Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh Misspoke.
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."
Probably the Golden Rule.
It's a mistake. Drop him a line and correct him. I don't quite see the point of this here. And I certainly don't see the point in using some wackjob lefty site as a source.
You done good. I heard that segment also.
Rush is a man, he can take criticism and admit mistakes.
He is not a democrat after all. ;-)
Probably be one of the first things he addresses before the first hour or break this Monday.
When you think about all the stacks of stuff he has to prep as he checks out FR for the latest scuttlebutt and scandals, even he can make an honest mistake like this. :-)
See ya tomorrow night.
All I remember is the black guy was that race-baiter John Conyers (D-MI), and this happend in front of a nationwide audience on C-SPAN, CNN, and all the networks, during the Congressional Hearings that followed the disaster at Waco.
I'm not at all suggesting that site is worthy of anything, other than it seems to point out he's made this error several other times. That's something that surprises me, nothing more.
During the course of the spinfest, at least three or four times the Ruby Ridge incident was cited as an example of past Democratic abuses of power. I have a little tidbit of info for Rush and his neocon minions. When Federal agents made their assault on Ruby Ridge, the president was George H.W. Bush.To the extent Rush needs credibility to influence his listeners, he's inclinded to correct his errors. THis is one error that I think he can correct with little fallout to his message.
In the long view of things, I sometimes find Limbaugh's mesage to be inciteful and suitably based in sound logic; and other times I find him to be a shallow party cheerleader. I personally find his PATRIOT Act and NSA surveillance discussions to be closer to the cheerleader end of that spectrum.
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise... I'll come in again.
Now, old woman - you are accused of heresy on three counts - heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action - four counts. Do you confess?
Now, old lady - you have one last chance. Confess the heinous sin of heresy, reject the works of the ungodly - two last chances. And you shall be free - three last chances. You have three last chances, the nature of which I have divulged in my previous utterance.
So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! Now - you will stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a cup of coffee at eleven.
If we sat down & talked about it, we'd probably have a lot of common ground on that particular issue. My purpose in posting the evidence of previous misstatements was to say that replies of 'it's only one little error, geezze what's your problem' are be rather pointless. :)
I was thinking at the time of the Elian Gonsalez travesty.
I understand that Rush is making a parallel with Clinton Administration intelligence and counterintelligence operations, for the benefit of people who like to get exercised about the NSA and Homeland Security and their operations under the Patriot Act, to isolate the complainers as the advocates for America's enemies that they so often are.
However, I think it may well be that Wen Ho Lee deserved a hell of a lot worse than what he got. Is that up for discussion?
In that case Lee's case still corroborates Rush's attack on the Lefties, but in a way that isn't reflected in his comments.
Rush might have better brought up Clinton's infamous mot that he uttered when the subject came up of conducting police sweeps through federally-subsidized housing in Chicago (the infamous "projects"), during which the police uniformly confiscated privately owned firearms. The searches having hit a Fourth Amendment obstruction, Clinton instructed his legal team, "Find me a way around the Fourth Amendment." Which is about as limelit as it gets, if you want to see an example of the sort of cavalier Clintonista attitude toward civil rights that Rush is talking about.
I also concur, that it's irrefutable that the Ruby Ridge fracas occurred on Poppy Bush's watch, in 1992 -- and that comments about it (and about some crudely abusive ATF searches in other states) by Wayne LaPierre of the NRA prompted Poppy very publicly to resign his membership in the NRA.
(This snippet of history is one of the reasons I don't trust business-wing Republicans, Ivy Leaguers in particular, with RKBA issues and regard them, in fact, as weakly-motivated enemies of civil liberties and Second Amendment rights.)
It's also true that Reno Justice tried to cover for and defend the actions of the Marshal Service and the FBI at Ruby Ridge.
Good question. It's always up for discussion, as far as I'm concerned. You're now the second person to say he deserved what didn't get because he was guilty...Rush says the exact opposite and blames Clinton for unfairly "railroading."
And, by the way, who was this judge who presumed to speak for the USG and apologize to Wen Ho Lee, anyway?
That's probably who he meant.
He actually did say that the Clinton administration was responsible for Ruby Ridge. The context of his statement was that the nasty Clinton administration did this, and this, and that.
Judge James A. Parker.
Short version -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee
Nitty gritty -> http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/lee/
That is exactly right, and the liberal poster conveniently forgets that that's exactly what FDR, JFK, and LBJ did all the time to anyone they wanted. LBJ did it most notoriously to Barry Goldwater, using the FBI no less, for no more "national security"-related reason than that he wanted to feed the take to his "Five O'Clock Group" of skunkworks malefactors, his in-house Donald Segrettis, so they could design "negative advance" receptions for Barry. (It was the 1964 Johnson campaign that invented the "negative advance" -- thus Ted White, a card-carrying liberal.)
Dick Nixon was one of the most useful tutors and exemplars the country has ever seen. He took the Imperial Presidency that the liberals had created so lovingly for their next benign dictator and crammed it up their intestines. He used the powers and presumptions he inherited from LBJ on liberals the way they had used them on anyone they pleased theretofore, and he did it so severely that, before he was done, the liberals thought old Tricky Dick was trying to mike their hemorrhoids.
So the Clinton bunch "did" Ruby Ridge.
They of course had no direct part of the operation. Neither did the Bush I administration. It was the Clinton administration directly who supported the actions after the fact. Reno quickly promoted Potts.
Rush was correct.
Not a tough read, but 750kB PDF file ...
I haven't read an overt apology yet, but the judge does spend some time in footnote 2 discussing the conditions of confinement (solitary, except 1 hour per week), and the time duration of those conditions, and that in light of sworn allegations by the government that were not substantiated as evidence unfolded.
It's worth a quick read, IMO.
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.