anybody. Believe me, nothing anybody tells me [indistinct]
Rush: Okay, so -
Crystal: But I have read -
Rush: Now wait a minute, let's examine that. You don't know anything. You don't know - all you know is that you don't believe Powell.
Crystal: Well, no. I want you to tell me what it is that Powell has said that proves this linkage. Because what I'm saying is even if everything he's saying is entirely true, I don't think that it proves linkage that would justify a war. That's what I am saying.
Rush: Oh, okay. Well, I don't need that kind of proof.
Crystal: Okay, so -
Rush: I don't - no. I don't think this has ever been about linkage to al-Queda.
Crystal: Okay, so what is it then.
Rush: I think that's - I think that's added icing on the cake. But there is a - there are two things at work here. Last fall, the Congress of the United States demanded that the President get another resolution from them authorizing the use of force against Iraq if Iraq failed to comply with UN resolution 1441.
The President got that resolution from Congress. It was overwhelmingly voted for by members of both parties. Then resolution 1441 came about, where all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council agreed that Saddam Hussein must finally abide by all the resolutions since 1991 and ultimately disarm, and that if he didn't, that would constitute a material breach, and authorize the use of force to remove him from power and to disarm that country.
Crystal: Yes, but what you're failing to recognize here -
Rush: He has failed to honor the terms of the resolution. He has failed to honor the terms of the resolution. That is enough.
Crystal: No, but -
Rush: He is a member of the world community who is building - this is pointless. He is a member of the world community who is building weapons of mass destruction that could kill you, that could kill me, whether they're in his hands, or in the hands of others he might sell or give them to.
Crystal: There's no proof that he's resurrected the nuclear program there.
Rush: I'm not talking about nuclear. I haven't even gotten to nuclear. I'm talking about nerve gas [indistinct]. Hans Blix said today -
Crystal: He has offered up -
Rush: Hans Blix said today that he hasn't even accounted for some of the VX and the mustard gas.
Crystal: Hans Blix is not for war. All right, and he has -
Rush: What does that have to do with anything?
Crystal: What it has to do with is that the man who is at the top of inspections is saying what we need is more time for inspections. Not what we need is a military -
Rush: Crystal -
Crystal: action.
Rush: The man has had 14 years to disarm. This is a joke. He is not disarming. There haven't been inspectors in there since 1998.
You know what I want to know from you?
Crystal: Yeah?
Rush: What's the real reason you oppose this country.
Crystal: I do not oppose this country.
Rush: Yes you do. It is patently obvious you oppose this country. You're not opposed to war. You're opposed to America.
Crystal: And where do you get that?
Rush: Where are these anti-Saddam signs in your march, Crystal. Where are - you know, Saddam Hussein murders his own citizens. He gasses them, he poisons them. The children of Iraq are poisoned and forced to watch their parents die.
Crystal: You start name-calling. I am not against this country.
Rush: I am not - I have yet to call you a name.
Crystal: I am probably one of the most patriotic people in this country.
Rush: I have yet to call you a name. I'm asking you questions.
Crystal: Defending what its values, and what we value in this country is liberty and freedom.
Rush: Crystal, that is what is at stake here. Do you want to live with constant threat levels facing you every day when you get up?
Crystal: That's not going to be changed - in fact, going to war in Iraq will only increase the terrorist threat in this country.
Rush: You are a walking cliché.
Crystal: A walking cliché.
Rush: You are a walking cliché.. Let me give you an analogy, Crystal. Let me ask you a question. In the basement of your house are six rattle snakes.
Crystal: I've heard your analogy before.
Rush: Well, what are you going to do about it?
Crystal: How many rattlesnakes are you going to kill, exactly? I mean, what are we talking about? We're talking about Iraq, and then what?
Rush: Well, I'm trying to understand the way you think. I'm trying to understand - you will not answer any of my -
Crystal: There has not been a rational argument for this war. This war is not justified. And the majority of the world recognizes that.
Rush: Okay, hey, then, hey, wait a second, Crystal. Give me a rational war - argument for war.
Crystal: A rational argument for war [indistinct]. There's what they have been saying is that there are terrorist connections -
Rush: No, no. You're not answering my question. I want from you what you consider to be a rational argument for war. Was it rational -
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Brandon] [edit]
RUSH: ...that we went to Kosovo. Were you protesting our war in Kosovo?
CRYSTAL: I was too young to protest the war in Kosovo.
RUSH: Really? It was only three years ago, Crystal, how old are you?
CRYSTAL: I'm 19.
RUSH: 19. So when you were 15 and 16 you had no idea what was going on - you've learned a lot in four years.
CRYSTAL: I, you're getting off topic, the point is: This war, what we are dealing with right now, at this moment, this war will change the lives of every person living in this world, and the world does not want this war. If this war is waged-
RUSH: Crystal-
CRYSTAL: - it will be pushed by a small minority of people in power...
RUSH: Crystal-
CRYSTAL: with absolutely no regard for the will of the world, and you cannot deny that.
RUSH: Yes I can, I can show you the polls of people -
CRYSTAL: No you can't, over seventy percent in England, in Britain, you can just go through every single country -
RUSH: Seventy-five, Crys - take her down, take her down a minute, this is - you know, you will not even listen. I don't know how in the world you learn anything, you know it all. You're 19, and you know it all. You won't tell me where the anti-Saddam Hussein signs are in your march. You won't tell me why you didn't protest the war in Kosovo, you see, you didn't even know it was going on. In three or four years since then, you now know everything.
Seventy-five percent of the people in Great Britain just this week voted for war with Iraq. The vast majority of the people in this country are for war with Iraq. You, Crystal, are in the minority. You and the couple hundred that joined you are not anywhere near the majority of the people in this country. Thank goodness. You cannot tell me what is a rational reason for war; you evade that question. You won't answer any question I ask you. You are a walking cliche when it comes to dealing with problems.
If we listened to people who think like you do, we would not ever try to apprehend any criminal because to do so would make that criminal even angrier, and he might be even meaner than he otherwise is. So we should let the bad people, the bad guys of the world, just do what they're doing, they're starving their own people in Saddam Hussein's case, I can't believe, with as much concern as people like you profess to have for liberty, and civil rights, and human rights, I can't believe you're willing to sit idly by and let the people of Iraq be summarily murdered, tortured, gassed, and live under total totalitarianism.
I don't understand where your compassion is. You can't give me a rational reason for what you believe. You can't tell me who it is that's telling you what you know that's more than Colin Powell knows. All you can say is, you haven't heard Colin Powell say anything.
The thing that amazes me about all of you is that you don't understand what it has taken to preserve circumstances in this country to allow you to do what you're doing. I would submit to you that what you're doing is not courageous; I don't even think you're practicing dissent. You're exercising your free speech rights. So what? Big deal. You're saying what you believe. Nobody stops you in this country, so you're really not doing it under duress. Try saying what you're saying, and doing what you're doing, in Iraq. Go to Iraq and protest Saddam Hussein, and see how long you survive. And then I'll talk to you about how courageous you're being with your dissent.
But to just sit here and mouth these platitudes and these cliches, and to say you're for nonviolence, and that war is going to make it worse for everybody in this country; let me ask you, after World War II, was the world a worse place or a better place? After World War I, was the world a better place or a worse place? You know, the only time you get peace in America, Crystal, is after victory. Victory in war. Marching in the streets and carrying signs and saying we need more money for education, and milk, and free water, whatever it is, is not what brings peace. People who are committed to preserving our ideals, and are willing to sacrifice for them, is what preserves them.
And if you're going to sit there and continue to say that you won't want to see any link between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, you're free to say it, and you're free to believe it; but I just thank the Lord every day that people like you are not in charge of events, because the threat level that we face every day would be twice what it is. If people like you, and the people that you associate with, actually assume positions of power in this country someday, then the people of the world like Saddam Hussein are going to have a cakewalk.
Because when you look at evil, you don't see it. When you look at decency and goodness and character and honor, you see evil. Apparently. And it boggles the minds of those of us who try as hard as we can to understand why you think the way you do. And I'm sorry, but I am no clearer today understanding why you think the way you do than I was before I talked to you. Back in just a second. Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Brandon] [edit]
[Bumper]
[Station ID]
[ad: General Steel Corporation]
[ad: FX Original Movie: The Pentagon Papers]
[ad: D Decker Painting]
[Bumper: POTUS: Evidently some of the world don't view Saddam Hussein as a risk to peace. I respectfully disagree.]
[Station ID]
RUSH: And back we are, this is the EIB network, Open Line Friday, Pittsburgh, and Doug, you're next. Welcome sir, nice to have you with us.
DOUG: (indistinct). You know, Crystal really set me off. She sat there and was spouting these platitudes about how she wanted the military money to be spent for her education, and what she's gotta realize is that she - her education is a privilege and not a right, and she doesn't need to go and have all that money given to her. Um, I mean, she sat there and you heard a lot of feeling, but she was very short on the facts in her, uh, oh I guess in the platitudes that she was giving -
RUSH: You know, this happens a lot, I wouldn't say a lot, but it's predictable that when there are conflicts like this, that students will call and say things that make it sound as though they think they're entitled to other people paying for their education. It happened some six months ago when there was another protest about something in New York. It's predictable, I mean, she's 19, I mean it figures. I've got some numbers here, and it'll shock you, I think. This is from the US Department of Education, and from 1999 to the current year in terms of education spending: We have increased spending from 1999 to 2004 sixty-five percent. Roughly, in 1999 we spent $37 billion on education; this year, next year 2004 we'll spend $61 billion.
DOUG: Amazing.
RUSH: Now, I - for anybody to say that we're not spending enough on education is, is just, it's ignorance, it's a failed, wrong ideology, it's a whole bunch of things, but - and then... Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Immaadd2] [edit]
RUSH: Look at what were getting for it... you know, I mean if - if - if uh, it were getting bright educated people with uh-uh a decent education it would be one thing but look what we're getting for this money
DOUG: Absolutely... the other thing that she - she said that, she talked about was she also makes it sound like the military intelligence is her right and her purview to know that. That's not her right and her purview. You know, they are secrets; you don't build and effective military an effective plan if you announce to the world everything that you know. I think that's why you get a lot of rope-a-dope on, "Where's Osama bin Laden? Did we did we catch him or didn't we catch him? Did we catch his kids or didn't we catch 'em?" Well, you know, if everybody knows what's going on and you can't go and effectively attack them by, you know, setting up weather it be, you know, military options or you um, um uh I guess the other one would be domes...um, diplomatic options.
RUSH: Well.. Either way I do... I - I agree but even when you ask them, alright look, if you don't, if you don't believe what Colin Powell's saying, who do you believe. They - they can't answer... who is tha - who is their intelligence sources, their - their their, they don't have any.
Uhm, it it - it's sort of frustrating and sad at the same time cause what - what happens here is you get a litany of cliches. It is echo of what they been taught. They're parroting what they been taught by their professors and and their friends and uhm, and who ever knows who else. It's all designed to make them feel good after they've said it. Uh, they think they're being worldly, and uhh, big hearted and open minded instead of close minded and this sort of thing. You only hope, that as they get older uhm, they eventually get straightened out on some of this stuff. Doug, I appreciate it. Thanks much.
Josh, Knoxville Tennessee you're next. Great to have you with us.
JOSH: Hi Rush.
RUSH: Hi.
JOSH: I - I'm sixteen years old but, uh, I'm still pretty active in politics and I love listening to your show. Uh, I just want to comment on uh, the caller Crystal like the last caller did. When she said that, uh, America as a peace loving country, its all about liberty and peace. I feel that if we're about liberty and peace we should want to restore liberty and peace to the Iraqi people and I think it is rather selfish of her, to not really care about what happens to them.
RUSH: Yeah, that is that is a mystery. It's it's one of, uh, the things that I asked her that she doesn't have any answers for. Where are the anti-Saddam signs? If you're anti-war, you're anti-war. If you're anti-oppression, you're anti-oppression. If you're against people who are denying liberty and freedom, then where are the anti-Saddam signs in these marches? And you won't find 'em. They don't exist. For all I know, they don't even know what life in Iraq is like. Maybe they don't even care. But when they find out they don't even seem to be moved by it.
So, anyway, well, it's great knowing you out there, Josh, at age sixteen, you have a great future ahead of you. Stay on the current path you find yourself.
This is Tammy in Peabody Massa - is that right? Massachusetts?
TAMMY: Yes, that's correct.
RUSH: Hi Tammy.
TAMMY: Hi, I just wanted to say that, uh, of course I'm from Massachusetts and I'm just very dis - dumbfounded at this Ted Kennedy, we should have gone after North Korea instead of Iraq and, umm, my whole problem with that is that if we - we went after North Korea instead of Iraq, we would have the exact same world reaction. Crystal would feel the exact same way about North Korea than she does about Iraq. The reaction would be exactly the same. It is...
RUSH: Well -
TAMMY: ...complete fantasy for Ted Kennedy...
RUSH: Look -
TAMMY: ...to say...
RUSH: The demo yeah, you know, this is where the democrats are digging a grave for themselves. The the they just taking they- they don't want anymore go into North Korea than they want to go into Iraq. If if the president said "Okay, Ted, you're right, I'm gonna - I'm gonna launch a mititary strike against North Korea", Ted Kennedy (chuckle) would be proposing opposition to that as soon as he could figure out that that's what the case was, the thing that-
Look, I don't want to be a broken record here, but North Korea is not nearly the threat Iraq is. They've announced what they've got, for crying out loud. The the, Iraq is hiding it. The whole point here if North Korea is bad, then you don't want Iraq becoming another one do you?
Anyway, gotta go here folks because the constraints of broadcast time, back with our close in a moment.
[ad: EIB]
[ad: newsradio 640 WGST]
[ad: Black Swan Wine]
[ad: Osteobyflex?]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Osteo Bi-Flex]
[promo for a charity event by the Kimmer- the Kimmer Not the Snowball Irish Open 2003]
[ad: Trade Secrets seminar- stock advice]
[ad: Atlanta Business Chronicle]
[station id]
Rush: Alright folks, we uh- do not have time to be fair or even unfair with uh- with another call because they just have enough time left. We've got an announcement here, just to remind you- I will not be here Monday. I've got a charity commitment that I made and it is a daytime thing and I will uh- therefore be away. Tom Sullivan will be sitting in on Monday.
On Tuesday, we'll be back and I'll give some thought to the idea that I should respond to Clinton- and his uh, 45 second 60 Minutes commentary. And we'll,uh- we'll let you know- at my website. I'll tell you what I think about it- we'll put a little note up there on the website as to whether or not we'll do that- coming up on Tuesday. We'll just see.
In the meantime, hope you have a great weekend and uh- if the weather's bad where you are, I hope it improves. Have a great one, see you soon- adios and cheerio.
[station id]
[ad: Hill Air Charter]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[news break- top story: the showdown with Saddam]
Friday, March 7, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Tom] [edit]
[local news]
[national news]
[international news]
[Ari fork tongue spins for the junta]
[local news]
[stock news]
[more local news]
[warmongering propaganda]
[ad for mortgage quote dot com]
[ad for Home Depot]
| 
