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."
Moreover, your very indirect (come on, say it if you mean it!) accusation that I'm some kind of 'Rat troll here on Hildebeast's business is a laugher of the first order. The other guy accused me of being paranoid for seeing a homering tendency in his posts, as he labored to remind us constantly that the text here is supposed to be the numerous defalcations of the Clinton regime.
Nobody in America has more moral contempt than I do for Bill Clinton, nor more desire to see him frogmarched, in hobbles and cuffs, into Leavenworth. Read my posts upthread, and don't be thick. There is no possible way to "interpret" anything I've written about DIRTXPOTUS as "window dressing". I despise the man as a traitor and as the living embodiment of everything that is reprobated in the American character.
No, I posted to support an honest conservative FReeper who posted up that Rush made a substantive error of fact when he lumped Ruby Ridge in among the crimes of the Clinton Administration, which run off the page without it, rather than noting properly that the Ruby Ridge shootings need to be laid to the account of Bush 41's leadership of the Treasury Department, and that of Secretaries Regan and Baker.
It's helpful to remember that, as part of their wall-to-wall defense of the federal agencies involved in the Waco disaster, the Clinton Justice Department and White House proceeded to whitewash Lon Horiuchi, Potts and Freeh and the FBI and ATF in the Ruby Ridge case as well. But Clinton didn't set the policies that sent ATF catspaws to entrap Randy Weaver, or the Marshal Service to his Idaho mountain home carrying automatic weapons.
But pointing out that conservatives and RKBA guardians have few friends in the Bush wing of the GOP, and that X41 fell down conspicuously, twice or more, on RKBA issues, is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
If you insist on seeing everything in purely operational terms, like the 'Rats and their ideologues do, you will become as bad and as morally purblind as they are. Fair warning. Don't be a Bot. Don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Orwell's line about a boot stamping on a human face forever applies here. Turn out the lights. You're done.
Nice slur. And you didn't even have the decency to ping me.
BTW, I was a PJB supporter in '92 not a GHWB supporter. Since when is looking for truth "homering"? Your judgement is lacking...again.
Nice slur again. Why don't you document where I said that.
No, you didn't.
Go back and read my post.
What, again? Did you edit it? Did something change from the first three times I read it?
You asked a series insinuating questions that followed from nothing that I said.
No, I asked you a series of direct questions that directly addressed what you wrote and led to a logical conclusion.
Then you made an incorrect accusation.
You were homering for, defending, George H.W. Bush and trying to deflect things that attached to his responsibility onto other people.
If you don't want to be accused of being paranoid, then don't act paranoid.
There, you did it again. Ad hominem, a typical 'Rat stunt. Do I conclude from that that you're a 'Rat troll come a-calling? No, but you're engaging in polemic against honest FReepers -- more honest than you, by the way -- in order to defend mindlessly a Bush family member just because he's a Bush and a Republican.
That is an abdication of fundamental honesty.
Q for you: Do you beat your wife?
I'm unmarried.
What? Nothing that you've said deserves that question to be asked of you?
You bozo. I'll just let that one twist in the wind.
Where's the slur, slur-monger? You're the guy who called me paranoid. But quote the slur in that line. Hint: Start by looking up the word "slur".
And no, I didn't ping you because we aren't friends and this isn't a friendly discussion.
You want sprinkles on that?
You:I'm unmarried.
Me:What? Nothing that you've said deserves that question to be asked of you?
You:You bozo. I'll just let that one twist in the wind.
Yes. The point of which went over your head. BTW, nice "slur" with the bozo name calling.
It's common form to ping somebody on this forum when you talk about them. Especially when you "slur" them.
Me:Nice slur again. Why don't you document where I said that.
I still waiting for you to document this.
Post #251 is for you.
Wanna complain about "bot"? You started with the troll stuff. You complained repeatedly about "tendencies" when what you MEANT was, "YOU'RE A RAT TROLL". You have no right to complain now! You have performed as a 'bot, everything up to crying out "Danger, Will Robinson!" and waving your arms in the air.
Not a slur if it's a valid descriptor.
Cite: this thread, passim.
Now go away. You're just being boring.
Wow. Is this really worth fighting over? Rush will be much more concerned that he got 2 out of 4(so far) of his football predictions wrong this week. Maybe it was just a bad week for him? He was sick with the flu afterall....
Give him a break!
Rush's Waste Week Picks:
Bucs (lost), Pats(won), Steelers(don't know yet), Giants(lost) --- ooops.
Me:Nice slur again. Why don't you document where I said that.
You:Cite: this thread, passim.
You don't even know what the word "cite" means do you. Your reference to the above remains uncited like most of the proof that you offer.
Now go away. You're just being boring.
No, I'm staying. You go.
OIC. Yea, I can go along with that.
Open thread, anyone can read what's posted here. You've yet to answer any of my questions, so no, I won't accept your "homework" assignments. Which is a first-year debater's tactic, demanding "proofs" and then escalating the standard. Been there, done that. Any candid person can scroll up and have a look -- we haven't gone 1300 posts or anything -- and see who said what.
You'll suffer by the comparison, I'm quite confident. Now go bother somebody else and call them a 'Rat troll (but be sure to fudge a little bit, okay?).
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.