×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu





John Kerry had a meeting with the New York Daily News editorial board, and I got a little story here by Thomas DeFrank. This ran in yesterday’s paper. Thomas DeFrank and Maggie Haberman of the New York Daily News: “John Kerry accused Bush yesterday of deliberately helping insurgents in the bloody Haitian uprising and said he would use American military forces to stop the violence if he were in office,” meaning he, Kerry.
“In a wide-ranging discussion with the Daily News editorial board, the Democrat front-runner also suggested that Bush dragged out a nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Libya so he could exploit the deal during his reelection campaign.” My friends, it’s fabulous. Howard Dean lives! Howard Dean lives in the person of John Kerry. “Kerry said he would have sent troops to Haiti even without international support to quell a revolt against Jean-Bertrand Aristide.”
Senator, Aristide was a thug. Aristide’s election was a fraud. He was installed by the Clinton administration. He was nothing more than a thug puppet dictator. Why do you think there was an uprising? Why are there always uprisings in Haiti? Because… [interruption] No! Who cares if he failed to produce results? The reason there’s an uprising is the people are starving. They’ve been starving for generations in Haiti and they want freedom and they want prosperity. They’re like anybody else.


They’re rebelling against the very guys that John Kerry saying that they would install and keep in power. He’d put down the freedom fighters. “‘President Kerry would never have allowed that to get where it is,’ Kerry said, though he added he’s not a big Aristide fan.” Yeah, be on both sides of it, senator. Not a big Aristide fan but he still wouldn’t have allowed it to get this far. “He insisted the White House has empowered the insurgents. ‘They’ve done it quite purposely out of their dislike for Aristide.’ A Kerry administration, he said, would have given the rebels a 48-hour ultimatum to come up with a peaceful agreement, otherwise we’re coming in.'”
Here’s how that would have happened. John Kerry as president may have said, “You’ve got 48 hours,” and then at hour 47, with 59 minutes if they hadn’t moved, Kerry would say, “All right, I’m going to give you another 12, but you’re really starting to make me mad.” At the end of those 12, Kerry would say, “You guys, you’re not making enough progress. If you don’t make this another 14 or 15 hours…” and he would have kept moving the deadline, or he would have claimed success somehow without having to send troops. This is all talk. There is nothing in Kerry’s voting pattern that betrays or portrays this kind of action.
“He further said, ‘I would intervene with the international community, and absent an international force, I’d do it unilaterally,’ adding the most important thing was to protect democracy.” I can’t follow these people anymore. He would “unilaterally act to protect democracy.” He accuses us of acting unilaterally in Iraq to get rid of a dictator and terrorist, and we didn’t. I guess he wouldn’t act unilaterally. He would? Do you mean you’d act unilaterally, senator, to defend our democracy as well? Or would you turn that over to the UN, too? This is all about black votes, folks. This is all about the American black vote. It’s not about Haiti. It’s not about anything else but that.


“Kerry suggested that Bush sat on December’s deal to have Moammar Khadafy renounce weapons programs to get a political boost. Kerry said, ‘Khadafy’s been trying to get back into the mainstream for several years now. There’s evidence that we could have had that deal some time ago.'” As I say, Howard Dean lives in the body of John Kerry. As proof, here’s Kerry’s proof. This is John Kerry’s proof. “He said he’d heard,

, ‘from friends in the British government’ that the deal was in a slow lock, although he declined to give specifics to back it up.”
The Brits told him. He heard from the Brits, folks. He heard it from the Brits that we had the deal with Khadafy. We could have had this years ago, but we put it on a slow road so that Bush could hold it for his reelection effort. Now, it looks like, it looks like we are ramping up the search of bin Laden. It looks like we’re going to catch bin Laden. Can you imagine the cacophony of paranoid accusations that will emanate from the Democrats when that happens? I’m going to predict to you right now what they’ll say:
“We’ve had him in captivity for four years. We had him since before we went into Iraq. We didn’t need to go to Iraq to find bin Laden. We’ve had bin Laden. He’s been holed up, and all of these tapes that bin Laden has produced have been at the point of a gun held by the CIA. The CIA made bin Laden record those tapes to make it look like he was still out there but Bush has had bin Laden under lock and key for whatever it is.” It will be three or four years’ time. Three years. That’s what they’re going to say. You mark my words on this.
Make a note of this date: March 1st, 2004. Because when we capture bin Laden, it’s going to be that, or even more outrageous. “Bush campaign spokesman Kevin Madden called Kerry’s comments ‘reckless and accused him of irresponsible conspiracy politics,’ said ‘Kerry’s remarks are not befitting a serious candidate for president.’ In the 45-minute interview with the New York Daily News editorial board, Kerry also seemed to flip-flop on his opinion of the controversial security fence that the Israelis are constructing.


“Kerry insisted a past comment questioning the fence was not a very artfully drawn paragraph,” because he’s on a journey of understanding, “that reflected the rush of the campaign. He insisted he completely supports the fence now and only questioned where it’s built.” He didn’t! He questioned the fence. He was speaking to some Arab-Americans, some Palestinian Americans whatever in Michigan and he condemned the whole notion of the fence and said it was going to cause an exacerbation of hostilities.
He didn’t talk about where it was built! He was talking about the fact that it was being built and he’s weaseled again and now he tells the Daily News because they’re sympathetic, Well, you know, that was not a very artfully drawn paragraph, just reflected the rush of the campaign. As you know, I’m still on my journey of understanding. “Kerry also slammed the Bush administration for a sweetheart relationship with Saudi Arabia that has been bad for the U.S. He said the electoral map has shifted from the 2000 election and that he, Kerry, has a good chance to win southern and Midwestern states that eluded Al Gore. He mentioned Ohio and Wisconsin has possible Democrat pickups.”
There’s only one problem with that: Gore won Wisconsin. Remember Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon who couldn’t find Bosnia on a globe? <a href=”/home/best/ron_wyden_can_t_find_bosni.member.html”>(Rush TV Show Clip)</a> You have to wonder if Senator Kerry knows where Wisconsin is, if he can find it on a map because it’s clearly one of the blue states. It’s one of the Gore states. I still maintain, by the way, that those states are not the right color. The Bush states ought to be the blue states. The Gore states ought to be red states but it’s the other way around.
Look, as far as this Haiti business is concerned, folks, it’s real simple. Aristide was a thug and corrupt and the fact that his last election was fraught with fraud, and the fact that Bill Clinton tried to impose Aristide on the country without success is apparently of no consequence to John Kerry and the Democrats now. And isn’t it interesting that many of the same people who claim we shouldn’t have liberated 25 million people in Iraq are now insisting that we should have sent our military into the middle of Haiti’s implosion last week?
For what purpose? To prop up a corrupt, brutal leader. They wanted to go in and prop up Aristide. Amazing. Are there weapons of mass destruction in Haiti? No, of course not. I mean, not that anybody has suggested there are, but this is the Democrat test, isn’t it? I mean, if there are no weapons of mass destruction you don’t go. If there are no weapons of mass destruction you don’t take any action. If there’s no direct threat to the United States, you leave it to the UN. The UN was running this show, by the way, if you want to know the truth, folks.


For what purpose? To prop up a corrupt, brutal leader. They wanted to go in and prop up Aristide. Amazing. Are there weapons of mass destruction in Haiti? No, of course not. I mean, not that anybody has suggested there are, but this is the Democrat test, isn’t it? I mean, if there are no weapons of mass destruction you don’t go. If there are no weapons of mass destruction you don’t take any action. If there’s no direct threat to the United States, you leave it to the UN. The UN was running this show, by the way, if you want to know the truth, folks.
Haiti is a testament to the inability of the UN to keep peace, make peace, do peace, have peace, be peace, anything to do with peace. The UN can’t do it, and Haiti is just a living testament. There was no reason to send soldiers to Haiti to help prop up this regime. The president and other countries — France, by the way. You know we consulted with France on this. Yes, my friends, and guess who else is trying to get in our good graces? The Germans! Gerhard Schroeder went to the White House, talked to Bush. They’re trying to get back in our good graces.
Everybody wants to be with us now, and here’s Bush consulting with the French because Haiti was one of their, is one of, whatever…outposts. Why they’re not more embarrassed by this, I couldn’t tell you, but that’s another issue. The fact is, Bush consulted with them.
Now, Charles Rangel. We’ve got some sound bites from Rangel, and he’s — in fact grab the audio sound bite #4. Let’s just play this. He was on Stephanopoulos yesterday, and Stephanopoulos says, “Congressman Rangel, I know you’re upset about what happened overnight, but what do you believe the United States should be doing right now in Haiti?”
RANGEL AUDIO: “Democracy cannot thrive unless its roots are embedded in jobs, and we really have let Haiti down. It’s really disappointing. What we’re doing now after encouraging this coup is what we should have done when President Aristide was begging for help from the international community. We agreed publicly with the Caribbean countries to help Haiti to restore democracy but privately we were really supporting the rebels.”
RUSH: The rebels are the ones that were rebelling against the dictator. You know, this is the same man — Charles Rangel is the same man — that accused our soldiers in Iraq of assassinating Saddam Hussein’s boys. We assassinated them in his mind. And, you know, Rangel’s thinking has become increasingly bizarre and perverse but it’s also become increasingly more mainstream Democratic Party because he’s one of Bill Clinton’s guys. Rangel is one of Clinton’s guys. Keep a sharp eye. When you hear Rangel out there talking, it’s Clinton-approved. And if Rangel has any evidence, by the way, the United States led the coup against Aristide, he should show it – and you’d think the journalist would demand to see it. As for Edwards’ comments, I’m not even going to address them. It’s clear me that the more he speaks, the more apparent it is he’s just clueless.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT


RUSH: When we last left Charles Rangel, he was once again speaking in favor of another dictator and that would be Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Oh, forget that Rangel is a big supporter of Fidel Castro. I forget when this was. Last time Castro came to New York, big UN powwow. Castro flew in there and drove to the Cuban embassy in some Cadillac from the seventies, and Calvin Butts at the Ebenezer Church or whatever it is, had a big rally for Fidel Castro and there’s Rangel up there arm in arm, saluting the guy, praising him for his education and health care systems in Cuba.
So make no mistake about Rangel. Rangel hasn’t yet met a dictator he didn’t like. Now, Rangel has accused the United States of propping up the insurgents, the rebel forces, who were rebelling against a peace-loving democracy in Haiti. And this question was put to Colin Powell by Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning. Matt Lauer said, “There have been some critics as you know, Secretary Powell, saying that the Bush administration didn’t act quickly enough. Charles Rangel, the congressman from New York…” who never meat dictator he didn’t like, “has questions.” He didn’t say that, my friends. I would have, had I been asking the question, but I wasn’t. “…has questioned or allegiance with the rebels saying, ‘Why would a great nation like the U.S. be getting in bed with an element like that?’ What’s your reaction, sir?”
POWELL AUDIO: “We are not getting in bed with any such element, and Mr. Rangel knows better. We worked very hard, as did the previous administration, to try to put in place a political arrangement which would allow all parts of the Haitian society to get involved in the political process in a democratic manner, and that was frustrated over the years. We worked very hard in recent weeks to see if we can get a political accommodation between the parties and that was not possible.”
END TRANSCRIPT

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This