RUSH: I warned you people about this. I told you this was going to happen. Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party are just a bunch of thin-skinned bullies now trying to pressure ABC and the Disney CEO, Robert Iger, into dropping the mini-series, The Path to 9/11. The entire Democratic establishment is now involved. They are essentially demanding censorship. I told you that this was going to happen. I warned you about it, and I don’t know how this is going to end up, I really don’t. I don’t want to talk about how this is going to end up, because I don’t know. I don’t know what ABC is going to do. But a couple things I want to focus on here, folks.
This illustrates just how flimsy the surface on which the Clinton legacy is built. This illustrates the desire that they have to get this whole thing not shown. You know, I’ve always told you, when somebody says something about you, and you scream the loudest, that’s the indication, “man, they must have hit gold, must have hit the bull’s eye with the criticism.” The Clinton administration and all of its members have tried for years now to build a legacy where one does not exist. We had a president in the nineties who did not tackle big issues, preferring, instead, to score phenomenally high approval ratings, creating the image that we had a happy-go-lucky carefree decade of rampant economic expansion, no threats anywhere, while Americans are being bombed and killed all over the world and not a single act of retaliation that had any substance was taken to avenge any of it.
Now, as to this movie, The Path to 9/11, I have seen it, I have talked about it on numerous occasions, and I want to repeat to you what I said about it in our most recent discussion. While this movie does — it can’t help it, it focuses on the path to 9/11, starting with the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. It then goes on through 9/11. I’m sorry, the bulk of that time, Bill Clinton was president. What happened, happened. What didn’t happen, didn’t happen. Now, they’ve even enlisted Richard Clarke to get involved in this. Let me tell you something about this movie. Richard Clarke comes across as a hero. Richard Clarke comes across as the only guy with any common sense and guts in this movie. Now, you tell me that that’s conservative slant. Most conservatives think Richard Clarke is a doofus, that he’s nothing more than another Clinton, self-protecting, himself-first kind of guy.
In this movie, Richard Clarke makes more sense, has some of the best lines, and is shown to be one of the most fervent anti-terrorist hunters that the country’s ever had. And yet they’ve enlisted him to join the Democrats to try to say that some elements of this movie are factually incorrect, made up, and all of that. I’ll tell you, the thing that is stunning to me, when you compare Bill Clinton the man, and other presidents, George Bush the man, how many times did George Bush or any in the Republican administration demand that Fahrenheit 9/11, that stupid, lying, so-called documentary by Michael Moore not be shown in theaters? Republicans were even going to the premieres of those things. Republicans appeared in it, even though they may have been sandbagged by Moore, they were in it. But the president nor his administration said a word about it. I’ll tell you something else. Sandy Burglar is all upset about the way he’s portrayed in this movie. Sandy Burglar gets a major break. This movie does not portray Sandy Burglar stealing documents in his pants and his socks from the National Archives.
Now, I’m going to tell you something. They can talk all they want about how Sandy Burglar’s been misrepresented, but we know that the Clinton administration tried to stack the deck. Why do we believe their denials? This is an administration that got by obfuscating the truth. This is an administration that did its best to cover up the truth, especially about Bill Clinton himself. Why in the world are we just prepared to say that their denials are factually incorrect? How do we know — the 9/11 Commission report, for example, says, well, some of these things didn’t happen the way they are portrayed in the movie. How do they know that? Are they relying on Clinton administration people to tell them? And if so were the Clinton administration people lying them? At what point did we stop having doubt about the honesty of people in that administration and all of a sudden start accepting that they are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow? When in fact their arguments about this and their effort, the effort is more powerful than the argument, that they want this movie pulled and the whole Democratic Party establishment is part of it, they want this movie pulled?
What are they afraid of? Some of the Democrats are out there, “You can’t do this right before the election.” They’re worried about how this is going to affect the election. Let me tell you something, Democrat friends of mine, if you think this movie is going to worry you and affect your electoral chances in November, you better understand that you’ve been talking this way and acting this way for five years, or four or three, depending on when you want to target the beginning of the war on terror. I mean, to say that a movie is going to affect your electoral chances, this country is not fooled by who you are each and every day. Your reaction to the president’s proposal yesterday — we’ve got some of it on tape here from Jane Harman and others, to get congressional authorization and a new piece of legislation, actually, for military tribunals. Wait ’til you hear that. If you think that it is a secret that you’re on the wrong side in America’s war on terror and this movie is going to expose you, you are dumber and blinder than I have ever thought. You made it clear who you are.
This movie is not going to surprise anybody. But let me tell you what you’re missing, Clinton people. It ain’t about you. This movie is not about you. It’s not about George W. Bush. The movie is about America. The movie is about the country. The movie’s number one enemy is Al-Qaeda. The number one enemy in this movie is not Bill Clinton. It’s not Sandy Burglar. It is not Richard Clarke, and it is not Madeleine Albright. It’s not George Tenet. The enemy in this movie is who the enemy actually is: Al-Qaeda, terrorists who want to blow up and kill Americans just because we’re alive and don’t agree with them on fundamental religious beliefs. The fact that you can look past that and try to make it all about you is exactly what happened all during the nineties with the Clinton administration. Everything was about them. Clinton can’t stop talking about himself even now. When asked by a network — I think it was ABC, who cares who it was, during this two-week orgy of the anniversary of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, what was Clinton’s answer?
“Well, I might have done things differently because I have such a close attachment to that.” It’s not about you! What is it with you liberals? A bunch of narcissists. Everything is about you. Watch the movie. (sniveling liberal voice) “ABC didn’t send me a copy.” ABC didn’t send me a copy, either. I’m reading all this stuff in the news about how ABC sent all these copies. This thing was first screened in front of a mixed audience of Democrats and Republicans in Washington, DC. Richard Ben-Veniste was in the crowd. He didn’t like it. I told you what happened at this thing. They’re trying to rewrite history even now. They’re saying they haven’t been allowed to see it. They certainly have. And it’s the fact that they’ve seen it that’s caused them to go — You know what else is driving them nuts? And this is just amazing.
What’s really driving ’em nuts is, is that I have said on the radio that I know the guy who wrote it! That’s in every story. “Rush Limbaugh, who knows Cyrus Nowrasteh –” Well, that automatically fires up the libs, that fires up the Clinton people and automatically discredits the work of the writer. I didn’t write it. I didn’t talk to Cyrus when he was writing it. Well, he did tell me that he was working on this movie a long time ago, and he’d send me a copy of it when it was done. A long time, it slipped my mind until all it is came up, until this screening in Washington. You ever heard Bush complain about any of the books that have been written about his assassination? The latest one from Cindy Sheehan, by the way. She admits she had fantasies about killing Bush before he was born or when he was a kid so he wouldn’t become president. We’ve got this movie debuting in Canada at the film festival up there in Toronto and it’s all about Bush’s assassination. Do you hear the White House blowing and whining and complaining about anything?
Contrast these two administrations and contrast these two men. Does Bush whine and moan about what’s in the media about him, ever? No. You know why? Because Bush is not depending on the media to write his legacy and his history. Clinton has to because there was nothing of any real substance in his administration, other than welfare reform, which was a product of the Republican Congress, that he can point back to. “We were safe, Limbaugh, we didn’t have–” No, Mr. President, we were not. Do we have to go through this? You want me to go through it? World Trade Center attacks ’93, we cut-and-run in Mogadishu. An ABC reporter gets an interview with bin Laden. Mogadishu showed him we didn’t have the guts, we can’t take casualties. Happened on your watch, sir. You guys are the ones that pulled out of there in the middle of a victory just because some bad pictures on television involving Army Rangers being dragged through the streets.
Then we had the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole and all the embassies in Africa. Nothing was done. You can talk, well, we ratcheted up all of our spending and we did this and that. Even though nothing was — I’m telling you, Richard Clarke comes out as the hero in this film. Richard Clarke ought to be thanking his lucky stars — and he knows it, by the way. Clarke knows how well he’s portrayed in this, and yet he’s thrown in with the Democrats, and I think it’s just personal because Condoleezza Rice reassigned him when the Bush people took over, reassigned him to something outside of terrorism czar, some such thing. And of course, you know how egos are, even in power-mad Washington. But this is pure bullyism. This is thuggish behavior, and it’s putting ABC in a really tight spot. It really is. Well, the orientation ideologically in Hollywood is liberal. If they produce this thing — and, by the way, the way the movie plays after all this buildup is not going to be relevant. The image of the movie is going to carry the day with people, even after they see it, but I’m going to tell you what, folks, and I just want to reiterate this.
This is the best movie to portray what happened ever about any of this because they had the time. They’ve got five hours. They’re trying to portray ten or 12 years in five hours, it is intense. There aren’t going to be any commercials. It’s shot with a hand-held. It is one of the most educational things you’ve seen, and not just the Clinton administration, the whole government, the whole nature of the bureaucracy is shown to be ineffective. It is shown that individuals don’t have the guts to make choices on their own without going up top and getting a form and getting permission, and some people don’t want to even go up top because they know they’re going to be shot down. It will enlighten you as to how the efforts are made to deal with this, or how they really weren’t made, or what all the cogs in the wheel were. But the real indictment here, the people you’re going to hate after you watch this are not Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright and all these people.
You’re going to hate Zawahiri. You’re going to hate Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. You’re going to hate Ramzi Yousef. You’re going to hate Ramzi Binalshibh. You’re going to despise bin Laden. You are going to despise all these people, as you should.
I went back and I did a little research here. As I mentioned to you, The Path to 9/11 does not show Sandy Burglar stealing documents via his pants, socks, whatever, from the National Archives. Washington Post, story from the 22nd of July, 2004, just a little over two years ago. Archives Staff Was Suspicious of Berger, is the headline. “Why documents were missing is disputed.” Here is the money paragraph. “The documents that Berger has acknowledged taking — some of which remain missing — are different drafts of a January 2000 “after-action review” of how the government responded to terrorism plots at the turn of the millennium. The document was written by White House anti-terrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke, at Berger’s direction when he was in government.”
So they went in there — I just wanted to remind you of this — Burglar was — you don’t think this is accidental, do you? I’m telling you, the surface, the foundation on which the Clinton legacy is built is so flimsy that it cannot withstand a movie! It obviously could not withstand an honest portrayal of this administration by the Drive-By Media. But a movie has panicked them into behaving like censors and thugs sending a four-page letter from Clinton. Albright and Burglar have sent their own letters to Bob Iger. This is unprecedented. In order to get this thing canceled. They don’t want it to run. What is it they are afraid of? I mean, it’s fascinating to watch this. And it just tells me that every suspicion I’ve had about this crew is absolutely right. It is such a flimsy foundation, it is built on balsa wood, if not feathers.
It has amazed me the unity that the Clinton administration has been able to maintain. I mean, you’ve got Albright out there, they’ve been trying to defend themselves on how they botched Korea, going out there on television along with Wendy Sherman. You’ve got — what’s his name — Ashley Wilkes. What’s his real name? Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark’s out there. This administration couldn’t survive. Its legacy is totally built on spin. Mr. President, Clinton, I have an idea for you. If you really want this thing not to run, send Sandy Burglar to the ABC broadcast center and have him steal the show, have him take it out in his pants before it’s supposed to air.
By the way, if you’re just tuning in, just to reiterate something, I don’t just criticize on this program. We offer solutions. Now, the Clinton administration is distressed beyond belief. They know that their legacy is teetering here on a five hour miniseries. Imagine that. But they have demonstrated that they have adept and skillful ways of dealing with such things. If they can send Sandy Burglar into the National Archives and steal documents, after action memos written by Richard Clarke to show how they dealt with terrorism. This is why, by the way, I’ve always been more interested in what Burglar put back in there because he was going in to prep himself for his and Clinton’s testimony.
Well, what do you bet the odds are that Burglar took out whatever was there and put back a more hard hitting after-action memo to portray the Clinton administration was on the case from the get-go from 1993 on or what have you? I mean, when these people say that producers and writers are lying, this is like Colonel Sanders accusing the chickens of being murderers. Well, it really is. I mean these people are not known for their honesty and their veracity. In fact Clinton was such a good liar the Drive-By Media marveled at it during the nineties about how good he was and how easily they were spun. And then they featured stories all throughout the Drive-By Media in the nineties about how, you know, these lies, actually they’re good sometimes, they save people’s hurt feelings. They spare a lot of pain and so forth. I mean, everybody knew what was going on.
So all of a sudden now we’re supposed to take their word as gospel? Anyway, solution to problem, send Sandy Burglar to the ABC broadcast center under cover of darkness and steal the broadcast version of this miniseries. I don’t know what format they play it on. I don’t know if they use tape; I don’t know if they play it off disc or some other type of format, whatever the media is. But clearly, Berger can wear slacks large enough he could steal the stuff outta there. If you did it once you can do it again. Maybe replace it with, well, that wouldn’t fly. They’d realize if they don’t have it, they can’t run it. That’s my solution. One more thing on this, Scarborough Country last night, MSNBC, a montage of Scarborough’s remarks about me and ABC’s The Path to 9/11.
SCARBOROUGH: ABC is refusing to provide a copy of the miniseries to President Clinton, his former National Security Advisor Sandy Burglar and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but has given Rush Limbaugh a copy of the tape. Bill Clinton was not allowed to watch this, but Rush Limbaugh says, Clinton’s working behind the scenes to get the film reedited that Limbaugh saw.
RUSH: Now, I don’t know how true this is. As I mentioned to you, there was a screening — the first screening of this thing took place in Washington, and it was packed, and it was half Democrats and half Republicans, and that’s how the word got out. Richard Ben-Veniste — I told you this when it happened — Ben-Veniste got really up in Cyrus Nowrasteh’s face almost, pointing fingers and so forth. And that’s where all this hubbub got started. There were a lot of Democrats in that room. And whether Clinton’s been allowed — I don’t know. I have no idea if he’s asked to see it and they’ve said no. All I can tell you is ABC didn’t send me my copy. I didn’t ask them. It came in over the transom. Hey, I am a powerful, influential member of the media, able to affect and impact attitudes and habits of gazillions of people. Bill Clinton can’t do that, Sandy Burglar can’t do that, Madeleine Albright can’t do that. But I can.
I’ve tried to review this thing as accurately and honestly as I can. And, you know, I could go through the whole thing today but it would be redundant. It’s on the website right now what I said yesterday about this movie — maybe it was a couple days ago, I forget — days are running together, they always do. Koko, find whatever day it was and put it back up there and highlight it so people can see it, because the thing — you know, you do notice certain portrayals of the Clinton administration, because they’re covered up, otherwise. The Lewinsky situation, Clinton’s testimony before the grand jury. They’re mixed in with dialogue to show a distraction that existed. If somebody wants to try to make the case for me that the Clinton administration was eagerly fighting terrorism — look it, my good friend, Katie Couric, on the first night of her program, said the war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks. Well, when CBS says that the war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, what does it tell you what was not going on prior to the 9/11 attacks, hmm? I’ll tell you, I love this. And think of all the publicity the Clinton types are generating for the movie! Think of that! For all the smarts these people have about image and marketing and positioning, they’re acting like a bunch of juveniles here and neophytes, which, you know, what’s causing this is, this is just too close to home. This is so close to home it can blow all of these years of hard work, of establishing this legacy that has built itself totally on spin. Let’s go to Richard in Detroit. Richard, welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. The media has for now, forever, done whatever they can to cover up for Democrats. What in the world is possessing them to show this movie right before the elections? I can’t figure it out for the life of me.
RUSH: Well, it’s too bad 9/11 happened to fall right before the election. We didn’t choose it, the terrorists chose it, so it’s not ABC’s fault and it’s not the Republicans’ fault, and that’s just another example. Democrats are saying, “How can they do this right before the election?” Well, when was 9/11? September 11th. Elections are in October. It’s the five-year anniversary. We didn’t create this date. The Democrats can’t deal with things that happen legitimately because everything they do is a spin operation. Everything they do is an image that’s been created. They look at life through a different lens than reality. But, at any rate, you’re asking yourself why would ABC — you consider them to be the Drive-By Media — why would they do this? The premise is not ABC News doing this. This is the ABC entertainment division. And I think — let me put it to you this way, folks.
You’re hearing all these charges that things in this movie didn’t happen. Do you think that ABC would buy and spend 40 million — that’s Hollywood money, movie money — you think ABC would buy and spend $40 million to produce something and then have the chairman of the 9/11 Commission on as a consultant to get it right and not vet this and not run this by the lawyers? They obviously felt it was great — it is. You know, we’re getting sidetracked here on the primary aspect of this. It?s intense. It is really, really well done. And I have to tell you something. I don’t want you to take this the wrong way. Time does not fly in this. It is not like a great entertainment movie where it’s over before you even realized it started. This is intense.
You live this. I mean, this is something that I watched all five hours at once. You know, I watched part of it on the airplane but the closed-captioning wasn’t working on the airplane, I couldn’t hear it well. So when I got home, and I did this — when was this — did it on Tuesday. I can’t remember. We didn’t work on Monday. Might have been Monday I did it. Labor Day. So I think I watched five hours all at once, and I’m telling you what, it’s an intense experience. It’s got so much value, historical, dramatic value here. For the Clinton people to go hog wild here and not want anybody to see this just convinces me that as far as their narcissistic minds are concerned, everything is still about them, and nothing could be further from the truth, especially now in 2006. They’re history.
Just one more thing on this Path to 9/11 stuff. I keep thinking of things. In fact, I’m getting close to disavowing any knowledge of Cyrus Nowrasteh and giving him permission to say we never met and that I’ve been lying about all this all along just to make myself look big to sort of take the heat off of him. But, at any rate, the Clintonoids all upset that they didn’t get advance copies of The Path to 9/11. Albright didn’t get one. Sandy Burglar didn’t get one. Richard Clarke didn’t get one. So what? When do they ever? Did George W. Bush get a copy? Did Condoleezza Rice get a copy, in advance? Did bin Laden get a copy? I’ll bet ABC forgot him. Didn’t get his input here. Did they send one to Ayman al-Zawahiri? Now that we know where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is, maybe they should have sent him one to get his reaction to how he’s portrayed in this, hmm? Did Gerald Ford get an advance copy? Did Jimmy Carter get an advance copy? Did the Reagan family get an advance copy?
What is it with you Clinton people? The world resolves around you? See, the fact that they think they should have gotten an advance copy means that they think that there is a right-wing conspiracy inside of ABC to shaft them just because I got a copy, because I know Bob Iger, because I know Cyrus Nowrasteh. Well, I don’t hear anybody else complaining. I don’t hear the Bush people complaining. I don’t hear Condoleezza Rice complaining. I don’t hear bin Laden complaining. I don’t hear Zawahiri complaining, I don’t hear any of the terrorists in this movie complaining that they weren’t allowed to see it in advance, even though a whole room full of Democrat activists did see it.
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.