3.28.2003
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Just Brakes]
[ad: Emery Vision]
[ad: The Shane Company]
[promo for morning news show]
[station id]
A special edition of the Rush Limbaugh program, Saddam's Final Hours,- 8 hours 'til deadline...
Rush: Actually my friends, that's eight hours and twenty-seven seconds- according to the Rush Limbaugh website countdown clock. You can see it at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Greetings my friends, and welcome- it is the excellence in broadcasting network, the one and only Rush Limbaugh program. The nations most listened to, most eagerly anticipated radio talk show- a talk show and radio program which exceeds audience expectations on a daily basis. Happy to have you along, folks- as always is the case.
The telephone number if you'd like to be with us, 800-282-2882 and the e-mail address is rush@eibnet.com.
Tom Daschle simply will not be quiet. He keeps on talking, he stands by the statement that he made recently that has even some Democrats- although not nearly as many as ought to be- up in arms. Here's what he said most recently.
Daschle; Well, I stand by my statement. I don't know that anyone in this country could view what we've seen so far as a diplomatic success. As a veteran, there is no question that I stand strongly with the troops, I always will. I feel very strongly about our obligation to support the troops, and I have said in every way, shape and form that will continue.
Daschle: Senator, you know- you and uh- your cohorts on the left, you wanna have it so many ways. In other words, I- I actually think need to start calling the Democrats the French- the domestic French. It would be the best way to identify these people. You- you people out there who want it both ways- you wanna say you support the troops, well fine. What does that mean?
I mean, if you support the troops, you support the commander in chief, do you not? Because the commander in chief is who gives the orders- commander in chief is ultimately in charge of the troops. You can't say that you support the troops....
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Tom] [edit]
Have a disagreement with the Commander-in-Chief. This business, supporting the troops, is a fig leaf anyways. It's simply a means by which these people can cover themselves from criticism. Because if they supported the troops, they wouldn't be saying what they're saying in the first place. What is the purpose of the troops? What's the mission of the troops? Victory, is it not? Are there people who actually support victory and support what we're doing here?
This whole notion that this is failed diplomacy is going to end up being just the exact opposite, ladies and gentlemen. This is gonna end up, just as is always the case when we're talking about America. When this is all said and done, this is gonna have been one of America's finest hours. The French are going to be shown to be totally irrelevant once again!
Not that they have to be shown that way again, but they will be. The French even now are backtracking, trying to get themselves involved in all this by saying, "Well, if there are chemical or biological weapons used, then of course we'll move in and help. Because [stutters even worse than normal] we -- [gibberish]. Well, I didn't think he had any! I thought the inspection process was working, Prime Minister Chirac. Blix, by the way, spoke to the United Nations [sighs] Security Council again today. And we have some audio sound bite of that.
We'll get to it in -- in due course. This, actually, was not failed diplomacy. This is brilliant diplomacy. This diplomacy illustrated who America's friends are. This diplomacy illustrated who our friends aren't. This round of diplomacy has illustrated for the world, and for all of us, it's really a treat, folks, I think it's a great thing that's happened here. We have seen two profiles in courage that you don't regularly see in American politics or world politics.
Bush and Tony Blair. They have done what they've done for reasons that differ slightly. From person to person, from one to another. But they still have understood -- I gotta say this, [mumbles] Marta had dinner the other night. We're watching -- er, last night. We were watching Brit Hume's show. And, um -- Marta said to me, "Why is Blair doing this? He's a liberal. Why is he doing this?" And I said, it's a good question. I got two answers to it.
One is, Tony Blair is the one liberal in the United Kingdom being consistent with what they've always claimed to be concerned about -- pain and suffering. The pain and suffering of the Iraqi people. Blair's being consistent. But they're something larger than that at work. And it is this: Tony Blair understands the role of the United States in the world. He understands the inexorable link between our two countries. He understands it would not be in -- the -- interests of the United Kingdom in any way, to be separated from the United States on such a mission. He understands exactly what's at stake.
He won -- he understands the need for relevance for the U.K. He understands the need for the U.K.'s position in the world to be affirmed. He wants to put a stamp on that. He understands basically this is the right thing to do. And -- it's -- really, to me, is uplifting to see both Bush and Blair defy the critics, not listen to the opponents. Not listen to the usual predictions coming from the namby-pamby side of things. They're remaining strong in their convictions.
In -- what -- ever the roots of those convictions are. They're different, from Blair to Bush. But it doesn't matter what the specifics that drive their convictions. They're sticking to them. And they are bringing their peoples along with them. If you look at polls in Great Britain, more and more British citizens are finally siding with Blair. That's what leadership's all about.
Leadership is not capitulating to whims of public opinion the first breath of air that you sense from them. Bush doing the same thing. Bush has seen his approval numbers -- and they're going up and down, and they've been a little bit of a roller coaster. Always remaining significantly above fifty percent. But they are nowhere near the seventy and eighty percents they were a year ago. But still - stuck to their guns.
Both men putting their political f- careers on the line. For what they think is right. And the populations of both countries are now coming on board and coming in line. This is exactly what leadership is. There is so much that is positive, and so much that is, to me, awesome, about watching these events unfold before our very eyes. We are literally in the midst of immense history. And often, as I say, when you're living it, the impact is not nearly as great as it will be when future generations look back on this period and write about it.
But it is so -- so much of this, in fact all of this that's happening, has as its' ultimate goal good and decency, justice and the right thing. You know, I -- I look, my friends, at the continuing criticisms of people. We had a call yesterday, and I'm sure, if you watched enough television and read enough, you can hear all these doubting Thomases that -- democracy is not for the Middle East. Why, they don't know what it is. Why, they've never experienced it before. It's not for everybody. Blah blah blah blah -- how -- why anybody wants to listen to such negative -
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Kim] [edit]
...human nature. I've talked about it, this is what Bush and Blair, I think, both understand- human nature is human nature. From human being to human being, it doesn't matter- geographical boundaries. Freedom is freedom, liberty is liberty.
Democracy is simply a way of uh- ordering that liberty, but it can happen to everyone. It's for the Iraqis to ultimately decide, or any oppressed people that are freed from that oppression. But in no way- in no way is freedom an imposition. In no way is democracy an imposition.
What we are doing is in no way an imposition on the Iraqi people. And yet there are leftists in this country and around the world who continue to say that it is. They said we couldn't bring freedom to Japan, that they wouldn't know what to do with it- same thing with Germany. The same thing with, uh- a number of- you know, something interesting to point out too. Something interesting to notice.
When you look at the alliance, the coalition that we have going into this- into this conflict. And it goes back to what Rumsfeld said about old Europe vs. new Europe- the new Europe. Have you noticed who our real allies are? In the- in the new Europe? This is stunning. I don't know if you've ever taken a time- moment to actually notice this- I didn't either. 'Til someone called my attention to it recently.
But our staunchest allies outside of the U.K. are all of these former Soviet Bloc- satellite Soviet countries from Eastern Europe. They're the ones that comprise the bulk of this coalition. They're the ones who have recently tasted freedom again after seventy years of oppression under the Soviet sycle and scythe- hammer and scythe, whatever it was. These are the people who understand, these are the people...
[Cut off for a news update on Ari Fleischer's news briefing from the White House]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Kim] [edit]
[Ari Fleischer's press briefing continues]
[ad: EHarmony.com, a dating service]
[ad: Greater Southern Home Recreation]
[ad: K & G Men's Center, men's clothing]
[station id]
Rush: Talent on loan from God, Rush Limbaugh- the EIB network and seven hours, forty-three minutes, eighteen seconds for Saddam Hussein and those two worthless, derelict sons of his to get out of Dodge.
I think, my friends, it's time for Tom Dachle to step aside and to gather himself. Daschle is clearly a man on the edge, and has been for some months now. His comments, especially this time, are increasingly reckless and intemperate.
Once our men and women are in harms way, and you can say that that's the case now- our nation's leaders are supposed to close ranks, and....
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Kim] [edit]
support them. Not just SAY they do, but actually support them. This is a volunteer force, we have no conscripts- there aren't people there who don't want to be there. We don't have a draft, our armed forces are composed of career people and enlisted men who have volunteered.
They go there- to the Marines, to the Army, to the Air Force, to the Navy, to the Coast Guard, wherever- to be the best they can be. They're going to make us proud. I don't know about you, but watching television- seeing these reports from Kuwait and other areas, reports that detail, uh- what the troops are getting ready to do.
Do you ever stop and try, hard as it may be, to put yourself in their shoes? If you've never done what they're about to do. Have you ever tried to imagine what goes through their mind? It's gotta be a mixture of emotions that are unique to people who've done this- but who haven't done it, don't know if you can even understand it.
The idea that- you know, you're 18 to 19, to 24, to 40- depending on your age and rank and so forth. What you do- your next step might be your last, your next breath may be your last. You- you don't know, it's exhilirating, it's exciting, it's got to be frightening. You know you're prepared, you know you're trained- you're confident, you represent the greatest country on earth.
You bust with pride and burst with pride at the same time, but still- with all this preparation, with all this training, with all of the confidence- there still is the unknown. And there are alot of unknowns in this- the chemically and biologically tipped warheads, whether or not there's going to be a loyal defense of Baghdad by any of Saddam's troops.
Whether it will indeed be a cakewalk, and even if it ends up being so, you know that it's not part of the preparation. But it has to be quite different- from the rest of us just getting up in the morning and just trying to prepare ourselves to go to work. Life and death at every moment is on these peoples minds, and at the front of their minds.
Because the- self preservation nature of life, the will to live is probably as dominant every day in these peoples lives as it is humanly possible to be. If there's a realization, either in the back or in the front of your mind, that the unexpected can happen. Yet they do it, and they don't complain about it. They volunteered to do it.
And they're doing it with pride, they're doing it with gusto and they intend to do it to the best of their ability, and we have to deal with people back here- who say they support the troops, but then engage in behavior that raises questions. If you support the troops and Senator Daschle says he does- you don't seek to undermine the commander in chief- by doing so to undermine the war effort, give aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't do that if you really support the troops.
You know, when Hitler attacked Poland, Neville Chamberlain admitted he was wrong, he apologized to his nation. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the leading Republican isolation set (?) at that time, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio- who's the son of a former President- announced his backing of FDR's war effort.
And here we have 250,000 American men and women within hours of risking their lives and Tom Daschle continues to play politics in hopes of politically benefitting. Should there be American casualties- which we all know there will be, which we all know will be unavoidable- Daschle has set himself up to point fingers and say "See, I told you so."- when these casualties occur. More on this in just a moment. Don't go away, be right back.
[ad: Avacor]
[station id]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Kim] [edit]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather report]
[news break]
[station id]
[ad: American Equity Mortgage]
[promo- saluting the troops]
[ad: Mountain Harbor, a resort community in Tennessee]
[promo for 94.9 Lite Fm]
[promo for Rush's show]
[station id]
Rush: On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh. The epitome of broadcast excellence and show prep for the rest of the media, which follows this afternoon.
Brian, go ahead and fire up the Ditto-cam- um,these are important days- you are a subscriber at Rush 24/7, go ahead to the Ditto-cam page...
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Shane] [edit]
A little fired up at moments www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Several months ago on this program. I opined that Sen. Daschle was trying to sabotage President Bush's war on terrorism. And day after day Sen. Daschle proves me right. His brazenness though even to me and I except nothing but the worst from this guy. And he even in that mind set stuns me. But I shouldn't be, I guess. Neither should you. This is the same man who actually stole the senate majority leader position from the republicans by cutting a deal with Jim Jeffords. Just weeks after Jeffords was re-elected as a republican.
Daschle - you want to talk about illegitimate leaders - Daschle takes the cake there. He used his illegitimacy as Senate majority leader to try to thwart every Bush initiative that came down the pike.
This is the same man, Tom Daschle, who having lost the senate last November, by losing two thirds of all senate seats up for election, is now resorting to an unprecedented filibuster. To block the first ever Hispanic nominated to the second most powerful federal court in the country. I'm talking of course of Miguel Estrada.
They had another vote yesterday. Estrada got 55 votes, but since the filibuster requires 60 votes to break it, Tom Daschle's unconstitutional efforts prevailed again. This is the third time that Migeual Estrada received 4 more votes than necessary to be confirmed to the court. He only needs 51 but because of a first ever filibuster of a judicial nomination of this kind. The constitution has literally been shredded here by Tom Daschle and the democrats who are proceeding in an utterly partisan way during this period of time where partisanship of this nature is repugnant and obviously so when you see it.
And I think that Daschle, and I mentioned this yesterday too and I think its true of a number of democrats. And certainly and again when I say democrats I'm talking about leaders democratic leaders elected officials. Washington and otherwise but honestly I believe that these other people are so driven by personal animus, personal hatred. That in the case of Tom Daschle he has lost his self control. I mean everybody's try to figure out what he was doing with his first statement. Even Democrats are trying to analyze what his point would be. There are columns today in a number of publications devoted to the analysis of the Tom Daschle statement was it a trial balloon for the Democratic presidential candidates? Is it a continuing pitch to the party base? Is Daschle simply trying to keep the democratic party base unified during a period of time that is obviously tough going for democrats?
We're in the process of exercising military force to defend the country. That's a tough time for democrats. They oppose that. They are trying to make political hay out of military force and national security. They are weak and perceived so on national security. That's why, among other reasons, they lost the elections of 2002. And the reason I say that Daschle has lost his self-control, is that they are continuing now to in essence shoot them selves in the foot and the gun is aiming higher on there bodies as they continue to shoot.
The American people support President Bush. There was an overwhelming - there was a Gallup poll that came out late yesterday afternoon. The numbers of support for President Bush are over the top. This poll that was so awesome that CNN barely mentions it. And it's a CNN poll. CNN USA Today Gallup poll its something like 65-70% support the president here, regardless of the Untied Nations, regardless of the, of the a, a inspectors and resolution 1441 and the numbers that oppose the president in the high 20s and low 30s. It is a devastating poll for democrats the kind of results which will resert, cause them to retreat to their cloak rooms and actually cry because the American people are united behind this president. He is a leader, he is a leader with great character and great vision. He is confident in his beliefs, He's confident in his faith. And that is off-putting to the liberals as well.
George W. Bush is everything that Daschle is not, and probably wishes he were. You don't need an advanced medical degree to recognize that Daschle is driven by unhealthy emotions and irrationality. As I said I think he needs to gather himself. He needs to get some control over his actions and his comments. He may even want to consider stepping aside during this perilous time. Make room for somebody who is more levelheaded, somebody who has at least a modicom
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Shane] [edit]
-of respect for the Constitution. Somebody who understands the need for unity at a time like this. I -- don't know which Democrat should replace Daschle. But I do know this, there aren't very many who could do worse than he's doing. In his post -- there aren't too many who could do worse.
So, I think it's time for Daschle to take a rest. To step away. Allow somebody else to lead his party. It isn't gonna happen, my friends, and I don't want you to think I'm living under any illusions that it will. But -- it should. The Democrats, right now, are incapable, it seems, of doing anything that will benefit them. As I say, and I'm more incredulous each time I say it, and -- recognize it. They have positioned themselves where they only benefit if all hell breaks loose.
The economy doesn't rebound, if it continues to stagnate or even gets worse, then they benefit. If the war in Iraq goes awry and is protracted and a lot of casualties, the Democrats are prepared to try and benefit from that. Now, whoever has come up with this strategy, whoever has led these Democrats -- and it may not have been anybody, it may be something toward which, to which, they are oriented naturally. It may not have required leadership.
But if it has been leadership, if it's somebody who has written this strategy for them, they better think twice about who it is they're listening to. Cause this is not the way to recapture the once greatness -- ahem -- of the Democratic Party. As I said, the first signs are emerging that the British people may rally behind Tony Blair and pResident Bush, once Anglo-American forces are actually engaged in combat. This story comes from the Daily Telegraph of London.
Findings of yesterday's Ugov survey for the Daily Telegraph - the first in what will be a daily wartime series - suggests that a nation of cautious hawks could rapidly become a nation of quite determined hawks. Those who believe that the U.S. and Britain are right to take military action against Iraq - unless Hussein goes into exile - already outnumber, by a considerable margin, those who believe the opposite.
A clear majority say that they would have sided with Blair in yesterday's vote in the House of Commons, which he won overwhelmingly. Moreover, a large majority are confident that victory in the coming war will be swift, and that the U.S. led coalition will have defeated the bulk of Saddam's forces within a month. This week's breakdown in diplomacy has, however, inflicted a serious casualty.
A substantial majority of Britons have now lost confidence in the U.N.'s ability to deal with major world crises. That is why this has been brilliant diplomacy! Brilliant diplomacy, my friends. It has illustrated the utter ineffectiveness and irrelevance of the United Nations. Those who say this is failed diplomacy -- such as ABC News in a two hour special Monday night, following the pResident's speech!
Failed diplomacy, when diplomacy fails, was the title of their two hour presentation. People who look at this as failed diplomacy. As a lost opportunity. Have not exhibited the ability to see what's really going on before their eyes. This is what leadership is all about. Tony Blair, like Bush, is leading his country in a war of liberation and national security. His people will eventually catch up with him.
That's what happens when leaders lead. He's doing what's right. He's doing what's moral. As is Bush. You know, it's always easier, always easier to defer. Always easier to ignore. Always easier to respond to the loudest voices of complaint. Bill Clinton did it for eight years. Jimmy Carter did it for four years. And where are we? We're in the mess that we're in today because of it.
Blair, like Bush, will end up being considered a significant world figure when the history books are written. Clinton and Carter will not. Despite what Walter Cronkite says. Walter Cronkite. Yes, my friends, Walter Cronkite. We'll get into this too. Was -- I guess, was is Madison, Wisconsin. At Drew(sp?) University. Made some comments about Carter. He was the smartest president he ever met. Jimmy Carter. Smartest president he's ever met.
Well, Walter Cronkite said that, "Well, most journalists, when they're cub reporters, they're out there covering the impoverished. The homeless. Those who have the toughest lot in life. And that's why they're always sympathetic to those people." Well, Mr. Cronkite, that's all well and good, and I can even understand that. But, what about the solution to it?
Why don't they learn that? As I say, we'll have more on this as the program unfolds before your very eyes. But Clinton and Carter, in the history books, will be written about as the embarrassments they are. And they know it. This explains their frenzied efforts to secure awards and rewrite history -
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Kim] [edit]
...in their retirement. Both are sort of in the midst of legacy rehabilitation tours, because they know the odds that they will be written about truthfully are pretty good. We'll be back with more in just a moment, my friends. The EIB network and El Rushbo continuing- despite the odds.
{promo for the Limbaugh Letter] [station id]
[ad: Lifequotes]
[ad: Z-Max fuel additive]
[promo for morning news show with an update from Rush]
[ad: Dr. David Yates, a local dentist]
[ad: Hill Air Charter]
[station id]
Rush: Hi, how are you? Welcome back, folks- great to have you and a special welcome to the Ditto-cammers watching the program at rushlimbaugh.com today. On the subscriber side of Rush 24/7.
More polling news, it just gets better- not just for Tony Blair, but George W. Bush as well. "Americans have rallied strongly around President Bush and accepted his call for war with Iraq as the only practical way to remove Hussein, and to end the threat posed by his weapons."
This according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last night. Well actually, uh- Tuesday night, I guess. The um- yeah, Tuesday- last night. The, uh- 7 in 10 said- I've got two versions of the same story here in front of me with different times, which is why I'm trying to figure out when this actually ran, but- 7 in 10 saud they supported Bush's televised call to go to war without the blessing of the U.N.- unless Saddam and his sons leave Iraq within 48 hours.
70 percent, folks- 70 percent is fine doing this without the U.N.- 70 percent. Now does this put in perspective what Tom Daschle is saying any better for you? It's suicidal what Daschle is saying. It's more than just irrational, it is suicidal for the Democrats as well. An equally large majority believe....
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Tom] [edit]
That Bush has done enough to win support from other nations as well. More than two out of three in this poll said that Bush policies on Iraq are the right ones. Well, we're talking sixty seven percent there. Fewer than half are strongly convinced, but they're still on board.
The public's preference for a U.N. endorsed war also has faded into the background, following the collapse of efforts by the U.S. and its' allies to win support for that second resolution at the United Nations. Three in four -- listen to this, my friends -- three in four in the Post - ABC poll disapprove of the way the United Nations has handled the Iraqi crisis.
Up slightly from more than half three weeks ago. We're talking seventy five percent of the American people disapprove of the way the U.N. has handled the Iraqi crisis. This is why my good friends, if I say this has been brilliant diplomacy. There's no question about it. This is -- and -- it's exactly what I've been saying. This is leadership. You stick to your guns. You do what you know is right.
Blair and Bush have both done it, and their populations are coming along behind them. Because they've stuck to it. They haven't wavered. In the face of awesome criticism in the case of Blair. And it hasn't been, a, you know, a roll in the hay for Bush here.
Gary in Wichita as we head off to the phones to start that tack of the program. Hello, sir.
Gary: Yes, sir. Thank you for taking my call, Rush.
Rush: You bet.
Gary: Well, Saddam Hussein and his ne'er do well sons, Senator Daschle and his ilk, I think, have got to go. Maybe not with the same means, but -- I was so impressed yesterday. Last night I watched a rerun of C-SPAN. And the debate that occurred in the House of Commons. It was so impressive, and, uh, inspiring to watch Prime Minister Blair present his compassioned, reasoned arguments for going to war. But what was most impressive, Rush, was the opposition leader, whose name escapes me. I believe it was Ian Smith. He got up, and lent his support -- pledged his support to Prime Minister Blair. To this action that will be taken against Iraq. It was so -- it was so impressive to see two sides --
Rush[voices over caller]: Well, but, you know -
Gary: I'm sorry.
Rush: No, no -- but I agree with you. But I don't -- I'm not trying to throw cold water on what you're saying here, but that's entirely consistent, I mean -- what - the Tories are the British version of conservatives in America. And they're for this. They've always been for this. I mean, the idea that they're going along with Blair is the same as when the Republicans went along with Clinton in Kosovo. Republicans went along with Clinton when he was messing around with this Iraq business in nineteen ninety eight.
Even went along with him on this stupid Haiti invasion. One of his first acts. No, the thing that has been interesting -- [gibberish] -- look, I'm glad that you noticed it, and noted it. But -- it --that really wasn't a surprise, and was expected. The thing that's been interesting about the U.K. is to watch the near defection of all the Laborites! The -- equivalent here would be - if -- Bill Clinton were president today, saying everything Bush is saying, and the Democrats run the Senate, run the House, over half of each body opposing Clinton. Half the Democrats.
That would be the equivalent of what Blair has faced in the U.K. Uh -- the -- that's been the interesting thing. And that's -- I tell you, that leads to a whole lot of interesting discussions, if you want to have them, on what it is that motivates the left in all of this. And I know a lot of people continue to scratch their heads over this. And I alluded to it earlier in the program. I've come across a couple of interesting things today that go a long way toward explaining this.
And, believe me, I think this, um, this one theory that I stumbled across, right on the money. I -- I'll mention it to you at the -- in the monologue segment at the top of the next hour. Quick break now. We'll be back. Thanks, David, very much -- I'm -- sorry, Gary. Appreciate the phone call. Stay with us folks. We --
[promo for El ChupaCabra]
[station id]
[ad for Trim Spa(sp?)]
[ad for Credit Report on us.com]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Kim] [edit]
[ad: CreditReportOnUs.com]
[promo for the Kimmer]
[promo for News Radio 640 online- WGST.com]
[ad: Hi-Fi Buys]
[ad: Administaff]
[promo for Rush's show]
Rush: ... uh, I said that Drew University is in Madison, Wisconsin. I'm so used to saying Madison, Wisconsin- Walter Cronkite spoke at Madison, New Jersey. I know Madison, New Jersey- that's where, uh- former Steeler's quarterback Neil O'Donnell was born and raised. Well, he was raised- I'm not sure he was born there, so don't give me corrections on that.
By the way, uh- you know,last- I heard Alan Colmes last night on Hannity & Colmes say that Democrat's are all over trying to say, "Well, you know, Hussein- he's only got these weapons cause we gave them to him." Have you heard that? For about the one-thousandth time I've heard that we supported Iraq in 1988, 1989, when he used mustard gas against the Kurds.
And I get so disgusted with this- yeah, we did support Iraq against Iran, we- that's- that's a devils wager, we made a bet and Iraq was our best bet on that- Iran had taken Americans hostage. But, you know- it's as if these people are trying to justify what Hussein is doing by attacking the United States- "Well yeah, but we gave him the mustard gas, and we did this and that."
Look folks, I've said this countless times, I'm going to say it one more time so that you can have the info. 1988, the U.N. Security Council passed three resolutions against Iraq, condemning all of this. These resolutions passed unanimously with U.S. support, so this idea that we supported Iraq in their mustard-gassing of Kurds is literally b.s.- and it's a weak argument the left is trying- I don't even know why they keep bringing it up- it doesn't mean anything.
[station id]
[ad: Charity Motors]
[station id]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[war propaganda]
[traffic and weather]
[war propaganda]
[ad for Baranco Lincoln Mercury]
[station promo -- we will be warmongering!]
[ad for Mid-Atlantic Financial]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Alex] [edit]
[ad: mid-atlantic financial services]
[ad: aaamortgage.biz]
[ad: nevada state corporate network]
[promo: "the kimmer", local talk jock]
announcer: This is a special edition of the Rush Limbaugh program: Saddam's Final Hours! Seven hours 'til deadline. And now-- Rush Limbaugh!
rush: Seven hours, thirty-seven seconds to be precise, according to the countdown clock at rushlimbaugh.com. Greetings, my friends, and welcome to Rush Limbaugh program. Moving on.
We are here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. You remember, though, as long as I'm here-- it doesn't matter where "here" is-- suffice it to say I am safely and comfortably ensconced in the prestigious Atilla the Hun chair here at our institute behind the golden EIB microphone.
Fifteen Iraqis have surrendered in the DMZ. There's a demilitarized zone's been set up here on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, and-- The French probably celebrate this! You know, this is right out of their defense playbook, folks. The Iraqis are following right along. I think the French are probably saying, "See, we - are - playing a role here, we - are - instructing how - this should go, the fifteen Iraqis have r-- [glitch? edit? stutter?]
There's also a rumor going around-- I first became aware of this at the very earliest hours of the dawn. I received a number of people's notes, directing me to an obscure website that I'd never heard of. I don't even, I don't remember the name of the website now. And it said that Tariq Aziz had been captured fleeing Baghdad, and Kurds had captured him, and he was currently being debriefed by US intelligence officials.
And then - I couldn't find any confirmation of it anywhere else - then, MSNBC reported Tariq Aziz had been shot trying to escape Baghdad. And then, some short minutes thereafter, MSNBC reported "No, we have to retract that report, the Pentagon's saying all these Aziz stories are rumors and we can't confirm anything." So - and they're still being reported as rumors.
And the Iraqis now say that it's "damnable lies!" that Tariq Aziz is a traitor and is trying to flee Baghdad. Course, they haven't seen any video of Tariq Aziz - but -
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Alex] [edit]
[Editor-- Checked by google: Daniel Pipes, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Eric Foner, Lee Harris, techcentralstation.com]
--well, yeah, but was it current-- was it Tariq Aziz today, or was it just file footage?
See, I s-- It was live? It was Tariq Aziz l-- How do you--! Who's saying this to me? Winterbull[sp]? --me a call screener. Well how do you know!? You're supposed to be screening calls! How can you possibly know whether something's live or not? If you know something's live, you've not been screening calls!
Well anyway, apparently he was live. So, they were _damnable_lies_, ladies and gentlemen, the Tariq Aziz trying to defect, escape, whatever. But nevertheless, fifteen Iraqis have surrendered, waving the white flag, and joining the good guys here. Following the defense handbook put out by the French.
Now, I want to get into this. This is-- this is fascinating to me. And I hope it will be to you. There's a column in the New York Post today by Daniel Pipes, who's a well-known expert on Middle East terrorism and related subjects. And his column today is provocatively titled, "Why the Left Loves Osama." And I saw that and I said "Uh-Hmm! I oughta read this!"
And he open the column this way: He says, anybody noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far left to the fatalities of 9-11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein? Right after the 9-11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it the greatest work of art from the whole cosmos. Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament-- meaning, this guy's a teacher at Columbia-- trivialized it by announcing himself unsure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City, or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House. Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers brilliant. And more recently it appears that none of the millions of anti war demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam, nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and the British prime minister.
So the question, why is the left nonchalant about the outrages committed by Al-Qaeda and Baghdad? Now, let me on my own here clarify something. Again, when Pipes here says why is the left nonchalant about the outrages, I don't want any of you Democrats out there to start thinking that you are being discussed here when nonchalance about the outrages committed by Al-Qaeda and Baghdad are discussed. Once again, you will be given a pass; you rank-and-file American liberals and Democrats, who probably couldn't explain why you believe what you believe if you were given a thousand words and two days to do it, are not the targets here. We're talking about the intellectual leadership of the far left and of the Democratic Party.
Mister Pipes quotes a man named Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer who offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institute's journal _Policy_Review_. Lee Harris, by the way, is familiar to some of you who visit the website Tech Central Station. I recently went to Tech Central Station, and lo and behold there is a huge piece by Lee Harris, that I would recommend everybody reading. It's long. It's one of these pieces that will require a lot of time, and multiple readings, to get, but it's good. And again, I saw it at techcentralstation.com; all that's one word: tech-- t-e-c-h-- central-station-dot-com. And I'm assuming-- I haven't been there in a while-- but I'm assuming it is still posted.
Anyway, Lee Harris, in _Policy_Review_, tries to explain the nonchalance of the left to the outrages committed by Al-Qaeda and Baghdad by stepping back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events. This inevitable sequence of events is thus: business profits decline in the industrial countries, bosses squeeze their workers, workers become impoverished, workers rebel against their bosses, and after that, workers establish the Socialist Worker's Paradise. Because of their oppression, and they're being penalized and punished and they finally just say "We can't handle it anymore! And we're going to express and establish Socialism, as a means of fairness and equity for all!"
Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time-- which of course didn't happen. Marx has been totally discredited but there are still a bunch of true believers out there waiting for the ultimate Marxist theory to come around. Western workers have become richer and increasingly unrevolutionary. By the time the roaring fifties came around, most of the left realized that Marx got it wrong. But rather than give up on these cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Lee Harris notes that Marxists have tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the int--/ent--
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Shane] [edit]
-populations of poor countries. The third world, in essence. To carry out the revolution. This, in part, explains why the romance among the left for the third world. Because in the third world lies the last great hope for socialism. The nations of peoples in the third world are supposed to fulfill the Marxist prophecy. They are supposed to rise up against their oppressors and establish a socialist workers paradise, my friends.
And this they contend -- this is why, when Bono, or Bonno, or whatever, go over there and -- establish a -- at-one-ism with these people. This is why the left goes bonkers and have orgasms. Cause people are realizing the third world, and noticing the third world, and inspiring the third world. Rise up against your oppressors! Fulfill the Marxist theories and prophecies that are there.
So class analysis went out the window, and has been replaced by geography. Now whole nations replace the oppressed worker theory. This new approach is known as dependencia theory -- or dependencia. C-I-A at the end of the word. And it holds that the first world, the U.S. above all, profits by forcefully exploiting the third world. Details? Well, okay -- how about this?
The United States is but one -- what, what is it? -- one fifth of the world's population? But we use -- er, one tenth. But we use one fourth of the world's resources? I'm not sure of the numbers, but the United States has [slurred, unintelligible] the United States is stealing from these impoverished peoples. The United is using these laborers and doing it for our own -- uh -- services, and our on pleasures, and this is ultimate exploitation of the third world.
The left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries. As opposed now to individual companies where bosses, uh, impoverish and oppress workers, now we've got the United States impoverishing and oppressing whole countries. Thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a leading terrorist state. Which he has said recently. For vindication of this claim, the Marxists impatiently wait for the third world to rise up against the West.
Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the fifties was Iran's. In seventy eight and seventy nine. And that one ended with militant Islam in power, and the left in hiding. Then came nine eleven. This is where this gets interesting. Then came nine eleven, which Marxists interpreted as the third world finally striking back at its' American oppressor.
This is why so many of the left continue to this day to say, that terrorists are striking out at us because of their poverty. They hate us for their wealth. They hate us for our stealing of the world's resources. They hate us for not sharing what we have at the U.N. They hate us for not signing Kyoto. They hate us for not joining the International Criminal Court and all these other global institutions.
And so, al Queda represents the oppressed workers of Karl Marxian theory. Al Queda represents the oppressed workers rising up against their bosses. This is the first -- and -- this is Harris's theory, and I'm telling you, it resonates with me. This attack was nothing less than world historical in its' significance. The dawn of a new revolutionary era. Al Queda represents Karl Marx's old workers who are oppressed rising up against their bosses.
So desperate is the left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks some details. Such as: suicide hijackers hardly represent the wretched of the earth. Their objectives had nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with militant Islam. They were not impoverished. It took a lot of money to do what they did. Their sponsors are very wealthy. They live lavish playboy lifestyles. They don't represent the oppressed of anybody. They're militant religious fanatics.
But the left is so desperate for the socialist dream to come true that they'll transpose all their beliefs, or transfer all their beliefs, to al Queda. Instead, the left warily admires al Queda, the Taliban, and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly unsocialist practices, such as its' imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property, and persecuting atheists. They overlook all that.
Bottom line here is that um, this spirit explains the left's nonchalance resp- nonchalant response to nine eleven. I mean -- don't -- misunderstand, the rued the loss of life. But not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the nineteen ninety seven -
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Kim] [edit]
...*inaudible- a cult figure among Marxists, Dario Fo, says the great Wall Street speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions with poverty, so what's 20,000 dead in New York? This is a guy, he won the Nobel prize for literature- six years ago, so he's not just saying these kinds of things.
So the- the- I guess, bottom line here is that if you find it strange that there are a lot of leftists in this country that just have a tough time condemning Al-Queda, and instead seek to blame the United States for all this. understand that what's- what's at work here is this unfulfilled dream of a world socialist paradise, brought about by an uprising of the oppressed.
It never happened, it will never happen because capitalism is going to ensure prosperity for all of those who are exposed to it. But the left's so blinded by this, that they look at Al-Queda as the first step towards the fulfillment of a dream. Now once again, I wanna stress- I'm sure alot of you liberal Democrats out there- "Don't insult me by lumping me with.."- I'm- I'm- unless you call and tell me you agree with this, I'm not going to automatically lump you into it.
But you better understand something- the people who run the Democratic party, the people that run liberalism around this world, and they are communists and they are- they may be displaced, but they've might've chosen new homes, like the militant environmental movement or the peace movement, the anti-war movement. Communism is not well organized, it doesn't have a nation state home, although it may be China- but not with this bunch. They are still trying to see their dreams fulfilled and realized. And Al-Queda is this one little glimmer of hope in their eyes.
A quick break, we'll be back with more in just a moment. Sit tight.
[promo for Rush, celebrating the death of diplomacy on the EIB network]
[ad: spoken promo by Rush for Theragesic]
[ad: Fox News Channel]
[ad: Verbal Advantage}
[promo for morning news show with an update by Rush]
[ad: Nissan]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Cure Childhood Cancer, a non-profit organization]
[station id]
Rush: ...with Saddam Hussein and sons to flee Iraq. My friends, are you, um- curious as to how it might be in the White House this week? When- are you wondering what the attitude is there? I know, I find myself wondering what it's like- I see videotape of all these, uh- cabinet level people arriving in their secured vehicles and walking in, and their faces look, uh- somber, serious.
And I wonder if at a time like this, it's frenetic- or it's calm, cool, collected. You know what I'll bet you? I don't know, cause- I've been here each day, I haven't been there. But I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut- that there's not one bit of frenetic type behavior at the Bush White House. I'll bet you that everything is business as usual.
Wouldn't go so far as to say calm, cool, collected- but I'll bet you that there's, um- probably a deep level of comfort and security and confidence- in those halls and in those rooms, But you know why? Because I think this President- doing exactly what he said he was going to do from the very beginning of this.
He has not taken a tack that he hasn't said that he wasn't going to take- therefore he's not taking a tack that he was not prepared for. He probably hasn't faced too many suprises and those suprises that popped up he's dealt with. But because of the committment, that this President has to his agenda, to his, uh- vision, his sense of right and wrong, his sense of being committed to doing the right thing.
Now he finds himself in the midst of doing the right thing as he's envisioned it. My guess is that, um- frenetic would not be a way to describe this- going on at the White House, and I wouldn't go so far as to say calm, but I bet you there's no evidence or sign of insecurity, indecision- certainly there's no panic.
Uh, I'm sure there's just a calm resolve- well, maybe not calm- I wouldn't describe it as calm, I wouldn't guess. But I'll bet you that there is a deep sense of resolve that we're doing the right thing, and we're doing it as we said we were going to do. Nobody is suprised by it, other than those who just refuse to believe who George Bush is.
Now you can probably rest easy and be confident, that people running the show here are collected, reserved and committed. We'll be back, stay with us. Your phone calls are coming up next.
[ad: General Steel Corporation]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Kim] [edit]
[traffic and weather update]
[news break]
[station id]
[ad: Lennox Financial Mortgage]
[promo from WGST, supporting the troops]
[ad: spoken ad by the Kimmer for Solomon Brothers Jewelers]
[promo for the the 96 Rock morning show]
[promo for morning news show]
Rush: A man, a legend, a way of life. Rush Limbaugh, a ticking time bomb of knowledge exploding at regular intervals, noon to three eastern, Monday through Friday. Let's go to the phones- Clinton, Mississippi, this is Judy. Judy, thanks for calling, thanks for waiting and welcome.
Judy: Hi Rush, first time caller....
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Shane] [edit]
Judy: -to talk with you.
Rush: Thank you much. [pause] Are you there?
Judy: Yes.
Rush: Okay. Go ahead,
Judy: Yesterday I had heard a little bit on the news. Something about Oprah. So I decided --I don't normally watch her show --
Rush: Good for you.
Judy: But I decided just to get a flavor of what her show was about yesterday to see what the hubbub was.
Rush: Yes.
Judy: And there were three points that jumped out at me from what I saw. Number one, it was an anti-American platform. They -- ah -- if -- America can do no good. We can only do wrong. Number two, which surprised me, she brought in a race element to it. And, um, turning it into people of color versus whites. And -- number three, it was -- going in unilaterally. It was nothing good about this country and the things this country has done.
Rush: Were you surprised?
Judy: Um -- not really.
Rush: Good..
Judy: I have not watched her -- you know, I don't watch her show. But, I'm not surprised because so many celebrities think to go down that road. Um -- I am tired of hearing celebrities bash this country, and bash Bush, and our military. And, um -- it's like my daughter. She's living in Germany right now. Her husband is an Army pilot. Um -- they -- for those that have the money and have traveled abroad, which I have been over there -- they know what those countries are like. And she does-
Rush: Well, look. Uh -- Judy, - let me go back to your -- three points here. That you heard on Oprah's show. My question to you, were you surprised, your answer's no, and that's good. Forget that Oprah's a celebrity and all that. Oprah's a liberal! Oprah Winfrey is liberal! And -- so -- the fact that she would conduct the program yesterday with that focus is entirely in character. Shouldn't surprise anybody. Now, I don't blame people for getting mad, but -- you know, some of you people are big Oprah fans out there, that maybe Oprah's some -- touchy feely cares about, you know, women being oppressed, and women realizing their full potential.
I wouldn't even object to that. I think , I think , I think Oprah has done more to keep women -- uh -- as - unfulfilled cream puffs as anybody in the country has. Oprah has made them comfortable with their -- with their phobias. Oprah has allowed women to remain and stay comfortable with all their so-called problems. It's quite normal to have these problems -- after all, there are men in the world. It's quite normal to have these problems -- after all, we have a Republican in the White House. It's quite normal to have these problems -- there's a lot of stress out there. This is America, after all.
So, shouldn't be surprised. The fact it's an anti-American platform. I didn't see it. I -- if I had seen it, I don't know whether I'd describe it that way. You did. If that's what it was, I -- as I say, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm certainly not surprised she brought race into this. I'm not surprised -- I had a story yesterday in my stack of stuff. I -- you know -- I purposely left it out. Because -- one of the things here in this particular moment in time.
Now, this is, this is a serious undertaking here that -- we're getting involved in. There is a great vision that is promoting what we're doing here. This is the essence of America. Is behind this operation. The essence of leadership. The essence of freedom. The notion that all human beings are created equal drives this mission. Yes sir, my friends, it does. It most certainly does. That notion that all men are created equal drives this.
I get so frustrated when I, when I read or hear people say that, well, the Iraqis, the Saudis, the middle easterners, the Irani -- why, they're not capable of democracy. Why, they've never lived it. Why, they've never had it in their culture. How arrogant! How absolutely stuffed shirt elitist arrogant somebody can be.
For a person living in this country, experiencing the bounties of freedom, to dare suggest that some people are not capable of it, makes me want to spit. We are no better than anybody else. We end up having more than anybody else because we have been free to realize and maximize our own individual potential. All working together. Realizing -- or -- causing to be realized, this great country. And there's nothing that says it can't happen elsewhere.
All these people that say, "Well, you can't, you can't impose democracy on peo"- of course, you don't. Democracy's not an imposition. Because freedom isn't an imposition. Tell it to the Germans. After World War Two. Guess you can't have democracy in the -- in Europe, can you? Tell it to the Germans. Tell it to the Japanese. Tell it to all the former Soviet bloc nations who are leading this coalition of the willing. They know a thug when they see one. They know freedom when they see it. And they know oppression, cause they've lived it.
And they're not having too many troubles establishing variations of democracy, or representative republicanism, in their countries. It doesn't happen overnight-
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: zzyzx] [edit]
...but for some people to say, it's not even worthy of being some places is to- is to deny the existence of human nature. It is to deny one of the concepts- precips (?) on which this nation was founded.
All men, including women- not being sexist here- are created equal, and we were, and we are and we all have beating within us this- this nascient yearning to be free. We are not born with- with the desire to be limited and controlled and oppressed. We have- the human history is replete- with war after war, story after story of people fighting that.
So along comes the United States, in example after example, attempting to help people who are facing oppression and wanna be liberated from it. And THIS generates Oprah-type shows yesterday? I say let 'em keep talking, let these elites keep acting- you know, the thing about liberals that amazes me is they're the ones that keep talking about human rights and equal rights, so- if this isn't a human rights mission, then by god, I've never seen one.
And yet these are the same people trying to stop it from happening. This is a rescue mission as much as it is a war. And these elite liberals- they're sitting here all happy and fat in their penthouses and their estates, wherever they live- and dare to say that some people simply aren't ready for it? And that this is a mistaken notion and that we shouldn't be involved in this.
And then to bring race into this? The story I had yesterday- the reason I didn't get to it- is cause I'm purposely trying to avoid all this gloom and negativism out there cause it's uncalled for. With the great vision that's driving this, the ide- the ide- you realize if we bring this off- we've got this cauldron in the world called the Middle East, it is where most of the terrorism in this world is bred. It's got to be dealt with.
We can't appease it, we can't peacefully co-exist with these people. They've got to be defeated and they've got to be changed and they've got to be given a different outlook on life from the moment they're born. They've got to know the possibilities all Americans know when they're born.
I had this story yesterday from- I- I forget what the source was, it was um- it's- it's AANP or something- I forget what it was. But it was all about how American civil right's leaders are steadfastly opposed to this war because they're afraid that it is going to reduce their entitlement programs. That this war is going to cost X billions and that's going to be less AFDC that will be going here or less food stamps will be going there- or some sort- and no such thing is the case.
There is not one social program that is going to be cut back because of this. There's not one Social Security check that's not going to go out because of this. There's not one Medicare or Medicaid patient that's not going to be treated because of this and for these people to say that there will be and get their charges all scared and- and worked up into a frenzy is irresponsible as far as I'm concerned.
It's unconscionable, it's no different from what the Democrat's have been doing for as long as I've been alive. Every year you can make book on it, they will lay claims that Republican's want to cut Social Security, take people's homes away from them- deny them medicine or whatever. Trying to scare the hell out of them- and it never happens.
And it is, it's- it's unkind- in addition to being unconscionable- to sit there and get these people all worked up over something that isn't gonna happen. And a lifetime of this has led people to believe- "Well, Republican's would- if they wanted to- I mean, that's what they really wanna do, if they ever had the chance they would do it."
It's not the case. If anything, Republican's want to get these people out of programs because it's a prison. If all you have is a dependency on some type of program, you are destined to be miserable all your life and this is what we know. And the desire to get people out of these programs, and out of poverty- so they can experience the bounties of this country themselves like everyone else has- is the objective.
But I'm not surprised Oprah would bring race into this, and this business of unilateralism- I- I swear, I'm gonna seriously begin challenging people's intellect on this. 45 nations are with us, my friends- I am holding here, in my formerly nicotine stained fingers, a story from the National Post in Canada- "45 Nations Back The War"
(Reading from the story)
"American's are disappointed that Canada has not joined the coalition. The list of countries supporting war includes 15 that do not want to be publicly identified, said a State Department official. The coalition does not include Canada."
There is no such thing as a unilateral operation here, even the Saudis are with us. And guess what, as I pointed out yesterday, even the Germans are slowly but surely- as predicted by me- coming on board. Gerhard Schroder has just promised that we can use our bases and fly-over rights in Germany for these purposes.
And I told you all along that the Germans would be there at the end of the day, I even said the French would.....
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Kim] [edit]
... I'm still hedging on that. Even though the French have said that if Saddam uses chemical weapons, that they'll do what they can to help out. I don't know what's going to happen to the French, I don't care.
If anything, the French- once again, have been documented to be as irrelevant as they are, it doesn't matter if they're with us. But the Saudis are with us, the Turks have done a 180- Kuwait is with us, Quatar. This- this notion that there'd unilateral activity going on here has to make me wonder about Oprah's intellect.
And if her intellect is intact, then I have to wonder about her objectivity. If you can't get this simple fact right, then you shouldn't trust anything else that you heard on her show yesterday. Because if she's not willing to admit that this is not unilateral, then I'm going to doubt everything else that she had to say.
And I wouldn't worry about it, in fact- I'd encourage people like Oprah and others to keep talking. You're isolating yourselves, you are demonstrating who you are at the moment of truth. You're demonstrating your elitism and your arrogance. To not understand the human rights nature of this mission, to not undertand the great vision of this mission.
To try to- in- in one fell swoop- to try to take the- the wind out of the sails of terrorism, to oppress the people of Iraq, to cause whatever may then happen in Iran and other nations. But one things for sure folks, we simply cannot live in a world with the Middle East the cauldron that it is today.
And left to the liberals of Great Britian and the United States, it would remain as it is and grow. Because to some liberals, as we pointed out in the first half hour- to some liberals, the cauldron sponsoring terrorism in the Middle East represents a Socialist utopia on the verge of happening. And they're not altogether unhappy about it- in the slightest.
Again I say- this does not, I think, represent the majority of you American liberals of the left, but clearly some of the intelligencia and the intellectual elites of the left- clearly do subscribe to this theory that Al Queda represents the oppressed workers of the world striking out against the oppressive United States.
And so they're not altogether unhappy that Al Queda's doing what it's doing- we deserve it, all these seminars- why they hate us so much. I bet that was part of Oprah's show too. "Why do they hate us so much?"
They don't, we've got enough people in this country who hate this country, without worrying about why they hate us- and we'll deal with them too, primarily by ignoring them. And then causing them to show up, show themselves, draw them out- and make them in the midst of their frustration- illustrate exactly who they are, where their cards are and where their loyalties are.
I'm telling you folks, this whole operation has got the chance- to remake so much, for the good- that it's hard to comprehend it- unless you really sit down and think about it. Look, uh- thanks- thanks for the call, I've got to take a quick break here, cause I'm a little long. We'll be back and resume in just a moment.
[promo for Rush's show]
[station id]
[ad: Autozone]
[ad: Posture-D]
[ad: The Intelligent Office]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Alex] [edit]
[ad: KNG SuperSavers (clothing store)]
[promo: newsradio 640 WGST]
[talking under promo] --on the Oprah show yesterday, Thomas Friedman-- actually I guess I ought to call him Daniel Friedman. Sheryl Crow has some sort of a speech on her website in which she refers to the brilliant writings of "Daniel Friedman" of the New York Times, so I guess he's Daniel Friedman today.
Anyway, he was on Oprah's show yesterday, and here's her question. Of course, the answer is the best thing. But question, [femmey voice] "Why does so much of the world still hate us, Tom? What are the bigger questions behind the conflict with Iraq? Americans need to know about our role in the world." And here's what Friedman said:
Friedman clip: Since 9-11, I think where we've gotten into trouble is that America the optimistic, America the progressive, we've been-- we've put that aside. We've been exporting our fears, not our hopes. Think of all of President Bush's speeches, right up to last night. All we hear about are who are our enemies, and what we're going to do about them. And we've stopped inviting people into our future. And I think that's something deeply unhealthy. Because the world-- yes, they resent us, they get mad at us, but at the same time they deeply envy our optimism. They deeply envy our naivete, and they want to taste and feel that America too. We've got to find a way to balance those two, after 9-11, and right now they've gotten out of balance.
Rush: This is pure psychobabble. Absolute pap. Folks, this couldn't be more wrong if "Daniel Friedman" set out to be wrong. America the optimistic? America the progressive? We've put that aside? It's the exact opposite, Tom! It _is_ the optimistic America, the realistic America! We are exporting our _goodness_. We are exporting _freedom_. We are exporting that which we stand for. President Bush's speeches have been uplifting. They have been serious, they have been inspiring, they have been motivating.
'Course we hear about who our enemies are, Tom; we have one. We have two; we have three; we have many. Takes me back to the old-- ah, this is getting so old and overworked, it's almost a cliche to mention it, what, Reagan talking about the Evil Empire. Tom Friedman would've been one of these guys, "oo, you don't say that! My goodness, you don't say--" Why don't you say it, Tom? It's true! They _were_ the evil empire! They _were_ an enemy. They needed to be destroyed, they needed to be defeated, just as does this breeding ground of terrorism. It _is_ an enemy. North Korea is an enemy. Iran is an enemy. They _are_ the axis of evil. We are doing something about it, we are not appeasing. This is ultimately uplifting and positive, it's honest.
And to sit here and say that the American people are envied-- our _naivete_ is envied? They want to taste and feel the _naivete_ of America!? They _want_ to be a _part_ of America! Trains, boats and planes packed to the gills with people dying to get here, Tom! I don't understand-- I really don't understand. I think-- This is somebody trying to be the smartest guy in the room-- it's the only thing I can figure out-- and trying to say something that he doesn't think anybody else is saying. I-- this is pure horse manure. We'll take a break and be back. Stay with us.
announcer: Feel the heat on the EIB network!
[promo: newsradio 640 WGST]
[ad: Trimspa]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad: Scott Trade]
[promo for the Rally for America]
[ad: Mountain Harbor, a resort community in Tennessee]
[ad: JointRitis, arthitis pain relief patch]
[promo for morning news show]
Rush: My friends, something that you might want to remember- I mentioned this months ago on this program. Saddam Hussein has killed more Muslims than anyone in the world. This is a human rights mission, as much as anything else. Saddam Hussein has killed more Muslims than anyone in the world.
People are doing shows about why American is hated- the truth is, we're hated by people who oughta hate us. It's no big deal- this is still the most popular country on the face of the earth, by all manner of evidence you choose. We will be back, stay with us.
[station id]
[ad: Emery Vision]
[ad: Caltrate Colon Health]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather update]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Tom] [edit]
[local traffic and weather]
[Ari Fork Tongue spins for the junta]
[more warmongering propaganda]
[local traffic and weather]
[station id]
[ad for Baranco Lincoln Mercury]
[ad for cash rash promo on PigBoy's show]
[ad for EGP -- print services company]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Kim] [edit]
[ad: EGP, sales and service of faxes and copiers]
[ad: Nextel]
[ad: Nevada State Corporate Network]
[promo for Dr. Laura's show]
[station id]
Rush: Thank you, Johnny Donovan. Six hours and forty-eight seconds, according to the www.rushlimbaugh.com website countdown clock. And we welcome you back, to another hour of broadcast excellence straight ahead, from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. And here's the- telephone number if you'd like to be on the program, 800-282-2882. Our e-mail address, rush@eibnet.com.
Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz appeared at a news conference today, putting to rest rumors that he had abandoned the Baghdad regime of Saddam Hussein.
(talking in a heavy accent, mocking Tariq Aziz)
"I am carrying my pistol to confirm to you that we are ready to fight the aggressors." as he said. "American soldiers are nothing but mercenaries and they will be defeated."
We are quaking in our boots here. British Foreign office had said that it was investigating the rumors which emerged this morning from the northern Kurdish region in Iraq that, uh- Aziz had fled and had been captured- in fact was being interrogated by U.S. intelligence. But that's not the case.
From the Yomiuri Shimbun of Japan today, "The United States appreciates Japan's staunch support for the U.S. decision to use military force against Iraq." according to Ambassador Howard Baker. "The deadline for.."- oh, forget that.
"Japan's staunch support for the U.S. position... perhaps a high point in the Japan-U.S. relationship in the last 50 years," Baker said during an interview with The Yomiuri Shimbun and The Daily Yomiuri at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo."
"I know the President is pleased by the reaction of the Japanese government...with the possible exception of the United Kingdom, we have no better friend (than Japan) in the world,"
I guess this is, uh- another example of the "failed" diplomacy of George W. Bush, eh? Japanese on board- also, uh- the dollar today...
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Madison, NJ Walter Cronkite Hyannis Jennifer Gross Debbie Langehammer Eisenhower ]
...rose to its highest levels in a month against the yen and advanced versus the Euro as well, as the seemingly imminent attack against Iraq prompted expectations of a rapid conclusion to a war.
As the countdown to an ultimatum issued by President Bush to Saddam drew into its final hours, Hussein vowed to defy any action to topple his regime, but traders, undaunted by Hussein's stance, continued to buy dollars, encouraged by the lifting of uncertainty that has deeply troubled financial markets in recent months.
So, the economic news continues to be on balance positive as the - this is a good way to put it - the level of uncertainty has come to a close.
From Madison, NJ: the most trusted man in America, retired CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite, put aside his journalistic impartiality [laughs] When has he ever been impartial? That's one of the biggest jokes in American journalism: that Walter Cronkite was impartial! Well, that's what it says here, he put his impartiality aside Tuesday night and issued a blistering dissent to President Bush's decision to wage war with Iraq.
At a Drew University forum, Walter Cronkite said he feared the war would not go smoothly. He ripped the arrogance of Bush and his administration, and wondered whether the new US doctrine of pre-emptive war might lead to unintended dire consequences. I swear! The lack of just general intelligence on the part of the smartest people in the world continues to baffle me.
It just does. In the first place, there's no arrogance here. In the second place, "the doctrine of pre-emptive war might lead to unintended dire consequences"? Dire for who? Gee whiz, Walter - I just realized something - some of you people in this audience, Walter Cronkite may as well be Walter Schmonkite - you may not even know who he is. The last time he was really seen in public was on board a yacht with Bill Clinton and Hillary, during the Lewinsky impeachment fiasco, somewhere off Hyannis or something. Yeah.
Ok, sorry, he's on the Discovery channel sometime in the wee hours of the morning. What, narrating documentaries? Sorry about that, I didn't know. I thought his last public appearance, aside from his speech there, was with the Clintons during impeachment, offering them "impartial" moral support.
Cronkite said, "Every little country in the world that has a border conflict with another little country - they now have a great example from the US." Oh, I get it. We're going to inspire all these other countries out there, who are just peaceful as they can be, to go ahead and take up arms against their neighbors if we do it.
What does he think goes on in the world? Would the philosophy ours is a world government the aggressive use of force be lost on Walter Cronkite? I think so.
More than 2,000 people attended the forum last night, including college students such as Jennifer Gross, 19, of Sparta, NJ, who wasn't born when Cronkite surrendered his groundbreaking anchor post in 1981. Also attending, 83 year old Debbie Langehammer of Morristown, who recalled Cronkite's most famous broadcasting moment, the tragic afternoon when he blinked back tears while announcing the death of President Kennedy in 1963.
Cronkite began by discussing one of his journalistic high points, reviewing the D-day invasion with President Eisenhower in Normandy, and then addressed the looming war with Iraq. "I am very disappointed we have come to this point," Cronkite said. While many are confident the US will easily oust Hussein, Cronkite is not so sure.
"The military is always more confident than circumstances show they should be." You know, that's not even true! It's just the opposite of that! The last people in the world who want to go to war are the military people, precisely because they know it's the unknown that can get them every time.
If we were arrogant and overly confident, we wouldn't train, we wouldn't worry about modernizing weapons or any of that - this - hard to catalog.
Cronkite speculated that the refusal of many traditional allies such as France - they're not traditional allies! The French have been opposed to us - you might even say in World War II they were opposed to us. They're not a traditional ally. That's one of the biggest myths that's come down the pike as well. Anyway, Cronkite speculated the refusal of many traditional allies to join the war effort signalled something deeper, more ominous, than a mere foreign policy disagreement. "The arrogance of our spokespeople, even the President himself, has been exceptional. Seems to me they've taken great umbrage at that, we've...
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Alex] [edit]
--[mimicking Cronkite] "what they do, it's a pretty dark doctrine."
I guess he's talking about Iraq. Have you-- Walter-- D-- [sigh] Jesus, where to start. Have you ever heard of terms of surrender in the Gulf War, and not abiding by them, and building up weapons of mass destruct-- Does any of this stuff get through to these people? I guess it doesn't. I guess it really, really doesn't.
Congress was chided by Cronkite for [mimics Cronkite] "not looking closely enough at the war, and attempting to ascertain a viable estimate of its eventual cost, particularly in light of Bush's commitment to tax cuts."
I mean this-- [thump] [laugh] Walter, you are so predictable! Just line up a liberal and have him say what he would say, and then put it in your mouth and it would be identical. [Mimics Cronkite] "We're going to be in such a fix when this is over, or before this war is over even; our grandchildren's grandchildren are going to be paying for this war. I look at our future as, I'm sorry, being very, very dark. Let's see our cards[?] as we rise to meet the difficulties that lie ahead."
Walter, this is why people like you are fortunately not running the country. We don't need a bunch of pessimists and doom-and-gloomers out there, it's just the exact opposite. I just-- I continue to marvel at this, especially seeing what he's seen. He's seen the US military in action. He's seen victory. He has seen the United States at its best. [tapping] And I'm-- and it's-- And this is-- this is just more anti-Bushism, this is just Cronkite being a liberal and Bush is a conservative, and they just don't like Bush. [tapping] That's all it is.
He also-- he also said something here about the news people. He said most news people-- this is a question-- in response to a question about news bias, media bias-- Cronkite said the press is not politically partisan [laugh], but it does tilt towards liberalism. He said the smartest president he ever met was Jimmy Carter. Well now _that_ tells us a lot. [Mimics Cronkite] "Most news people start their early careers as cub reporters, covering the seamy side of life. They see the poverty, they see the want, and as a result," Cronkite said, [keeps mimicking Cronkite] "they tend to favor the underprivileged." Well I'm sure the underprivileged appreciate being favored. But this is a hanging curve ball as far as I'm concerned. They see the poverty, they see the want-- of course they do, they're not blind-- but _all_ these journalists over _all_ these years have seen _all_ this poverty and seen _all_ this want, don't have the foggiest idea what will fix it, or what will keep it broken. And that is the great failing of journalism. They don't see what will fix it, they don't see what keeps it broken, they just see it.
We'll take a-- what's this, Don[?] wants to know what a cub reporter is. Since it's [unintelligible] A cub reporter is either an intern or somebody doing their first job. Cub reporters are assigned the city beat-- go to city hall and take a look at who was arrested for drunk driving, or reporting on things like that. They're sent out to the boondocks, basically, to learn the ropes. That's what Cronkite's point is. They go out there, and see people in the boondocks, in poverty, and [mimics Cronkite] "they have a never-ending bond with them," cause they've seen it. But they don't know the slightest thing about fixing it.
Anyway, gotta go here folks. Quick break, back with more in mere moments.
announcer: Always has been, always will be. Unilateral. Rush on the EIB network.
[promo: "the Kimmer" on newsradio 640 WGST]
[ad: SkyFi Audio System]
[ad: Math Made Easy videos]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Math Made Easy]
[Ad: D. Decker Painting]
[Ad: ArtiCat ATV]
[News Radio WGST 640]
Rush: Yes, I believe in miracles, here, it's a little uhh, music from, "Hot Chocolate", hey why don't you grab uhh, duhh, think it's a dance band, "I dropped a bomb on you", an I heard this uhm, during the uhh - during the pre-show today, the -- the you never know, it is appropriate. (Two taps on desk)
Fortney Pete Stark, taking after Tom Daschle ladies and gentlemen and one of the most brutal critiques of the, administrations policy toward Iraq by a member of congress. Fortney Pete Stark, from the bay area in California said "President Bush should be responsible for an act of terror, by launching a massive bombing campaign to oust Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. I think unleashing 3000 smart bombs against the city of Baghdad in the first several days of the war, to me, if those were unleashed against the San Francisco bay area, I'd call that an act of terrorism." Well, yeah, it would be if it were... Agh, gheez, folks (banging on desk)... these people are just to good. (Two taps on desk)
Soo... Tom Daschle set the stage and leads the way, and here comes good ol' dependable Fortney Pete Stark, from the liberal left, now accusing our president of engaging in terrorism. A Whitehouse spokesman said that uhh," Stark and other members of congress are, entitled to their views, others will judge them and decide weather or not they agree with them." says spokeswoman Claire Buchan, Buchan, I'm not sure how she pronounces it, and she did add, "The president has made it very clear that it is Saddam Hussein's choice not to take asylum, or not to disarm, and that's the choice he's making. The President's interests are the interests of peace, for the American people, the Iraqi people in the region," and Fortney Pete, I don't know if he voted for it, but congress certainly authorized this force, last October, in a debate "they demanded", by the way.
Here's Jason in Washington D.C. thanks for the call sir, it's great to have you with us...
Jason: Thank you Rush, thanks for taking my call, and I thank you from getting me through grad school, with uhh, all the liberals I had to be around...
Rush: You are more than welcome sir.
Jason: Okay, now I'm going back to your last hour and your talk about democ -- democratization of Iraq...
Rush: Yes.
Jason: and I believe that, democracy should not be our reasoning for going into Iraq, uhm, because democracy may or may not take root, and our influence, while, I agree it will help, will not be the deciding factor, and I do agree with you that freedom is a natural yearn for the human spirit...
Rush: Yeah.
Jason: and soul, but I do...
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Tom] [edit]
Jason: Believes [unintelligible] in and of itself is sufficient grounds for democracy. I think we must go to war in Iraq to prove to the Wahabi and the terrorist sympathizers that their belief in the inevitability of like you said, with the, um, one of your new stories of the Islamic revolution is a dead end, and an utterly and completely false doctrine that must be destroyed.
Rush: Well, ah -- you're right. I - don't - think the primary motivation for our military action here is -- the installation of democracy. Because that's ultimately up to the Iraqi people.
Jason: Correct.
Rush: Liberation is certainly part of the equation here. But it's up to them, you know -- what they want to do. The -- there's not going to be any imposition of that, but I -- the -- primary focus here is terrorism. The primary focus is enforcing U.N. resolutions. Let's not forget that. We're doing for the U.N. what it said all along it was going to do.
There's -- so many worthwhile moral justifications for this that -- it -- would take a long time to list them. But I'll tell you this, I don't want to downplay the -- possibilities of -- ah, democratization or whatever of the region -- but that region of the world -- Wahabism dominant or not -- it cannot simply coexist peacefully with the modern world. Something's got to give, and it's time it gave.
Jason: Correct. I -- agree. And actually, the liberals have it wrong. There's a book called 'Inside al Queda: the Network of Terror, that's written by Gunaratna, and he talks about one of the reasonings be -- for -- the al Queda network gaining ground is U.S. withdrawal, and U.S. cutting tail and running. Part is during the Clinton administration. Part is during the Carter administration with the Iran hostages. But one of them was that America didn't finish Saddam Hussein off in nineteen ninety one during the Gulf War and showed that America didn't have the heart to go through with it.
Rush: Well -- I -yeah. See -- I -- it - well. Whatever they -- um -- ultimately analyzed it as, it -- that's understandable. They get the impression that we're not really willing to close the deal. Mogadishu's a big thing with al Queda. And bin Laden. The fact that we cut and ran in some -- in -- Somalia, of all places! People with machine guns inside of fifty seven Chevrolets and pickup trucks. And we cat -- cut and ran.
And, by the way, this is no slight to the troops that were on the ground there. They just -- they were not given the military support they requested from Washington. And, it was a sad day. Black Hawk Down, the movie that, and book that, recorded all this historically. But I, there's no question that that's true. And this is going to go a long way toward reversing that. At least, with this current leadership. But, you, look -- the day is gonna come.
This is why it's important, I think. That's why elections matter. It's important to do as much as you can. Take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. Cause the day is gonna come. We're gonna have a liberal democrat White House again. I shudder. But it'll happen. I don't know -- liberal dem [gibberish] -- there's gonna be a democrat in the White House someday. Democrats gonna run congress someday somewhere down the road.
And, you know there's an ebb and flow to all this, uh, and, if -- I just shudder to think where we would be and what we would be doing and how we'd be going about it had nine eleven happened with the remnants of the Clinton-Gore administration still in office.
And -- if -- you want to know how we'd be dealing with it, just listen to people like Tom Daschle and Walter Cronkite and Clinton himself. Has people running around. To his credit, you know, Gore's not saying anything. Gore hasn't said anything in three, four months. And he needs to be applauded for shutting up during this period. Yeah, he does! He really does. It's the first sign of sense that we've seen from him.
[ad for Dale Carnegie courses]
[war propaganda disguised as news]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
[WGST News Radio 640]
[Ad: AutoZone]
[Ad: The Kimmer]
[Ad: American Equity Mortgage]
[Ad: Jared Jewels]
[WGST News Radio 640]
[Rush Limbaugh Intro Music]
Rush: Hubba - hubba. Ahh! Here we go, the "Chaz Band" dropped a bomb on me. What is it? Gaff band? Gas Band. Sorry, Gap Band -- Gap, gas. It's all the same to me...(intro music)...
Wednesday, March 19, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Carl] [edit]
[ Note to editor: Sorry, I don't have time to check any of the names today. It's spell-checked, and that's about it. ]
...song from the early eighties, ladies and gentlemen, which means that it also came out after Walter Cronkite retired from CBS News.
Grab audio sound bite number 5 for me. Last night - I didn't see it, but Cookie did, she watched it - Frank Luntz on MSNBC, special edition of Countdown to Iraq.
They did one of these focus group panels. And Loretta Sanches, representative democrat from California - did you see this? You watch this - Anyway, Frank Luntz said to her, Congressman, do we have to be this insecure? Do we have to get to this situation? Could it have been avoided?
[LS] "Well, I am saddened because, you know, the day after 9/11, we had every country in the world with us. They were saddened, they were with us, they were sending their condolences, they understood that terrorism is wrong. And in less than 18 months, President Bush has evaporated all of that. I mean, we don't have 30 countries going in with us, in this conflict, as his father did."
[RL] That's right, Loretta, we have 45. We have 45 countries with us. This is just - I know - it's abject idiocy! It's pure ignorance on display. Last night on MSNBC Frank Luntz - one of his focus groups specials, I guess - and they had what's her name, Loretta Sanches there.
Also, let's skip forward here to audio sound bites 9 and 10. The Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations was caught outside the UN today on the sidewalk, and they asked him if Iraq would use oil as a weapon during this war.
[Ambassador] "Well, I don't know really how [unintelligible] is used. What do you mean by that?"
[Interviewer] "I mean like as far as like shutting down the pipeline that goes to Turkey, oil fires, you know that sort..."
[Ambassador] "No, oil fires, I don't think so. How can they use the Iraq side oil as... I don't know. Certainly not."
[RL] There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, straight from the mouth of Mohammed al Dury, or al Dowry, or whatever, the Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations: Iraq will not use oil as a weapon; he didn't even know how it will be possible. So we can all breath easier.
Says it again here, an unidentified female reporterette asked him, Ambassador al Dury, what are the possibilities of chemical and biological weapons being used?
[MaD] "First of all of course there is no more chemical weapons in Iraq. And the Iraq side is cooperating with UNMOVIC even today. I have a communication from Baghdad that a report from Iraq will come, and will come to UNMOVIC, so we're still working on that, and a very good cooperation."
[RL] Yes, we're working on that and very good cooperation, and there's no chance at all of chemical and biological weapons being used, because there is no more chemical weapons in Iraq. He heard from Iraq today - got a communication - that there's no use of oil as a weapon, and no chemical weapons, because Iraq doesn't have any more.
Here's Glen in [unintelligible] CA. Hi, Glen - you waited - welcome to the program.
[unintelligible]
Thanks, it's great to have you. Naval aviation, you say? You a flier? Are you a pilot?
[Glen}Yes I am.
[Rush]What do you fly?
[Glen}F-18 Hornet.
[Rush]Oooh, the F-18 Hornet!
[Glen}I'm speaking on behalf of I'd say 99.9% of the military. We're basically ready for this. [unintelligible] just war. And the comments of Senator Daschle [unintelligible] That's fine. [unintelligible] because, again, it's a just war.
[Rush]I totally understand that, but let me ask you a question. You're here now, do you expect to be sent to this theater? Anytime in this conflict?
[Glen}I just came back on the Kittyhawk about six months ago, I was in Japan for three years.
[Rush]OK. Have you been in combat?
[Glen}No, I've done some operation [unintelligible]
[Rush]But you undoubtedly know people who have been?
[Glen}Oh, yeah.
[Rush]So, my question is, when somebody like Senator Daschle says what he said Monday, and you're on the ground in a combat zone getting ready, and you hear about it, does it really not bother you, are you so focussed on the mission that ...
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: You don't think and wonder about whether or not, the countries totally behind you?
Glen: No, those, we're (inaudible) the war, but - but not really important to us because, again, uhh, we take our orders from the Commander in Chief and uhm, obviously we have (inaudible) in this country, but uhh, uhh, (inaudible) focus on what it is you're gonna do, and uhh, weather you're doing it and who's telling you to do it, and uhh, you know, if they're (about 10 seconds on inaudible recording)...
Rush: Well good, I - I was, I uhm, you know, you never know about that. I -- I would -- I would tend to think that you're uhh, perception of this is probably accurate, uhm, although, you know, you go back to Viet Nam, it - it obviously had an effect in that -- in that situation because it -- it was the effort of time, it was the whole country, or half the country, anyway, that was making uhh, -- making such noise about it, uhm, we -- we -- we keep hearing of the uhh, the sup - the "Shock and Awe" system here that going to be employed, this massive attack in the uhh, in the first two days. Are -- are -- are, ehh- if -- if you were there, if you were to be stationed there, what kind of surprises would you try to prepare yourself for, from the enemy?
Glen: Uhh, besides what there typical was...
Rush: Yeah.
Glen: Uhh, primarily you're uhh, looking for surface to air uhh, missiles, (inaudible) guns located, (inaudible) guns that might be out there, but uhm, I think really uhm, we've been that for twelve years now so we're fairly comfortable with the terrain, with the (inaudible) operations, and what we can expect, uhm (inaudible)...
Rush: No, I understand, but overall confidence level, you would think is very high...
Glen: Ohh, absolutely, we got (several inaudible words) we know exactly what it is uhh, we're doing over there and what we need to do. (A whole sentence inaudible)...
Rush: Wow, interesting, ehh, look Glen, I'm glad you called, it- - it's great to hear from you, all the best, and uhh, stay in touch...
Glen: (Thank you?)
Rush: You bet. Moving on, Steve, in Houston you're next this is the EIB network and you're on it.
Steve: Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call...
Rush: You bet.
Steve: I just wanted to uhh, chirp in and I think Freedman's got it wrong, one of the primary reasons that there's any hatred directed towards us from that part of the world, comes from their hatred for the Jewish people that we support...
Rush: Well, there's -- there's no question that there's that element, and that isn't going to change. We are not going to abandon Israel. We are not going to abandon our support for our allies there. And that's another reason this has to be dealt with. There's no way to appease people with that kind of hatred or attitude. There's no getting along with them and they just - they just have to be defeated. And I think (talking over Steve saying "I"). No, go ahead...
Steve: I agree ah hundred percent, I think there's -- there are other elements as well, but I think in the top two or three reasons is -- is our support of Israel, but in addition to that. If you're a dictator of a failed economy, a failed society, a failed idea. You're -- you're at great risk of revolution, and one of the ways you can divert that, is to say "Hey, not my fault. You know, the devil is the reason for that!" and show em a picture, "By the way, here's a picture of the devil." and it's a picture of George W. Bush.
Rush: Right.
Steve: It's a way to deflect all that anger somewhere else.
Rush: And they've succeeded in doing that, in those parts of the world with those populations. Yeah, that's a good point. Look I'm glad you called, Steve, thanks much.
Lets take a brief timeout. Ed Smart, ladies and gentleman, has apologized to Congressman Sensenbrenner. Tell you about it when we come back.
[Ad: EIB Network]
[Ad: Maui]
[Ad: Zimm's]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Alex] [edit]
[note to editor-- checked by Google: Amir Taheri, Sensenbrenner, Rainbow/PUSH, Janice Mathis]
[ad: Taylor construction (local store)]
[ad: local BMW dealerships]
[promo: newsradio 640 WGST]
Surrendered in northern Kuwait, that number is seventeen. Seventeen Iraqis have surrendered.
I'll tell you, I heard-- I read the other day, I forget where-- if some of you read it, you'll remember-- but it was a column on one of the four battle plans expected from Hussein. The four parts-- his battle plan. The first thing it is ex-- and I don't know who this -- no, it was Amir Taheri, and it was the New York Post. And I don't-- I can't remember who he is. He's a renowned authority on something. He said, wouldn't be surprised if Hussein releases tens of thousands of his own citizens and refugees and floods northern Kuwait with them to bog down our advancing troops. He knows we're humanitarian; these will in essence be refugees, prisoners of war, that need to be fed, that we won't roll over them with our tanks and armored carriers.
And so when I see that fifteen Iraqis have surrendered-- or seventeen-- that's no big deal. A lot more than that are going to surrender by the time it's all over with. But if that-- and I'm sure that's one of those contingencies we've planned for and are well aware of. But if this thing starts anytime soon-- and we would all think that by this time tomorrow, we'll be in the midst of it-- well, there's no guarantee on that-- but still, be look for that to happen. Be looking for that to happen, that massive release of refugees, some of whom might be armed, some of whom might actually _be_ military.
Ed Smart, in an open letter to the House yesterday, apologized for his excitement last week in criticizing congressman James Sensenbrenner. The letter was also signed by Elizabeth Smart and his wife Lois. Smart-- this little detail is in the midst of a story here about the House considering creation of a national child-kidnapping notification network, the Amber Alert, not in the form that Elizabeth Smart's parents pleaded for before being reunited with their daughter.
Now the interesting thing is, when you boil all this down here, the Democrats voted against the Amber Alert and prevention measure. [Thump.] [Tapping.] [Laugh.] And he ended up attacking Sensenbrenner for this, for not moving it, and including a couple of other provisions in it. He wanted the Amber Alert provision set aside as a separate issue, Mister Smart did. But anyway, he's now apologized for it, and-- ahh, it's understandable. He was in an emotional state the day after his daughter got back.
This is also news today. The Rainbow/PUSH coalition has announced it's going to reduce its numbers and demands during the Masters golf tournament in light of recent developments that could lead to war with Iraq. Janice Mathis, the group's vice president, said yesterday the coalition probably will avoid acts of civil disobedience and accept the two protest locations approved by local Augusta officials. Rainbow/PUSH, of course, headed by the [weirdly cadenced voice] "Reverend Jackson," and the national council of women's organizations, have spearheaded protests against [Augusta?]--
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Alex] [edit]
[note to editor-- Checked by Google: Augusta National, Martha Burke, Hans Blix. Checked: Scottrade website. ]
-- National and its all-male membership. Now the reason they're cutting back is they need all their resources to protest the war, and they've decided that protesting the war is a far more urgent matter than protesting the circumstances surrounding the lack of female membership in Augusta National. And no doubt this is going to disappoint Martha Burke, because she's looking for success in numbers, and to her of course, this is a huge big deal, it's about the only thing going on in her life that probably matters, and here's-- no pun intended here, but here's half the party pulling out. [Snigger.] Probably the story of their life there at that women's group.
I want you to hear the words of Hans Blix. You know, he showed up at the UN Security Council today and gave another report on the success in the progress of the weapons inspectors. You know, this-- wherever Blix lives, it might be fun to be able to go there. Because there's no reality. There's no problems. There's no evil. Nobody ever lies. There's no deception. This guy Blix ought to set up a travel agency, and start selling destinations to wherever it is he is. Because wherever it is he is, it's total fantasyland. I mean, if you want to escape, you find out how Hans Blix gets to where he is and go there.
Here's the first of two sound bites: Security council, portion of his remarks.
Blix clip: I naturally feel sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed about the absence of weapons of mass destruction or other proscribed items in Iraq, that no more time is available for our inspections, and that armed action now seems imminent.
Rush: He feels sadness. This is about him. He feels sadness that three and a half months of work carried out in Iraq have not brought the assurances needed. Hans, you know, that was never your mission. [Thump.] Never the mission. And here, continues here, he says Iraq was trying. That's what really disturbs him.
Blix clip: May I add that in my last report, I commented on information provided by Iraq on a number of unresolved issues. Since then, Iraq has sent several more letters on such issues. These efforts by Iraq should be acknowledged. But as I noted in this council on the seventh of March, the value of information thus provided must be soberly judged.
Rush: So we got some letters from Iraq that they're continuing to cooperate. And that's all so sad, here, got more letters and so forth-- but he still admits that that information in those letters must be soberly judged. I mean, this is-- this is just classic example of these elites being so devoid from reality. They're in a parallel universe here, folks. That's why I say: find out where Blix lives, find a way to get there, and _escape_ reality-- get away from all your problems. Nothing's wrong; all you have is professional sadness that you're not able to finish your duty.
A quick break. We'll be back with more in a moment.
announcer: Hear it now-- read about it in the paper tomorrow! Rush on the EIB network.
[promo: "the Kimmer" following Rush]
[ad: Scottrade online brokerage-- www.scottrade.com ]
[ad: Black Swan, Australian wine] [promo: newsradio 640 WGST Rally for America, local pro-war demo] [ad: Nevada State Corporate Network]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Nevada State Corporate Network]
[ad: Fuber-Con tablets]
[promo for morning news show]
Rush: Got an e-mail last night that I want to read to you here, from a woman named Julie Dickerson.
[Reading Julie's letter]
"Hey Rush, how do you stay so calm? Maybe you can explain to me how you're able to do what you do, day in and day out, and stay so calm. My husband's a pilot, currently overseas defending our freedom. When I hear the things Daschle says- and we're currently stationed in South Dakota, by the way- and all the other liberal idiots, my blood pressure rises. I'm generally such a calm, mellow person, but politics just seems to infuriate me."
"My mother gets the same way, she claims this is- this is a soap opera, but I tell her it's not a soap opera, this is real life. People are influenced by these deceiving individuals. It affects laws and opinions, and possibly my husband's life. I've gotten to the point where I can barely watch Fox and I can barely listen to your show in small doses."
"The guests they have on and the facts you reveal just make me see red. I have to watch sitcoms to stay relaxed, just think what would happen if I watched CNN. Is there a secret to being able to listen to things these liars and deceivers say to manipulate and twist the truth? Do you just laugh it off? Do you have that much faith in the American people, that they'll see through this cloud of deception?"
"I'm very proud to be an American, but many of these foolish liberal Americans scare me. Please tell me how you do it."
Rush: You know, you answered it here in your, uh- your letter, Julie. I, uh- have all of the faith in American people to see through this, I think they're seeing through it. This has been a massive change in fifteen years. Ninety percent of the country no longer buys and accepts what they hear in the liberal media.
If you had been in my shoes in the last fifteen years, you would have seen all of talk radio become conservative, you would have seen the number one cable news network be a fair and balanced network that does not impugn and laugh at conservatism. You would have seen the Democrat's lose the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. The liberal monopoly simply doesn't exist, you would see the liberal extremist kooks defining the mainstream of liberalism today.
Yeah, I mean, I'm ultimately optimistic about all th- but remember, I've got a way to vent here every day that some of you don't have. But it is- it's- it's time to be optimistic, folks- there's every reason in the world to be. We'll see you tomorrow, have a great evening.
[station id]
[ad: American Liberty Mortgage]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
Wednesday, March 19, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Kim] [edit]
[traffic and weather update]
[news break]
[station id]
[ad: Jasper Jeep-Dodge-Chrysler]
[ad: Bell South Fast Access DSL]
| 
