3.21.2003
Monday, March 17, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Kim] [edit]
[ad: The Intelligent Office]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[promo for a contest on FM station]
[ad: Enzyte, an alternative to Viagra]
[station id]
Rush: Well, I guess this is it, folks. This is, uh- and I'm sure I speak for many of you when I say this is the day we've all been waiting for. Maybe I should say this is the week- that we've all been waiting for. Certainly this is, uh- an exciting day for investors.
The Dow Jones Industrial average way up- right now at 185. The Nasdaq up almost almost 35 points- exactly as I predicted would be the case. Rather than the opposite- "Oh no, the oil prices are gonna skyrocket, the markets are going to blow up" - no, my friends, it's just the opposite. Victory will go a long way toward- oh, bringing certainty to many areas here that appear to be uncertain and cloudy- when they're really aren't.
Greetings- welcome. Nice to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh- the EIB network. The nation's most listened to talk show, the nation's most eagerly anticipated each day- radio talk show. A talk show and program which provides show prep for the rest of the media which follow this afternoon and tonight. Here's the telephone number if you'd like to join us, it's 800-282-2882 and the e-mail address- rush@eibnet.com.
The President will address the nation tonight at eight o'clock- from the White House and, uh- this is- this is not THE speech. This is- I guess you'd call it the penultimate speech- penultimate meaning the second to last speech. The, uh- this speech tonight will get Hussein a period of time to exit and vacate Iraq- 72 hours is what's being reported today.
The inspectors have been told to scram, and get out of- uh, get out of Iraq. There's no second resolution, it has been withdrawn. There will not be a vote- and I'll tell you why this was done- and the original thinking here was "Lets make people show their cards- in an up and down vote."
Well, there was no way the vote was- the outcome of the vote didn't matter, even if we had nine votes or more, the French were going to veto. So it didn't make any difference- and the administration- quite correctly, did not want to, uh- even get into this mess that Kofi Annan and the Democrats in this country- along with the pro-Saddam movement around the world, and in this country would charge us with international law violations. And in fact
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Kim] [edit]
here in the stack of stuff that I'll be getting to. But uh, Tony Blair has been told that he will be tried as a war criminal at the International Criminal Court, if we go through with this.
Now I told you people there's a reason you don't get involved with this U.N. stuff, you don't do Kyoto. You don't support *inaudible* sovereignity to world bodies and world courts, like this International Criminal Court. Remember, people said the purpose of the International Criminal Court is simply a trap, to be able to ensnare American soldiers- as war criminals.
And lo and behold, here the- the- I'm sorry, John Howard, not Blair- it's Howard, the Australian Prime Minister has been told- that he will be *clearing his throat, a little Bill Buckley impression*. Um, he will be pursued as a war criminal by the International Criminal Court if he- if he proceeds with all this.
Let's- uh, review the audiotape today to give you a side- the British were really really demonstrative today. Jeremy Greenstock let the French have it- and let the world have it. We only have one soundbite to show you, but it's enough.
But I want to start with Mohammed al-Baradei- who heads up the International Atomic Agency- Atomic- whatever it is, IAEA- the United Nations. This is, um- from this morning and this is sort of funny. Listen to what the guy said.
Al-Baradei: "Late last night however, I was apprised by the United States government to pull out our inspections from Baghdad. Similiar advice had been given to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission- UNMOVIC. I immediately informed the President of the Security Council and asked for guidance."
Rush: What do you mean, asked for guidance? I mean, you don't need guidance-you're told to get the inspectors out of there, get 'em out. What do you mean, ask for guidance? So he called- when he says he called the President of the Security Council, is- is that the guy from Guinea?
He called a guy from Guinea- uh, where they don't even have electricity seven days a week- well, they got electricity three days a week from midnight to six in the morning, but uh, they didn't even call Kofi Annan, just called a guy from Guinea to seek, um, guidance. And so the guidance was given and the- uh, you know, we're flying them out on- on our planes.
We have promised them safe passage. We promised to get them out of there safely, they're checking out of their hotels even now. Here's a little bit of Jeffrey Greenstock- or Jeremy Greenstock. He is the uh, British ambassador to the U.N.
Greenstock: "The co-sponsors have agreed that we will not pursue a vote on the draft- U.K., U.S., Spanish resolution in blue. The communiques and press statements that issued at the Azores summit explained the positions of our governments on the way forward. The co-sponsors reserve their right to take their own steps to secure the disarmament of Iraq."
Rush: This is crystal clear. Translation- we're going, and we're going alone and we're not going with the U.N. Security Council- we're not going with the United Nations period. What he also said here, he talked about, uh- in- in not going for the final vote on this second resolution- he said it became clear that one country- was going to stand in the way of this with the exercise of it's veto, regardless of the votes.
Greenstock implied they had the votes- Greenstock implied we had the votes at the Security Council- didn't say so specifically, but implied it and then said it didn't matter, because one country was going to violate anyway. And then he got another shot in at the French, when he said that the, - uh, resolution proposed by Britian last week, that had six benchmarks for Hussein- really three primary benchmarks for Hussein.
So the French rejected it before Iraq even did. So that told us what the- what the game was- or we're not even going to mess with the second resolution, it won't be proposed, it will not be voted upon. This then, drew a response from the French ambassador, Jean-Marc de La Sabliere.
I have- a little- little story here, last night- we had a-we were guests at a dinner party here last night and the guest of honor was a gentleman and his wife from France- nice people. And-and uh, his name was Bernard- so then I tried to pronounce his name in French, cause- we- everybody, we were having a good time.
Everybody said Rush, meet Bernard and I said Bair-nard- and my wife- "No, no, no, it's not- don't say it like a German, it's- it's Beir-nard." So I tried saying it back and- Beir-nard himself said, "Look, I'll make it easy on you. Just call me Bernie." So- *laughing* I said, okay Bernie. Now we're on the same page. So anyway, here is Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, he is the- again, French ambassador to the U.N.- he followed Jeremy Greenstock.
La Sabliere: The majority of the council confirmed- confirmed that they do not want to authorize a use of force. They considered- the majority considered that it will not be legitimate- whereas inspection is producing results- to take such a decision...."
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Kim] [edit]
...anyway, he went on to also say they didn't have the votes, he disputed what Greenstock said. He said we do not have the votes, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, but he clearly had his dander up.
The French have already begun- uh, a couple of CYA maneuvers, ladies and gentlemen. Um, they are promising us over-fly rights if- if we need to fly over France to do anything here. And they're also asking us to forgive them for any role they may have played in arming Saddam with his weapons of mass destruction.
Oh, that's another thing. Saddam today admitted that he's always had these things, but he got rid of them. He said, "Yes, I had weapons of mass destruction, but I no longer do. I got rid of them." Now for those of you who have been out there saying you don't believe it, you have never seen the evidence- nobody's been able to connect the dots for you.
Your hero, Saddam Hussein admitted it himself. Admitted he had weapons of mass destruction, which means he still does. He said he got rid of them a long time ago, but that he did have them. In the meanwhile, there've been people protesting in the streets of all these international capitols, claiming they've never seen the evidence and they haven't been able to connect the dots.
And see, this connecting the dots business is amazing. I was talking about this morning earlier with the program observer- Cheney did a great job yesterday on Meet The Press, we have some audio from that too. But he was- I think he did a great job in talking about this whole business of connecting the dots and making it explicitly clear that the truth is the truth.
And we were marveling here at the ability of the left- and I'm talking about mainstream Democrats- mainstream Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle. Who have no doubt been shown the dossiers and the classified material from our government on what Saddam has, but they insist publicly they haven't seen enough- that we haven't properly connected the dots here and yet, it's crystal clear.
There isn't any doubt, especially now with Saddam's own admission. And yet, the things that these people do believe, these fantasies- like oil, no blood for oil and this is all about oi- the dots they are able to connect are pure fantasy. And it goes right to what I have been saying, for recent years- well, months- and that is that the left kooks are becoming the lefts mainstream.
And they are so devoid of reality, that they simply refuse to see it and instead will believe fantasy. They live in a little dream world. You just saw this story out of Israel, where this 22 year old girl- imagining herself to be a human shield, got bulldozed- and died in Gaza. Um, she was not seen by the bulldozer operator and she got plowed over- trying to be a human shield.
And I sometimes wonder- if the people on the left, not only in this country, but around the world- have a grasp on reality. You know, liberalism is close to socialism, which exists in the world of utopia. They have all these fantastic dreams of perfection. They have all these dreams of- uh, idealism. And of course, that's all they are because perfection and idealism are practically impossible- since human beings are involved and we're all flawed.
It's- it's not possible, but- it's- in one case, I guess it's admirable to have this desire quest, but it's absolutely ridiculous to make it your reality and be rooted in it- because such is not reality. And I don't- sometimes wonder if these people standing in front of a bulldozer do not think it's real.
They place themselves in harms way as human shields and actually believe that their presence will stop the course of history. They think their presence will stop actions from taking place. It is, um- I don't know, it's- it's breathtaking here and you- you shudder even more when you realize that this kind of world view, and this kind of thinking- is slowly and surely co-opting the mainstream of the Democratic party.
Let me give you another illustration, this from Andy Rooney last night on 60 Minutes- grab audio sound bite number 14- as we go out of order here. And I have mentioned on this program so many times that there is abject hatred for George Bush, the man- that this anti-Americanism that we see in this country and around the world- it's really not anti-Americanism, it's anti-Bushism.
They hate Bush- just like they hated Reagan, they hate conservatism, they hate people who are morally certain. They don't like people and trust people who have a definite idea of right and wrong and can see it when they see it- and can know it when they see it and are confident when they see it. They just don't trust people who are firm in their opinions, nobody's supposed to be that sure of themselves.
And then you couple it- and this is the killer. If you- if you're Reagan or you're Bush, you couple this with the fact that they rely on their faith for alot of their certitude, and that just sends these people into a tizzy. Because to them that's the combination of church and state, that's obscene, that should not happen- "Why, how dare anyone impose their religious views on the rest of us."
And, that's not what it is- in any shape, manner or form- and the idea that these people don't understand it is quite illustrative. But the hatred for Bush- amongst Democrats in this country, liberals around the world, is- is so real- that if given the chance....
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Kim] [edit]
.. manifests itself in the ultimate harm to this country. Remember, I have said, and I've pointed out routinely on this program how odd it is- and fortunate for us actually. The Democrats have positioned themselves politically in this country to benefit when the country is harmed.
They've got themselves situated so that they only benefit politically if the country is harmed. If the economy goes south- in the recession, the Democrats think they're in great shape. If we lose the war with Iraq, or if it goes bad. If there are alot of casualties, they win. And they've set this up on purpose.
They've done their best to position themselves so that harm to America equals good for them. Who would want that position? Who would want to carve a political position for themselves in such a way. But they've done it- and now they're in a situation where if the war goes well, they're left out in the cold. If the economy comes roaring back, they are left out in the cold.
And both are going to happen. And they're going to be left out in the cold. Listen to this little bite from Andy Rooney last night.
Andy Rooney: "I have friends now who own alot of stock, but they dislike George W Bush so much, that they hope the stock market keeps going down- even though they're losing money- just so he won't get re-elected."
Rush: Just so he- just so Bush will somehow be hurt. Just so America will somehow be hurt- they'll take it in the shorts themselves. And this is becoming the mainstream position of the Democratic party. It is the mainstream position of the world's left- which opposes America. We'll take a quick break, be right back with more in a moment.
[promo for Rush on the EIB network]
[station id]
[ad: spoken ad by Rush for General Steel Buildings]
[ad: The Doctors Nightguard- mouth guard to protect against grinding your teeth at night]
[ad: Posture-D]
[ad: Hi-Fi Buys]
[ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, a mountain estate properties development]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Kim] [edit]
[promo for Rush on WGST]
Rush: Just to make it fair, Rush Limbaugh- the all knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned maharashi from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Did you wanna hear a cowboy answer? Let me- let me give you a cowboy answer. This was yesterday in the Azores- when uh, President Bush, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar- and by the way, you do pronounce the Z in spanish TH- like Jose Maria *unintelligible*.
So it's Jose Maria Ath-nar- along with Tony Blair. An unidentified reporter said to President Bush- said, "Mr President, before I ask my question, I just want to nail down one thing so there's no confusion. When you talk about tomorrow being the moment of truth, are you saying that is the..."
Bush: "Is this the question? Or you're trying to work in two questions?"
Reporter: "Yes sir, because there's one thing we need to make clear- when you say tomorrow is the moment of truth, does that mean tomorrow's the last day that the resolution can be voted up or down, and that at the end of the day tomorrow, one way or another, the diplomatic window has closed?"
Bush: "That's what I'm saying."
Reporter: "Thank you, sir."
Rush: (laughing) That's what I'm saying- that's what I'm saying. And as it turns out there is no, um, second resolution and they're not going to put it up for a vote. The French had promised to veto it- the French are taking it on the chin now, from the Brits and from the Americans.
Colin Powell also made a couple of statements at 10:45 this morning- and basically echoed what the uh-the British ambassador to the United Nations, Jeremy Greenstock said. Also gave a little bit of a preview of the President's remarks tonight, that'll be at eight o'clock- uh, from the- from the White House.
French officials today also dismissed suggestions- this is the beginning, by the way- of the CYA, uh- of the French. They're beginning now to try to- cover their rear-end here. French officials today dismissed suggestions that they had knowingly helped Iraq obtain biological weapons, but they conceded that they may have had ulterior motives for scientific cooperation dating back 20 years. They're now saying Saddam fooled us.
"We didn't know about it, and it's not just us. Everybody did it." They are adopting the Bill Clinton defense- uh, ladies and gentlemen. Everybody did it, everybody had an intern in the Oval Office, everybody had a mistress- everybody this, everybody th- oh, and have you seen this little blurb that showed up in the Washington Whispers portion of the- uh, U.S. News and World Report? About Clinton being entirely derelict?
I mean, I-I don't want to lead with this today, because there are other more important things, but we're going to be getting to this. He lost the nuclear codes, they couldn't- on- on the day that the Lewinsky story broke. Yes, he lost the nuclear codes- they couldn't find the football. And there are a couple-a couple of other things.
The- the situation room was trying to get hold of him one day- to try to get permission to actually kill Bin Laden. They had Bin Laden and- they couldn't find Clinton, or Clinton didn't respond to phone calls from the situation room. This is in a new book- that's coming out- a huge tell-all, uh, details will be coming up.
Anyway, the French are now in their CYA mode, and there's some- um, some confirmation here for the story that William Safire broke in his column on Friday- as well, we'll update that for you when we come back. Sit tight, the EIB network resumes in mere moments.
[ad: Trim Spa]
[Scott Trade]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Kim] [edit]
[Clearchannel station id]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather update]
[news break]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[promo for the Kimmer, following Rush]
[ad: American Equity Mortgage]
[ad: Triple A Mortgage]
[promo for a Sunday cooking show, brought to you in part by Whole Food Markets]
[promo for the Kimmer, after Rush]
Rush: Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, ladies and gentlemen- talent on loan from God. Our telephone number, 800-282-2882.
Last night I was asked if it is getting to the point in Iraq, where the climate makes war prohibitive. And I- I wanna take just- just a few- precious and spare moments here to say something in total support of the U.S. military. And I'm amazed- I'm amazed how the record- the U.S. military is one of...
Monday, March 17, 2003 part two
[07: Shane] [edit][edited: Michael]
... awesome competence.
The record of the U.S military is second to none in the world. Therefore how people can assume that we will lose, anywhere we go, is beyond me. There is simply no evidence of it. We don't lose and we don't lose because we're the best and we're the best with a volunteer force.
That means that they do it because they love it, people doing it because they are committed to it, people doing it because they want to do it. People, people go to the army and the navy and the air force and the marines for the same reason other people choose other careers. They want to go where they can be the best they can be.
And it will show itself to be the case whenever hostilities commence in Iraq, this notion that the weather in Iraq a makes our efforts some what hampered. We've been there for how many weeks now six. Most of the troops maybe even the troops longer we have acclimatized. We have acclimated to the climate.
But we train in all weather, not only around the world, but in the United States. It's not that the United States needs specific weather conditions in order to be able to fight and win wars just because we don't ah... we have deserts in America and we train in them, we conduct war games in deserts.
It's not at though we're going to the desert for the first time in our lives with this currently constituted military force. This is the best equipped and the best trained military in the world.
Historically it's the case and it's the case now and I don't want to go on record with any predictions because who can know but I'm, I'm ah I'm so confident, I'm so optimistic about our military force, because of the people who are in it both at the officer and the enlisted levels, that I really don't see this being much protracted conflict and protracted might be a bit of an exaggeration. I don't see this lasting much...
I don't want to put days on it but I (stutters) I think we'll be able to measure this in days not weeks. Let me just put it that way. I think again the doubters and the detractors not only in this country and around the world are going to be dazed, I think they're going to be stunned, I think they're going to be overwhelmed, and a number of things. How proficient our troops are, how quickly they act, how soon it's over. I think people are going to be stunned to learn what has been going on in Iraq for the last four years, for the last ten years.
I think people are going to be amazed. I think that those who have stood in solidarity with Iraq and with Hussein are going to be so profoundly humiliated and embarrassed that many of us are going to sand up and cheer at the humiliation. I know I'm going to want to because it's going to be so richly deserved.
But I can understand being an American and disagreeing with certain policy, and I can understand being an American and having arguments over the best way to accomplish our common goals and our common desires, and I can understand our arguments and disagreements when it comes to things like that.
But to actively seek our defeat, to hold the hope that we lose, to see harm come, to see harm come to the people who wear the uniform simply to be victorious in a political idea or because you have a, a hatred or a dislike for the current administration that to me is un-called for. And, I've.... sadly I understand it given the current climate but I'm never going to accept it.
It's outrageous beyond the pale, but yet there are people who harbor these desires. They're hoping for a U.S defeat and U.S humiliation all because they think it will be the end of George W. Bush. And there are people rolling the dice that that's going to happen. There are people betting their political future on it.
I'm glad they are because they are going to lose and they are going to lose big because I'll guarantee you something folks. The United States military people who command it, and the people who follow those orders are once again going to make this country burst with pride.
People are going to be popping buttons with pride and honor over the work these people are about to do. It happens every time they're used. They always exceed expectations, they always perform above and beyond the call, they don't leave, they don't go AWOL, they don't do these things that it is always predicted that they will do.
And the casualties will be there, I'm sure there will be some but not nearly as many as those who are obsessed with negativism are predicting. It's only a matter of days now apparently a-and it appears, if we can believe everything that we are hearing today in advance to the President's speech tonight, there still is a chance to avoid all this. That is if Saddam Hussein and his cabal of l- leaders packed up and -
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Shane] [edit]
He is going to go into exile somewhere and supposedly he is going to be given seventy two hours to do that as your guess is as good as mine as to whether or not he 'll accept this offer. The conventional wisdom is there is no way he 'll do that he 'll stand and die and fight till the death and blah blah blah blah. I don't know I'm not, I'm not so sure. I'm of the opinion that he actually thought he could stop this.
I think the French, the French and the Germans are (stuttering) when this is over there will be blood, and I'm going to tell you on whose hands that blood will be. It will be the French and the Germans. Because this war was not necessary, had the French and the Germans simply gone along with what (stuttering) diplomatic route of the United Nations. Had a unified show of force from the United Nations actually occurred, then Saddam no doubt would have realized the truth and seen it for what it is and acted accordingly.
But he has been given false hope and a false sense of security ever since December eighth when he was allowed to present a false declaration to the United Nations under the terms of resolution 1441. And ever since then the French and the Germans have gone out for whatever reasons. We think we know what they are, but for whatever reasons the French and the Germans have given Hussein false hope that he can out last this as he always has with more fake phony destruction of weapons. More fake phony inspections.
But the one thing that wasn't counted on, although it probably was feared, one thing that wasn't counted on was the resolve of George W. Bush - the cowboy. And in regards to that I want to I want to play a little sound bite here from Dick Cheney here from Meet The Press.
Tim Russert says "You know there is a perception of our if you read any of the papers in Europe and around the world - the constant description of the pReident as a cowboy. And he wants to go it alone. That the president and you and the administration are perceived as extremely confident on foreign policy - has been stumbling. Hasn't reached out and nourished alliances. And if you mention the presidents name - a friend of mine wrote me a letter, Mr. Cheney. He said, "It's just like a blast furnace. They just respond and say he just wants to lead the world into war."
Mr. Cheney: "with respect to the charge about the presidents um I just think it's dead wrong. Um I've gotten to know this man very well. I work side by side with him everyday seven days a week - you know, 24/7 as they say. He has a great capability that I think is absolutely essential in an effective leader and that's the ability to cut to the heart of the issue. That I'm looking for analogies - I think Ronald Reagan. And I think as Reagan asked in the sense that um that president Regan understood for - that's basic fundamental facts.
Ah he went out at one point and referred to the Soviet Union as The Empire of Evil. Created consternation on both sides of the Atlantic. A lot of hand ringing. How could you possibly say the Soviet Union was The Empire of Evil? Well that was in fact, true. It guided his policy judgments. Um, he in turn ultimately lead the alliance in the right direction. And we ultimately prevailed in the cold war.
I look at President Bush, and I see for example, he is setting a whole new standard about how were going to deal with terror sponsoring states. In the past, many of our friends in Europe and elsewhere around the world, when they see a state that sponsored terror, frankly was willing to look the other way.
Not to hold them accountable for the fact that they were providing sanctuary for people who were out in the world doing evil things. After we got hit on 9/11 the president said no more, and enunciated the Bush doctrine. That we will hold states that sponsor terror, that provide sanctuary to terrorists to account. That they will be treated as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Whatever acts committed from bases on that soil.
That's a brand new departure. We've never done that before. It makes some people very uncomfortable. But it's absolutely essential as part of our strategy for taking down the al Quida organization, and for ending the terrorist threat that the United States has been forced to deal with over the years.
So the notion that the president is - is a cowboy, I don't know, is a westerner - I think that that's not necessarily a bad idea. I think the fact of the matter is he cuts to the chase, he is very direct and I find that very refreshing.
Rush: On the subject of al Quida and terrorism the president's approach is working. And where oh where have the democrats gone?
United Sates - this is the Washington Post yesterday - the United States within reach of dismantling, dismantling the leadership of the al Queda network responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Bush administration officials and U.S intelligence experts said that they are cautious here. They don't want to overstate their optimism about breaking up Al Queda and capturing Bin Ladin.
But people who receive regular briefings on U.S counter terrorism operations said the arrest and subsequent cooperation, under interrogation, of the al Queda lieutenant Khalid Sheik Mohammed this month, have given them concrete reasons to come to this conclusion. Porter Goss, Republican from Florida, chairman of the House intelligence committee and a former case officer at the CIA, said "I believe that the tide's turned in terms of al Quida we're at the top of the hill"
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Kim] [edit][edited: Michael]
... and his sentiments were echoed by a dozen other intelligence experts and law enforcement officials who have regular access to information about U.S. counter-terrorism operations. Goff said for the first time, they have more to fear from us than we have to fear from them.
Still, it was hard for CIA director George Tenet to hide his optimism. When asked during an encounter in the hallways of his headquarters last week, whether he felt the agency had turned a corner in its effort to dismantle Al-Qaeda, with the arrest of Mohammed. He said, "It's a very, very big deal, he and the material that he was apprehended with are extremely useful. It will- no, I can't say anything else."
But with an exuberant swing in the arms and his torso, and a big smile, George Tenet added, "Look, it's a big deal," before he scooted off down the hall.
So the question is- where, oh where have the Democrats gone? The headline of this story is- is Al Qaeda's Top Primed To Fall. But, isn't there a shortage of applause from the Democrats? Couldn't- shouldn't someone wake up Mrs. Clinton, remember her myth speech? In which she said that homeland security in the Bush administration is a myth? You know, that speech oughta go down in history with Richard Nixon's checkers speech.
And how about Tom Daschle from last November? When he said, "We haven't captured Bin Laden and that's the benchmark by which this is to be judged. I don't see where we're having any success whatsoever in the war on Al-Qaeda. This has all been a waste of time." Whatever it was he said. Where are the Democrats now applauding? Where are they acting in concert with the administration over this good news? They're not saying a word.
And the reason they're not saying a word is because they're devastated. Because they have set themselves up to only benefit when Al-Qaeda strikes again. That's the truth, my friends- the Democrats with all they've said, have been setting themselves up for another terrorist attack, so they can point fingers of blame at the administration and say, "See? They haven't been doing any.." That's what Hilary's speech was all about- setting the stage for another attack.
Well, a problem- we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we've got his computer. They are on the run. There haven't been any other attacks and there may well be, but it cannot be denied that massive success is taking place. Because we've got an administration led by a cowboy- who does what he says and means what he says and follows through on it.
And of course, if you're an indecisive wimp- mired in diplomatic approaches to things- of course you're going to be intimidated. Because you're out of a job when things get done. We'll be back in just a moment.
[promo for the Limbaugh Letter]
[station id]
[ad: Lifequotes Insurance]
[ad: Ben Gay]
[ad: Mountain Harbor, a resort community in Tennessee]
[ad: Emery Vision]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Emery Vision]
[station id]
Rush: We're back, Rush Limbaugh here. Cutting edge societal evolution from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. I, of course- firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone, in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair, here at our state of the art institute.
Another suspected Al-Queda figure- described as a computer expert and the business brains of the terrorist network- has been arrested, the second such figure to be captured in two weeks. Pakistani and American intelligence officials were yesterday interrogating a Moroccan, arrested on Saturday in the up-market Gulberg district of Pakistan's eastern city of Lahore. No jokes please.
The intelligence officials said an Afghan national named Gul Zeb- staying with the Moroccan- was also arrested. So, the progress continues to be made. Let's go to the phones- Mike in Aurora, Illinois. Hi, thanks for waiting and welcome to the program.
Mike: Great to talk to ya...
Rush: Thank you, sir.
Mike: Yeah, I just wanted to- to mention, I'm just very, very pleased about the President's decision to withdraw from holding a vote on the second resolution. I think it shows some real leadership on his part and I- I think it's something that's long overdue. I- I, you know, it's decisive, it shows that there's some-some....
Rush: WHAT was that in the background?
Mike: Oh, it was a little girl screaming- I'm a....
Rush: That's what I thought- a little girl screaming..
Mike: Yeah, oh- sorry...
Rush: Happily?
Mike: Yeah, I guess...
Rush: Oh- good, good...
Mike: Okay, anyway- getting to my point, um- I just, you know I just want you to know that I'm very pleased with what the President did. I think it showed real character on his part, it shows that he's not putting up with anymore of this nonsense coming from the U.N. You know, the obstruction and the obfuscation and the politics that they've been using to try to- to try to delay this anyway they can. Because, I mean...
Rush: Did you have some doubts at some- were you worried that uh, that the diplomatic route was going to win the day?
Mike: Not- not really doubts, per se- I mean, it was just- it was just a matter of time until I thought that there would be some decisive action taken. And now- now that it has, it- you know- it brings some finality into the picture. I mean, it gives you a sense of- of things starting to take shape- things are starting to happen now, and it...
Rush: Yeah, I know- there were alot of people that were- that were upset, uncomfortable- uh, ill at ease with the- the, just the ongoing status of the situation which didn't seem to have any immediate resolution. And I imagine you're echoing alot of similar sentiments felt by- by many people today. Thanks for the call Mike, I appreciate it.
Remember the story we had Friday? The William Safire column, in which he detailed the way the Iraqi's are getting a chemical for ballistic missile fuels? That comes through China, goes through France, then to Syria and to Iraq.
Bill Gertz, yesterday in the Washington Times- " Despite French denials, U.S. intelligence and defense officials have confirmed that Iraq purchased from China a chemical used in making fuel for long-range missiles, with help from brokers in France and Syria."
"Bush administration officials said the sale took place in August and was described in classified intelligence reports as a "dual-use" chemical used in making missile fuel."
It was these "dual-use" chemicals and materials that Hussein routinely hid behind and continues to hide behind. Dual use meaning- well, he could have purposes other than military or in missiles. It could be, uh- you know, for clearly domestic projects that have nothing to do with war-making. Uh, but the odds that they were being used in that regard were slim to none.
"The officials discussed details of the chemical sale after it was first reported by columnist William Safire in Thursday's editions of the New York Times. France's government, however, denied that the sale took place and disputed Mr. Safire's assertion that French intelligence agencies knew about it."
But it has been confirmed, it did happen and that, probably just the tip of the iceberg. Quick break here, folks. We'll be right back and resume in mere moments.
[station id]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Kim] [edit]
[promo for the Kimmer, following Rush]
[ad: spoken promo by Rush for the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort]
[ad: Barnacle Brothers 60 second sale, a parody ad]
[ad: D. Geller & Sons Jewelers]
[promo for News Radio 640]
Rush: First hour- broadcast excellence, in the can. Soon to be on it's way to the museum of broadcasting under armored courier- to be deposited in the future Limbaugh wing of the museum of broadcasting. But sit tight folks, hour two and the remainder of the program are right around the corner. We'll get to it in just a moment.
[ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain]
[station id]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[warmongering propaganda disguised as news]
[weather]
[warmongering propaganda disguised as news]
[weather]
[station ID]
[warmongering propaganda disguised as news]
[ad for Gutter Helmet]
[ad for ? jewellers]
Monday, March 17, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Kim] [edit]
[ad: The Shane Company]
[promo for FM sister station]
[ad: Hi-Fi Buys]
[station id]
Rush: How are you, folks? Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here- this is the Excellence in Broadcasting network, over 600 great radio stations, over 20 million Americans tuned in domestically.
Who knows how many are listening via www.rushlimbaugh.com internationally, but they're there as well and we welcome all of you to the show which has become show prep for the rest of the media this afternoon and tonight. Our telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the e-mail address is rush@eibnet.com.
An American college student in Gaza to protest Israel operations was killed yesterday when she was run over by a bulldozer, trying to block troops from demolishing a Palestinian home. Israel TV also reported Sunday, Israeli soldiers killed one Palestinian after Palestinians tried to infiltrate the Jewish settlement of Itimar, in the West Bank.
The killing of the student by the Israelis, the first of a foreign activist in 29 months of fighting, came as Israelis and Palestinians wrangled over the terms of a U.S. backed plan to end the violence and establish a Palestinian state.
Rachel Corey, 23- Olympia, Washington- had been with U.S. and British demonstrators at a refugee camp trying to stop demolitions. She died in the hospital. Captain Jacob Dalal, an Army spokesman said, "This is a regrettable accident. We're dealing with a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everybody in danger."
The Army said soldiers were looking for explosives and tunnels used to smuggle weapons. The United States deeply regrets the tragic death of an American citizen, State Deparment spokesman, uh- Lou Fintor said. It is- it is sad, but I- * taking a deep breath and trying to sound serious* Hell, what are you doing standing in front of a bulldozer, what- you know, it's the same argument as the human shields.
You know, the human shields dispatched themselves to- to Baghdad and when they learned that they were actually going to be in harms way said- "wha- this isn't about dying." And- well, yes it is, if- if.....
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Tom] [edit]
If you're gonna do this, seriously -- if you think your presence is going to stop hostilities, then you've got to expect that you are placing yourself in harm's way. And -- uh -- you know, military action's not gonna cease just because you're there. It -- it doesn't work that way. It never has. It's -- not going to now.
There's -- no question this is sad, but - at -- some point, you know, some responsibility for this has to be assumed by the person who puts him or her self in the way of a bulldozer. And I know some of you don't want to hear that. I know some of you don't -- I mean, the whole idea of accepting responsibility for your actions is something foreign to many people.
But nevertheless, uh -- it's -- not as though the bulldozer went off track, veered off course, saw a protester and said, "Ooh looky here, a target!" The protester happened to be right - It did work once. Yes, it did. I was thinking about Tiananmen Square. It did work once. But it -- only worked for as long as the TV cameras were on. And when the TV cameras went off, those people were mowed down. Do not forget what ultimately happened.
And then, when it happened, when those people were mowed down and TV cameras were turned off, and everybody knew it. Because -- it was reported. The Chinese, to this day, deny that the massacre at Tiananmen Square took place. I reference this in the -- uh -- in the last hour.
Uh, it's from a Washington Whispers column by Paul Bedard, in the U.S. News and World Report magazine. Former President Clinton lost the codes to nuclear war the day the Monica Lewinsky affair broke. He was MIA in the fall of nineteen ninety eight when a decision was needed on the killing of bin Laden, and was too busy watching a golf match to okay a nineteen ninety six bombing mission in Iraq.
This from a blockbuster new book by Clinton's former military aide. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Patterson, who carried the nuclear football from May ninety six to May of ninety eight, crosses a line no other military aide has before, in condemning his Commander-in-Chief in Dereliction of Duty -- the eye-witness account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security.
"This story had to be told." is in quotes from, uh, from Patterson. But a Clinton national security aide, William Danvers, tells U.S. News and World Report that Clinton was never unavailable for key decisions, and did not jeopardize U.S. security. One story for the book is, that the day of the Lewnisky scandal broke, Clinton was to trade in his biscuit with the nuclear launch codes. But they were missing. "We never did get them back" said Patterson.
And then there's bin Laden. Clinton ducked calls from the situation room to okay a Tomahawk attack in nineteen ninety eight, then waffled until it was too late. This is unprecedented. I've never heard of this kind of a tell all from - a - military aide. But, you know, it's going to find an audience. Cause there's a built in group of people who're gonna believe this. Because they're already convinced that there was this detachment.
Once the Lewinsky thing happened, and a lack of concern on this sort of stuff anyway, even -- even without Lewinsky, And there's enough evidence that we do know from the Clinton years to at least give credence to this. For the express purposes, of perhaps a - a further investigation.
And here's something interesting, it -- it's -- it hasn't been widely reported, uh, it's a story from a couple of days ago. A majority of Britons remain opposed to war against Iraq without a second U.N. resolution. But their number is falling according to a new poll. Actually, this was released on Sunday, not two days ago, released on Sunday.
According to the UGov survey, sixty percent disagree with Britain's participation in war unless there's a new U.N. resolution passed. But that's down from seventy three percent the end of January. Tony Blair and pResident Bush have sought this fresh vote, which now they've abandoned, uh, threatening war against Hussein. But -- they're gonna go ahead with it, um, anyway.
Despite - decided not to go with the second resolution now. The UGov poll, published in Britain's Sunday Times, said thirty two percent of the public would approve a war in certain circumstances, up from twenty percent in late January. Eight percent were undecided in the survey of two thousand two hundred and sixty people. Tony Blair would be cheered though, however, to see Britain's equally unhappy with France, and its' threat to block a second U.S. resolution.
A UGov survey said that seventy percent of Britons believe that France was wrong to take the stance that they're taking, while only twenty two percent of Britons support the French, and the stands they're taking. So, I conclude from this poll the Brits are in favor of war with France. As much if not more so than they are in favor of war with Iraq.
And open acts of defiance by opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime have intensified in the past week. Saboteurs carrying out attacks against Iraq's railway system, with protesters openly calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator. You know they're more -
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Kim] [edit]
...these things that are popping up about the- uh, the domestic Iraqi pop- population getting brave here, sabotaging various government institutions. And I think the Iraqi people can smell their liberation coming folks, and they're getting excited about it. And the only people who are standing in the way are Saddam Hussein, Jacques Chirac, and the so-called anti-war protesters- and the Democrats.
In this country, they're the ones standing in the way of a liberation of the people of Iraq. You watch, we are going to be greeted as a liberating army by the Iraqis- when this all happens- and a 25-year nightmare these people have found themselves in is about to end. We'll take a quick break and be back in just a moment.
[station id]
[coming up, the Kimmer]
[ad: The Midwest National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee]
[ad: Liverite, a dietary supplement]
[ad: Zim's Crack Creme]
[ad: Nextel]
[ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain]
[promo for the morning news show]
Rush: Hi.....
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Alex] [edit]
[ note to editor: Checked Sue Kirby, Rosemarie Lowry.]
[Music]
We are back rolling on, from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All right, folks, look, there isn't any more news here, on this Iraq business, and there's not going to be until the President speaks tonight. Let me wrap this up for you, because the cable networks are going to go wall-to-wall from this-- or with this, from now until the President speaks tonight, and there's no new news.
The news is this: we are not going to submit a second resolution for a vote; the inspectors have been told to get the hell out of Baghdad; the president's going to speak tonight, and ostensibly-- at 8:00-- and ostensibly give Saddam 72 hours to split the scene, or else we're going to roll in with our coalition forces and kick him out and disarm the country. Those are the developments today, and there's nothing more that's going to happen-- unless this is all a giant subterfuge and the troops are going to start rolling here in a couple of hours. But, aside from that, the news of the day has been made.
Now, I've always pledged you that I will keep you on the cutting edge of societal evolution. Which means, there's all kinds of other stuff going on out there. And I'm going to delve into some of those things. If you have thoughts on all the Iraqi business, the United Nations, feel free to call and talk about it, that's fine, but I do want to move on to some other things, because there are countless other things happening out there.
This, to me-- you, know, we haven't been involved much, in the past-- oh, I guess, what, week? Maybe month -- in too much of the domestic situation, because obviously, the Iraq situation has understandably been dominant. But there have been things going on, and things other than the Estrada nomination. That's been pretty public. But budget processing continues to go on, and the normal ebb and flow of domestic politics continues to happen, and one of the things that does happen when there are huge news items like Iraq, a lot of things continue to happen under the cover of that news story and sometimes they happen and get done and nobody even knew they were in the pipeline. So, as a-- well, in a continuing effort to keep you fully informed, and as I say, on the cutting edge, I want to get into some of these matters.
This is a story from the Boston Globe. I mean-- I just-- I read this, and I must-- I must tell you-- the gamut of emotions-- I laugh, I get mad, I become incredulous, I get worried, and then I just get frustrated, throw my hands up and say the hell with it.
Growing numbers of Massachusetts medicaid patients are telling pharmacists they cannot afford Massachusetts' new copayment on prescriptions. Do you know what the copayment on prescriptions is that they cannot afford? I'll tell you what: we had this-- we had this-- remember, we've been following this story. Remember how a couple of pharmacies-- I think, what was it, fifty pharmacies-- opted out of the state program because the state was telling them they in essence had to give this stuff away at no cost? And they said, "The hell with that, why should we do that? We're not going to stay in business if we do that, so we just opted out."
So the state had to backtrack. And they did enforce a little bit of a copayment on Massachusetts medicaid recipients, and pay is two dollars. The copay is two dollars, Mister Snerdley. I kid you not, growing numbers of Massachusetts medicaid patients are telling pharmacists they can't afford and will not pay the two dollar copayment on prescriptions.
Now under federal law, pharmacies must fill a medicaid prescription even if the patient cannot afford the copayment which jumped from fifty cents [laugh] to two dollars on January first. However, some pharmacists, knowing the copay may mean the difference between a profit and a loss, are not giving up easily, leading to confrontations with customers.
Sue Kirby, the organizing director of the Massachusetts Senior Action Council, said she's hearing more and more reports of people being denied medications because they can't afford copayment. She said "We're hearing it all over the place," citing the case of one Boston woman who said she went off her fifteen monthly medications when her local pharmacists turned her away.
Rosemarie Lowry, sixty-seven, of Braintree, who lives on less than 800 dollars a month, and takes medications for everything from high blood pressure to depression, said she was harassed by a Walgreen's pharmacy in Quincy when she said she couldn't afford her medicare copayments. She said the pharmacy gave her one pill from each of her ten prescriptions and told her she'd get her full thirty-day supply if she came back with the copayment.
The pill-a-day-approach continued for several days until the pharmacy just cut her off. At that point, Lowry said, she borrowed the twenty dollar copayment from a friend and got her medicine. "I need my prescription," she said, "It's not like I'm taking the kills-- pills-- because I like taking pills."
So we got a little game going on here. The copayment was fifty cents. They raised it to two bucks, but there is an out because there is a federal law: pharmacies must fill a prescription even if the patient says they can't afford the copayment. My friends, can I just tell you the way this is too--
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Tom] [edit]
Copayment of two dollars means that these drugs are essentially free! Two bucks! Interesting that they -- don't ask this lady if she has any family members who could pay the two bucks. But -- even apart from that, in addition to Medicaid, the major drug companies offer compassionate care programs for those who can demonstrate they can't afford their medicines.
And these companies spend billion dollar -- billions of dollars a year on, in - in disbursing free drugs in hardship cases like this. So you come up with a law that says "uh [mumbles] if somebody says they can't afford a copayment, you've got to give them medicine anyway." So, the copayment goes up from fifty cants to two bucks, and all the patients have to do is say they can't afford it. Can't afford two bucks? I'm telling you -- this -- this is like, free drugs.
Two bucks. It's just -- you -- you think the welfare system hasn't gotten out of hand? You think the sense of entitlement in this country hasn't gotten out of hand? What do you mean, I'm out of touch? Don't give me this out of touch. You mean to tell me that I -- because I can afford two bucks, I'm out of touch. Is that what out of touch means now? Because I can afford two bucks? Don't tell me this. I hear this out of touch business all too often. And it's a bogus charge.
And it's -- this is my point. This is how ridiculous this is getting. This is how serious the entitlement mentality in this country has gotten. People -- [unintelligible] -- two bucks copayment! That's all it is. For a prescipt -- two dollars. Well, can you buy a can of dog food for two dollars? You can't even say that I am faced with the choice here of dog food or my prescription copayment. Cause dog food's more expensive than two bucks! We don't have dog food copays yet, but I'll bet ya to hell they're coming.
Dog food copays, just so Democrats'll have some hardship cases to demonstrate how it is the country doesn't care anymore about the seasoned citizens of America. Two bucks! Out of touch, my sizeable derriere. You know, [taps papers on console] [sighs] unbelievable. I'm -- I don't know what John Kerry's done. John Kerry's trying to figure out whether he's Irish or Jewish today. You know, it's saint Patrick's day today, and he's got a big identity crisis he's facing.
I don't know what John Kerry's doing about the two dollar copay, for crying out loud. [sighs] But, you see folks. This is -- what I mean. This is where this stuff starts. People are not now even willing to fork up two measly -- and don't give me this fixed income -- two bucks! Two bucks! It's -- it's essentially -- this is nothing!
Here's Steve in Fort Lauderdale. Hi Steve. Welcome to the EIB network. Nice to have you with us.
Steve: How ya doing, Rush?
Rush: Pretty good, sir. Thank you.
Steve: Hey, listen, um, listen to you religiously every day. And, thanks. Keep up the great work. But --
Rush: Thank you sir. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Yes?
Steve: One thing, if you can send out a big thank you to France and Germany and all the Hollywood left for sealing Saddam Hussein's fate for us. They really played right into the -- right into the [unintelligible] -- uh, the more they screamed, the bolder he got. The more assurance that he was out of there. Thanks Hollywood. Thank you.
Rush: You know, this is -- you're absolutely right. That is absolutely right. You're -- Steve -- and I know you're not trying to be funny, even though -- you are. You're exactly right. This is the thing. It's been ironic from the get go. The French, by virtue of their recalcitrance, Germans too, and Martin Sheen and the rest of these people, have virtually seen to it that Saddam's a goner. Because their actions actually emboldened him.
Anything that would have weakened Hussein, and brought about a peaceful resolution to this, would have been highly preferential to going to war. Nobody wants to go to war. All there needed to be was a united front against evil. Against the bad guy. But the French, the Germans, the Hollywood left, because of their hatred for Bush. It isn't their dislike for America. Because of their hatred for Bush, just couldn't align against the real bad guy here. And so they're getting what they protested against.
[ad for SkyFi Audio System by Delphi]
[station id -- intro to news]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Kim] [edit]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather report]
[news break]
[station id]
[promo for coverage of the war on News Radio 640]
[this hour brought to you by Posture-D]
[ad: EGP, sales and service of copiers and laser fax systems]
[promo for 96 Rock's morning show]
[ad: American Liberty Mortgage]
[station id]
Rush: Why am I considered to be the most dangerous man in America? Easy, my friends, because I'm right. I'm confidently right and nobody's supposed to be that sure of themselves....
Monday, March 17, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: To Columbia South Carolina, Mark, you're next on the EIB Network, Hi...
Mark: Thank you for taking my call, Rush...
Rush: Yeah, you bet.
Mark: And may I say "mega ditta - dittos from Columbia South Carolina"...
Rush: Ya - you may, and I appreciate it.
Mark: Then I say it, Uhh, listen, can you shift you're all knowing, all seeing gaze for a moment to, uhh, the Korean peninsula...
Rush: By all means sir. What can I do to be of assistance, here?
Mark: What's your take on the, the ahh, deafening silence coming out of uhh, North Korea at the moment, (talking over Rush saying "Well") I haven't heard much from Kim Jong Il over the past few days. What do you think?
Rush: Well I don't think...
Mark: He's watching the mid-east? He's watching Iraq?
Rush: Awhh, there's no question he is.
Mark: Uh-huh.
Rush: There's no -- I -- I -- but I don't know that that has anything to do with it, an I -- I, uh, ya know, ya'd like to think, eh, the problem here is that people like Kim Jong Il are not reasonable. You know we make the mistake of - of assigning reasonableness to these people. They're not reasonable. It was so your -- your assume they're reasonable that he would he'd be intimidated here, "Oh my gosh! The U.S., big bad Americans, gosh there going to go after my pal Hussein, Uh Oh! Why I didn't think they'd have the guts to do it." An that's, you know that's how reasonable people would react to this, and I don't know that, he could be, uhm, uh, my -- my, I wouldn't be surprised if just the opposite is going on.
I wouldn't be surprised if in the midst of -- the Iraqi, uhm, conflict, circumstances, whatever you want to call them, that, uh North Korea doesn't try to pull something. Because what they're primarily trying to do is get our attention. They want to be accepted as one of the big boys in the neighborhood. They want to be in a nuclear clique. Uhh, they want to be uhh, you know, respected and all this and I wouldn't - I wouldn't discount them doing, uhh, anything, uhh -- uhh, I -- I - I do -- misunderstand -- I don't think they'd launch any weapons -- that's not my point, but they 'll probably do something to try to get attention refocused, on them.
Now, if he is reasonable, if he has any kind of reasonable characteristics at all, then he, uhh, he will learn a - a lesson with this. I think, something else that's instructive here, uhh, and you might find this weird, to say this about North Korea. But how many of you, last Friday, when the President, out of the blue, it seems, started talking about the Israeli -- Palestine conflict again, said to yourselves, "What's this? What's this? I - I thought we're dealing with Iraq. What's this Israeli -- Palestinian thing? Wha -- wha (unintelligible)". Well, it's -- it's no question it was subtle, but, uhh, it actually, I think it wasn't subtle.
The announcement of our intensions, to have a Palestinian State by 2005, and - and whatever, forget the details, just the fact that he brought it up, uhh, is, another huge shout to the world from George W. Bush, about what he intends to do as President of the United States, and how, "hey, don't think I have forgotten, first, the previous things I've said and don't think I have backed off from what I originally laid out, where this is concerned, and don't fall prey to this notion that my friends, democrats are saying that we can't do two and three things at once in my administration."
So, I - I think that's also, a subtle little indication in North Korea, in this sense. Here's this little pot-bellied Kim Jong Il, crying like a little baby in the crib, almost like he doesn't have his two bucks, to co-pay for his prescription, and (crying like a baby and with a babies voice) "Whaa ha ha, whaa ha ha, notice me, notice me, I will nuke you, I will nuke you, I have a bomb!" You know and we're saying "Fine. We'll - we'll talk to you when we have time, but we're not going to talk to you alone, we'll talk to you at the United Nations"(using a cry-baby voice again as Kim Jong Il)"Well will, you will talk to me or I will nuke you" (in a regular voice) "Ah, fine, just keep shoutin', whatever you want to do. Why we got this Palestinian thing to deal with before we get to you, just sit tight"(taping sound on desk).
And this guys (unintelligible) driven nuts over there. He's desperately trying to get noticed and now all the sudden he's "third" on the priority list. Saddam is first, then the Ih - Israeli Palestinian thing and then, maybe North Kor... Were not even promising he's on the list. You know, so... (chuckle) there maybe some effort to provoke this guy, because folks, look...
I hate to be so blunt, but I -- but I, I 'm going to remind you of this again. This is in many respects, a, new era. What with these nukes and what with, this country no longer being afforded the protection of oceans, and, everybody talks about a "smoking gun". We need a "smoking gun" before we can act with Iraq. We need a "smoking gun" uhh, before we can actually act preemptively against everybody. I'm afraid the smoking gun is going to be a smoking American city unless we do act preemptively.
Now, there is a reality that you have to face. We're trying to stop Iraq from becoming a North Korea. We don't want a mad man dictatorship, with the history of Hussein, to get himself in possession of nuclear weapons, either because he will use them, or because the people he'll give them to or sell, sell em. We dis -- we don't want nuclear weapon being with in his purview. It makes all the sense in the world. All right move to Iraq, uhh, uhh, North Korea. I'll give em, theoretically, supposedly he's got, the material to be making bombs, and bombs will be coming off this little (crybaby vice again) "Whaa Whaa" assembly line here, in a couple of months. Yeah maybe there coming off the assembly line now. What is the... two things we can do...
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Well there're three, there're three things we can do. One is... haah (sound of windbag blowing out air) nothing and just accept them into the club and then talk to them and appease them and hope that they, you know, act reasonable, and -- and don't launch them against anybody, or even more likely, that they don't give them to anybody, like Al Queida or other terrorist, or sell them to what ever.
The second thing we can do is, arm a nearby country friendly to us with nuclear weapons as a deterrent against North Korea, but then, you're spreading and enlarging the nuclear club.
The, uh, third thing you can do, is simply take out the Pyongyang reactor. That maybe not be realistic, I don't uh, I'm not talking how easy it would be, I mean it may not even be feasible, I don't know, but it is a military option, or as a foreign policy option, it clearly, I'm sure would have to be on the table. You simply take out their means, by which to produce these things, which is what we're doing in Iraq, except they're much further along in North Korea, but something's going to have to be done, that -- that situation is gonna have, some solution to it, uhh, or it will be dealt with one way or another, in due coarse, what would make the most sense, and it goes back to the question, that I posed to you people late last week.
Uhh, many in this country, many people around the world, stupid, short-sighted leftist and liberals, who I will, grant the idea of good intentions, and I will grant you, liberals, that you have these idealistic, expectations of the world, and that you would love to see the world where everybody has flowers in their hair, and is getting along with one another, and there, is (in a lisp)"No threat of evil, or war, or civil rights violation in the world," but where you sit around and dream of it and get yourselves lost in the impossible, there are others that have to deal with the realities of the world. And one of the realities of the world is that "we", the United Stated of America, not by an accident, not by a fluke, not by a quirk of fate, but because of reality, the United States is the worlds lone superpower. In fact as the French are now saying, "We are the worlds hyper-power" we're not just superpower we're a hyper-power. Never mind that some people in Massachusetts don't think they can afford two bucks for co-pay on prescriptions. We're still a pretty big country.(tapping on desk)
And here's another thing that most Americans accept (tapping on desk), not all, and this is very frustrating, and there are a lot of democrats by the way, and I hate to keep throwing this in, but we're just being honest here, aren't we, as we always are, there's also the assumption most Americans make that we are a decent, and good, and just country, because we are a decent, and good, and just people. That we're nice, that we are compassionate, we are giving. We feed the world. We clothe the world. We are responsible for the world technological advancements. We protect other free people of the world. We're not perfect, but our intensions, want to talk about intentions, our objectives are always decent, and just and honorable and so to question. You have a nation like North Korea in anybodies estimation, there is nothing redeemable about the North Korean government, not talking about the North Korean people here, because they , like the people of Iraq are enslaved. They are starving. We feed North Korea now folks, we give them oil, we give them food, you know where it goes, the North Korean military. The people of North Korea don't see much of it. They're starving.
So our quarrel is not with other peoples around the world, it is with other governments that end up posing a threat to us, and our way of life and our friends and allies so the question "I'm getting to it, here it is" -- some in this country, democrats, liberals, leftists, idealists utopianists, utopians all say that, (in a lisp) "Why, all people have the right of self determination, they can all chose their own future. Every country has the right to determine that kind of country they wish to be." Well that's flawed from the get go, because, most of the people of the world don't have one iota's worth of say, about their own lives, much less their futures, it's so called notion of self-determination, is fine in practice but until you can show me where the people of North Korea have any say so in their future by way of democratically elected leaders, and a, body of politicians that represent them, uhh, doing their bidding, uhm, until you can show me that, you can't tell me that the people of Iraq, or the people of North Korea, or the people of China, or any other of the oppressed peoples of the world have any claim to self-determination. So when you start talking about "The right of self-determination", let's just talking about the leadership of these countries and lets start talking about Kim Jong IL specifically and Saddam Hussein. "Do they have the right, in your mind, to self- determination, their future in their country?"
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: If - in determining the nature of their future, they acquire weapons; nuclear or otherwise that can be used against us and our allies. Are we obligated under some, new fangled theory about the right of self-determination and sit around and let these people come up with these weapons, (tap on desk) and use them and distribute them, and sell them, or do we have an obligation to ourselves, not just a right? Do we have an obligation to ourselves, and all that we've become, an all that we are, and all that we stand for, and all of those who are like us, that we protect, to stop that? And not only do we have the obligation, do we have the right when we engage in the effort to stop it?
I would answer all these questions "Yes". And that is what I think gives us, the, right, uh, whatever to intercede eventually in Iraq or North Korea. I wouldn't say this if our express purpose was to liberate or was to conquer and keep under subjugation those people, but that's not what we do. See the biggest problem with all this, if you disagree with it, if you're a leftist, a liberal or moderate, undecided and all this is abhorrent to you. Your biggest problem is, you can't accept the fact that we're decent people. You can't accept the fact that this is a just, and good, and honorable country, comprised of good, honest, decent people, who only seek the same for other people in the world that we have ourselves.
But a lot of us do accept that about our country, and they do accept that about our motivations, they do accept that. We do, accept that about our intentions, and therefore we find nothing wrong with it. In fact we find good in it. We find it to be, something in fact to celebrate. The fact that others don't, ahh, worth scratching the head over, but, not going to let you prevail if we don't have to, because if you prevail in opposing this kind of thinking, we only become a great nation at greater risk, than the world, greater risk than we need to be.
We're always gonna be at risk, it's a dangerous world out there, but we can take steps to limit this risk that we face, and the danger. And I think we're obligated to do it. Especially when it means, freeing, liberating, and otherwise improving a lot of life faced by these people in these countries that have no idea. Well they do have an idea, but they have no hope. Otherwise. A quick break. We'll be back in just a second...
[Ad: Rush Limbaugh]
[News radio WGST 640]
[Ad: Thera-Gesic]
[Ad: Mr. Goodwench]
[Ad: Solomon Brothers Jewelers]
[Ad: Charity Motors]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Shane] [edit]
[Commercial: Charity Motors ]
[Rush Intro.]
From CS Coldwell from the keepers of odd knowledge society in Else Worth, Maine an e-mail
Dear Most out of touch one,
You obviously don't understand in Massachusetts two dollars is the choice between Saturday night bingo or not. This is not only an assault on our senior citizens Rush, it an assault on the Catholic Church. By demanding two dollar co-pays for prescriptions people can't go play bingo.
OK well something has to explain this because two bucks is essentially free. The British Governments top lawyer says war on Iraq would be legal on the grounds of existing U.N resolutions, dismissing arguments that any attack without a fresh U.N resolution would break international law. This is Attorney General Lord Goldsmith who said in a written parliamentary statement today "authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effects from resolution 678,687, 1441 and about 13 others" (clears throat).
The Russian foreign minister Igor Igenholf has just said that 1441 does not allow the use of force without express approval from the United Nations security council. Of course this did not stop the Russians from going into Afghanistan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, you name it. Little too late Mr. Igenholf. The die is cast. Stand aside. Look at - all this is about' It's all from the get go, at least for Russia, it's all about eight billion dollars in oil contracts - (stuttering) follow the money where this is concerned.
And there are a lot of people now upset that there going to be left out of the rebuilding of Iraq because that's going to be lucrative too. If you don't think that's going to cost a lot more than it otherwise should, you have never built your own house. And there's going to be, there's going to be all kinds of national world wide graft, bribes, and all sorts of stuff as we rebuild Iraq, and people are going to want in on that.
You remember, you remember the guy who used to be in the 70s the head honcho of OPEC? The Saudi Arabian Sheik Zaki Yamani? Ahmed Zaki Yamani? You rember him? He's back and he says that the message from Saddam Hussein that he see in his television declarations is unequivocal. Saddam wants to die in Iraq, Al Yamani told a Swiss Newspaper in an interview. People that know him have told me that for Saddam Hussein life without power is not life. Which yeah and he's about to learn it real soon. But that Yamani saying he won't resign, he won't take exile because he can't stand living without power.
Here's Armand in Reading Pennsylvania I'm glad you called sir welcome to the EIB network.
Armand: Hey Rush how ya doing
Rush: Fine, thank you sir.
Armand: I'm just calling to say about that protester over in Israel. I mean how arrogant is she? She just thinks she's going to go over there. And she's an American. So she can act like this human shield, and get in the way of Israel's national security and its own. I mean weren't they looking for tunnels for explosives.
Rush: Yeah.
Armand: For shielding explosives and things.
Rush: Yeah Yeah.
Armand: I mean lately I have been hearing about this useful idiots thing like other - our enemy's are like grateful for these protesters because
Rush: Yeah.
Armand: they're useful idiots.
Rush: that's right.
Armand: I read that in the paper this morning. And I was like I was just so like what is she trying to do is she trying to defy the country because she is an American ?
Rush: Armand, do you have no compassion for this girl though that she?
Armand: oh my god! Oh god! You know in a way it's like that, that's where the hook is 'cues it's an American. And your like oh my god how can they do... but you know it's like weren't there people who during WWII were like on the Nazi side? I mean don't we have Americans who just sometimes... I don't know, I don't know what she's doing? What is her thought process?
Rush: well
Armand: I don't know
Both: mumbled
Rush: you're drawing me into your web here when you ask about thought processes. Obviously, it was a thought process but it wasn't running too deeply.
Armand: no no
Rush: It wasn't running to deep. Um it's, it's I think... Look, I'm running out of time. I think the answer to your question, for all these people who think they can stop the course of human history, is that they're just pretty shallow. And not really gripping reality here. And I think this sort of illustrates it. Back here in just a sec...
[station ID]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Kim] [edit]
[ad:Scott Trade]
[ad: Nexium]
[ad: The Auto Safety Hotline]
[ad: Commit Lozenge, from Nicotrel, a way to stop smoking]
[ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain]
[promo for the Kimmer, following Rush]
Rush: Wrap this up, folks. Second hour, broadcast excellence in the can- to be saved for historical review. We'll be back with our next hour in mere moments, don't go away- we've only just begun.
[ad: Caltrate]
[ad: Culligan Water Softeners]
[station id]
[news break]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Tom] [edit]
[traffic and weather]
[warmongering propaganda disguised as news]
[local news, stocks and weather]
[station ID]
[ad for Gutter Helmet]
[ad for Jerrod Jewelers]
Monday, March 17, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Jared's Jewelry]
[promo for the Kimmer, following Rush]
[promo for contest on FM sister station]
[ad: Cure Childhood Cancer, a non-profit organization]
[promo for News Radio 640]
Rush: What is this? Unbelievable! I didn't know this- I didn't know this. A program observer was observing something other than this program and uh, heard something- and I- I hadn't heard. I think it's- I think it's, uh- I guess, worthy of a celebration.
Greetings- greetings, my good friends, and welcome those of you seeking fun, frolic and frivolity, as well as a serious discussion of issues. You get it all, here on the EIB network- for the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am your host, Rush Limbaugh, doing what I was born to do and so are you. I was born to host, I am your host for life, and you were born to listen. Here's the telephone number if you would like to be on the program- 800-282-2882, the e-mail address- rush@eibnet.com.
The uh, program observer Mr. Snerdley just told me that on the Fox News Channel, one of the- was it a reporter standing outside the U.N.- reporter- the Foxs news channel reporter standing outside the U.N. opened his report a couple of hours ago with, "Diplomacy died four hours ago." Whatever.
(laughing)
Hooray! It's about time, lets have the funeral! Let's do a wake! Let's cremate it, whatever we're going to do to diplomacy in this situation, cause it's been nothing but a boondoggle. We're celebrating the death of diplomacy, here on the EIB network today, ladies and gentlemen! I'm your host, Rush Limbaugh- in a fantastically fine mood.
As I said, there are countless other things happening out there- and I wanna get to those, as we have been in the- since the second hour of the program got underway. Cause there's no news now, other than the death of diplomacy- uh, occuring four hours ago.
There won't be any more news on this, uh- Iraq business until the President makes his speech tonight- well, I mean- unless Hussein does something or unless it's all a feint and we're going to start military action this afternoon as a surprise, but I think there's not going to be anymore news coming out of the United Nations. All there's going to be is reaction.
But the news of the day, in that regard, has been made and we've reported it, so we're moving on to other things. I don't know how many of you, um- have noticed this- paid much attention to it, cared about it- but it is- it's something that- that I have noticed, I think about it and all these reality TV shows and the Jerry Springer
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Carl] [edit]
[ Note to editor: Checked: Chuck Schumer Blanche Lincoln Mark Prior Gordon Smith Norm Coleman ]
.
..sort of, are illustrations of it. And that is, what it is that people in this country search for and how like an aphrodisiac fame and celebrity are. And how the promotion of people who are famous just 'cause they're famous is inspiring other people to try to do things just to become famous. Rather than to achieve something and become notable or noteworthy for that reason.
And there is a story here. This is - admittedly it's from the UK, but - I would imagine it's applicable to our society in certain ways. Children are becoming increasingly depressed because they are obsessed with achieving celebrity or having supermodel good looks.
That is the conclusion of a study of 400 children, age 9 to 12, unveiled yesterday at a conference in the UK. Psychologists found that those who believed happiness was linked to unobtainable levels of money, fame, and beauty were more likely to suffer from depression.
Among the group, 16 were found to have clinical depression, 112 were found to be vulnerable to depression in the future. Depressed children were more likely to believe that happiness was something to be achieved through the acquisition of money, fame, and beauty.
These "chirren" wanted to be rich and famous above all else in life. Happier children were more inclined to believe that feeling good was about healthy attitudes and the experience of pursuing goals whatever the outcomes might be. They were more likely to seek positive relationships with others and to feel that they were developing personally through life, rather than the other group, which never made more than shallow, base attachments with anyone, because they were all in pursuit of fame at whatever level it was attainable. Either fame being in a big clique at school, fame here there, or big-time fame, ending up on television.
I know this is nothing new - I don't think there's anything new in society in eons, that's not what I'm saying, it's not a new problem. It's just being exacerbated here in different ways again by the pop culture media.
Misconceptions of happiness as an outcome, rather than a process, lead to unhealthy motivations. Controlling goal settings and pursuit and to a tendency to increasing levels of rumination and depression. And it's probably true. And with the advent of more and more of these reality TV shows and the fleeting, momentary fame, the kind I describe as "you're famous cause you're famous." You're known because you're known. Not because you've achieved anything, not because you've accomplished anything, but just because you're famous.
There, I would say, peple like Joe Millionaire and The Bachelorette, and all these other reality shows, convey that kind of fame and notoriety on people. It is amazing to me, having been there, it is amazing to me to see the number of average people - just average walk of life - who just would cream to get on TV. Would just do anything to get on television. Sometimes it's depressing to see.
Or people who will just go out of their way to be close to what they think is attention and fame. See a camera, and man they run to it, hoping to be in the picture. Even if nobody'll know who they are. It won't matter. Except to them - just to have been in the picture. And it's bound to be unhealthy.
[laughs] The Chucky Schumer childhood syndrome, yeah. Chucky Schumer is one of these guys, the worst place you can possibly be, folks, is between Chuck Schumer and a camera. Because he will bowl you over to get to one. And more and more politicians are that way.
Let's see. Other exciting items that are in the news. Did this story, did that story... Ah. Here we go. Supporters of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling - this is supporters of that - have just a couple of days to bring one or two wavering Senators to their side. Republican sources said they are confident 48 Senators will vote to drill in ANWAR, and a 49th is leaning their way. That leaves just one to have the 50 votes allowing Vice President Cheney to break the tie in favor of drilling. The lobbying for that last vote has centered on four Senators: Blanche Lincoln - these are Democrats - Blanche Lincoln and Mark Prior of Arkansas, and Republicans Gordon Smith of Arkansas and Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
We're trying to win over two Republican Senators? Especially Coleman? Coleman ...
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Carl] [edit]
... Oh, never mind.
You know what, to obviate all this, folks? Forget ANWR, we'll drill in Iraq. On Friday. How does that sound? We won't even need to go to ANWR. We'll be back in just a second; stay with us.
[ad: General Steel Corp 888-98-STEEL]
[ad: Preserve at Sharp Mountain (housing development) 800-230-7075]
[ad: Taylor Construction 770-552-1969]
[ad: First Mortgage Solutions 678-420-1302 "and you don't even have to be a veteran]
[ad: station ID]
The militarily victorious United States get booed out of the place, and all of these pacifist Democrats who advocate a weak and embarrassed United States get cheered to the rafters. So in California, in Sacramento the state Democrats got together and presidential hopeful Howard Dean electrified [laughs] I'd like to see that, Howard Dean electrifying anything, but he did, he electrified the state Democratic convention Saturday when he levelled a verbal barrage against the Bush policies in support of the war in Iraq. Fists raised, roaring "We want our country back!"
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Carl] [edit]
[ Note to editor: Checked: John Edwards Karen Hanretty Garry South Menden, NJ ]
...Democrat.
Do you believe this? They actually do think it's their country! It's like, "those are our jets now!" They want their country back. This is amazing! This IS how they look at this!
In the case of North Carolina Senator John Edwards, also a candidate for President, it was a different case, different reception entirely, from the 1800 delegates in California when he raised the issue of Iraq a resounding chorus of boos. And chants of "No war" erupted with his statement, "I believe Saddam's a serious threat and should be disarmed with military force if necessary." And California Democrats booed! [laughs] They raised their fists - "We want our country back!" I wish this stuff would be on TV - it probably was on CSPAN.
We need as many people as possible to see and hear about this stuff. The spokeswoman for the state GOP in California, Karen Hanretty, said, "the Democratic Presidential candidates in town this week are telling activists what they want to hear, but they're not offering a message that resonates with mainstream voters."
Democratic "strategerist" Garry South, a former advisor to Governor "Gray-out" Davis, cautioned that the loud anti-war stand of Democrats in California could be bad news for the party nationally in 2004. He said, "the Democrats in this room are not particularly representative of the larger Democratic electorate," he said to reporters, "It's not helpful to electing a President if Democrats become seen as not concerned enough with defense of the country. Understand there's a lot of anti-war sentiment among the people of this room, but there are plenty of grounds on which to criticize this Administration." He's trying to cover his embarrassment for these people, but the fact of the matter is that these guys are having to go out and get the Democratic nomination, and the party's base is who they're trying to secure, and they've got to go so far left that may as well be France.
They may as well be France and Germany. It's the only thing - you know the Democrats are going to have to come up, during this nominating process, I'm gonna just warn you leftists out there, you people that are defining right now the Democratic party mainstream. You may think you're the power brokers right now, but I'm going to predict something to you people, now I want you to listen to me, cause I'm just trying to help you here, before it's all said and done, before your party nominates a candidate, the party is going to find a way to shaft you. The party is going to find a way to water down your power and your selection process in this primary system, cause the Democratic party, if they know what's best, is not going to allow a pure anti-American military candidate to be nominated for your party's Presidential nomination. It's not going to happen.
And that's what you people want. So what's going to happen? Well, a whole bunch of these people are going to be nominated and paired up, and your vote is going to be split. That's what they're going to try to do. Same thing they're trying to do to Al Sharpton and render him impotent in the party, so will it happen to you. I'm just warning you. Your bigger enemy today is not the Republican party - cause frankly we'd love to see you people dominate - the Republican party would frankly like to see you people nominate a candidate that agrees with you in this anti-war business and anti-American power stance and all that, because you'd be dooming yourselves to defeat.
You're gonna lose anyways, I mean, it doesn't matter who you nominate, but - I mean we're right now looking at humiliation, not just defeat. I mean, we want to see you people get 20-30% maybe in a Presidential race. I mean, that's a nice goal, a nice objective. And the only way we can have that happen is if you people, you liberals, prevail, in the nomination process.
Let's go to Menden, NJ, and Andrew. Hello sir, and welcome to the EIB network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, I'm a student at Dartmouth College, and based on my observations of campus protests and my conversations with protesters, I think your assessment of them is absolutely right. They use the same recycled arguments that they used last year in Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan doesn't have a significant amount of oil. And I think that they for the most part have good intentions, the main reason for opposition to war is hatred for President Bush and distorted conspiracy theorists' world view about Big Oil.
RL: Why do they hate Bush? Can you tell me, is it personal or is it just they don't like conservatism?
CALLER: I think it's, they don't like conservatism. I think that's part of it, but I think that Bush kind of symbolizes everything about conservatism they don't like.
[RL: yeah, that's what it is]
CALLER: And I've spoken with them, at their rallies, and I asked them why, if our only objective is cheap oil, why we don't just change our own laws? Wouldn't it be easier just to eliminate our own self-imposed embargo on Iraqi oil? Or to pressure the UN to eliminate sanctions on Iraq. That would be much easier than to invade a country and incur additional costs, or I ask them if our only motivation is cheap oil, why do we support Israel?
RL: Wait a minute. You ought to ask them, if you're going to do that, first off, ask them what's wrong with cheap oil. Number one. I mean, throw their premise right back at 'em. Ask them what's wrong with cheap oil, what's wrong with cheap toilet paper, what's wrong with cheap electricity...
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Kim] [edit]
... I mean, that's the whole objective, isn't it? You want market forces to prevail, so that costs make affordability sense- for as many people as possible. What- what- and as specifically as to oil- I mean, if it's about- if they say it's about oil- understand, Iraqi oil is on the market anyway...
Andrew: Right..
Rush: We- we buy oil from the pool of oil on the world market, and- Iraqi oil is part of that. We already buy Iraqi oil. But, if- if they are gonna maintain- see, they're connecting these dots in a fantasy world, and, it's- it's not possible for them to be connected. They live in this fantasy world, they refuse to see reality- when you connect the dots for them in reality.
But they will believe all of these unproven- impossibly, impossible to be proven conspiracy theory dots- that they will connect. So what do you say to them- look, if it's really about oil, ask them this. Are we not in Kuwait- "yeah, yeah, we shouldn't be there either." Well, we are- why don't we just declare victory and take the oil?
And we don't need a war, we don't need anybody to die, we don't need to attack- we'll just take Kuwaiti- hey, we have an air base in Saudi Arabia, why don't we just declare victory and take the oil? We don't need to invade Iraq- I mean, there's any number of things we can do- if it's really about that- without invading Iraq. And you throw that in their face, I guarantee you- they won't have any answer here, because they're not rooted in any sort of reality.
They'll come back at you with slogans- in fact, when they lose this- when we win this and they lose big- they're gonna have answers for it that will make just as little sense as things they're saying now. They'll say we didn't fight fairly, Iraq never had a chance- that this doesn't show the U.S. military might. That, uh- that we intimidated, they'll come up with all kinds of things. You'll be scratching your head, you'll laugh, you won't believe it- but they'll be dead serious.
Andrew: Well Rush, you know- part of it is just that they have no sense of perspective. I mean, I've spoken with some of them and they dig up this information that, uh- from who knows- who knows what source. But they get information like 600,000 people died in the Gulf War and they have their own little source information thing and, uh- one million people are going to die in this war, and they-
I mean, it's kind of ridiculous, cause, you know, they just have no sense of perspective on America vs. the rest of the world. They seem to think, you know- America's the number one cause for- for...
Rush: Evil?
Andrew: Yeah. Well, for war and, uh...
Rush: They do. They do- we're the source for evil around the world, our military particularly. We consume way too much of the world's resources- look, I've heard this song and dance and I appreciate your attitude here, uh- Andrew, you're trying to be as compassionate and understanding, and as reasonable and as mature and you're trying to extend as much respect as you can to these people, by talking about how they're- they're just misguided or they misunderstand or whatever. But the bottom line is, they're stupid...
Andrew: Hmmm..
Rush: They are just totally ill-informed and they're making no effort to learn the truth. They are blinded with rage and hatred, because of political ideology and if you wanna find out why that is, you've got to find out who it is that's been filling their heads full of this stuff all of their lives. Because that's who's responsible for it, these are young skulls full of mush- whose minds are being bent, shaped, formed and flaked by a bunch of outside influences.
For a- a host of reasons- and until they mature sufficiently to begin to think for themselves, until they reach that point in their life where they're able to see the truth- and admit it when they look at it, no amount of talking to them is going to change their mind about anything. Because they're all walking cliches. I admire you for trying- and you probably do make headway now and then, but en masse- um, just laugh at them. I mean, they're good for entertainment.
[ad: Mountain Harbor, a resort community in Tennessee]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather report]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
[WGST640 News]
[ad: WGST.com]
[ad: Mid Atlantic Financial]
[ad: AAA Mortgage]
[ad: Station 105.7 Oldies]
[ad: "The Kimmer" WGST 640]
Rush: Making the complex understandable, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Here's an email from, uh, Jeff Shapiro, Wolfsonville, Oregon. "Hi, Rush, I was reading an MSNBC website article, and couldn't help but notice this quote; "We kill people and break things, that's what marine's do." said First Sergeant Gonzalo "Butch" Vasquez, "What los, uh, - logisticians do is support the guys who kill people and break things."
"Rush that phrase "Kill people and break things", that's a verbatim quote from you, isn't it?" Sounds like our military personnel been raised on you." (sounds of something dropped or moved).
Rush: It's not actually a quote from me, I, uhh, uh...
Monday, March 17, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Carl] [edit]
[ Note to editor: Checked: Peter Struck Cortland, NY ]
...to quote a late, dear friend of mine, a former Marine from Vietnam, a man by the name of BT Collins, who once wrote a letter to the editor of the Sacramento Bee. He was frustrated at reading a bunch of anti-war pap from the typical left-wing protesters that exist in California.
And he'd reached the levels of frustration that he wrote a letter to the editor; he said, "Look, can I just be direct here? The purpose of the army is to kill people and to break things. It's not to spread and distribute food, and be a basic Meals on Wheels program, or peacekeepers. It's to kill people and break things! That's what we're trained to do."
And ever since I saw that quote, I should mention I've never claimed it as my own - I've always credited BT with it - but, nevertheless, to see this quote coming from a Marine on the ground in Kuwait.
Yeah, a bunch of people who have grown up on this program, who are now serving the country.
German Defense Minister Peter Struck said today that he was confident the United States would not move its soldiers out of Germany to punish Germany for resisting any American-led attack against Iraq. Speaking after a meeting in Berlin, with General James Jones, the commander of American forces in Europe, and NATO's military chief, Struck said, "I am quite certain that the American presence in Germany will not be massively reduced."
Oh, really? Well, here the Germans are starting a little CYA now, aren't they, my friends? The Germans - you don't - let me translate this for you, folks: "Look, look, don't hold it against - please don't take the troops out, I mean we were only doing what we thought best, we were only trying to save the world, but please don't take the troops out of here, we'll be naked if you do that!"
And I hope we do. It's obvious that world alliances have shifted. There's a whole different European alliance that's evolving and developing here, and I've pointed this out before. It doesn't necessarily include France and Germany, in key positions in any of it anymore, by their own choice. And there's probably a lot better places around the world we could put troops, than in Germany, to insure our safety, and the safety of our troops, and others that we seek to defend.
Let's go to Courtland, NY; this is Chris; you're next, sir, welcome to the program.
[unintelligible] Thank you for taking the call
[RL: Thanks much.]
Chris: My first time on the radio, so I'm really a little bit nervous here. I was watching a show on Ronald Reagan, about a week ago on PBS?
[RL: Yeah, yeah.]
Chris: The guy went over the good things and the bad things. The one thing that impressed me, changed my mind, was the fact they were showing the protesters, on the streets of Europe, protesting the [unintelligible] missiles that were going in. If he hadn't done that, there would still be an East Germany, right now. You know what I'm saying?
RL: Yeah. You would think so. I mean, the deployment of the Pershing II missiles was a seminal moment. No question about it. This took place during the height of the nuclear freeze movement, although these were not nuclear weapons, they were Pershing II missiles, but the deployment of these weapons in Europe - the anti-war movement had a cow. It was - it thought, Oh my god, this is the single greatest act of provocation that we've ever made to the Soviets, and they're going to respond by launching an attack against us. They're not going to put up with this.
And of course it was just the opposite. It demonstrated resolve; it showed Reagan meant what he said and was going to follow through on it, and it caused a Soviet back-down, and eventually - I don't know that the Pershing II's are single-handedly responsible for the end of east Europe and the Soviet Bloc, but certainly it's a crucial part of the whole equation. And you can draw all kind of parallels to today. With what is happening with the deployment of US forces.
And this is what amazes me about the anti-war crowd. They're always wrong! I mean, to take away their intentions, take away that they're young, take away the fact that they only want the best, and all that they're - they're always wrong! All of the critics of US military action are always wrong!
The people who have been criticizing Bush since this started were wrong. They were wrong in '91. They were wrong about how the Gulf War was. They were wrong about Kosovo. They have been wrong about everything. And yet, they continue to be asked to serve as experts on television and in newspapers, they are continually quoted, and they're nothing but doom and gloom. I say, you know, it is -
I just got a note from a friend, who's been watching the various news channels today, he says it's striking, that if you watch CNN, the whole tone and flavor of the news today is one of doom and gloom, and the ultimate collapse of international alliances. The world on the brink of disaster, we're going to die!
And if you watch Fox, everything is upbeat, and positive, and good things are happening, we're moving off the dime, the United States moving in a decent and ultimately positive direction, to try to straighten out and fix a messy situation. The contrast couldn't be greater. And it's that way. I mean CNN hasn't been right about anything yet, and they're not going to be right about this. The doom and gloom crowd's never right when it...
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: And this is the thing that always amazes me, they're never right. But you know, it does -- it, it goes what I've always said, It's so easy being a pessimist, it is so easy to be negative, it is just easy as hell but you have to work at it. To be positive, you have to make an effort, to be optimistic about things. "Well, I don't, cus - cause I'm realistic", but some people the -- they - it- it takes -- it takes effort, it really does, so easy to be pessimistic, but the, look what understand they're never right, they haven't ever been ri... I don't know why they get any credence, but the reason they do, is because negativism, and pessimism, and crisis, is magnetic and it draws people -- people always waiting for the other shoe to drop, or some hell in a hand basket to happen or whatever, but it never does, in the global sense that we're talking about here, visa vie, the United States, and our position in the world. It never does. We don't lose.
Can I share another thought with you folks. (Tap on desk) Does anybody doubt what we're going to do? No. Does anybody now, doubt when? Does this include the enemy? The enemy knows what we're going to do and for the most part, the enemy knows when. We obviously don't care, that the enemy knows, what we're going to do, and when we're gonna do it.
Now what does that tell you about what we think of the enemy? It means we think they are diddley squat. Ohh, we might release some stuff. I we're -- I -- I -- I'm sure with as much time as there has been. People a lot smarter than all of us combined, have planned for and thought about, all possible contingencies, all possible things that might happen, and there are I say, contingency plans to deal with them, isn't that make much more sense than to think we're going to be shocked and stunned and surprised by things. Has this administration ever undersold the potential of Iraq when it comes to not their standing army, but the kinds of weapons of mass destruction they been trying to produce, an to use them. Who would be surprised?
We certainly wouldn't be. Wouldn't we not be prepared for it? We've had enough time to be. The fact that, that we're telegraphing this, to me, tells (chuckling) I... "Saddam...Here we're gonna give ya the date, time and minute, (chuckling) that you show up in the crosshairs, and the only way you can stop it is get out of the country. If you don't, you're going to stay in the crosshairs, and you're history." I means this is, in essence, is somewhat unprecedented. I mean normally, you try to find some element of surprise. We're not even making a pretense of surprise here. Fact we're giving him every chance in the world, to gear up, so it'll be a fair fight. (Tap on desk) I mean I -- I - I don't know. I may as why; we'll take a quick break. Back, more of your phone calls and other items in the stack, here, in just a second...
[EIB Network]
[Ad: On Star]
[Ad: Intelligent Office]
[Ad: Nissan]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Nissan]
[News radio 640]
[intro music to Rush Limbaugh Show]
Rush: My friends, a correction here, I heard when I said the Pershing 2 missiles we not nuclear tipped, they were, they -- they did have uhm, nuclear warheads and they -- they, uhm, uhm, that is -- that is precisely why they, uhh, attracted the protester attention that they did. It was in the deployment of nuclear weapons on European soil that freaked them out, uhh, during the height of the nuclear freeze movement. I meant say that they were nuclear tipped, uhm, they were -- they were not particularly of any, they were not armed all the time as such, in the silo's, but they, that's what their purpose was, uhm, they-they were not conventional in any way. And they since been destroyed, what with the elimination of the Soviet Union, reunification of Germany I think in the end, some treaties they were all pulled out of there. So there are not even there any more but at the time, they were (tap on desk), (in a sinister voice)" The focus of evil, in the modern world", but of course they were all part of the, uhh, program here that eventually, demonstrated to the Soviet Union, they couldn't keep up with us and that we would follow through with our intentions and they had no prayer. And they eventually realized, and collapsed, that they don't have any morality anyway. Well, they imploded actually, as a result of their own immorality, as communism always will, with just given a chance and time.
Here is uh, Bob, in Erie Pennsylvania. Welcome sir, good to have you with us...
Bob: Ahh, great to talk to ya, Rush...
Rush: Thank you sir...
Bob: Uhh, my concern here is we've had this song and dance going for so long now at the United Nations, my concern is that, well, what if they had time to hide these weapons of mass destruction and the materials, I mean I've heard reports that Syria could be holding some of this stuff.
Rush: Yeah, they are. We know where they are.
Bob: Yeah, yeah that do ...
Rush: We'll find em, don't - don't worry, there will be, wha -- it'll -- it'll be uncovered...
Bob: I mean this -- I mean...
Rush: Are you -- are you worried that we get in there and uhh, do all this and find no weapons, then's what's Bush gonna say?
Bob: Yeah, exactly, (Rush saying yeah over Bobs voice) if you, I mean, boy and the hell's gonna raise with the democrats, and these whacko's on the left, and, you know all over the place. I got the city council in here and here's...(Rush interrupts Bob)
Rush: Wait a minute, let me -- let me, just a second here, Bob, let me calm you down because... (Bob chuckles) not calm you down, reassure you. I don't mean calm you down.
Bob: Yeah.
Rush: the fact of the matter is that even the people you're talking about, who are saying they haven't been shown evidence there is any of these weapons of mass destruction. They're the same people saying, " Well, you know if we attack Iraq, he's just going to use those on our troops."
Bob: Yes...
Rush: Wa - wait a minute, I thought he didn't have em...
Bob: Yeah.
Rush: They'll -- they'll be found. We're gonna be, probably stunned, at what all is found. We're going to be amazed, it uh, I think it's, the other way around. The question is going to be put to all these people who claim that they didn't have any evidence, they didn't see the dots and all that, they been told up and down what exists. They been given enough information to know, and that we wouldn't be engaging in this otherwise, is the bottom line. There would be no reason to. So don't- don't --don't fret that, but I do want to tell you this.
When this is all over, don't expect the left to sit there and act like they got egg on their face. They'll come up with all kin -- you won't believe it. You just sit there and slap yourself upside the head, you will not believe the stuff they come up with, to justify their previous position, verses the current reality. They will accuse us of being too brutish, that the Iraqi army never had a chance. That this wasn't a fair fight. I mean they'll come up with things that you just, won't believe. It -- it --it'll be a riot in a --in it's self, but you just, (Tap on desk) mark my words, the stuff is there. It'll be found. There's a lot of stuff in Syria, that's one of the things in the Saffire column from last Thursday.
Uhh, yeah the President has a - has a meeting at the uh, Whitehouse tonight, members of congress are coming up from both parties, uhh - ah, will -- will the Socialists be represented, Bernie Sanders, is he going to be there? Well I would think all parties would be represented. Course I guess the democrats cover the socialist, party. It's at 5:45, congressional leaders will be briefed, and I want to see this, you know I- I -- I'm sure Daschle's going to be one of these guys, that gets briefed, and Pelosie, and I wanna - I wanna see what they say coming out of this mee -- I -- I think this is gonna be another one of tho...
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Tracy] [edit]
We do not see Daschle and Pelosi when this meeting's over. Don't think Bush can't wait for this. He knows what these people have been saying. Don't think he can't wait for this meeting. And if Pelosi and Daschle still come out and play their role of loyal opposition and we haven't seen enough, oh, it'll be worth watching just for that. But I guarantee you this is -- today is not a good day for the Democrats. Can you imagine them in private? On the phone with each other -- "Oh my God, what have we done?" You know, at some point the reality of their political position is going to hit them. And they're going to start asking themselves, "Well, what do we do? We gave it our best shot. We tried to stop the president. We sided with the French. We sided with the Germans. We sided with the Germans. We sided with Iraq. We tried to stop this."
But will they join the president now? This is going to be fascinating to watch. Cause they're kinda trapped. I mean, they're appealing to the far left of their base right now, by their own definition they say they have to. And the far left of the base hates Bush, they hate this military operation. I mean, John Edwards and these guys who spoke in favor of disarming Saddam got booed to the rafters in Sacramento at the California Democratic Convention over the weekend. So if Pelosi and Daschle come out of here white as ghosts after what they've been told, and in any way utter marginal support for the president (laughs) -- what will they do? We'll see. Soon enough.
Here's Tom, Kansas City, Kansas. Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Tom: Dittos from Lime Dot(?) County.
Rush: Thank you sir. I know Lime Dot(?) County well. Many people don't believe it exists, but I do.
Tom: You know it, and it's growing great out here.
Rush: I'm sure that -- that's good.
Tom: Economically. And speaking of economics, the Germans, that's the only reason they want our troops there. They could give a care less about the military significance, but the economic significance of our troops there, it means more to them than anything.
Rush: Well, no it doesn't. If it meant more them them than anything, they wouldn't have done what they've been doing the last three months. Or four. If it -- I know it means a lot to 'em. But there are things that matter more. And they do care about the military security that we offer them, there's no question. They don't have to spend money on their own defense because of us. I know that's also an economic concern. But they also have shown they care much more about keeping the world from learning whatever we're going to learn going into Iraq than they care about the economic benefits from the presence derived from our troops being there.
So I -- frankly, I don't see us ever pulling our troops out of there. It's one of those things I'd love to see. I don't -- you know, we talk about the irrelevance of the UN. This administration. Remember, I've told you. I've talked to people who say, "Well, the reason we're going through all this, Rush, is to demonstrate once and for all the irrelevance of the UN." Well good, fine. I didn't know that was the policy, but if that's what part of the policy is, fine. But then explain to me why the president yesterday in the Azores allowed for the UN to be part of the rebuilding process in Iraq? That's not UN irrelevance, if you ask me. Now I hope he didn't mean it. I hope he was just being nice.
But there's a competing story. There's another story out there today that Bush is going to turn over to private US companies the rebuilding of Iraq. And I hope that's true. Screw the UN. Because if this is really about making them irrelevant, the only way to make 'em irrelevant to is not involve them in anything and for us not to involve ourselves there. If we're going to do that, then they're going to stay relevant. No other way around it.
We'll be back in just a second.
[ad: Rush for Citrical]
[ad: Australian Black Swan]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Black Swan Wine]
[note to editor; I have no idea what this was, it sounded like an ad at first. Listen to it and see if you can figure it out]
[D. Geller & Sons Jewelers]
{an excerpt from the Rally for America] [station id]
promo for Rush and the Kimmer]
Rush: Alright, now listen to this- the Nasdaq's up 42, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 240. The European markets are also way up- the French, the German and the British markets are way up- on the verge of the outbreak of war. The markets are up, oil prices are- future'a prices are already starting to show some decline.
It's like I told you last week- you wanna solve all this? You wanna get all this stuff going and all of that? All this is the result of indecisiveness, indecision- not- it's that, it's the result of nobody knowing when it's going to end, what's going to happen. Let's just get on with it.
The notion that it's going to be gotten on with here soon- I mean, people are all a sudden happy again- the markets are going bonkers, because we're doing the right thing. We'll see you tomorrow with a discussion of what the President has to say tonight- anything else that happens between now and then. Enjoyed being with you and look forward to tomorrow.
[ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather update]
Monday, March 17, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Kim] [edit]
[traffic and weather update]
[news break]
[promo for News Radio 640]
[ad: Edwin Watts Golf Shop]
[ad: American Equity Mortgage]
| 
