Liberals Don’t Think We Deserve to Win the War
October 17, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, as part of the stark contrast as to how the war on terror will be fought between these two competing parties, the Republicans and Democrats, this morning at the White House, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, which is going to be challenged by liberals. It will go to the Supreme Court. Here's what the president said today.
THE PRESIDENT: This nation will call evil by its name. We will answer brutal murder with patient justice. Those who kill the innocent will be held to account. With this bill, America reaffirms our determination to win the war on terror. The passage of time will not dull our memory or sap our nerve. We will fight this war with confidence and with clear purpose. We will protect our country, and our people. And now in memory of the victims of September the 11th, it is my honor to sign the military commissions act of 2006 into law.
RUSH: Yeah, well, after the signing, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN, said the bill's going to come down to Justice Kennedy. The anchor said to him, "Supreme Court going to approve this, Jeffrey?"
TOOBIN: Senator Specter thinks that the courts are going to strike it down. As for me, I don't know, but I'll be watching.
FEMALE VOICE: Justice Anthony Kennedy, it might all kinda come down on him.
TOOBIN: As so often will be the case in the new Supreme Court.
FEMALE VOICE: That's right.
TOOBIN: Justice Kennedy will hold the power.
RUSH: All right, this is a theme, by the way -- there have been a number of stories in the DC media, particularly the Washington Post. I know how this works -- praising Anthony Kennedy as having grown in office, he's the moderate -- he's now power. It's really the Kennedy court, not the Roberts court, and of course these stories are meant to be read by Justice Kennedy, and they are supposed to influence Justice Kennedy, (doing impression) "Yeah, it is my court, and I can keep getting this favorable coverage and laudable praise if I continue to do what these people want." It's a well known Washington process. So here we've signed the military detainee act, the military commission act. This is the military tribunals, and already the liberals are planning on doing everything they can to make sure that it doesn't happen.
Now you have to ask yourself why. It's not just as simple as a civil rights disagreement. It's not just as simple as they think military tribunals are a little excessive, and yet they are serious about fighting the war on terror because the second half of my statement's not true. These are the people who have spent the last number of years attempting to grant Al-Qaeda constitutional rights as though they were US citizens. I call it the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights. You have to ask yourself -- these are the people, folks, who have been invested in America's defeat. Here you have a lawyer, a liberal civil rights lawyer, breaking all kinds of legal ethics, among them attorney-client privilege, to pass on these comments of Omar Abdel Rahman to his supporters for whatever nefarious purpose. I'm sure he wasn't saying "Hi." I'm sure he wasn't saying, "Hey, I'm doing okay." He was urging death to all who disagreed with his version of Islamic behavior and law. And she was passing along these messages of death, and the judge said, "Well, no one was harmed in any of this." The judge can't possibly know it.
So we have the military tribunals signed into law, Congress gave it to the president quickly, as I knew would be the case, and already the libs can't wait to stop it and protest it. Why? Well, there are a number of reasons. One is, they want the cases tried by them. They want to be the power. They want to run US foreign policy. They want to usurp, via the US judiciary, the whole role of commander-in-chief, particularly when a Republican is in office. They are not about to surrender the power that they have amassed in the judiciary, with all of these appointments that they have gotten confirmed, Supreme Court, appellate court, US district courts, and you look at the speed with which Clinton's judges were confirmed versus the arduous task that the Bush people have had in getting their judges confirmed, this is -- and, by the way, this focuses another point on the importance of this upcoming election next month, and that is the makeup of the US Supreme Court.
We've got three justices in there. One's in his eighties, two are in their seventies, and you know they're just hanging on, at least one of them is, so that it is not Bush who gets to name his replacement. Liberals know exactly what they're doing. Now, in addition to them wanting to control the prosecution and the war on terror via the US court system via the US military -- because, remember, the liberals loathe the US military, they think it's the focus of evil in the modern world. They want control of all kinds of US foreign policy via the courts, particularly prosecution of this war -- and when you add to it the things that they have done in the past 18 months or two years, you have to question whether they want to win it. You have to question whether they want trials to be conducted by themselves with terrorists represented by their lawyers in order for the US to win this.
This is serious stuff, folks. I do not say this lightly. There are people in this country who think we deserve to lose. And if you find that strange, there are Republicans in this country who think we deserve to lose the House. There are Republicans in this country who think we deserve to lose the Senate for whatever their reasons, they think so. So don't be surprised and don't be shocked when you hear me say that there are Americans who want us to lose against this enemy. I can't begin to tell you why. It's a psychological analysis. It centers around guilt. There's no question that there's a blame-America-first crowd in this country, there's no question that there is a hate-America crowd in this country, and there is no question that some of these people do deserve to have their patriotism challenged. Here is Trish in Edmonton, Canada. Edmondon, Alberta, nice to have you on the program with us.
CALLER: Well, good morning, Rush.
RUSH: Hi.
CALLER: Dittos.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: From north of the border.
RUSH: Yeah, it's great to have you. By the way, you know what I've noticed? I've been reading the news that the US is using Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the US-Canadian border.
CALLER: Yes, in Montana.
RUSH: In Montana. Yeah, a lot of increased flights because of the terrorist threat. And I'm saying, what about the southern border?
CALLER: Exactly.
RUSH: At any rate, I know that's not why you called but I had to mention that since you're calling from Canada. It's great to hear from you, by the way.
CALLER: Well, we spoke almost a year ago about Mary Landrieu down in Louisiana.
RUSH: Yes?
CALLER: Yes. This -- this -- you've made my day. I've listened to you -- the day I listened to you the first day was going back, it was on Lincoln's birthday, like back in 1990. So I just really enjoy your program.
RUSH: Now, are you native Canadian?
CALLER: Oh, no. No. I'm from Oklahoma. My husband works up here for Big Oil. We're destroying the environment up here in Canada.
RUSH: Great, great, keep it up. What is Lincoln's birthday?
CALLER: February 12th.
RUSH: Well, it used to be, that's not when we celebrate it. We celebrate it on the 22nd now, President's Day.
CALLER: Right. Well, I remember that was a point of discussion on that particular day.
RUSH: (laughing) Right.
CALLER: Listen, Rush, what's flooring me on this is we have the liberal strategy -- I'm not even going to say Democrat -- we see the liberal strategy of what will happen if we do catch bin Laden or Zawahiri or any of the Hezbo cells that are here in the US if the Democrats are in power. I mean, we've set legal precedent. We all heard them talk about all the good deeds and the social services.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: Like building roads and hospitals. Well, if we catch bin Laden, and they bring him up there to New York and put him on trial, and he's convicted by a jury that knows that they can give this man 30 years or life --
RUSH: Well, yeah, because you know that his legal team will be from the ACLU.
CALLER: Exactly. Yes, sir.
RUSH: And it was Patty Murray, by the way, the little mom in tennis shoes senator from the state of Washington who get in a little trouble for suggesting that no wonder bin Laden had a lot of support amongst his radical followers. He built a lot of schools, he made sure the roads were paved and the trash was collected, and he's done a lot of good social work. And so your theory is that once he goes to put on trial in the United States, and let's say he's sentenced to five life terms for the September 11th attacks and the death of 3,000 Americans, you're suggesting that a smart lawyer and a Clinton judge could get the sentence reduced to maybe ten months or three years because of all the good works bin Laden has done up until the time he committed the crime on 9/11?
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: I think it would go a different way. I think that bin Laden, if caught and captured and brought to trial, would deny ever having anything to do with it. And they would say, but you said you did, you claimed -- (bin Laden impression) "Well, of course, I was trying to stand up big with my people, but you can't prove I knew anything about this. I wasn't on those airplanes. I was never in this country. I had nothing to do with this. You prove that it was me. Prove that I had anything." (laughing) And the defense counsel would be, "See, Judge, we've been operating under a misconception started by the Bush administration and the CIA since September 12th of 2001 that bin Laden did it, when in fact we know the Bush administration did this on its own." And the 9/11 truth squad would get their day in court to prove that it was a Bush conspiracy. That's what will happen, or a variation of it, you're exactly right, if bin Laden or Zawahiri or any of these other people are brought to trial. I'm sure they'd bring Saddam to trial here as a witness for bin Laden, character witness -- (laughing) I mean, it's not funny but sometimes you have to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.
CALLER: You know, the more you look at this and the more you see this unfolding, you realize that that is not absurd. The absurdity is becoming reality.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: This decision by a judge, the jury acted in good faith. They knew that she was up for 30 years, they convicted her, and the judge, a liberal judge, turned that decision on its ear and in effect had done nothing but to embolden other jihadists or people who would help them here in the United States.
RUSH: No question about it. But, look, Trisha, I can't emphasize this enough. Do not underestimate the role that former Clinton administration officials played in persuading this judge. I don't know how much persuasion he needed, but nevertheless, they ganged up, and this Jo Ann Harris, who was in the Clinton attorney general's office, the justice department, and who would likely be an AG candidate or a federal judge candidate, led the charge for reducing the sentence and talking about all of the great works in her past that Lynne Stewart had done. You've gotta focus on that, not only are they going to appoint other judges like this one but there are people like Jo Ann Harris who will end up -- it's like Jamie Gorelick. I mean, imagine a justice department full of Jamie Gorelicks.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
(NYPost: We have the first globalized insurgency - Mark Steyn)
(WSJ: A lawyer who passed messages to terrorists gets off light)
(NRO: Sentencing Day Arrives for Lynne Stewart - Andrew C. McCarthy)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
