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."
Bump to that. (Was it really called "Operation Showtime?" No foolin?)
Drudge is DEFINITELY more concerned with government excesses than Rush is, that's a fact. Matt borders on near-obsessive about it. I wouldn't count on him calling Rush to task, though. They're friendlies, and co-workers on the network. And radio is radio, business is business, and that ain't gonna happen. imo
Good post of yours. I have some things to mull and chew, and I didn't expect that, this late. I'll ping you tomorrow night to the Drudge thread.
Sometimes the 3rd shift is productive ;-)
I vaguely recall reading that Bush I was president at the time the assault on Mt Carmel was in planning stages. Point being the same as made by logician2u, the elected politicians are generally unaware and indifferent as to bureaucratic action below them. Events and policies that should transcend politics, don't.
There's surprisingly little online, at first glance, but I haven't delved into it fully. They can feel compelled to do lots of things, but that doesn't mean members of the judiciary act on their feelings willy-nilly.
This is great!
Well. Not as they've sworn their oaths to, anyway. Bastards.
Turned out, Randy Weaver was innocent all along. So you're fine with all this, your position is noted.
If you two are right: how sad is that?
Heh.. events and policies don't even transcend the media sometimes, until after the fact. We're talking about this now, probably reaching some neophytes even, and it happened fourteen years ago.
Speaking of shameless bureaucracies, the price of mailing a first-class letter goes up today, to $.39.
My sentiments exactly! I believe in the right to own guns and to use them to defend my family as sincerely as anyone here, HOWEVER, when you use one it had better be for a damn sight better reason than "SOMEONE SHOT MY DOG", particularly if they are federal agents. To teach your CHILDREN to behave in such a manner is irresponsible, negligent, and immoral.
Randy Weaver, and his ilk, are cretins at best, and, at worst, just as much enemies of our country as any foreign enemy could ever be. Please don't tarnish the cause of conservatism by defending the indefensible.
If you two are right: how sad is that?
It gets worse. The people don't know, and if they did know, they wouldn't care.
The spirit of personal independence is being snuffed under a variety of rationales. But Independence Day is still my favorite secular holiday.
Howcum the government settled with this useless ilk? If he's an enemy of the country, he ought to be behind bars, yes?
telling people to quit excusing Poppy - pay attention
Your screen name is a travesty.
No one expects The Spanish Inquisition!
To a large extent, we are in agreement. I also would like to know more about the judge, but can't find anything. My previous post was the only explanation I could come up with considering the lack of personal info on the judge.
Someone also shot his son. What do you think about that?
And his wife. It was a show of force capability.
Because they didn't handle things correctly either. I don't argue with the fact that the Federal agents were wrong in a LOT of the things they did, however, I have no doubt Mr. Weaver's wife and baby would be alive if he had done things differently, as well. The bottom line has got to be taking care of your family and starting a war with federal agents is never a wise thing to do. I just don't think Mr. Weaver is a good example to use as a paragon of conservative thought.
What would have happened if Weaver had submitted to a search? or even been arrested? I have no doubt the penalty would have been a lot less than the price he finally paid. Is it worth 4 million to lose your wife and 2 of your children? It wouldn't be to me.
An interesting point of view considering your comments.
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.