RUSH: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in New York last night and is making a whirlwind tour. He'll be at Columbia University this afternoon. These idiots at Columbia, they're casting this as free speech. It's not free speech. I mean, it is, but it's idiotic. It is just simply stupid. This is a state sponsor of terrorism, a man who has sworn the destruction of the United States and Israel a number of times, and the people at Columbia think they are opening themselves up to ideas, and, "We must listen to what these people think. We must listen to their ideas for us." These are basically liberals who hate this country or find great deficiencies in this country, and they embrace totalitarian dictators and our enemies as though they have all the answers. Of course, this president is nothing more than a dupe, the president of Columbia. You know, they talk about free speech. Remember what happened to the Minutemen, the anti-illegal immigration group? They got booed off the stage by the students, and nobody did anything about it. They're not interested in ideas there. They hate George W. Bush. "They're really worried that the whole world hates us. They're so scared that we've lost our reputation in the world, Mr. Limbaugh, that they hope by opening their arms to this idiot thug Ahmadinejad that he will end up liking us more and pose less of a threat." I know how these people think. Now, Ahmadinejad was on 60 Minutes last night. Scott Pelley flew over to Tehran last Thursday to interview him. Here's a couple sound bites. The first question: "President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary."
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next elections, there are cheaper ways...and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill their sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. If -- and also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them, if they do these things.
RUSH: (Laughing.) He's giving Republicans campaign advice by basically reciting the Democrat Party platform! This guy could keynote the 2008 Democrat National Convention after he finishes at Columbia. Did Pelosi meet him at the airport? Was she part of the official greeting party? Well, I'm surprised. Was Kucinich out there? They want to go there. He's reciting the Democrat Party platform? Katrina? (Laughing.) I tell you, do we have time for the next one. No, we don't. I'm too busy laughing here. Did he mention Abu Ghraib? I think he did. Yes, he did! It's coming up in the next sound bite. So here he is offering advice to the Republicans, i.e., "George Bush's party." He was actually praising, last night, the '06 election results. He said he was encouraged! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was encouraged by the '06 election results.
RUSH: Back to Ahmadinejad, again, sounding like a Democrat on 60 Minutes. Scott Pelley says, "When I ask you a question as direct as 'Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?' you act...you dance all around the question. You never say 'yes,' you never say 'no.'"
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): Well, thank you for that. You are like a CIA investigator and --
PELLEY: I'm just a reporter!
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): (giggling)
PELLEY: I am a simple, average American reporter.
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): This is not Guantanamo Bay. This is not a Baghdad prison. This is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is Iran! I am the president of this country!
RUSH: Now, look, to me this is funny, but in all candor, he is regurgitating Democrat Party talking points -- not "liberal" talking points. He is reciting what he has heard said on the floor of the United States Senate by people like Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and people like Harry Reid -- and over in the House, Nancy Pelosi. If I were an elected official of this country and somebody like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a state sponsor of terror, starts mimicking and reciting my talking points -- privately, I get mad. Privately, I get embarrassed. I don't know that the Democrats have that ability to be embarrassed by this. I sit here and I marvel at the similarity. Of course, Bin Laden does it, too. In fact, who is it actually speaking at Columbia at 1:30, is it Ahmadinejad or is it Bin Laden? You know, what difference would it make, folks, when Bin Laden comes out with a tape, when Ahmadinejad grants an interview to 60 Minutes. Forget the Democrats. What about the American people who saw this, who pay attention? Did they not recognize that one of our sworn enemies is reciting Democrat Party talking points in an effort to try to sway the American people? He's basically, Ahmadinejad is, saying to these people in the audience, "Hey, I'm no different than your average Democrat, and we're very encouraged by the election results in '06." This ought to be shameful. This should be embarrassing these people all to hell, but I guarantee you it's not. It's making them proud, probably making them happy. Because the focal point of all this is they hate Bush, and anybody else who hates Bush is on the same page, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Let's grab a phone call about this. This is Gail in Sacramento. Hi, Gail, thanks for calling and welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.
CALLER: I just wanted to comment. I think that people are confusing the right to do something with the right thing to do. It disturbs me because sometimes rights are supposed to be mixed with common sense, civility, and some manners, and for heaven's sakes, this man does not deserve to come and speak at one of our universities. He clearly dislikes America. He doesn't provide freedoms and rights to his own people, and here at Columbia, I think, it's just showing bad form. It's not the right thing to do.
RUSH: It is not bad form. Well, I mean it's worse than bad form, and you're absolutely right. It is not the right thing to do, but you understand that the people that run Columbia, this president -- this is a great illustration; this is another learning, teachable moment here. These are liberals. This is how they view the world. This is how they view their country. Mahmoud has no right to free speech here.
CALLER: I agree.
RUSH: The liberals couch it in, "He's got a right. What about the right to free speech, Mr. Limbaugh?" There's no obligation for Columbia to invite him to speak. Nobody is under any obligation to invite him to speak, and nobody -- including Ahmadinejad, nobody -- in this country has the right to be heard. You know, everybody confuses the right to free speech with the right to be heard. There's no such thing. You have to earn the right to be heard. This guy doesn't have the right to be heard by anybody. Now, he's been invited to the United Nations. That's a different thing, but it's going to be the same diatribe. Of course, the liberals are out there saying, "Well, we're going to ask him the tough questions." Really? Well, once again, the Drive-Bys have had a three-day head start on this. It's a typical. Monday: I have to come in here and clean up the mess that they made with Hillary yesterday, clean up the mess that they've made with Ahmadinejad. The action line, the narrative here of the Drive-Bys, is: "Should Ahmadinejad have been invited by Columbia, or shouldn't he?" The real story angle here and the real way we ought to look at this, the prism through which we need to be examining this, is how liberals deal with terrorism, how they deal with terrorists, how they deal with rogue leaders, and how they deal with threats to civilization.
They ask the tough questions, and then they are congratulated by other liberals for asking the tough questions. Oh, yeah. There will be a cocktail party somewhere on the campus at Columbia tonight, and the president will be there with a bunch of liberal buddies. "I just love the way you brought Ahmadinejad on. I love it when you're assertive and ask those tough questions. It really made me feel good about myself." They'll be praising the guy. They'll be scratching each other's backs. Who knows what else will be going on in there? "What a great thing we've done for the world and for America, because we opened up our university with the open-and-free exchange of certain ideas -- the ones we approve of -- to all kinds of foreign leaders to come and tell us what they think is wrong with our country, and, by the way," they'll say, "what's so wrong with what Ahmadinejad said? He's no different than having Harry Reid up here, no different than having Dick Durbin come and speak. It would be the same message." Meanwhile, in the real world, ladies and gentlemen, Ahmadinejad toys with these useful idiots, these dupes -- and their "tough questions"? Ahem. This is going to be like a cat playing with a ball of yarn.
Do you think these people even intend to corner Ahmadinejad with questions about destroying Israel, about denying the Holocaust? And if they do ask those questions, guess what? They will praise his answers, and they will praise his courage for coming into such a hostile environment and atmosphere and dealing with the tough questions that the liberals ask. So while liberals play to liberals, Ahmadinejad is going to be playing to the Middle East. His audience is not going to be these dupes in the audience or on the faculty at Columbia. His audience is going to be over at the UN with the Star Wars bar scene buddies that he hangs with, and his buddies back in the Middle East. The silliest defense of this is it's free speech. As I say, nobody's required to invite him anywhere to speak. He doesn't automatically have free speech just because he comes here. But to the liberals, Ahmadinejad is a victim. He's from Iran, a poor Middle East guy just trying to survive with the evil superpower United States trying to destroy him. So they think they're doing a good thing. They think they're being moral. They think they're being open-minded. They are allowing an oppressed leader of a Third World-type nation, in many ways, to come speak to them at Columbia.
He gave a major speech before the UN in 2005, again in 2006. He's going to do it again tomorrow. He will exercise his free speech at the UN for the third straight year. Does the Constitution guarantee free speech at Columbia University? Nope. By the way, this reminds me of something. I have not had a lot of people, but I've had some people tell me, "Rush, I really appreciate what you do and I hope you keep doing it, but you are helping to preserve and provoke this continued partisan divide in this country, because all you do is talk about liberals. I know, Rush, you do great lessons on conservatism, but liberals this and liberals that. Don't you think people have it figured out by now?" And then some people have said, "You know what? We've gotta get rid of the partisanship, Rush. There's too much of this blue and red divide out there. We've gotta start bringing people together," and I look at these people in wide-eyed wonderment. Have no fear, ladies and gentlemen. I shall not be talked out of my instincts on this, but what is interesting to me is that the other side's interest in any kind of a rapprochement. Does our side not see what's happening? Does our side -- Republicans, conservatives, I don't care how you want to classify them -- do they not see that the left is trying to wipe us out politically?
Get along with them? Anybody heard of the new tone? Who among you thinks we can get along with them? I mean, you can get along with them civilly, one on one in a lot of places, but when you boil it all down, we've always had these arguments about what's best for the country, what we need to preserve about the country, how best to do that -- and those arguments are never going to go away unless one side cedes. Now, I am fully willing to talk to people on the left to try to persuade 'em. But the idea that I somehow should tone it down or stop focusing on and reminding people about liberals so much is intriguing to me, because that, to me, is a recipe for our defeat. Now, you can say, "It's making the American people nervous, Rush. They're tired of this red state versus blue state. They want to be red, white, and blue. Everybody wants to be united." I don't see that on the left! I do not see that on the left. I don't see where they want unity. I see where they want no opposition, and there's a huge difference in unity and no opposition. What do you think their policies are about? Political correctness is just censorship of speech so that liberals don't have to hear what they don't want to hear, so they don't have to be challenged by what they don't want to be challenged by.
They want to control as much of your individual life as they can. What do you think that's about, getting along with you? They have contempt for the average American. You're not smart enough to do anything on your own, and when you exhibit the ability to be smart enough to do anything on your own, you genuinely don't vote for them, and that's a threat, so they gotta stop that somehow! Our quest on this program is to create as many informed, educated, motivated people to vote in the arena of ideas as possible. And, in addition to understanding the conservative principles you and I all hold dear, folks, it is imperative that as many Americans as possible understand the truth about today's liberals. They're worse than they have ever been. I mean, some of the things that Mrs. Clinton has said... She epitomizes them today as the front-runner of the Democrat Party nomination for president. Some of the things that she wants to do, some things that she is saying openly ought to have disqualified her. I don't mean officially, but she ought not even stand a chance. But people don't understand, not enough people understand the full-fledged intent that Mrs. Clinton has because of her liberalism which is actually, in her case, socialism, which she is trying to hide.
RUSH: I want to spend some more time, I did not know what happened on this program on Friday. Mr. Snerdley just told me, after the short little burst I did here on the red-blue partisan divide and so forth. Apparently Paul W. Smith had Newt on and they were talking about all this, which is fine. We have no dictatorial controls that we hand out on the days that I am not here. But I do want to spend some more time on this because I think it is a tactical error to assume -- I'm not going to do it right now, but I'm just setting it up for later, maybe not today. I need to think a little bit more about it. I'm speaking instinctively now, but this notion that there's anybody out there -- George W. Bush has reached out more times than anybody I can think of, and what has it gotten him? Pure, unadulterated hatred.
RUSH: I want to make a point here about -- I was joking -- well, half joking in the last hour, played a couple sound bites from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the media is breathlessly awaiting his appearance at Columbia in 23 minutes. The idiot president of a university continues to maintain it's a freedom of speech issue, which it isn't. Columbia is not required to grant him an invitation. As I said, the real question here is to examine liberals and the way they think about this and the way they plan and the way they want to deal with people like Ahmadinejad. Hell, I think this guy, Lee Bollinger, even said, "Hey, we would have invited Hitler." What does that tell you? The thing you have to do is go beyond what they say and look at how they react to people who have sworn -- hell, it was just last week on the eve of his departure for the United States that Ahmadinejad was telling his people over there, "Death to America! Death to America!" It's no different than what he's been saying for years. But is it a coincidence that both Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden are saying the same things when they release a tape or when Ahmadinejad gives a speech?
Is it a coincidence, for example, that they both recite the Democrat Party platform? Is it a coincidence that they recite the Democrat Party talking points from both the floor of the House of Representatives, the floor of the US Senate, and many of the major American newspaper editorials? Is it a coincidence that you can't tell the difference between Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Harry Reid, take your pick, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha? Is it any coincidence that both Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden talk about Abu Ghraib and Hurricane Katrina and Club Gitmo, and they both cite the election results in '06 and say that they were encouraged? Is it a coincidence? It cannot be, ladies and gentlemen. It cannot be a coincidence. Why, then, do both Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad obsess on this country's political systems and send messages in their speeches for America to follow the course of Democrats? That's what they're doing. I'm going to answer the question for you. I'm going to be dead serious about it, too. These people, whoever is doing the Bin Laden tapes -- if he's alive, it's him; if he's not, it's whoever -- but Ahmadinejad we know is alive and well, breathing fire.
These guys are both smart enough to realize they don't need to attack America in speeches aimed at US audiences. Now, in their own countries and in their own enclaves they do nothing but attack America. But Ahmadinejad is not going to attack America at Columbia. He's going to spout Democrat talking points. He's going to talk about how the people of Iran want to help solve America's problems. America's problems Ahmadinejad will address, and he will address them from the same standpoint that US Democrats and liberals explain US problems. Why would Ahmadinejad have to come to Columbia University and attack the United States when the Democrats are already doing the best job that's ever been done at dividing the country and weakening our country from within? Ahmadinejad is probably sitting there saying, "If we can encourage the American people to elect Democrats again in 2008 we'll never have to fire a missile," and Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are probably saying the same thing. If they can encourage the Democrats to continue to be who they are, divide this country, keep the country roiled, and do what they can to weaken the United States from within, why, then, doesn't it reach the point where it benefits them in the sense they won't have to do anything militarily? It's something to consider, folks, because it's remarkable.
It really is remarkable to listen to both of these two enemies, sworn enemies of the United States, recite Democrat Party talking points. Not a coincidence, folks. Not a coincidence. The Democrats, by all rights, with any sense of decency, should be embarrassed and angry and should lash back. Have you heard any of them do so? No. They're defending his right to speak at Columbia. Free speech, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What can we learn? In their minds, these guys only think what they think because the whole world hates Bush, just like they do, and so he may seem even reasonable to American leftists and Democrats, whereas George W. Bush seems maniacal. Alternative universe time, 180 degrees out of phase.