RUSH: All right, I've been paying attention here. Ever since last night when I learned about all these WikiLeaks, and folks, there's nobody that pays attention better than I do to the stuff I pay attention to. Many people wish I'd pay more attention to them than I do, but when I start paying attention to stuff, there is nobody better. I'm telling you, despite all this talk about the WikiLeaks, there really isn't that much outrage. I mean, sure, Holder's gone out there and lip service to making criminal charges. We got a Hillary statement coming up, but isn't this what they wanted essentially? I mean this is the US supposedly being diminished in the eyes of the world but still where's the level of outrage? Do you realize there was more outrage over the leaks of all those fraudulent e-mails from the climate research center at Hadley than there is over this? And there's a good reason for it. All this stuff's pretty much true, nobody is really surprised by it. The reason there was outrage over the stuff from the climate research center at Hadley is the fraud was exposed, and everybody participating in the fraud for the media and everybody else was ticked off that their participation in a fraud had been exposed.
RUSH: I'm sitting here watching Hillary remarking on the theft of our top secret documents, and is it just me, or is she starting to look more and more like Mao Tse-tung? Or is it her wardrobe? I can't tell. I guess I just got absorbed in that. The commercial break went by much faster than I expected it to. She just said, by the way, when I was watching her, and I'm paraphrasing, but she just said that it isn't just government people who are hurt by these leaks. You see what I mean about coming back to this hellhole of reality here? I mean I live in Literalville, and it is absolute hell when these people are on television every day. She just said it isn't just government people who are hurt by these leaks, as if we care it isn't just government people? Really? She actually said this, folks. "If an abused woman reports to a social worker what happened to her, such leaks put her at risk of imprisonment, torture, or even death." Now, what is she talking about? She's talking about our national security, and she says it's not important. She's giving us her reaction to the leak of sensitive government documents and she's thinking of the women and children who might get hurt?
How do you get from all of these State Department cables of so-called sensitive, secret stuff to an analogy of an abused woman going to a social worker getting hurt? I'm sorry, I don't understand the thought process, which is why, maybe it's 'cause of that she's looking more and more look Mao Tse-tung. I guess it's what happens to you when you get four days off from these people. When you're in the midst of it, you start taking what they say seriously. When you're away from it for just four days, come back, you realize what blithering fools they all are. Yeah, I mean our national security is not important, no, no, no, no, but think of the women and children who might get hurt because of these leaks? Think of the women and children who might get hurt because of these leaks? What women and children who might get hurt because of these leaks? Well, yeah, I guess she's talking about the people who talked to the State Department. No, she doesn't care about women in oppressed countries. No, don't tell me that Hillary Clinton cares about women in oppressed countries. Do you think liberals in this country care about women in oppressed countries? Give me one bit of evidence. They don't even pretend they do, Snerdley.
When's the last time Gloria Steinem wrote a damn word about the burqa or anything happening with women in Afghanistan, Iran, you name it. When have they written anything about it? They don't write anything about it. They write about me and Pat Buchanan. They don't write about the oppressed women of the world. That's why none of this makes any sense to me.
RUSH: From the website e-mail: "Dear Rush: Why aren't conservative media people focusing on how inept Obama is? I'm all outraged over this release, I guess, but these cables show how incompetent Obama is in foreign policy. Why aren't conservative media people focusing on how inept Obama is?" If you get down to brass tacks, if you're talking about conservative people, I'll speak for myself, none of this surprises me. This guy Assange could have been stopped, come on, folks. People have been shot for far less than this. I'm talking about state, interstate deals, Cold War kind of stuff. These leaks happen because -- they're letting the guy walk around with a memory stick, with a flash drive. You plug it in the USB port and you download it. None of this stuff happens unless either you're totally incompetent or inept or unless they want it out there. And with Obama that's an open case. You know, the jury's still out on does he want it out and most people think he's not that upset about it. The question is why isn't he upset, not why aren't we. He's out shooting hoops getting his lip beat up and the teleprompter says, "Ouch."
Let's look at Julian Assange. In a contest between Janet Napolitano and Julian Assange, who do you think would win? Big Sis, there's no question about it. Now, if Janet Napolitano, Big Sis, can put her hands down our underwear at any airport in America she chooses, why can't she get her hands on the State Department leaker? Why can't she get her hands around the scrawny little neck of Julian Assange and all the other people at WikiLeaks? This little guy, this little waif, this little Peter Pan, Julian Assange, does anybody really believe that is his real name? Julian Assange, French or whatever it is, at any rate, this guy has been interviewed numerous times by the news media. There's an example of this. (laughing) Nobody could find Saddam Hussein except Dan Rather. He went in for an interview. We couldn't find Saddam Hussein, and the next night he shows up on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather. Hey, Dan, where'd you find him? "Well, I can't compromise my --" you mean to tell me that somebody like Mary Mapes at CBS can find what's-his-face, and we can't? The intelligence agencies have no clue where Saddam Hussein is, but CBS can find him just like that, and that what's-his-face will show up there for an interview? And Rather did not do the interview blindfolded. He's out there yukking it up, probably having a cigar with the guy when the cameras go off.
Brokaw found Charlie Trie. The news media finds all these people, and Julian Assange has been interviewed numerous times by the news media in the UK, he's been on the BBC. Any number of people could have gotten their hands around this scrawny little guy's neck, which is smaller than my big toe, I mean that's how insignificant a personage this guy is, and we can't find him? Why can't Big Sis and her goons go after spies as hard as they go after innocent, ordinary, everyday Americans? This is why intelligent people like me look at this and say this isn't what they're telling us it is. This guy telegraphs weeks in advance when he's gonna release stuff. We sit around and say, "You better not. You better not." Well, we begged him, same thing, he releases the stuff, you shouldn'ta done that. (laughing) Ah, folks, even Greg Palkot of Fox News interviewed Assange, which means that Roger Ailes knows where he is. Ailes knows where Assange is. Give Ailes the order and there is no Assange, I'll guarantee you, and there will be no fingerprints on it. But there is an Assange. Now, what we have here, we have a 22-year-old who was made an intelligence analyst and given access to all of this information, a 22-year-old. You have to be 25 to rent a car, legally. Julian Assange has probably been renting cars since he was 12 getting from one hideout to the next.
RUSH: I'm in the mood to listen to a sissy, and we have an audio sound bite here from Julian Assange, who looks like a sissy and is a sissy. It was from yesterday in Amman, Jordan, at the Third Annual Conference for Arab Investigative Journalists. How cool is this? The Third Annual Conference for Arab Investigative Journalists, and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, spoke, and there was a question during the Q&A: "The information you have released and are about to release could put people at risk not only with the State Department or in Britain but in the areas that you are already suffering the atrocities of war. When you weigh out the risks versus the outrage your project has sparked and the change it's made, what is your assessment?"
ASSANGE: It [the U.S. State Department] understands that we are a responsible organization, so it's trying to make it as hard for us as possible to publish responsibly in the hope that it can get us to not publish anything at all. Because not publishing anything at all would mean not publishing the abuses by that organization.
RUSH: I don't believe that for a minute. This is the problem. I don't think the State Department's trying to get this guy not to publish anything. Do you? Look, in the old days, if they didn't want you to publish something, you didn't publish it. They found a way if they really didn't want you to punish something. I just love this guy. (imitating Assange) "Well, the State Department understands that we are a responsible organization so it's trying to make it as hard for us as possible to publish responsibly." (interruption) No, I just don't like the guy in general principles. I don't like the name. I don't like the way he looks. I don't like the way he sounds. He's a sissy; he's a waif, purely and simply an Internet creation.
RUSH: From the Wall Street Journal. It's from a blog. The ChiComs are trying to plug WikiLeak. "Can the world's most elaborate censorship system put the clamps on the Internet's most prolific source of confidential information? A day after WikiLeaks began to release a quarter-million diplomatic cables sent from U.S. embassies, propaganda authorities in Beijing appear to be trying to control how much of the content of those cables leaks through to the Chinese public. As of Monday evening in Beijing, the WikiLeaks 'Cablegate' page was blocked by China's Great Firewall -- a rudimentary first-step on China's censorship checklist. More significantly, Chinese news media have received orders not to report on the Wikileaks dump ...
"Contained in the cables are assertions that could make things awkward between China and the U.S., including suggestions that China ignored a U.S. request to stop transfers of ballistic missile technology" to Iran. We knew this was happening. This is why I say none of this is a surprise. We know the ChiComs are sending stuff over to the Iranians. We knew this. This stuff just confirms it in an almost an undeniable form: State Department cables. As I said: Very few people lie in their cables. They lie to their diaries in the Clinton administration but not to their cables. People generally don't lie to their State Department cables. So I think we've got the problem here. Let's find Julian Assange and give him to the ChiComs and let's tell the ChiComs that he... Uh... What is he? He's... What could we say he is?
He's Falun Gong! We'll tell the ChiComs that he practices Falun Gong and they'll throw him in a hard labor camp. All we'll have to do is tell 'em that he's Falun Gong. Whether they believe it or not they'll accept it. "Oh, Assange Falun Gong? Fine, we'll gong his Falun and we'll put him away," or tell the ChiComs that he's a "Mong," something like that. Now, what's interesting is the ChiComs have their Mao shorts in a knot over this. The ChiComs are not happy about it. The Obama regime, I don't think they really care, but ChiComs are not keen here. They don't mind people suspecting they're giving nuclear weapons and stuff to the Iranians, but to have it confirmed? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. So whoever wants to curry favor with the ChiComs, find Assange. Turn him over. Ho-ho-ho! Would I loooove that!
RUSH: I sent an e-mail to my buddies at LifeLock earlier today, and I asked them two questions: "Is there a way that you could steal...? Well, not you guys. Is there a way that it can be arranged that the identity of Julian Assange could be stolen and then with that identity we wreck his life?"
And of course my friends at LifeLock said, "We would not participate in something like that."
I said, "Okay, if you won't help me destroy Julian Assange life, is there a way that LifeLock could protect anybody from Julian Assange stealing their documents?"
And they said, "Only if Julian Assange is stealing people's Social Security numbers to get his documents."
I said, "Well, that's not happening. Somebody in the Obama regime is giving the stuff to him."
LifeLock said, "Well, we can't help you on that. If somebody wants to give somebody's identity away or secrets we can't stop that."
But they can help you keep your identity from being stolen. All you have to do is make a deal with them, which doesn't cost much. It costs even less if you use offer code "Rush" when you call 'em at 800-440-4833 and give them your Social Security number. You don't need to worry with them having it.
RUSH: Yeah, I like that idea: Give over Julian Assange to the ChiComs and tell them he's Falun Gong, because you know no matter what happens Eric Holder would never put Assange in Gitmo, which would also be a good place.