Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: One comment I wanted to make during the interview with Andrew McCarthy about his book, Willful Blindness, when he is talking about during the nineties, all these missteps and all these mistakes that were being made, I kept wanting to say, ‘Well, Andy, who was running the government back then?’ but I didn’t want to get him into the political arena, that’s not really the purpose of his book. But, look, this is when Algore had reinvented government; this is Hillary Clinton who’s trying to create nostalgia for the peaceful nineties and trying to tell us she can lead on day one. Neither of these two, Obama nor Hillary, have the slightest business being anywhere near the Oval Office, zilch, zero, nada. This book of Andy McCarthy’s, read in that context, if you understand during the timeline that he writes who is running the show and making the decisions that we’re going to try these people in court rather than go after them as enemy combatants, good old Jamie Gorelick, the Justice Department, Bill Clinton creating that famous wall that prevented intelligence agencies and the courts from sharing information because a lot of the testimony took place in the grand jury which, of course, by law is secret.


RUSH: I was just reflecting back on our conversation with Andy McCarthy and his new book, Willful Blindness, about our reluctance to see the truth about Islamic Jihad and Islamofascism. Here he’s talking about Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik, who was involved in the ’93 World Trade Center bombing and a plan to blow up the Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, the UN, and other things. He told a story of how he got into the country. He came in a number of times. One agency of the government had him on the terrorist watch list, another agency of the government’s giving him a green card. I’m sitting here thinking, ‘This is the same government that people want to run their health care. This is the same government that people want to turn over the responsibility for punishing Big Oil, Big Drug, Big Retail.’ These things just hit me. Of course, the stuff about the nineties and how we bungled everything we were doing.

Of course, who was running the show in the nineties but the Clintons? Andy also mentioned during the interview that the administration has put out some guidelines — not yet mandates except for certain government officials, but guidelines — on how we should refer to the enemy. The AP had the story on April 24th: ‘Don’t call them jihadists any more. And don’t call al-Qaida a movement. The Bush administration has launched a new front in the war on terrorism, this time targeting language. Federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center, are telling their people not to describe Islamic extremists as ‘jihadists’ or ‘mujahedeen,’ according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. Lingo like ‘Islamo-fascism’ is out, too. … The [official] memo, originally prepared in March by the Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counterterrorism Center…’ The Extremist Messaging Branch? We can call ourselves extremists?

‘[T]he Extremist Messaging Branch at the National Counterterrorism Center, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the State Department, which plans to distribute a version to all US embassies… ‘Some other specifics: ‘Never use the terms ‘jihadist’ or ‘mujahedeen’ in conversation to describe the terrorists. … Calling our enemies ‘jihadis’ and their movement a global ‘jihad’ unintentionally legitimizes their actions.’ ‘Use the terms ‘violent extremist’ or ‘terrorist.’ Both are widely understood terms that define our enemies appropriately and simultaneously deny them any level of legitimacy.” Now, you’d have to say here, this is our government involved in its number-one constitutional charge — and that is the defense and protection of the Constitution, the government, and the people of the United States — and we’re worried here. We don’t want to offend these people, and we don’t want to make ’em feel any more omnipotent or powerful than they are already are, so don’t call them what they are. (sigh) Ooh boy.


RUSH: Here is Shannon in Fort Worth, Texas. I’m glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. I want to get straight to the point. I want to know, in your opinion, who has the best integrity of the Democratic candidates. Would it be Hillary or Obama, and I want to take you back a little bit to the 2000 Peter Paul scandal of Mrs. Clinton. I’m surprised she’s still in politics. I’m surprised that she’s not in jail after that, and in your opinion, I want you to explain why you think that she was able to get out of that scot-free, because it did not appear as if she was held accountable for any of that?

RUSH: ‘Cause she didn’t know about it.

CALLER: Well —

RUSH: She didn’t know about it, Shannon. Here’s the story on this Peter Paul business, as best as I understand it. They had this big-time fundraiser out there in Los Angeles somewhere, and he was one of the organizers at a fundraiser, and a lot of the money that went into staging the thing, they contracted out, just counted that as a campaign contribution. They took much more money out of the event than it raised and converted it to campaign funds for Mrs. Clinton. But she didn’t know anything about it. This woman doesn’t know anything. She’s ready to lead from day one, but she doesn’t know anything. She doesn’t know anything that happens in her own house. She doesn’t know anything that happens in her own bedroom. She doesn’t know anything that happens in her own husband’s administration. She doesn’t know anything, her mind is Jell-O. And since nobody had any proof that she knew about it, that’s why. What was the other question, who has the most integrity between Obama and Hillary?

CALLER: Yeah, who do you view as being more honest and has more integrity?

RUSH: Jeez. (laughing) This is a case of two negatives. Which is the least dishonest, is the most appropriate question.

CALLER: I think that’s a more accurate question, but in your opinion — because I think Mrs. Clinton is beatable, and I think it’s because every time that she makes a statement, she’s proven, you know, with the sniper fire and all this stuff, she’s proven that she can’t be honest, she can’t tell the truth.

RUSH: Of course. But look, Obama can’t, either. Nobody wants to talk about this Obama stuff. But this guy hasn’t told the truth since Jeremiah Wright hit the scene. He hasn’t told the truth about anything. By the way, Michelle (My Belle) Obama says we’re sick and tired of hearing about Reverend Wright. You know what I’m sick and tired of hearing? I’m sick and tired of hearing about alternative energy and I’m sick and tired of hearing about health care and I’m sick and tired of hearing about education. Here’s another thing, too, folks. The idea that one of these two is more beatable than the other, that may be true, we don’t really know now because there’s too much that can happen between now and the actual election. But they’re both beatable. In a sane political environment, neither of these two would stand a ghost’s chance. If somebody is willing to make the case — and some of us are — I think you’ll see that come to fruition. That’s why I’m not worried here about the outcome of Operation Chaos.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This