| BEGIN TRANSCRIPT |
 |
| RUSH: You know, sometimes -- frequently actually -- during all these breaks I go to the e-mail. I check things out, and I go to all the various accounts from which I receive mail, and the Rush@eibnet.com is where the kooks send me mail. I get eight, 10,000 shots a day in a 24-hour period in this account and, you know, sometimes I just peruse the subject line, and this one caught my attention, so I thought I'd read it. Subject line is: "9/11 Explanation is a Lie, Lie, Lie." I said, "Ooooh, okay." So here's the note to me: "Everybody in the country except you knows and understands the Bush official explanation of 9/11 is a cover-up and a lie. The truth is being told, and the people are starting to wake up and realize that Bush and his minions are pushing a big lie. When they can no longer cover their rear ends with lies they will be held accountable for their crimes against the people of this country." He goes on to give me two links here to show that Bush blew up the World Trade Center. So I wrote the guy back: "Hang on and don't leave. We are sending the men in the white coats over to retrieve you and help you now. They will arrive in the little yellow bus. PS: We know where you are because of legal tapping of your e-mail account. Be patient. All will be well soon. We only want to help you." (Laughing.) I'll tell you. This clown probably used to a normal red-blooded, common, ordinary, everyday -- and I don't mean anything negative by that -- common, ordinary, everyday American citizen and his mind has been polluted with some of this propaganda from his left wing buddies and now it's just gone. That's where they're headed, folks. That's where they're headed. If they ever did get these impeachment hearings... By the way, let's talk about that. If they ever get hearings on this NSA business, can you imagine what that would be? I don't believe they ever really want hearings. I don't think that's what this is about. They would not be able to withstand any hearings. The facts would come out and bury them. They'd be buried by the facts. You call Bill Clinton up there. You call Jimmy Carter up there. You call their attorney generals. It's over. Call this guy Schmidt that wrote the piece in the Chicago Tribune today. Call Richard Posner. It's over. I mean, it's amazing. Literally, folks, news is being censored in order to facility propaganda. Let's step back for just a second, shall we? We know that George W. Bush is an honorable and decent and law-abiding man, but his enemies in the Democratic Party and the media and a few fools who claim to be Republicans nevertheless argue with a straight face that he has authorized unconstitutional eavesdropping on US citizens, and these are the same dummkopfs, the same idiots who insist that our troops systematically torture detainees. Just step back. Take away all of the minutia and all of the propaganda and just strip it bare, and what do you have? You have these people who want to defend terrorists, grant them constitutional rights, who want to invest in our defeat in Iraq, claim that Bush -- and they argue this with a straight face -- that he's authorized unconstitutional eavesdropping on US citizens. The main reason it isn't going to work is because it is not believable. |
| They would have to pound this for a considerable time without any opposition, and they would have to successfully come up with examples of this, and they can't. They would have to successfully come up with a number of examples to insight legitimate fear, but there aren't any. They've taken leave of their senses and their reality. Just stop and think what they're arguing here. They argue that our troops torture, and because of that we need to confer legal constitutional rights on Al-Qaeda terrorists. Law enforcement breaks the law, so they can't be trusted to follow the Patriot Act. So we gotta gut the Patriot Act because we can't trust law enforcement. We can't trust the feds. We can't trust Bush. We can't trust Cheney. We can't trust Gonzales. We can't trust Rice. We can't trust Rumsfeld. They all stink and have to go. So we've got to gut the Patriot Act, and the president wants to spy on innocent US citizens, so we need to impeach him. What is the purpose of spying on somebody who's innocent? What are you going to get? What's it worth to you? Why would George Bush care what innocent people in all this are doing on a day-to-day basis? These are the some people who want no restrictions on any kind of illegal immigration into this country because they want those people to vote for them. You know, we used to ask what ideas the liberal Republicans and Democrats propose for winning the war on terrorism, knowing they had none. "What are you for? What's your plan? What are you going to do if you ever get power back?" That's not the question anymore. Now the question is: How can we stop them from undermining critical aspects of the war? They don't care to win it. They are invested in defeat. The major concern is stopping these people from sabotaging our ability to wage war on this enemy because that's what the media and that's what the Democratic Party and the far left of this country have become -- saboteurs. You call them traitors if you want. You can use the word "treason". Go ahead. They are sabotaging the effort that is underway, and they're doing it with some of the most ridiculous, baseless claims that will not bear up under any kind of scrutiny whatsoever, which is why I maintain they don't really want the scrutiny they're demanding. They don't want hearings. That would kill them. That would blow up in their face. Unless every member of  the commission doing the hearing was a Richard Ben-Veniste or a Jamie Gorelick, if they could arrange that but they won't be able to arrange that, that's not going to happen. There's a New York Times story out today, the third installment in this scam, and you know what the main point of this story is? Some domestic telephone calls were accidentally intercepted (Gasp!) and the story makes it plain and clear as day that the calls were accidentally intercepted and that nothing was done with the information, and they found out they were accidentally intercepted and they took steps to see to it that it didn't happen. May I brief you on some reality? People in this country are accidentally imprisoned for years even after due process if you listen to the Reverend Jackson and that coterie of celebs that went out to the Tookie Williams funeral. Tookie Williams, the founder of the Crips, ended up doing the crypt walk. He's in the crypt now. From the Crips to the crypt. But anyway, all these celebrities out there, "Wrongly imprisoned," they will say. "He shouldn't have been there, didn't do it, maintained it till the end." People are accidentally imprisoned for years even after due process, and let me introduce the New York Times and this bogus story today to something called Echelon. This happens all the time. Echelon intercepts everything out there searching for key words, looking for anything that the computer might spit out to a human being saying, "Oop, you might be interested in this." It happens every day, yet they run a story here: accidentally intercepted some domestic phone calls -- and, by the way, the Echelon program first reported during the Clinton administration, is becoming overwhelmingly clear without even a shred of doubt that this program is legal. |
| The NSA program that Bush is utilizing is legal, and it's important. All the opponents can do here is yell that the law was broken and that the FISA court regulations weren't followed. Take a look now. More and more every day, virtually every intellectually honest legal scholar is coming to a contrary conclusion, from former Clinton administration types to former Reagan administration types. We haven't heard from former Carter people yet. They're still slaying rabbits out there on the rivers, probably. All they do is yell that we didn't get a warrant. "You didn't go to the FISA court. You can't do it! It's illegal." They're relying on their argument to have the one thing that they think will permeate the confusion out there, and that is simplicity, and simplicity is the characteristic that most bold-faced lies have. They're so simple. They're easy to believe. Bush spied! Bush secretly obtained information on innocent Americans on purpose, to cover up his lies for Iraq. The real question, to me, remains this: I want to know who leaked this classified information in the first place. I don't care about Valerie Plame posing in her pajamas in her living room with her bedraggled husband looking like he's faking tears. I don't care. That's not a thing that damaged anything or anybody. We've got an investigation open now with Pat Fitzgerald and I'll tell you some of these stories that leaked in the Washington Times and Washington Post lately, throw them in the hopper, because I want to know who leaked this classified information. I want to know who's sabotaging this war to wage war on the enemy. The media doesn't care about this, but we do. The media is censoring news, actually censoring news in order to publish propaganda. They are ignoring all these past presidential executive orders that you can read on Drudge. You know, Drudge has them in pdf files if you want to look at them. Well, they're not pdf files, but they're essentially copies of the exact actual executive orders. Go look, from Bill Clinton and from Jimmy Carter. They're right there. Go look at this column from Mr. Schmidt today in the Chicago Tribune. They're ignoring all that, censoring them, censoring all of that to get quotes from ignorant politicians who they know will call for Bush's head and ACLU lawyers and Gorelick who will say, "This is horrible! This is terrible! This is unprecedented." I was up late last night working on today's program because all this stuff was coming in last night as the morning papers today went to the website publishing early. I'm assembling all this and amassing my thoughts on it, and I get an e-mail. Apparently Jonathan Turley is on Nightline calling for Bush's impeachment. So? So why are they going to get Turley? Because they know what he's going to say when he gets there! They know what Turley is going to say. They want some legal authority to go out and say that, and since Turley was good during the impeachment, they think Turley will have credibility across the board. They want to impeach Bush. Turley will go out and say, "Yep, this is an impeachable offense." Bammo! He's there. I'm also curious about something else.  Jay Rockefeller, and that famous letter that he released. A secret letter, a handwritten letter he wrote to himself, so troubled, he was, by this policy, he released a letter in which he complains about this NSA program, about which he had been briefed. He said that the letter, dated July 17th of '03, "had been sealed and secured in the offices of the Senate intelligence committee." So he goes to great lengths concealing his views because to voice them might reveal classified information. So he can't publicly release his views, so he hand writes the letter and puts it in a vault. In that letter he expresses frustration that he can't even consult with his staff or counsel, and he can't draw on independent legal or technical expertise. He complains that because of the severe restrictions, that he's on the intelligence committee, and he can't even talk to anybody about it, and Dianne Feinstein goes on television, says she hasn't discussed the matter with Rockefeller because she's not on the intelligence committee, and it's not right! Every member of Congress ought to be able to be briefed on this program, and she can't hear about it from him because he can't talk about it. Okay. Fine so far. I think it was all a pile of excrement, but fine so far, but he went to such efforts to conceal his views. If he did, and all this is a planned little scenario: Rockefeller writes the handwritten letter, puts it in a vault, then Feinstein goes out and says, "I wish I could have seen it. He can't tell me about it," they create the impression that this is deathly secret. Rockefeller is excellent at keeping secrets. Rockefeller doesn't leak anything, even to fellow Democrats, right? Well, if that's true, if he went to all these great lengths to keep this such secret, and even if a fellow senator, Di Fi, insists that she can't discuss it with him, then from where might the New York Times have reported the following little tidbit in its original story? Quote: "According to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee..." Wait a minute. If he can't tell anybody about this, if he can't even tell Di Fi, if he can't tell staff, if he can't tell Senate lawyers, then how in the name of God did the New York Times find out about his letter, hmm? I can't imagine this trail would be difficult for leak investigators to follow. Who knew that Rockefeller had reservations? He wasn't telling anybody. Uhhh, maybe he was. Maybe Rockefeller was the leaker? Something doesn't jibe her, folks, but we know that he started this whole scenario with his little memo back in 2002 about how to execute this whole plan. END TRANSCRIPT |
| *Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time. |