| |
5.20.2003
Thursday, April 10, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Kim] [edit]
[ad: National Mortgage]
[ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain]
[promo for the morning news show]
[station id]
Rush: Oh, look at that- damage to Saddam's yacht near Basra. I never even knew he had a yacht. They're on the yacht now, there was- there was damage to Saddam Hussein's yacht. We've also found Saddam's dentist, we have found Saddam's family dentist. What is this? Family dentist- you believe Saddam Hussein has a family dentist.
Anyway, he's supposed to- we've found the medical records and dental records and we're gonna be comparing that to any, uh- remains we might find in the rubble there at the restaurant- the International House of Dictators. In the- where is it? The Al-Mansur district of Baghdad?
Greetings my friends and welcome, this is the Rush Limbaugh program- it's the EIB network. It's three hours- three hours straight ahead here of broadcast excellence and, as usual, looking forward to talking to you. 800-282-2882 and the e-mail address is rush@eibnet.com.
We're gonna really have a crowded docket here today, uh, so to speak. There's alot of stuff here that I wanna make sure we get to- we- and as has happened over the course of recent days, and this is understandable and I'm not complaining. But a certain topic will come up- a certain item in the news and we'll end up discussing it for 45 minutes, or 30- which is fine, but when we do that, there's alot of stuff that does not get mentioned.
Even though we've been jamming as much as we can into these programs, but today, there is particualarly alot of stuff- so I wanna try to get to it. We had a website mentione, ladies and gentlemen- Jeanette Walls in her MSNBC column, happened to, of all things, to mention my report the other day that Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi Minister of Information, had reported that the Iraqi's had taken Shea stadium.
Baghdad Bill- that's right, I'm sorry- Baghdad Bill had conquered Shea stadium, troops were there after having originally intended to get Yankee stadium during the snowstorm. But they went for Shea stadium, since the Met's are out of town- and then they marched on down to Broadway, hoping to co-opt all the tickets to the hot shows.
And you know, we had the guy call and say, I haven't heard anything about this- so we called Channel 2 in New York to berate them for not reporting this. And then another guy called to give me a littld grief for perhaps helping the Iraqi's send out go signals to.....
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Kim] [edit]
.... here in the country, and of course, Jeanette Walls picked up on this and has reported this in her column- with the allusion that people who listen to this program are very gullible.
And, of course, it was just a great example of great satire and parody. The, uh- the fact is, for all of this stuff to work there has to be an element of truth in it and the element of truth is that Baghdad Bob is to stup- Baghdad Bill's so stupid and was saying such outrageous things, that it sounded totally in the realm of what he would say.
Speaking of the website, I got this e-mail last night, uh- actually this morning, from a friend of mine in Hawaii.
(Reading from e-mail)
Dear Rush, Augusta was great- perfect weather for six days. Got out just in time, before the bad weather hit. Sorry you couldn't make it, I was on your website this evening- read your comments about finding weapons of mass destruction. You say, don't worry, they'll find them- or perhaps they've already found their way to terrorist's hands.
I disagree, I think we need to worry big time if no weapons of mass destruction are found, for the following reason. The Democrats and the media are like a big bottle of cheap French champagne that's been continously shaken and is ready to pop. They're so happy to get this nasty little business of the war behind them, and the collateral patriotism generated, that they can hardly contain themselves.
You watch, it started today at the Pentagon briefing- the number one issue the Daschle and media crowd will start to bring up are where are the weapons of mass destruction. After a few days, they're gonna interview parents of men killed in action, and Katie Couric will ask, how do you feel about them not finding weapons of mass destruction. Do you feel your child's life was given under false pretenses?
The French and German's will be happy to get in on this as well- Rush, you know this will happen, it's a matter of when. The media can't wait to start tearing down our President on the economy, civil rights, abortion and anything else that's been simmering on their back burner all this time. The problem is, that even though America has you and Fox and other sources for the truth, the liberal media's still much larger, reaches far more people and the large part of the population they reach has mush for brains.
We've done an amazing and good deed, a deed that a country as blessed as ours had a moral obligation to do. But we better find those WMD's, or I'm afraid that Bush will be toast in six months. Just my humble opinion. Aloha, Mike.
Rush: How many of you people agree with this? How many pe- not Mr. Snerdley, the program observer, shaking his head no. But I can imagine that there are a number of you, when presented with this theory- and it's a compelling theory- finding yourself, "Oh god, oh geez- oh I had thought of that, I hadn't put it in this context, oh geez- oh man, he's right- oh no, if we don't find those weapons, I can just see it now. The media interviewing the parents of dead soldiers- do you think your kid's life was lost in vain, since there are no weapons of mass destruction? And, since that was the reason for this..."
He's bouncing off a statement I made yesterday that the, um- I- I didn't say it doesn't matter if we don't find them. I'm saying that, there's a real possiblity that many of these weapons of mass destruction have been hidden- sent to Syria or already gotten out of the country and in the hands of terrorists.
And in that sense, we may not find them, per se- we may find evidence that they exist, if they are in fact used down the road. And I was simply speculating that the- the notion that Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons on our troops, in a last stand- if you stop and think about it, he knows that we're going to show up prepared for that.
He knows that everybody is looking for him to do that, but if he can get those weapons out of the country- in the hands of terrorists that'll use them for years down the line- what a greater Saddam legacy and sendoff that would be than to simply use them against our troops as we move in and take Baghdad and Tikrit and all these other places. That's what I said.
I'm- I'm not saying it's not a problem if we don't find them, I'm- but, they're there. We- we are going to find them. We are in the process now of doing so. I think we've probably made more progress on that than is being announced. But, let's just take this theory- let's take the hypothetical. Let's say we don't find them.
Or let's say that we don't find very many and let's say that that's announced and let's say that the media does get all over this and asks these types of questions of parents- of soldiers killed in action. And let's assume that he's correct here- yeah, we got me, we got Fox, other elements of the conservative media- but the bigstream media, the mainstream media, the elite media- still larger and so forth.
Let's look at some of the ratings for this war coverage. Do you know- the only elite media network that even held it's own out there is NBC- and they were up just slightly. I mean, it's- it's- statistically zero, what NBC is up. But ABC and CBS lost audience- during the biggest story in the last 2 to 3, maybe 10 years. CBS and NBC lost....
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Galen] [edit]
audience, folks. Their numbers are down. The cable news networks, and this includes MSNBC, along with Fox and CNN, are dramatically up. Now, I know CNN is, in essence, CBS, and ABC, and MSNBC sort of trying to figure out what it wants to be here, but they are more closely tied to NBC than anything else.
I stand by something I've been saying to you for the last two years; let the left do all of it. There's no question they're gonna do this, even if we don't find, or even if we do find weapons of mass destruction. They're gonna do all this and more, and that's some of what I want to talk about today. But I think the idea that Bush could be toast in six months is a sign of just how fatalistic some of us remain. Understandably so, based on the la - Well, all of our lives.
But you cannot, you cannot recognize tha - You have to admit, you can't deny this is a new era. These people in the elite media - they may still be large and they still may outnumber, but they do not exist in a vacuum any longer and they are not a monopoly. And when they try this stuff, that basically adds up to "blame America" or "criticize America" or "criticize the President", it backfires on them. It's backfiring on them now.
You should see the email I'm getting. I'm getting email that scrutinizes the tiniest detail that people hear on CNN, or ABC or CBS that makes them mad, and tick them off. These networks are just not going to get away with it. They're going to say it, yeah, they're gonna be as they always have. They're gonna exist as they always have, and they're gonna try this stuff as they always have, but their days of getting away with it, en masse, are over. They've been unmasked, now. People know what their agenda is.
In addition to being able to hear what they report, they're able to put the report that they get, the reports the people get from these networks, in context. And they're able to understand the agenda these people bring to their reporting. And, in a period of time like this, where there is tremendous celebration throughout most of the country, a recognition of the amazing achievement that's taken place.
And you cannot sweep under the rug the liberation factor of this war, which the administration also mentioned, just as much as "regime change", which is part of liberation, and the weapons of mass destruction. But, look, it's sort of a moot point, because they're there, and they're going to be found. And I think the degree to which they're discovered is still going to shock and stun people. And I think when this is all said and done, it's gonna be the elite media and the liberal Democrats and the Frances and the Germanys of the world who are gonna have even more explaining to do.
Just as they have egg on their faces now about liberation and the joy that the Iraqi people are feeling for their new-found freedom. They're gonna have as much egg on their face when the WMDs are discovered, or when what has been done with them has been discovered. The, the, not saying this is not a problem anymore, 'cuz it clearly is gonna be.
I'll tell you, whatever there is a conservative or a Republican leader who does not have the character, the decency, and all that Bush has, then all this stuff is gonna be a bigger factor than it is. Bush's personality, his character, his decency, his honesty, all those things combine to negate these allegations the left makes. Character matters.
I've been saying this for I don't know how long now. 12 years. 10 years, 11 years. Ever since the 1992 presidential campaign. So I'm not de-emphasizing the relevance or the importance of this. I'm just very confident they not gonna get away with it as easily as they have in the past. I'm not denying they're gonna do everything they can to undercut this victory. They're doing it now. I'm not, but at the same time they're doing this, guess what we're gonna do. We're gonna be trumpeting high, low, wide and far what idiots they were before this happened.
We're gonna chronicle the stupid statements they made about this war. And what they said was gonna happen that didn't happen. And what they said about our military, and what they said about the Iraqi milit- these people misunderstood every- they got it as wrong as anybody can be. And the way to tackle these people is to simply ask the question, "Why you gonna believe them now?" They haven't been right in who knows how many years.
Let's take a quick break here, but I think you get the idea of the direction we're gonna head today, so sit tight, and we'll come back and continue with all the rest of it right after this.
[Promo: WGST 640]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Kim] [edit]
[ad: spoken promo by Rush for Citracal]
[ad: Geico]
[ad: FreeCreditReport.com]
[ad: Southern Wellness]
[ad: Focus Factor]
[station id]
Rush: And we're back- welcome back, great to have you. Those of you still worried about this weapons of mass destruction business, don't forget now- all of this could have been stopped. All of this could have been prevented if Saddam Hussein would have just disarmed, and admitted that he disarmed- for twelve years, he refused to do so.
He beguiled everybody, he lied to everybody, he's fooled the inspectors. Inspector's did find things for awhile, and that's when he kicked them out. And there were no inspectors for the last four years, up until this whole charade of Clousseau's went in there, under the Hans Blix brigade. But, uh- remember that phony declaration last December 8th, that the Iraqi's presented.
That thing's been gone over with a fine tooth comb and it's nothing more than an attempt to deceive. I don't know how many of you've seen this story- I'm surprised at how- how obscure....
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Galen] [edit]
I haven't seen it, but the one place I found it, which is the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper. It's datelined south of Baghdad. "In a valley sculpted by man: Between the palms and roses lies a vast marble and steel city, known as Al-Tuatha. In the suburbs, about 18 miles south of Baghdad, this city comprises nearly 100 buildings. Workshops, laboratories, cooling towers, nuclear reactors and barracks that belong to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission. Investigators Tuesday discovered that Al-Tuatha hides another city.
This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb-proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, who combed the site just two months ago, until the US Marine Corps Combat Engineers discovered it three days ago.
Today, the marines hold it against enemy counter-attacks. So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts discovered 14 buildings that betray high levels of radiation. Some of the readings show nuclear residue too deadly for human occupation. A few hundred meters outside the complex, where peasants say the missile water is stored in mammoth caverns, the marine radiation detectors go off the charts. You seen this anywhere?
Yes, the only place I've seen it, too. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Now, uh, the Iraqis swore from now 'til the sun goes down that they had gotten rid of anything to do with the nuclear program. Just as they had said the same thing about their biological and chemical weapons, but this is gonna bear some fruit. You've got hidden atomic energy, nuclear energy programs hidden in the area that the International Atomic Energy Agency knew about, oh, long -
Don't - up front - please, for this week, don't - The way this is shaping up, if we're not careful, people are going to end up being surprised at all of the WMDs that are found, because of the context that's being put out there now. "Gee, where are the weapons of mass destruction? Well, I thought they would be all over the place! I mean I thought we'd find them every mile of the way into Baghdad! Gee, where are they? Gee, we haven't seen any."
And the people who oppose this war are going to hop on anything they can to try to find fault with what's been done here, and this one, as far as they're concerned, would be a huge fault leading to motive. Why we went in there to rid this guy of WMDs, and there aren't any. You just know they're waiting to say this, and I'm going to tell you what, they're going to do it. They're gonna say it before it is safe to say it, and, just like the Democrats and the liberals, they've been opening the door every chance they get right into their own faces, they're gonna do it on this, too.
I'll tell you this, liberating the people of Iraq is a great thing, and it was part of what we did, but I don't believe that we would have set out on such a massive course for that reason alone. You cannot take September 11th out of the equation anymore. Don't forget what the primary purpose here is. The primary purpose is to see to it that September 11th doesn't happen again. That's why whether Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is irrelevant. All of terrorism is in the Middle East, and terrorists can strike us whether they're Al-Qaeda or Al-Schmaeda. And if they are engaged with a dictator like Hussein, who works on these things, and is happy to pass them out, then guess who will be the victims, and that's us.
And this is all about us doing everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen again. That's the mission here. And the liberation - I'm not, I'm not trying to subordinate the liberation at all. It's a great thing. But, and I could be wrong, but I don't think we would have undertaken this if simply liberating the people of Iraq was the sole objective.
A quick time-out. Back with much more as we continue on the EIB network.
[Ad: Life Quotes]
[Ad: Math Made Easy Videos?]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Galen] [edit]
[ABC News Update]
[WGST News]
[Ad: Pike Family Nurseries]
[Ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain, www.owngeorgialand.com]
[Promo: WGST 96Classic Rock, WGST News]
Thursday, April 10, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Galen] [edit]
[Musical Intro]
Rush: Hey, Franz, that printer showed up yet? God, that's amazing, it's been on that UPS truck for two days. And they can't find us.
You know? On my tombstone, "He couldn't get his printing right." That's what it's gonna be on my tombstone. He would'a lived a lot longer if the printing worked. Greetings, folks, and welcome b - That might be them right there. As soon as I mentioned it.
We're back, Rush Limbaugh here on the EIB Net - You know - there's something else that's starting to irritate me. I knew it would happen. But nevertheless, it's starting to irritate me. All the things that are happening in Iraq and Baghdad, the opponents of the war are pointing, [In snide, rude voice: "See! These people aren't ready for what we've done. It was a mistake. We've mis-judged,"]
They're pointing at the looting, the looting in downtown Baghdad. [In snider, rude voice: "See these people aren't ready for freedom!" They've been getting freedom, and they don't know what to do with it. They're nothing but a bunch of savages and a bunch of people that just don't care about their own neighborhood. Look at what they're doing to it, Rush. Look at what they're doing to it."]
Let me say something. You people think this looting is odd? The last time we saw looting like this is when the Clintons left the White House back in, uh, in 2001. But we've had looting like this throughout this country. I'm not going to mention the places 'cuz we all know where this happens. Just check your favorite city where an NBA Championship is won. Or wherever there is a riot. When there is looting in this country, is there not understanding expressed for it? Do we not have people - Printer is here? See, all it took is a little complaining about it on the air. How many pieces to it? How many boxes? Four boxes. Yeah. Order printer and get four boxes. We'll probably have to put this thing together.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, we have had looting in this country. It's a time-honored tradition here. And the very people in the media today who were berating people who live in Baghdad for looting are the same people who find justification for it here in America. They, well, it is surgical looting. That's a good term - surgical looting is going on in Baghdad, because the areas being looted are primarily those areas that belong to Baath party officials and other areas. People that have done all the discriminating let's put it that way. They've hit the UN, they're looting UN buildings, and embassies. Hell, what's wrong with that?
[Snide, voice, again: "Rush, you can't be serious!]
Rush: Hey, I'm dead serious. These people of Iraq are not idiots. They look at - they know who it was who helped keep them subjugated. Who helped keep them down. They know full well what these clowns at the UN were doing! Nothing to help them. If anything ought to discredit the United Nations, anything at all, it ought to be the circumstances in which we find the Iraqi people living. It's the Oil-for-food program, right?
The UN's oil-for-food program, and guess where all the money was going? Saddam Hussein. All this UN stuff designed to help the people of Iraq. And for how many years has it been obvious the people of Iraq have been suffering? How many times did Koffi-Anan go look at it? Whether he did or not, he had to know they looked the other way. The people of Iraq know damn well the United Nations didn't help them at all. So the fact they're looting UN properties, could understand it. But back to my point. The people of this country who find justifications for looting, [Snide voice of them: "Well, the social injustices that exist here, Rush, you must try to understand their acts, the sociological reasons why these people find cause in their acts."]
Well, fine and dandy. You want to explain it, to justify it here, then do your damnest to try to understand why it's happening there. But don't tell me, don't tell me that the fact that there's looting in Baghdad signals they're not qualified or ready for freedom. If that's the case, then they're not ready for freedom in Chicago, they're not ready for freedom in Los Angeles, and they're not ready for freedom in Atlanta. So don't give me, and a number of other places, too. Don't, don't give me this. This is already starting and it's gonna bomb royally on these people, just as every other tactic that they've tried has. In fact, I'll tell you, we must not let, we must not, folks. We've got to work together on this. We must not let the liberals and the congressional Democrats and the elite media get away with acting as if this war, and the liberation of these people happened without a major battle over philosophies in this country. Already, you see the Democrats try to jump on this train claiming credit, "Oh, we were there, we've been there all along. Oh, we authorized the use of force. Oh, we understood it from day one. Oh, you can count on the fact that we were there to help."
The Democrats are doing exactly what was predicted. They're trying to claim credit when they legitimately can not. This war happened with a huge battle over philosophies in this country. There were huge ideological and philosophical battles waged, and now all that they're trying to sweep under the rug, as though there was harmony, and agreement. And a if we were a unified nation, and we weren't. And on this, we still aren't.
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Galen] [edit]
and their politicians and liberal Democrats in this country were never on board with this action or this war or the inspiration, motivation reasons behind it. They never were. They did everything they could to sabotage this president. They sided with the United Nations. We had ex-Democrat presidents going to foreign countries, inspiring the opponents of this country, trying to gin up all the opposition to this country. There was a huge, major philosophical battle over this, and now they're trying to sweep that under the rug. The media, the Democrats are trying to paint over these vast differences between them and us. They did this at the end of the cold war. They tried to act like they had some role in that victory. They opposed that.
They opposed Reagan at every step of the way. If the left had had its way during the cold war, the Soviet Union would still be standing. They would have a firm beachhead in Nicaragua, and I shudder to think wherever else they would be. If the left had had its way in this circumstance, the French and Germans would be running the United Nations, Saddam Hussein today would continue to have these kids and everybody else in prison, people would be starving, would be tortured. If the liberal Democrats in this country had had their way. All of this is true. And yet it's being papered over as though none of that existed. And I'll tell you, a group like the Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank, could do a great service to our country if they would just catalogue the significant differences between liberals and conservatives in the months before this war, in the months before this liberation.
Liberal philosophy is bankrupt. It has no responsible positions in dealing with terrorism or terrorist states. The liberal philosophy will not protect this country when it comes to national security. The liberal philosophy of this country doesn't even acknowledge that there is a problem with national security, with terrorism. All they want to do is appease these people rather than deal with it. It is important that we hold them to their views, keep a record of them, and remind the American people of it, just as we are going to do. A brief foray today, but we're going to revisit some of the people in the press, in the media. We're going to go back, look at some of what they've said on the outbreak of this war. And a couple weeks before it.
They ought to be so embarrassed, they wouldn't dare utter another word on TV or write another column in a newspaper. Some of these people could not be more wrong. They ought to be so embarrassed, they should not be showing up in public. We're going to name names today. We're going to tell you what they said. Well, the same thing could be done with the whole liberal organization of this country, and their attitude about this. In fact, the Heritage Foundation has probably done this. If they had them, they could go back and catalogue the same thing in the cold war. And just to illustrate how they deserve no credit in the defeat of the Soviet Union, and they deserve no credit here, in what has happened in Iraq. Desperate though they are to have some.
And I'll tell you something else. A little political foresight here as to what's gonna happen on the domestic side. Despite the liberals' trying to get on the credit gravy train here, with the war in Iraq, where they're really going to try to score some points is on the domestic agenda. Remember, these people are living in the past. Remember they have an old playbook. They've got old pages in the book. There are no new pages. They do everything according to the past. Listen to them: everything was gonna be a Vietnam here. Everything was going to be a quagmire. When it comes to George W. Bush, they are living in 1991 again. They are just firmly of the mind that what's gonna happen here is that Bush's approval numbers will go sky-high in the next six months, but that the economy is going to remain sour, and they're gonna do their best to keep that economy sour and then they hope that Bush's political numbers, his approval numbers, plummet because he is perceived to be not interested in the economy or domestic matters because he's so focused on foreign policy, national security.
They're gonna try to do an exact replay of George Bush 41. And here's how they're gonna do it. Remember that they cast Bush 41 as a president who cares only about foreign policy and not problems at home. So the Democrats here are gonna propose an outrageous domestic agenda. They're going to suggest growing government, fixing this, fixing that, new entitlement programs, the things Bush, even with a new tone, Bush couldn't go along with. Bush wouldn't do. And when Bush refuses to accept their agenda, when Bush fights them on these domestic matters, they are going to cite that as evidence he doesn't care about the plight of the American people nearly as much as the people of Iraq.
That's what's coming. He's gonna say, they're gonna say Bush cares more about people in Baghdad than he cares about people in New York. They're gonna say he cares more about the people of Iraq than he does about the people in America. For all
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: They're going to demand an equal amount of money if not more to do the exact same things in this country, trying to make the claim, that we need to do, as much in this country to rebuild our infrastructure as is needed to be done in Iraq. And when Bush fails to go along with this, they're going to then say, "See, he doesn't care about you, average "Joe Sixpack". He cares more about "Baghdad Billy" than he cares about you.
He cares more about their kids over there, than he cares about your kids." Mark my words; this is what they're going to try. All because they can't look to the future, and all because they cannot give people reasons to for vote for them. All because they cannot site positive things are not what they believe and who they are, and get people to vote for them because of that. All they can do is gin up fear and anger and division, and try to get people to hate Bush, and vote against him.
So they're going to try to replay bush 41, because they are ten and twelve years behind the times. They have no "knowablity" to look to the future, to be visionary about anything, when it comes to winning political battles.
A quick time out, stick with us. We'll be right back
[Promo: RushLimbaugh.com Store]
[EIB Network]
[Ad: Auto Zone]
[Ad: Desenex]
[Promo: Rush]
[Ad: The Real Estate Investors]
[Ad: Champion Windows and Siding and Patio Rooms]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
Rush: Evidence here that what I've said so far today is true. There has been a suicide bombing at a, Baghdad checkpoint. CNN is just having the biggest time with this. "Oh, it proves the peace is lost. Oh, it proves we haven't accomplished anything. Oh, it proves were still at great risk. Oh, it proves the war hasn't been won. Why, there has been a suicide bombing, at a Baghdad check..." What did Cheney say yesterday? What did -- what did Rumsfeld say yesterday? What did Bush say yesterday? "It ain't over. There're still dangerous times ahead." But I tell ya, these people are making themselves so...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Galen] [edit]
obvious. You know, the vast majority of the American people feel good about. You know what, it's like the Reagan years. One of the things - it was true about Reagan, he just made people feel better about themselves. Better about being Americans. He made them feel proud of their country. The same thing is happening now. And all these nit-pickers, and all these malcontents who exist solely to find problems with this country and the people who run it, when they are Republicans or conservatives, are gonna run into a brick wall of opposition here.
People just don't want to hear why their country is rotten or why things we endeavor to do are rotten, why the things we engage in are ill-premised. People don't want to hear it. It's the same reason why liberals on the radio don't score: people don't want to hear that garbage. People don't want to see a bunch of hair-sprayed, bouffanted anchors in their Armani suits telling everybody what a rotten country this is, what a rotten president we have, and what ill-gotten motives we have conceived to pull off what we've pulled off. They don't want to hear it. Not because it's true, but precisely because it isn't true. That is why people don't want to hear it.
Backing up what I just said here, the Washington Times from Donald Lambreau today; "Democratic Hopefuls Get Bush On the Economy." "Democratic presidential candidates hammered President Bush on the economy and mounting job losses yesterday in an attempt to pull the country's focus back to domestic issues, and away from the war in Iraq. However, some of the front-runners spoke approvingly of the administration's military success in Iraq, and the importance of eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime.
Senator Lieberman hoped the day would come soon when we will be celebrating the I-Dig victory over Iraq. That's when people will feel safer as a result of the downfall of the evil dictator. And even former Vermont Governor Howard Dean abandoned his anti-war message, which means his campaign's over, and talked instead of building a stable, self-sufficient, and free Iraq in the post-war period. A Howard Dean quote? "Yeah, I guess it's a good thing Hussein's gone." That's a Howard Dean quote. "Yeah, I guess it's a good thing Hussein's gone."
However, in speeches before hundreds of cheering building and construction trades union members, the White House hopeful spent most of the time blaming Bush's tax cuts for the growing budget deficits and calling for action on domestic issues. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina told the labor leaders; "This presidency is a failure for the middle class of America." Lieberman; "The largest deficits in our history have punished economic growth, but we're not gonna let that go on for four more years, are we?" There was a collective "Boooo!" from the assembled union people.
"When Democrats get in, they give us peace and prosperity. When Republicans get in, they give us depression and war," said Carole Moseley-Braun. But as much as the candidates wanted to shift the election debate to the economy, where Mr. Bush has his lowest job-approval rating, some sought to I.D. themselves more strongly with the emerging victory over Iraq. Senator John Kerry - "The United States needed a regime change" - continued to defend his remarks yesterday, but in a sign that he may have suffered some political damage from his controversial comment, his campaign released a brief statement yesterday that said, "American troops have done an extraordinary job in Iraq, and all of America should be proud of their selfless service to country."
So, Democrats are doing everything they can to get this back on the domestic side, where they're going to try to position Bush as a domestic failure and, in fact, somebody who doesn't even care about you, the average American.
Quick break, back with more, here, in just a moment.
[Promo: News Radio 640 WGST]
[Ad: Blanchard and Company]
[Ad: The Cigar Dave Show on WGST]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Kim] [edit]
[promo for a show on News Radio 640]
[ad: Shiraz, Persian restaurant]
[promo for News Radio 640, WGST]
[ad: Red Lobster]
[promo for the morning news show]
Rush: And to the phones, let's try to squeeze a call in here before the hour ends and go to San Diego and welcome, Mike- to the EIB network. Hello sir.
Mike: Yes, hi- mega-dittoes...
Rush: Thank you..
Mike: Uh, you were talking about the, um- Bush 41, the strategy the Democrat's tried on him. Uh, he didn't technically, they- it didn't technically work on him. If it wasn't for Perot, um- chances are Bush would have won, Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote.
Rush: Well, that's true. Clinton- you know, this is something that forever bugs the Clintonites. For all this talk about Bush not getting a mandate, Clinton never got 50% of the vote, his two elections, and in the '92 race, Clinton came in there with an astounding 43% of the vote. H. Ross Perot was in there with whatever he got, and Bush got what he got.
That's all true, Mike- uh, and it's a relevant thing, a relevant point. But we also, we have to admit that whether it was true or not- the Carville-Stephanopoulos campaign- it's the economy, stupid- did succeed in portraying President Bush as one who didn't really think there was a recession and wasn't really that concerned about it.
Now, the truth of the matter is that the recession was over by the time the election hit- as the fourth-quarter GDP numbers of '92 indicated, but the, um- you know, the American people love people sympathizing with them. "Oh, it's so bad out there- we care for you and nobody else does..". Even when it wasn't that bad- it was a puny recession by historical standards. Still, the psychology worked and- they're just trying to re-do it and repeat it.
[station id]
[ad: ALT Communications]
[station id]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsRadio-WGST-640]
[ABC-News]
[NewsRadio-WGST-640]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
[Ad: Tylenol Allergy Sinus]
[Promo: The Legal Edge -NewsRadio-WGST640]
[Ad: Tires Plus]
Thursday, April 10, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Tire Plus]
[Ad: Shane Company -- Shaneco.com]
[Promo: The Kimmer]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: And, it's exciting to be back, ladies and gentleman, after our brief top of the hour time out. EIB operational pause, Rush Limbaugh here, The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. The broadcast excellence, from high atop the brand new EIB Building in midtown Manhattan. Great to have you along. The phone number, if you want to be on board 800-282-2882. Email address, Rush@eib.com.
From the New York Times, "The hour was late, the war in Iraq was raging, members of the senate simply wanted to pass, the 80 billon dollar bill to pay for the war and go home for the night. In their haste, many senators realized last week they were also voting to send 10 million dollars to a research station at the south pole, that had had a hard winter, or that they were approving 3.3 million dollars to fix a leaky dam, in Vermont.
Nor did they realize they were allowing themselves to spend more money to send notices of town meetings to voters, nor did they realize they were voting to allow the border patrol, to accept donations of body armor for dogs. In fact there were dozens, of pork barrel projects and special interest provisions, inserted at the last minute, Thursday night, into the bill to pay for the war in Iraq. And the lawmakers were not particularly shy about acknowledging what that they did."
Senata Lisa -- Senator Lisa Murkowski, republican, Alaska, for example, sent out a news release, to reporters in her home state, bolstering the Alaska sea food industry, with a provision allowing wild salmon to be labeled as "organic". The release doesn't even mention, the intension of the overall bill was to pay for the war, and improve domestic security. A provision was inserted into the measure by Ms. Murkowski's, republican colleague, Ted Stephens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Here's the problem. For all the talk by Hilary Clinton, and all the rest about our not spending enough on Homeland Security. They waste massive amounts of dollars on pork and lard, and they spend money like this while arguing, "We can not afford a tax cut." They put all this garbage in here, while at the same -- and then the republicans too, don't forget Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins, and some of these recusant moderate republicans. They also are guilty of all this pork barrel spending, throwing in tons of millions of dollars for worthless B.S. in the bill that paid for the war with Iraq, and then they come back and say, " Oh, we can't afford tax cuts."
Uhh, now, clearly republicans do the same but, the liberals are the worst offenders. They always want to spend more and they always want to tax more. (Thump sound) I know this may be SOP, may be standard operating procedure, but I think you want...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...know. Here we're -- debate to finalize the bill that would pay for the war, and all this garbage pork is being thrown into it. An they're sending out press releases, to their districts, saying, "Look at what we did." Not even mentioning the bill is the bill to pay for the war with Iraq. And at the same time they come around and say " Guess we just can't afford tax cuts, now, war is costing to much, and I don't know how we can cut taxes and pay for the war at the same time." (Two thumping sounds) Brats, I tell ya, it's just --it's just maddening.
And here's the AP story of the democratic Candidates tout their war support. Something else the democrats are doing, is saying, "It's very small of you republicans not to grant that we played a major role here. (Two taping sounds) Oh, yeah. It's very small of you republicans..." It wasn't as bald as I told you so, but the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime gave the democratic presidential candidates, who backed the war, a chance to tout their records. And they all started talking about how they were very much involved in this and how much their support mattered, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But here's the real question. Why in the world should the American people ever again, trust the democrat party on matters of human rights and national security? I ask you. For the last twenty years, the democrat party has opposed every major effort, to defeat totalitarianism. From the Soviet Union, to Granada to Panama, to Nicaragua, Afghanistan in 1980's too, Iraq today. Whenever they're in the Whitehouse, the military and intelligence agencies suffer from severe cutbacks and policy changes, I'm sure a handful of congressional democrats are solid on defense. The majority, the vast majority simply are not. It's just like Jay Nordlinger said the other day, it's just not safe to vote democrat yet.
Well, he's right, he was talking about national security, but when it comes about human rights, you can't even count on them. If it were left to the democrats the people the Soviet Union would still be enslaved. Ditto the people of Panama, ditto the people of --people of Nicaragua, ditto the people of Granada, ditto the people of Iraq. Hey, it's not even arguable folks; this is not even something we can debate. It is true. If the democrats had been running the show none of this liberation would have happened.
Ralph Peters, I mentioned him repeatedly, has one of the best sources of information regarding the war, has another great piece today, in the New York Post. I'm not going to endeavor to read it to you or even excerpts. It's a very long piece, but it's extremely well done. But let me tell you something, here, let me -- ahh we'll give you a little paragraph. He says this, " What remains remarkable is how little the Iraqi's, and the Russian advisors who help plan their defense, grasp the profound changes in our military and in the American way of war. They clearly had no sense of the battlefield awareness, speed, precision, and tactical veracity of America's twenty-first century forces. Well the truth is, it wasn't just the Iraqi's and the Russian's who didn't grasp the profound changes of our military and the American way of war.
I'll tell you else didn't grasp it. All those unnamed military sources that we kept reading about in The New York Times, and The Washington Post. They didn't grasp it either. All these ex generals criticizing the war plan as well. They didn't grasp it either. And maybe Colin Powell didn't, after all the Powell Doctrine is what? The Powell Doctrine is that you must have in place, over whelming military superiority before launching an attack. The Powell Doctrine may have been discredited here. It two, is of the old school now, it's been replaced by, "The Rumsfeld Doctrine", where speed and intelligence, flexibility, rolling deployment, superior technology are the key factors, ladies and gentleman. So let there be, no doubt.
Now, in relation to this, there's a column in the Chicago Tribune, and I've got it here in one of the stacks. Let me just, Para-phrase it now, Matthew Miller, writing in the Chicago Tribune says, " Hey, wait a minute, this war was won with Bill Clinton's military." He says, and he mentions my name and Delay. He says, I forget and I'm gonna Para-phase here because I don't have it right in front of me, he says "Much as it might grate on Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay to have to admit it. This military was Bill Clintons military." And he sites as his evidence, the fact that we use many more precision guided weapons in the Air Force today than we used in 19...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Kim] [edit]
...one, and that we only needed half the ground force in this war that we needed ten, eleven years ago in Gulf War I. He had 500,000 ground troops in this, well, troops total, in this one we had 250,000. Were it not for the changes that Bill Clinton made, this war could not have been fought the way it was.
Well, OK, Matthew, what about all the cruise missiles that Bill Clinton used, which Bush had to replenish? And if - Mr. Miller, I don't know, if you're going to make an allegation like this, maybe it would be helpful to tell us in some detail which new weapons programs Clinton proposed. I'm going to have to get his piece. I did not read - he may have done that. I may be speaking too soon; I'll have to double-check this.
But, it will be helpful to know which new weapons programs Clinton proposed, and which new weapons programs came forward over his objections. It's just sort of counter-intuitive to argue this - that Clinton did all of this when he did his best to choke off funding from the Pentagon.
I mean, the only legitimate cuts in our budget during the Clinton years were the defense budget cuts. So, I'll find the piece here. Maybe he does list - I read it very briefly, very quickly. I speed-read this baby. I scanned this thing the minute I got it. I don't recall seeing any list of new weapons programs Clinton proposed; they may be in there, let me check.
We'll be back and continue, nevertheless, in just a moment.
[ad: EIB Network]
[ad: station ID]
[ad: (RL voice) hotwire.com]
[ad: GEICO Insurance 800/947-AUTO]
[ad: Stress Tabs]
[ad: station ID]
[ad: Preserve at Sharp Mountain www.owngeorgialand.com, 800/230-7075]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Pike Family Nurseries]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
Rush: I read the Matthew Miller piece here in the, I guess the Chicago Tribune, Tribune Media Services syndicates it, so, I guess it read, Chicago. He does not detail any of the new weapons programs that Clinton proposed, and he does not, detail which of those programs came forward over his objections. They're just a political analysis, here. Hmm, let's see, between "92" and 2003 the person who was president for the bulk of that time was Bill Clinton. It's true that President Bush has been throwing money at the pentagon since September 11th, but defense planners will tell you none of the impressive leaps in our military capabilities have taken place suddenly in the last eighteen months.
Now, I'm not just gonna accept that. I've heard just the opposite. The -- I know, some of the bombs that we used ne -- well, we had to replace some of the bombs of -- that were used, because Clinton destroyed them all, used them all, in his effort to shield what was going on with Lewinsky. He launched 450 cruise missiles into Baghdad alone one weekend and what we used in Afghanistan, the one -- the new weapon system that uhh, that we talked about on the morning update here and on the program. They -- one of the things we heard about, as well, was that the uhh, one of the reasons for the delay in military action was restocking military supplies, and we heard from a couple of different sources in the military that was the case. Anyway Mr. Miller continues, " Much as it must incense Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay, we are liberating Iraq with Bill Clintons military." The same Bill Clinton, of course, who as conservative myth has it, gutted and hollowed out our fighting forces, that is, when he wasn't busy shredding the moral fabric of the country, his first priority.
I should point out, that Howard Fineman has a piece that runs on MSNBC, that finely admits it. Howard Finemans finally admits everybody from top to bottom in the US military loathed Bill Clinton. I have that right, folks, let me find this here, rather than just tell you that I've seen it. I have it right here in the stack of stuff. Here we go. Here it is. "It is after all, a mutual admiration society, the military and Bush. From top to bottom, the US military loathed his professor Bill Clinton. They seem genuinely to adore George Bush." So this is, Bill Clintons military huh, that we're fighting this war with. He says, "Politics explains why Bill Clinton insisted the pentagon, maintained a cold war budget even with out a cold war. He had to protect his parties right flank." Oh, so that's the excuse. Is there not a tan amount admission here, that Clinton had an outdated military, in this one sentence? But politics explains why Bill Clinton insisted the pentagon maintained a cold war budget, even without a cold war, to protect his party's right flank.
The preceding paragraph is this, the main truth it underscores is how divorced the defense it is from real life. " The myth that democrats are weak on defense, and the GOP is strong, is one that democratic strategists have troubled with for years." The reality is that Bill Clintons defense budgets, roughly tracked the blueprint left by then Defense Secretary Cheney. But politics explains why Bill Clinton insists that he pentagon maintain a cold war budget, even without a cold war. He had to protect his party's right flank. For the same reason, Al Gore called for a bigger Defense budget during the 2000 campaign than did George W. Bush. The fact that almost no one recalls, Gore needed to prove his toughness on defense with dollars. Bush didn't have to. As a republican, he was simply more trusted on the issue.
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: you know, Matthew, the big difference in calling for a bigger defense budget, and then doing it. Al Gore also said, that he was for the war with Iraq, and for -- and for ending the oppression of the Iraqi's during the campaign. Told us the Iraqi National Congress. Yet, just the other day, he said he would have never engaged in this war if he had of won. It's one thing to listen to what these guys promise in campaigns, but come on. To assume that's what would have happened had he been elected. There's a lot of wish and hope in this column. (Sound of page turning) Anyway, that's the basic thrust of it. Matthew Miller tries to make the case, that the Bill Clinton military won the war in Iraq.
I'm telling you this is just a small sample of what the left over all is trying to do here, claiming credit for being involved in this war, claiming credit for being involved in the beginning authorizing the use of force, trying to say that they were instrumental in this, and it's " the republicans are being very small not to admit this." But as I say folks, we should not let the elite media and the liberal democrats get away with this notion, that there were not major philosophical disagreements and arguments before this war began. I mean there were philosophical and ideological arguments about this war before it began that uhh had this country quite roiled. It' was not unanimity here. It wasn't - there weren't peace and li'l doves and flowers all flitting around in the sky, as everybody was getting along as one. There was quite a huge philosophical disagreement and now it appears from. "It was Bill Clintons military -- to hey, we were just involved as the republicans were." Say the democrats.
It appears there's this effort now to sweep that reality under the rug. To forget. And of course the liberals would love for that to happen. The liberals would love for people, to forget how opposed to this they were. The liberals would love for people to forget how wrong they were, about what would happen, how long it would take and what we would find when we got there. They would love for people, to forget, (five thumps) where they were on all this.
Here is some of the new weapons systems, by the way, one that allows soldiers to see what's in front of them, the portable UAV, the Unattended Aerial Vehicle unmanned aerial ve -- unmanded, unmanned aerial vehicle, then the bunker buster bombs are new, the ability to go into caves was worked on specifically for the Afghanistan campaign. And then the MOAB, this giant bomb that uhh, explodes above the, surface of the earth. The one they tested up there in the panhandle of Florida, that's in Iraq now and it's going to be used in Iraq. And that's a new weapon, you know the, bunker buster bomb I don't believe comes from the Clinton years. It was developed specifically to go root out the Taliban in the caves of Tora Bora. Same thing with the uhh, what does MOAB stand for? What's the -- mutual? Massive? Ordinance above ground or some -- something. Mother of all bombs, something like that, but it's this thing that goes off above the surface. And just, it's "shock and awe" in and of it's self.
And let's not forget Rumsfeld's military transformation of the new lighter agile force that won this war in three weeks. Remember, the military wanted this new crusader artillery system that was and upgrade on artillery system we have now. He said -- he said no, it's a waste of money. It doesn't fit with what we're doing now. So this notion that, we engaged with uhh, military equipment that was the same old stuff of the "90's", it just isn't supportable, by virtue of fact.
A Quick time out, we'll be back right after this, sit tight and hang tough.
[Ad: General Steel Corporation]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[NewsRadio-WGST-640]
[Ad: Charity Motors]
[Ad: The Real Estate Investors]
[Ad: 94.9 Lite FM]
[Ad: Nokia]
[Promo: Dr Laura]
[Rush Limbaugh Intro Music and Intro]
Thursday, April 10, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Galen] [edit]
[Intro ends]
The saga continues, here on the EIB Network. Does Matthew Miller open this door? Let's stay in the roo m. He wants to talk about the Bill Clinton military, being the military that we used in Iraq. How about the Bill Clinton military at Mogadishu? Is that what was on display here? How about the way the Bill Clinton military fought in Bosnia and Kosovo? No ground troops. From 15,000 feet, air power alone so as not to take any casualties. Civilian casualties on the ground? Yeah, there were plenty, just not ours. We didn't take any civilian casualties because we only fought from the sky, 15,000 to 30,000 feet. Is that what we used here?
And then of course, let us not forget the Bill Clinton military invasion of Haiti. United Nations is now running that failed operation, and it's still a blatant failure. And wasn't it Bill Clinton's military, the symbol of the Secretary of Defense planting flowers on the Soviet silos? Wasn't that William Perry? Didn't Clinton's Defense Secretary run over to the Soviet Union and actually plant flowers on their milit- on their nuclear weapons silos? And how about - let's not forget one of the most successful Clinton military invasions, the Waco invasion, which took 51 days, ladies and gentlemen, to rout a biblical cult from its ramshackle buildings outside Waco, Texas. Anybody now want to make a claim that Bill Clinton military was employed in Iraq?
Let's go to the phones. Bryan on a cell call from Minneapolis. Hello, sir.
[Bryan] Hey, Rush, how ya doing?
[Rush] Just fine, thanks much.
[Bryan] Hey, thanks for taking my call. This article is blatantly false for the simple reason that right now we've seven carrier battle groups deployed in the seventh and fifth fleet area of operations. The Clinton administration wanted to drop the total amount that we had to ten carrier battle groups. We could not have done this if Clinton's defense budget or spending or defense or if they had in fact dropped that down to ten carrier battlegroups. It was the Republican Congress that protected the twelve carrier battlegroup fleet during the time.
[Rush] I'm sure there will be a whole lot of other people. There will be a whole lot of other people who will want to contribute such examples as this evidence. That's a great point. Thanks, Bryan, very much. Laura, in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, you're next. Hello.
[Laura] Hello?
[Rush] Yeah. Hello! Hi.
[Laura] Hi. Uh, I, listen, I probably cannot speak as intelligently as the last caller. I am so happy you saw, or someone alerted you to this column in the Philadelphia Enquirer, and was so outraged for the simple fact that there will be people that will believe this article and put great faith in what this individual wrote and actually said nothing. There was nothing to substantiate his claims.
[Rush, breaking in] Well that's what I say. Yeah, I read the piece. And I can't find a list of all the innovative new defense programs and weapons that Clinton submitted and authorized. And, uhm,
[Laura, breaking in] Well, that's it and I can see that. And you've articulated it brilliantly. But the very frightening fact is, the people in this area, and Chicago, they'll hear this see this and say, "See, this is what he did. He helped us, now we're in a better place. And they forget that there was no attention paid to the military. We heard from the military time and time again that we were in a bad place in terms of equipment, the state of the equipment, and, also, you know, I felt a long time into that presidency that we were being put in harm's way, long before September 11th happened. We were easily to be taken because of the poor state of our military.
[Rush] OK, hang on, hang on I've got a sort of a news bulletin, here. The Marines have found a possible cache of weapons grade plutonium in Iraq. It's being examined now. Looks like a Pentagon briefing is coming up. Laura, thanks very much. I don't know it's going to be part of a Pentagon briefing, I just see that the podium there is being readied for the briefing, but a possible weapons, cache of weapons-grade plutonium has been found by the Marines i would assume that this is in the same area of Iraq that the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that the
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: sound like I'm patronizing, Please don't misunderstand. I -- but I, this doesn't bother me. Let me just say it flat out. Uhm, and if you were sitting where I'm sitting, and had been through the things that I'd been through in the near -- nearly last fifteen years, you'd understand why. If this were 1988 or 89 or 90 and the exact events had taken place in all that, now, I can understand the concern, I 'd have it too. But it's just -- it's not the same era now.
The uhh, the pieces like this, which used to reach 100% of the American people unchallenged, no longer do. And you also gonna have to give the American people some credit. There is a much greater degree, of information, informed status, on the part of the American people. Everybody, or a decent number of the people understand what is going on with Bill Clinton, and the -- and the legacy rehabilitation tour, and all of these efforts to shore up a failed presidency.
But just in general, the liberal monopoly no longer exists. Yeah, there are going to be people who believe this, but there are gonna be people who are going to believe it anyway. There are going to be people who thought it before this was written. There are going to be democrat liberal partisans anyway. But there aren't as many of those as you think. And this, don't forget this kind of stuff with timing as it is, just as it irritates you, is gonna irritate a whole lot of people, just as the democratic effort -- the democrat effort now to climb aboard and claim credit for this. It's offensive to people.
They know there were major philosophical differences and arguments about this. They know that only as recent as two weeks ago democrats were talking about, "Uh Oh, we're in trouble." They're never going to forget Tom Daschle, saying that the war on terrorism was an abject failure. That we don't have Bin Laden. That he doesn't see one shred of evidence of any success. People remember that. These people do not have the uhm, ability they had long ago. They had 90% of the American people buying into everything they say. It just doesn't exist.
I'll guarantee you, more people than ever before are going to see this column. It's Clinton's military that won this war and they're going to go -- phutt. And they're going to scratch their heads and their gonna laugh, and their gonna, "whew, what kind of idiot do these people think I am." And as I say, it will do no harm to be concerned about it, but don't let it ruin your day, cause it's a new day out there. There is, the day where this stuff stuck and ended up defining public opinion is over. Not to say that it won't come back, there's a sequential nature in all this, but it's gonna be tough for these people.
Let me tell you something the truth of the matter is, that they have just disqualified themselves -- all these people, Bill Clinton, Walter Cronkite, I don't care who you mention, on the left, they have now discredited themselves. These people ought to be discredited for a full generation. They are so off the map when it comes to National Security. They are so off the map when it comes to protecting this country. They have made it plain that they cannot be counted on. And not just to me, many of you in this audience realize it yourself without having to have it said to you or pointed out to you. You know it. (Unintelligible) and a lot of other people do, uhh, do too as well as the democrats. That explains their panic, in trying to rewrite recent history now.
Take a brief pause. An EIB operational pause, and we'll come back, and might as well stay on the theme here. We will go back and revisit some of these media titans, and just let you, read or hear what they wrote, and what they said, and then ask yourself if they ought not be so embarrassed, that they wouldn't dare write again, or speak again. I mean wait till you hear some of this stuff. It is, I mean, I've never seen such mistakes. I've never seen such gross miscalculation in error, I really haven't. You'll see what I mean, when we come back.
[Promo: LimbaughLetter]
[EIB Network]
[Ad: Zmax]
[Ad: ]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Gieco]
[Ad: Lennox Financial]
[Ad: Champion Window, Siding and Patio Rooms]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Our buddies at National Review Online today have created their "Hall of Shame", so many pundits, politicians and celebrities, said so many wrong and down right silly things about the, war in Iraq, the pre-war. We knew that back then, but now -- uhh, we knew back then how wrong they were, but, now that Baghdad's effectively been liberated by the US led coalition.
Here is a handy snapshot of what was said, by some of those who should be looking down, and making their apologies, included here, Maureen Dowd, Chris Mathews and Barry McCaffery. We'll start though, with Johnny Apple, in the New York Times, March 30th, the headlines, " Bush Peril Shifting Sand and Fickle Opinion". "With every passing day, it is more evident that the allies made two gross military misjudgments, in concluding the coalition forces could safely bypass Basra and Nasiriya, and the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq, would rise up against Saddam Hussein." He's wrong. He's dead wrong.
We all know Peter Arnett, and what he said, I mean, (thump sound) if there's ever a guy that ought to now just slink away, and call it a career, and go to some Island somewhere, is Peter Arnett. We don't even need to repeat what he said.
The here's Eric Alterman, who is fast becoming one of the left's most highly, touted media critics. He writes for The Nation Magazine, which, has yet to correct their mistake made where "I'm" concerned. Here's Eric Alterman. "If - is Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history, as to believe the Iraqi's would welcome us as their hoped for liberators..." That's Eric Alterman. (Page turned)
Maureen Dowd. Many examples, we'll give you one from March 3oth, "In cranking up their war plan with excogitated intelligence, the "hawks" left the ground troops exposed and insufficiently briefed on the "fedayeen". Ideology should not shape facts, when lives are at stake."
By the way, do you know what 's been learned about the Saddam fedayeen? They are not Iraqi's. None of the Saddam fedayeen are Iraqi's. They are Iranian's. They are Syrian's. They are Palestinian's. They are Egyptian's and some are even, from the United Arab Emirates. The Saddam fedayeen, are not Iraqi's. Kid you not. Saddam fedayeen -- fedayeen again are Syrian's, Egyptian's, Palestinians, Iranian's, and United...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Arab Emirates. Nicholas Kristof, in the New York Times, October four two thousand two, "If President Bush thinks our invasion and occupation will go smoothly, because Iraqi's will welcome us, then he is deluding himself.
(Page turning sound) Chris Mathews, August 25th 2002, in the San Francisco Chronicle, in his column, "This invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the "Bay of Pigs", "Viet Nam", "Desert One", "Beirut" and "Somalia" in the history of military catastrophe. The American people, are simply not committed to US invasion of Iraq." Chris Mathews, August 25th, 2002, again, "This invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the "Bay of Pigs", "Viet Nam", "Desert One", "Beirut" and "Somalia" in the history of military catastrophe."
Barry McCaffery on the BBC's New Night, as reported by Reuters, on march 24th, "We could take bluntly, a couple to three thousand casualties."
And Robert Wright, War and the Peace, in Slate Magazine, "The Pentagons failure to send enough troops to take Baghdad fairly quickly, could complicate the post war occupation."(Sound of page turning)
And there you have it. Just a quick review, ladies and gentlemen, of some of the utterly ridiculous, erroneous, false claims made by the "Elite" media. The "Literatie" if you will. Those who are smarter and wiser than not only us, but the Administration. These who are in closer touch with the American people than we are, and than you are. These are people who understand life in Iraq far better than Cheney, Wolfie of Rummy, as Maureen Dowd loves to say.
By the way, there is information now, the uhh, this attack on the Palestine Hotel apparently was not, fired by the US. The BBC's defense correspondent, Andrew Gilligan has cast doubt, on weather, the missile that killed two journalists in Baghdad was fired by a US tank. Speculating that Iraqi soldiers may have launched the lethal attack.
The US military (unintelligible) admitted on of it's tanks did fire on the Palestine Hotel, but Gilligan said reports from Central Command, in Qatar, were starting to suggest that US tank fire was not responsible for the death of Reuters cameraman, Taras Protsyuk, and Jose Couso a cameraman with Spanish TV Telecinco. Three other Reuters journalist and Abu Dhabi TV staff member were injured, when an explosion hit their room on the fifteenth floor.
Some people, have gone in and actually done uhh, one of these projectory diagrams and have found that it, would have been nearly impossible, for the US tank, that fired to have hit the hotel were it did.
Now, let me say something, BBC reporter saying so, you can almost take this to the bank. I mean the BBC, you think CNN's bad, the BBC is so bad they got correspondents that are ripping, their agenda. Their own correspondents rip their agenda, on the air. That's how bad the BBC is. Take a quick break here. Another operational pause and we'll be right back.
[EIB Network}
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
[Ad: Blanchard and Company]
[Promo: Rush]
[Ad: Sharp Mountain]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Kim] [edit]
[ad: The Preserve at Sharp Mountain]
[ad: Pep Boys Auto Parts]
[promo for the Dr. Laura show]
(picks up Rush already talking)
.... a list of failures here, that he says the invasion of Iraq will be. He wrote this again- August 25th, 2002, he says the- this invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut and Somalia, in the history of military catastrophe.
Bay of Pigs- Democrat. Vietnam- Democrat. Desert One- Democrat. Beirut- Republican. Somalia- Democrat. I wonder if Chris realized that as he wrote that sentence. Uh, Minneapolis- this is Tim. Hello sir, welcome to the EIB network.
Tim: Hello, Rush. Long time listener, first time caller. I'm an activated Major in the Air Force right now, but based at home under Noble Eagle operation. I- I just wanted to, uh- follow up on the it's Bill Clinton's military idea. Um, I wanna- I was in the first Persian Gulf war and all the way- can't claim to have ever been in ground combat.
Uh, I guarantee you it's the motivation that those folks feel- that's pushing them on to victory right now. It's not- people make a poor presumption when they assume that a military is equipment, hardware and numbers. It's a, uh- it's much more than that and those guys know exactly who they're fighting for, who their commander-in-chief is.....
Rush: That's an excellent point and I'm going to take a occasion of your point here to remind people what, uh- Howard Fineman wrote. It's on MSNBC right now- from top to bottom, members of the military loathe Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton. Loathed him- and uh, he mentions that the military today just loves Bush and I mean, it's one of the best fits- military the White House has ever been.
And what Tim's talking about here is morale. Morale, respect for the commander-in-chief, which what he says, when he says the men and the women are over there fighting for. Let's see- well, I'll say this- I'm thinking of all- if we're going to inherit, if Bush is going to inherit a great Clinton military- then what else of Clinton's did Bush inherit- that, of course, we can't say he inherited?
Go get that printer, Brian- let's get started putting it in.
[station id]
[ad: Shiraz, Persian restaurant]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
[Promo: Pike Family Nurseries]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
[Ad: Pike Family Nurseries]
[Promo: Pete Davis in for "the Kimmer"]
[Ad: Tires Plus]
Thursday, April 10, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Kim] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Matthew Miller Tim Robbins Susan Sarandon Dave Petroskey ]
[ad: Tires Plus]
[ad: station ID]
[ad: Southern Wellness / West Coast Wellness 888/225-1062]
[ad: station ID]
Yes, greetings my friends. Welcome back. Rush Limbaugh here on a roll. On the EIB network. The time, is just flying. Here we are already into our third hour of broadcast excellence. And, typically, I got a printer error on the second job that I tried on my brand-new printer. I'm telling you, my tombstone is going to read, "He died ten years earlier because of printers that didn't do what they were supposed to do."
But we won't think about that now, ladies and gentlemen. We are back, telephone number if you'd like to join us is 800/282-2882, the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
Let's see, here are all the things ... Bush inherited a great Clinton military. We can talk about that. We can write a column. Matthew Miller of the Tribune Services syndication unit can write a piece that said this was Bill Clinton's military. But we can't say that Bush inherited a Clinton economy, can we?
This is Bill Clinton's economy, sure as Hell. But, oh no, we can't say that. And I'm sure there are a number of other things that we inherited from Clinton, that we can't say. And when it comes to the military, oh, yeah, this is Bill Clinton's. Do you believe these people? Do you - I mean, it's Bush's recession, it's Bush's deficit, it's Bush's this or that, it's Clinton's military! Are these people so obvious, or what?
Here is great news, ladies and gentlemen, great great news: the Baseball Hall of Fame has cancelled a fifteenth anniversary celebration of the movie Bull Durham, and the Baseball Hall of Fame's president said it was because of anti-war criticism by the co-stars, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon. Dave Petroskey, president of the Baseball Hall of Fame, sent a letter to Robbins and Sarandon last week, telling them the festivities April 26 and 27 at Cooperstown had been called off.
Petroskey is a former White House assistant press secretary under Reagan. He said recent comments by Sarandon and Tim Robbins ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. Reached Wednesday night, Tim Robbins said he was dismayed...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Robert Wuhl Ron Shelton Geremie Hoff Paul Devine Lawrence Hartstein Umm Ahmed Shaker Hamed Mohammed al-Shahhal ] ...dismayed[?] by the position. He responded with a letter he planned to send to Petrosky, telling him, "you belong with the cowards and ideologues in a hall of infamy and shame." The weekend affair, planned months ago, was also to feature Bull Durham actor Robert Wuhl and Ron Shelton who wrote and directed the movie, which came out in 1988. Instead of commemorating the movie, the Hall of Fame cancelled the celebration in a letter Tuesday sent to the scheduled participants.
Now this is the America we all used to know. This is what used to happen. People that bring shame and humiliation on people are not honored. Or were not honored - they still [unintelligible] the Hall of Fame and Hollywood, I mean the Academy Awards, all you need to do to get an Oscar is sexually molest after you've drugged her a thirteen-year-old girl. Hello, Roman Polanski. Well, can we deny that? I mean these people out there celebrate all of this disgusting behavior and award people rather than look upon them with shame.
That really is one of the problems with the left. And that is the absence of shame.
A woman in St. Louis, ladies and gentlemen, has been awarded four thousand dollars after claiming a bad hair treatment left her depressed and led to her early retirement. Geremie Hoff, G - E - R - E - M - I - E, fifty-six, sued the Elizabeth Arden salon for emotional distress, depression, counseling and lost income. The court heard that Hoff went to the salon on August, 2001 seeking to have her curly hair straightened. Stylist Reye Hudson, R - E - Y - E, who is still with the salon but was not named in the lawsuit, applied a hair relaxer, then washed and styled Geremie Hoff's hair. Hoff said in court claims that clumps of her hair came loose that night, and her resulting bald spots and brittle hair made her depressed and reclusive.
Her daughter gave evidence about her emotions, as did a psychiatrist and counsellor. Her attorney Paul Devine said she was so distressed, she retired early from teaching at the University of Missouri St. Louis and stopped working as a tour guide for trips to Italy. Defense attorney Lawrence Hartstein said that Hudson didn't test Hoff's hair before applying the product, but that the stylist could judge who needed one based on her thirty years of experience.
Jurors found the stylist negligent but didn't say how they arrived at the compensation figure. Four thousand - actually, four thousand pounds, this was reported on the [unintelligible - antinova?] site. Four thousand pounds would be something, I want to say, sixty-five hundred or seven thousand, something like that.
One of the - I must say, ladies and gentlemen, one of the most enjoyable aspects of the last couple of days in Baghdad has been the reaction in the Arab world to what they've seen. The fall of Baghdad provoked shock and disbelief Wednesday among Arabs who expressed hope that other oppressive regimes would crumble, but also disappointment that Saddam Hussein didn't put up a better fight against the Americans.
A Yemeni homemaker, Umm Ahmed, tears streaming down her face, said, "Why did he fall that way? Why so fast? He's a coward. Now I feel sorry for his people." That's really bright, Yemeni homemaker Umm Ahmed. Arabs clustered at TV sets in shop windows, coffee shops, kitchens, and offices to watch the astounding pictures of US troops overwhelming an Arab capital for the first time ever. Feeling betrayed and misled, some turned off their sets in disgust when jubilant crowds in Baghdad celebrated the arrival of US troops. "We discovered that all what the Iraqi information minister was saying was lies," said Ali Hassan, a government employee in Cairo. "Now noone believe Al-Jazeera anymore."
Well, see, there's all you people worried about all of this? You know who you are. You called here, you said, "oh my gosh this guy's getting away with all this propaganda, you're making fun of him, but everybody over there in Arabia - in the Arab countries are believing him." Not anymore. "We discovered that all what the Iraqi information minister was saying was lies." Said Ali Hassan, a government employee in Cairo. "Now noone believes Al-Jazeera anymore."
In a live report from Baghdad, correspondent Shaker Hamed of Abu Dhabi Television said, "we are all in shock. How did things come to such an end? How did US tanks enter the city? Where's the resistance? This collapse is puzzling. Was it the result of the collapse of communications between the commanders, between the political leadership? How could Baghdad fall so easily?"
Mohammed al-Shahhal, a 49-year-old teacher in Tripoli, in Lebanon, said the scenes reminded him of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those who applauded the collapse of Lenin's statue for some Pepsi and hamburgers felt the hunger later on and regretted what they did, Al-Shahal...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Galen] [edit]
said. However, Tannous Basil, a 47-year-old cardiologist in Lebanon, said Saddam's regime was a dictatorship and had to go. One of the things that's happening here, a bunch of Arabs - actually, not Arabs, a bunch of anti-war types in Europe, too, by the way, are asking this question; "Where were the tanks? Where was the resistance? Where was the elite Republican Guard? Where were the fedayeen? Where was the Iraqi regular army? Why were there nowhere in Baghdad? Whey were they nowhere in Baghdad?"
You know what the most popular theory is? Tell me if you've heard this one. The most popular theory is- oh, this couldn't really have happened. There has to be some explanation here. I mean, the American military couldn't have just walked in there that easily if they were had some resistance. Come on. There has to have been some deal made. And the theory is that Saddam secretly surrendered, promised the U.S. no resistance in exchange for his Baath party bigwigs and others in his regime being allowed safe passage out to Syria. That's what they're saying. That's what a lot of people are coming up with to explain this, ladies and gentlemen. See, it just, it just can't be.
And we have also here a column from the Evening Standard in London, by Brian Sewell. And this guy has decided he's gonna personally represent those of you in the two-inch crowd. This piece is amazing.
[Quoting the column:] "To puke was the only proper reaction to the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch. To puke. It was an April Fool's Day joke that dawned on Iraq last week. To puke has just the right, abrupt, dismissive note to it. To vomit, to regurgitate, both have too much Latin gravity at their roots. To heave and to retch, the false gentility of euphemism, but plain puke, that's good enough for Shakespeare. That's perfection. Say, "puke", and relish the sound. It's not that I have any ill will towards the girl. I have none for any young soldier of any race or religion engaged in any cause. It's just that I believe women have no business to be anywhere near the front line in any campaign, other than perhaps, as nurses and doctors. I'm certain that no such effort would have been made to rescue a young man of her age and inexperience."
Ahh, Mr. Sewell, this is where you do not know the American military.
"Jessica Lynch is 19, blonde, 5-4, weighs rather less than the equipment carried by a British paratrooper. Driving across the desert with other U.S. servicemen, unable to read a compass or take direction from the sun, she was separated from her convoy, ambushed, injured, captured by Iraqis, and taken to a hospital in Nasiriyah. There she lay, both legs and one arm fractured, attended by the few members of the staff who had not fled. The pharmacist, the only man of any qualification. How these injuries occurred we don't know, but General Tommy Franks knew of them and knew where she was, knowledge attributed to intelligence until the truth was revealed; a sympathetic Iraqi had trudged for miles across the desert until he found a U.S. officer."
What do you mean; "The truth was revealed?" That truth was revealed immediately. Nobody trussed this up to intelligence. It's no great journalistic find. To discover that a lawyer walked six miles to find the Marines. Everybody knew that. General Franks, it was, who ordered Jessica's rescue, perhaps sharing her family's anxiety over the possibility of rape. Perhaps recognizing that a propaganda coup could be made of it. To effect the rescue, U.S. Marines staged diversionary attacks in Nasiriyah, on a bridge, a telecommunications relay station, and the local headquarters of the Baath party.
And with these underway, two transport helicopters landed in the hospital grounds with the protection of four attack helicopters hovering overhead. And two patrolling tank muster aircraft. All this by dead of night, in pitch darkness, and with the appalling safety record of U.S. forces. How many soldiers were involved, and at serious risk in this escapade? Six helicopter crews. Two airplane crews. Medics. Stretcher-bearers.
All the men engaged in a decoy attack on the other side of town. Would so many men, and so much expense and machinery have been risked for the rescue of a jar-head Marine of 19? A black boy of 19? A homosexual boy of 19? Or a poor white boy of 19, from the same incestuous hills of West Virginia?
I says Brian Sewell, Evening Standard of London, that's who this is. I doubt it, he says, the girl was rescued not because she was a heroine, not because she was brilliantly qualified, not because she was in possession of information and skills and must on no account be portrayed as a
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: she was rescued for no other reason, than, "She is a girl", and the all American blonde, to boot. The rescue of Jessica Lynch was portrayed even in our most sober, and sensible broadsheets, as an exploit of extraordinary daring due of heroism and valor, audacity, chivalry and chutzpa. Sane men however, able to access the risks involved on such a moonless night, must count this rescue, a work of shear insanity, unless those ordering it put into the equation the publicity inevitable, with success. Was it done to hearten the male troops?
Again, I doubt it, for these weary cold by night, sweating by day now long unshaven, and unshowered, stinking with the stale odors of the body, know perfectly well, that no attempt would be made to rescue them, were they in the same predicament as Private Lynch. America doesn't leave its hero's behind and never has and never will," Were the weasel words of a US Army spokesman. And to such nonsense the only possible response is " Tell that to the Marine's." The objective of this cynical exercise was to fortify the folks at home, and there can be no doubt, so deep is the naiveté of the provincial American that rue's worked.
In West Virginia, Jessica's rescue is attributed to not only to the Army but, to GOD in equal measure. GOD invoked by the power of prayer. It's occurred to none of them, that if god had anything to do with it, he would have stayed the hands of Bush and Blair, and sent "No one into Battle". The point that no one overlooked is, that Jessica Lynch should not have been sent to Iraq until active hostilities are over. I don't care a damn what the feminists say, the front line is no place for women. It's where men are ripped apart by shells and bullets. Where they are incinerated in tanks, the burnt meats of sacrifice, so to speak, where men lay down their lives for noble sentiments and causes. Forgive me, but what bullocks the euphemisms are. (Turning page sound)
As for the safety, Central Commands Brigadier General Vincent Brooks said of Jessica's rescue, "Some brave souls put their lives "on line" to make this happen." And so they did, but they should not have been required to do so. If women feel compelled, in their absurd pursuit of equality to join the armed forces, and cannot, will not, see that in the front line, they pose a menace, to all men then the forces must draw the line for them. No matter how great a political in correctitude it may seem to outsiders. Women should be the armies clerks, cooks and bottle washers, it's doctors and nurses, it's counters of beans and buttons, but never, even though I can imagine more terrifying than a battalion of bearded lesbians, never bearers of arms, never front line soldiers. (Page turning sound)
This the spokesman of the two inch crowd, his name again Brian Sewell, uhh, writing two days ago in the opinion section of The Evening Standard of London.
[Promo: Rush on EIB Network]
[Ad: Rush for Select Comfort Beds -- Sleep Number Beds]
[Ad: www.workparttime.com]
[Ad: Sharp Mountain]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Sharp Mountain]
[Ad: Avacor]
[NewsRadio-WGST-640]
[Rush Into Music]
Rush: Sneak a telephone call here, as we approach the bottom of the hour. Marty, in Prescott Arizona, Hi, welcome to the EIB Network.
Marty: Oh, mega dittos Rush. I'm having to get down off my chair and I think I've got a bogo to the clean out all that stuff that was dumped in here on that -- on that guy from wherever he was from. (Rush talking over Marty)
Rush: The evening Standard -- the Evening Standard
Marty: Oh, goodness, I had to have my hand up over my head because it was to late to save my shoes but I did manage to save my watch.
Rush: Well, look, let me say this, you got t o understand, these guys, some of these guys over there write for the express purpose of irritating people, not to say he doesn't believe it, but, he may be exaggerating a bit. Or he may not have, but I know that's -- some of these people, "revel", in irritating people then consider to be provincial incestuous Americans. Naive Americans.
Marty: Well, I take offence at what was said. I spent seven years, I spent most of my adult life in either the uniform of the Air Force, or the army, and I take great offence at what he said.
Rush: Why, why because (talking over Marty saying -- "about - about the rescue") we rescue every body equally
Marty: I'm sorry?
Rush: Because we rescue everybody equally?
Marty: Absolutely. I tell you what; I've spent seven years in the Air Force... (Rush Interrupts)...
Rush: Okay, hang, hang on -- hang, hang on here. We're not going to get it in before the hour or this -- this half hour comes to a close. We'll continue here right after the break. Don't go away.
[Ad: American Liberty Mortgage]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC News]
[NewsRadio-WGST-640]
[Promo: Kerasal]
[Ad: National Mortgage]
[Promo: Masters Golf Report]
[Ad: Anxiety Research Study -- Atlanta Institute of Medicine and Research]
[Promo: Dr Laura]
[Rush: intro music]
Rush: A man, a legend, a way of life. We are back and we return to Marty in Prescott Arizona. Thanks for waiting Marty.
Marty: Rush, all I want...
Thursday, April 10, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Immaadd2] [edit]
Marty: say it is uh, the motto of rescue people, whether they are Air Force or what ever is. It's my duty as a member of the rescue service, to save lives and protect the injured. "These things I do, that others may live." That's what it's all about, and it doesn't matter what color, what creed, what nationality, that's what this is all about. It's saving peoples lives.
Rush: Of course and you know, the uhh, again I don't want to be misunderstood here, I'm not saying, this stuff that this guy writes ought not offend you, and make you mad and all that, but at the same time, try not to give the guy too much pleasure in over reacting to it. I mean there's a way to react to this that gets the point across with out, and I'm not thinking about you Marty, I'm just a general statement, because (unintelligible) I'll guarantee you this guys sitting around in his office just waiting for people to blow up at this so that he can say "See how uncouth and uncivilized these naive incestuous Americans are. They're simply unwilling to face the truth, blah, blah, blah." These people don't deserve the attention you might feel you want to give to this.
(Many tapping sounds) I don't know. I just think these people are shallow. I just, it's such a brazen attempt here to offend, and somebody's trying to offend you the last thing you want to do is let them succeed, and I think there is certainly an element of that. Some of the stuff is gratuitous. Some of the stuff, it - to make the point he wants to make, could easily be made without all these outrageous, really stupid and naïve insults, that he had to throw in there. So I - just a basically lib socialist from Great Britain who's unhappy with our success.
And I do - how anybody, this is what amazes me, how anybody could look at that rescue attempt and not be happy about it. Who cares what the motivation was. Who cares who she is, where she came from, how old she is, what color her hair is. What's the point? Should we have left her there? You know it, speaks more about those of you who think that there's something conspiratorial here. Then to just be able to relish in the shear joy of the success for the mission, and then to pile on with such things as " Well, it wouldn't of happened if it was a male prisoner, a gay, a black, whatever, or a lesbian, it wouldn't have." All because she's an all American blonde from incestuous West Virginia. Yes, where the state flower is the satellite dish. And I can hear all of this from these people. Don't give them the satisfaction.
What? No, we -- well, that is a good point we don't know what her sexual orientation is, not that it matters. We don't know what her sexual orientation is, how's this guys assuming, that's she's heterosexual. On what basis is this erudite experienced, man of the world, coming to that conclusion. I thought we weren't supposed to judge people on the basis of their appearance. And note his reference here to lesbians as bearded, in his piece. (Tapping sounds) The all American First cavalry Amazon battalion, bearded lesbians, he said about them. Here's uhh, here's Chris, in Southgate, Michigan. Welcome, nice to have you on the program sir...
Chris: Hi Rush. Can't believe I'm finally talking after twelve years. I wanted to ask, what about Clinton's, Osama Bin Laden? What about Clinton's 9/11, and the fact this war would have happened sooner, if it were not for Clinton dismantling the CIA, and systematically going about trying to hurt the military. People need to realize this is the war on terrorism.
Rush: Yeah, you're talking about what we inherited from Clinton, here, in addition to our great military?
Chris: Exactly. Are we to believe, that in eight months or even the Cole bombings and embassy bombings, that those happened because, they knew George Bush was going to be our president. (Rush Laughing) or that they planned 9/11 over 8 or 9 months (Rush saying -- Excellent, excellent point) these are direct result of Clintons policies and people need to wake up and realize that (Rush interrupts)...
Rush: That's a excellent point -- excellent point. They plan all these things, Mogadishu's another great example. Even with Saddam thinking that, "Hey, Americans are what Bill Clinton made the American country out to be." So - great miscalculation. It's an excellent point, I'm glad you called. Here is Ed, in Boston. Hello Ed.
Ed: Hi there, Rush. What prompted me to call today was what I heard you talking to the woman from Chicago and you were giving her solace, over the fact that there was an article, I guess giving credit to the fact that most of these, weapons that have been used in a different or improved since the last war in "91" being attributed to Clinton, and it's a coincidence because recently, of course we been hearing about all these weapons that have been perfected, that we didn't have them available back in the Gulf War, but now we do. Well it only makes sense that uhh, of course, a lot of these "were" developed and they were "made" while Clinton was president. They weren't -- they weren't done in the past eighteen months on...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Ben: ...it is manufactured and perfected cause that's been while Bush has been President.
Rush: Oh, so can you site for us these weapons programs that, uhh...
Ben: oh, no, no, I can't, I don't to pretend to, but it's just seems, I was going to be even asking some people (Rush interrupts)...
Rush: Oh, okay, I'll accept your reasoning here, Ben. Because you're saying here that logic would -- logic would say, "We cannot create new weapons, from start to finish, in eighteen months." So a MOAB bomb, or a penetrating bunker bomb, or some of the other things that we could utilize, could not possibly have been, invented, designed and created in the eighteen months that Bush has been President, right?
Ben: Right. I mean some of these, like a lot of (Rush interjects -- Yeah) these weapons that have been perfected, from lets say, only (Rush interrupts)...
Rush: Well, Let me ask -- let me ask -- let me -- let me ask - ask you a question. Since you can't say, I think, Roy, it's important that we, site the programs that the president proposed. Because it's entirely possible that these weapon systems were, in fact, proposed by the republican congress, members of the republican house, member of the republican senate. Maybe Clinton opposed them, but was defeated. It's entirely possible that any -- any number of uhh, explanations this exists, but on the same token, if we are logically to assume that this is Clintons military, why can't we logically assume that the economy Bush inherited, was Clintons economy?
Ben: Well, that's -- they're two different --two different things.
Rush: Why?
Ben: and why would you be saying that? I thought there was nothing wrong with the economy. According (Rush interrupts)
Rush: Oh! No, no, no, no, no, uh, uh, uh, uh, ahh, you have got it wrong. We inherited, bush inherited a, an economy headed into a recession. The commerce department misstated the strength of this economy, corporate profits by 30% in the last two years of the Clinton Administration. There were a number of signs the economy was already heading so- Bush, even in the campaign, warned about it, he said the warning light on the dashboard, is flashing, and all these liberals, "
You can't say that, why you're going to create a self-fulfilling prophecy." So here, you know, inside of one week with Bush in the Whitehouse, the democrats come calling and say "This is Bush's economy -- Bush's economy and tax cuts," even though 50 billion dollars of Bush's tax cuts have been implemented. Democrats and liberals are running around saying that Bush's tax cuts have created a deficit, never mentioning this massive spending orgy that everybody has been engaging in, republican and democrat alike, ever since Bush has assumed office, and prior to it.
So, I think if we're gonna be consistent, that if Bush inherited the military then Bush inherited the Clinton economy. Bush inherited a number of things, here from the Clinton Administration, such as the way we fight wars, Mogadishu and, I mean Bush didn't make any changes in the military. We shoulda fought this the way we fought Mogadishu, which means that the first casualty, we're out of there. but some how we didn't. So, it's a nice try, I love you liberals, I really do, and you sound like a very nice guy, you really do, but, this is a blatantly pathetic attempt here to try to link liberals and democrats, to an overwhelmingly success to which, really have no claim. I know it hurts, but you don't. We'll be back.
[Promo: RushLimbaugh.com]
[EIB Network]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
[Ad: CC Radio]
[Promo: Don Hughes for Rush]
[Ad: Sharp Mountain]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Sharp Mountain]
[Ad: Focus Factor]
[NewsRadio-WGST640]
Rush: Whether it's a movement or a cult, and Mark Goldblatt teaches at the State University of New York, and he -- he says - says this, "Three weeks into the Iraqi war, the cancerous Baathist regime has been destroyed. The hunt for Saddam has become the bunker buster version of the carnival game, in which the chipmunk's head pops up through a hole in the board, and you clobber him with a mallet. So much for the quagmire."
"Now, you'd think the fact that the liberation of 22 million oppressed people was accomplished with minimal civilian casualties, would give pause to those who have been marching against the war, but it won't of course. For the anti war movement consists not of thinkers, but of true believers. Indeed, it is more kin to a religious cult, than a political cause. It 's hoist on tenants of faith rather than points as evidence, and thus, inn the final analysis, no more responsive to counter arguments than guys who stand on street corners in sandwich boards forecasting the end of the world next weekend, no, next weekend, Ahh, okay, next weekend."
"As the Iraqi people rise up to cheer the American troops, the true believers will claim the scenes are staged. As chemical and biological weapons are uncovered, the true believers will claim they were planted. As an interim government is established the true believers will claim, it's a puppet, for American interests. As the oil wealth of Iraq is translated into prosperity for the people, the true believers will claim, American companies are hogging profits. To view this as near idiocy would be wrong. People who believe such things are in reality, clinging to their faith.
Clinging to a set of beliefs that infuses their lives with meaning, that connects them to a higher purpose, that makes them feel a part of something larger than themselves. It's a constant uphill struggle to maintain this particular faith, in light of the manifest truth that America is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet. The anti war movement thus should be ignored or even pitied, maybe even ridiculed, but don't condemn them to harshly, because like the rest of us, true believers are entitled to their pursuit of happiness."
Well, I'm all for being a little bit tougher on them than that. I think they may be true believers, but that doesn't excuse em for being idiots. It doesn't excuse them for being wrong. And if they want to invest their pursuit of happiness in being wrong, then I consider they got a problem. Anybody who wants to pursue happiness and be totally wrong in the process, as a means of giving themselves, "meaning in life". He's exactly right about what they will say, when all these things happen. Discovery of the WMD's, the channeling the oil profits for the Iraqi people we can - it's already started in fact.
'The American Red Cross pleaded yesterday, for a halt, to donations from the homeland patriots eager to aid troops in Iraq. They pleaded yesterday for a stop to this, because, they got more generosity than they can possibly ship, or even store. Now we don't want to disappoint anybody but, before we do any more, we should all think about the security concerns," said the American Red Cross Vice Presidents...
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Martha Burke Hootie Johnson ] ...
that directs the organization's armed forces emergency services, so instead of accepting more Girl's Scout cookies, bibles, lip balm, or sunglasses, the Red Cross instead is emphasizing emergency communications through expanded around-the-clock crisis centers that link troops to their homes.
I mean there's one. They got more than they can keep and store, and they've got more than they can possibly ship. And - oh, yes, all these greedy Americans, but of course, my friends, the bottom line is that if this is the kind of America that exists out there, all these naysayers, and it was Clinton's military, they're not going to gain any traction.
It's clear there's overwhelming support for this. And with so much support comes knowledge. The people supporting this know full well who else did. The people who support this so much that they are swamping Red Cross centers also know full well who didn't support, and that's one of the reasons why they're doing what they're doing.
So, again, pity the left; pity the Democrats for trying to link [unintelligible] time get on board, but don't worry that they're going to fool anybody, because they won't.
By the way, for those of you who are going to go home this afternoon and watch the taped-on-USA-Today version of the first round of the Masters, I'm going to go ahead and tell you what's happening there, I'm going to go - even though you get mad at me when I - "don't Rush, don't, I don't want to know what's happened." My friends, it's been rained out. The first round of the Masters has been rained out. They're going to play 36 holes tomorrow, and 36 holes on Saturday to get back on schedule, and I'm sorry if those of you have been disappointed by the revelation of this news, and wanted to watch two hours of a rained-out golf tournament. You can still do that. USA's going to do something for these two hours, from four to six this afternoon. The first round washed out. They hoped to start it at eleven today but they just couldn't.
Arnold Palmer - I don't like this - he said, "us short-hitters, we short-hitters don't have a chance anyway, but now with this course as wet as it is, there's no roll. Every bit of distance you get off the tee you got to get in carry. In the air. And it's so wet, a lot of the shots are just plugging in the middle of the fairway."
Also, as to Augusta National, a Federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a planned protest rally concerning the all-male status of the club could not be held at the front gate of the club. The appeals court - Federal appeals court - rejected an appeal by Martha Burke, the chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations. She had wanted to carry her protest to the spot where club members and golfers would be entering the club, off Washington Road, for this week's tournament.
They said Nope. So she's going to be about half a mile from the club, where nobody will see her, and nobody will notice. At his annual press conference yesterday, Hootie Johnson said, "I don't want any questions about this. I've said all I have to say about it, and I'm not going to answer any." And in one of his closing remarks, he said this: "I want you to know something. This is not personal. It isn't tied to me. If I drop dead now, the policy of this club will not change. If I drop dead this second, the policy of this club and its membership will not change." His point was, this isn't about me. This is about our club, and our policy.
Folks, I'm gonna tell you, as I've said all along, if you want to argue that this is a matter of getting into the twenty-first century, and it's time to modernize, and this is antiquated, that their male-only membership is a sign of the past, that we've got to get rid of. Fine, then you'd better be prepared to shut down, or at least integrate, every all-girls college, every all-girls school, every girl scout troop, every all-women's institution, and only women's institution. You'd better be prepared to agree with that, because if you're not, then shut up about Augusta National.
This is not an area where women are being deprived of anything. There were a thousand rounds played last year by women at Augusta National. Everybody says, "well, but Rush, business opportunities." Now, do you know who these members are, these guys have had their business heyday. The vast majority of members have had their business heyday, sure, they discuss the business world, but in terms of business deals being made, that's not the purpose of this club.
It has a far different purpose. It's about golf. We'll take a quick break, we'll be back, stay with us.
[ad: EIB]
[ad: station id]
[ad: ???]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Posture-D]
[ad: AC-Delco]
[promo for the Kimmer, with substitute host Pete Davis]
[ad: Tires Plus]
[promo for morning show on 96-Rock]
[ad: Nokia]
[promo for morning news show]
Rush: Okay, my friends- this excursion into broadcast excellence is in the can and on the way to the museum of broadcasting's future Limbaugh wing. And we will be back and see- is this Thursday? Gee whiz, can't believe it- Open Line Friday tomorrow, my friends- we'll be back eagerly then and see you then. Thanks for joining us today, adios.
{station id] [ad: The Real Estate Investors}
[station id]
[news break coming up]
Thursday, April 10, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Kim] [edit]
[news break]
[traffic and weather update]
[more news]
[weather update]
[station id]
[ad: Maxim Mortgage]
[ad: Pike Family Nurseries]
| |
