Posted on 01/07/2006 8:38:11 PM PST by lainie
On Friday, January 6, 2006, El Rushbo said the following:
Transcribed from rushlimbaugh.com "It's Open Line Friday… Clip: Does Anyone Remember Wen ho Lee?" Windows Media Player, paid subscription required
'Phil from Prescott, Arizona': "What I wanted to talk about: you were mentioning how Bill Clinton never seemed like he was interested in tackling huge national security issues, but I seen an example in the Wen ho Lee case where they actually railroaded Wen Ho Lee so they could at least LOOK like they were tackling national security issues..."
Limbaugh: You know, this is a fascinating case, and I don't think enough people A) know about it or B) remember it. Wen Ho Lee, Chinese descent, working out at Los Alamos, right? Los ALamos nuclear lab. Wen ho Lee was accused, by the Clinton administration, of stealing secrets and sending them back to China. During the whole period where the Clinton administration was involved in all this funny money coming in from China, and the 1996 presidential campaign, and the John Huang/Charlie Tree days, and all of this. There was NEVER...this man was kept in jail for, I don't know how many months, but, at one point, when they took him into federal court, a federal judge...now, he sent me his book. Wen ho Lee sent me his book, and it opens with this judge's apology. The judge, I forget his name, federal district judge, apologized to Wen ho Lee for everything the United States government had done to him: falsely accusing him, keeping him in jail; this is unprecedented. Sometimes charges are dismissed and they're thrown out, or what have you. The judge made it plain that he was apologizing on behalf of the United States government for what had happened to Wen ho Lee. And Phil's point here is, he's taking off on the opening monologue today which is, the Clinton administration, during 2000, had this CIA plan to try to leak phony information to the Iranians so that when they put their nuclear bomb together, it wouldn't work. Now, the point of this was that the Clinton administration knew in 2000 the Iranians were working on nuclear cweapons, and they didn't do anything about it. And they had this CIA plan that was so bad that it was doomed to fail, and it did. And his point is Clinton just wanted to look tough on this stuff, just wanted to look big on this, so we indict Wen ho Lee, when no evidence, keep him in jail, and, uh, you know, it was worse than what happened to Ray Donovan, he was, 'where do I go to get my reputation back?' And now he's filed a counter suit. I think the last I heard was he's filed some sort of a counter suit. But I won't forget what this judge said to him, as his book opens: apologizing profusely for the entire U.S. government for what he did. And of course, the mainstream press and all of Clinton's buddies hardly gave it scant attention, folks. This is the bunch that did the Waco invasion, Ruby Ridge, uh, one other example I'm leaving out, but, we talk about civil liberties today and how we're losing it."
A very good question. I'm inclined to think that Ross Perot cost George the elder more, but who knows. Ruby Ridge sure sticks in MY craw, after all this time.
I'm sorry, but you can't very well demand that anybody document their opinion, any more than you can document "So the Clinton bunch did Ruby Ridge."
Theoretically, under the "fortress doctrine", in a firefight between John Law and other people, anyone associated with the people whom the law was trying to arrest deserves anything he gets during the fight. Thus, if Patty Hearst had been killed during the Symbionese Liberation Army siege in California that burned up the people in the house, she'd have had it coming, victim status and Stockholm syndrome notwithstanding, because of her alleged free association with the wanted criminals.
Camilla Hall of the SLA stopped a .44-magnum round with her forehead and died instantly while crouched down behind a door. Was she trying to shoot policemen? Was there a warrant out on her, as well as Patricia Krenwinkle and Donald DeFreeze and Leslie Van Houten, with Camilla's name properly spelt to the satisfaction of the ACLU? All these questions are washed away by the "fortress doctrine" -- she was in there of her own free will, she stopped one, she died, get over it.
And I question the sanity of anybody who honestly believes that the FBI operations go on without the president's knowledge.
Well, yes, especially when the guns come out.
IMHO that title belongs to six little words
"READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES"
I intended nothing of the sort!
We have the Presidency, the House, and the Senate, and we have made no progress in this area.
I met Mr. Weaver at a gun show with my uncle years ago. Still have Mr. Weaver's book around somewhere in storage. What a travesty, what an abuse. Has anyone ever heard what became of that Horiachi murdering-cretin?
Bush I's resignation was about the "jackbooted thugs" comment. The "jackbooted thugs" commented occurred after the OKC bombing which included an FBI office. Bush then wimped out and resigned from the NRA rather than to be assoicated with that comment which at that time was politically incorrect.
I see no evidence that the NRA resignation was about the 1992 Ruby Ridge raid. You've not given any.
Are you seeking to exonerate George H. W. Bush of the moral onus of the ATF's attempt to entrap Randy Weaver and their calling in the Marshal Service to confront him in arms, after ATF sought and obtained Weaver's indictment on a bad bill?
Are you trying to protect Poppy?
Is there some degree of responsibility of which Bush will have been relieved, if only the documents that tie him to the initiative to imprison right-wing extremists have been made to disappear, or never existed because his policy directives were sufficiently light-fingered in their communication to subordinates?
In very short words, why should I do your homework assignment? Which, as we both understand, is your invitation to me to shut the hell up about George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States.
Your logic is swiss cheese.
I never said that we weren't upset about the murders of Sammy and Vicki. I did say that in '93 and '94 we were upset with the high level of support the operation seemed to receive by a presidential administration, after the fact.
One can be upset with the murders. One can be upset with the FBI Ruby Ridge operation of August of '92. One can then subsequently be upset when an presidential administration then comes along in '93 and '94 and endorses what happens in Ruby Ridge by its direct actions.
The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
Whoever said that was wrong.
http://americana.heritagegalleries.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=625&Lot_No=25151&src=pr
I did document the direct Clinton abuses. I then can ask for the poster to document the direct Bush administration abuses. Sorry.
BTW, are you defending the Clintons on this?
You seem to take offense that both Rush and myself have.
So, if the feds came for one of my family members, I'd be asking for it, and paying the price, if I got shot in the head? It was my choice be with them, standing as I might in the house 'n all. Sure. Scary, but not really sarcasm, is it. In this media world, it's possible that nobody would shed a tear for me. But I shed a tear for Vicki Weaver. Remembering is the best thing, which is the whole point.
WGAS? Clinton was completely responsible for the boom of the 1990s. Pres. Bush (the current) caused a recession right after he took office. Do you give a S now? It is important to be accurate when we on the right depend on facts to support our beliefs.
Very astute observation, and I concur.
We haven't yet begun to pay for, or even to see the danger in, the progressive professionalization of both the military and law enforcement, and the accelerating militarization of the latter. They have armored cars now, and practically every urban police department worthy of the name has a paramilitary formation within it, fully trained in urban combat.
Madison and Mason and Patrick Henry have to be spinning in their graves.
Good show on that. Also the "wimp" thing. Also the Dan Quayle thing, let's face it.
Are you seeking to exonerate George H. W. Bush of the moral onus of the ATF's attempt to entrap Randy Weaver and their calling in the Marshal Service to confront him in arms, after ATF sought and obtained Weaver's indictment on a bad bill?
A president is always responsible for the actions within the executive branch. Of course Bush is responsible for that. But both you and I know that is not what our point of contention is. I've asked you to document his direct involvement in Ruby Ridge or a direct involvement in policy that would lead to a Ruby Ridge.
You haven't done that.
Are you trying to protect Poppy? Is there some degree of responsibility of which Bush will have been relieved, if only the documents that tie him to the initiative to imprison right-wing extremists have been made to disappear, or never existed because his policy directives were sufficiently light-fingered in their communication to subordinates? In very short words, why should I do your homework assignment? Which, as we both understand, is your invitation to me to shut the hell up about George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States.
Keep talking. Keep showing your paranoia.
What I don't GAS about is Rush making a mistake. Too many are gittin' their knickers knotted over it. Big freakin' deal. Get over it. It's nothing in the grand scheme.
My logic is fine. So is yours -- you're not insisting that Poppy wasn't also responsible for the debacle. We're just arguing over the culpability ratio, I guess, which is kinda dumb. One did it and the other defended it. They're both awful.
Would this be a good time to point out that the Larry Potts situation (his having been promoted by higher-ups in the Clinton administration) would have been mitigated perfunctorily, had Bush I been doing his JOB (having not had or at least left him there for Clinton to promote)?
A finer truth was not spoken here tonight. Amen!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.