RUSH: Audio sound Bite #11 today, we have a montage of Senator Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and then Kennedy again, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Brian Bennett, Senator Pat “Leaky” Leahy, Robin Wright — she’s a writer for some newspaper — and Senator McCain and Michael Duffy — TIME magazine — and then Ted Kennedy again. This is a montage on sympathy for the terrorists.
REID: From the time of Abu Ghraib, this country has been embarrassed and humiliated.
KENNEDY: These techniques included the threat of live burial and water boarding, whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed underwater, wrapped in a wet towel and made to believe he might drown.
DURBIN: On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold.
DUFFY: The hijackers, 19 of whom have died and we’ll never really get to know, were children.
KENNEDY: Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management, US management.
RUSH: Stop the tape right there. Stop the tape there, Alltmont. See, this is the kind of thing. Even these bites, so far up to now “from the time of Abu Ghraib, this country has been embarrassed and humiliated.” No, it’s not. It may be the left is embarrassed and humiliated but the country isn’t. You guys are not speaking for the country anymore. Michael Duffy, “The hijackers, 19 of whom have died and will never really get to know were children.” Oh, yeah, just innocent little children! They were just mis-educated and turned the wrong way in life and, “Ooooh, and we’ll never get to know them!” All this sympathy for our enemies, sympathy for the terrorists. We have Chuck Schumer declaring “war” on the next Supreme Court nominee, but he won’t join us in declaring war on the enemy that we face — and then Ted Kennedy: “Saddam torture chambers reopened under new management, US management.” This is as libelous as what he said about Robert Bork. You know, to compare the way Abu Ghraib is run and Iraq is running now to the way it was Iran under Saddam Hussein? He should be ashamed of himself. But the point is: nobody believes this. They just can’t believe that there are Americans who are saying it, and they get fed up with it, and so they want an outlet to express how angry they are, and so if somebody could put on some Club G’itmo gear and parade it in front of Senator Kennedy in a Senate hearing, they would do it. Here’s the rest of the bite.
VANDEN HEUVEL: We need to have trails. Try them. Release them!
BENNETT: There is one technique which was, um, simulating suffocation by dripping water on the head.
LEAHY: Guantanamo Bay, in addition to Abu Gareeeb [sic] is a national disgrace.
ZAGORIN: The female interrogator enters his (the terrorist’s) personal space.
WRIGHT: There is an explicit policy: the Koran must never be placed anywhere near a sink, a toilet.
McCAIN: Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.
RUSH: Yeah, after he was captured after running around the world for 17 years. So that’s just a sample of sympathy for the terrorists. Let’s go to audio sound bite #10, another montage here, and this montage features a lot of people. Sheila Jackson Lee, Begala “Forehead,” Paula Zahn, Stephanopoulos, Nancy Pelosi, Wesley Clark — who we affectionately call the Ashley Wilkes, here — Vic Kamber, Democrat strategist, David Gergen, Jay Carney of TIME, Charlie Rangel, Bob Costas, Aaron Brown, Kiran Chetry, Senator Durbin and Senator Kerry. Let’s just review who the Democrats are here. First in Iraq and then 9/11, they fundamentally misunderstand that it is one big war on terror and that Iraq is a key front, not a cause of it.
LEE: The relating of the war in Iraq to the 9/11 tragedy, the horrific terrorist attack, does not comport [sic–compute].
BEGALA: The message to American people: this is 9/11.
ZAHN: The president made six direct references to 9/11.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The case he was making was most of all this war began on 9/11.
PELOSI: When he exploits the sacred ground of 9/11 — there was no connection between 9/11 and the war.
WILKES: Saddam wasn’t part of 9/11
ZAHN: Do you think the president overreached with references to 9/11?
KAMBER: His speech last night was once again, uh, trying to wrap himself around, uh, the — the 9/11 tragedy.
GERGEN: I was troubled and offended by his coming back to 9/11.
CARNEY: Making the war on terror, uh, one broad, uh, event that began, uh, uh, on September 11, 2001.
RANGEL: Long before 9/11, Bush wanted to knock off Saddam Hussein.
COSTAS: No contact or connection between, uh, Iraq and Al Qaeda or 9/11 established.
BROWN: Was it apt for the president to go to 9/11 six times in the speech?
CHETRY: He did refer to 9/11 five times. Why is he once again making the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11?
DURBIN: He did make six references to September 11th, drawing on the lessons of 9/11.
VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: In light of Karl Rove’s comments the other day, I think a lot of Americans are very uneasy about the current, uh, way in which the president keeps talking in the same language.
RUSH: Senator Kerry, take a look at who’s winning elections and tell me what the American people think. You lost, and it wasn’t even close. Now, the reason we’re replaying this montage, folks, is because what was on everybody’s lips yesterday after the attack in London? 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. The war on terror, and what were they talking about? Iraq, Iraq, Iraq; 9/11, war on terror — and yet when Bush brings it up, he’s not allowed to. These are people simply out of touch. These are people that really don’t get it, and we saved these bites. We archived these bites because I knew that they were going to come in handy the next time there was an attack. I was telling the staff there a couple weeks ago, “Save these bites because we’re going to be able to ram this right down their throats.” What’s happening here, you know the big debate: “What are the Brits going to do? Are they going to turn into Madrid or are they going to develop some steel spines?” I’ll tell you what I think they’re going to do. I think they’re going to develop some steel spines. I don’t think they’re going to turn into Madrid. I think it’s going to be just the opposite, folks. They’ve been through this too much, and they understand what is at stake. Now, yesterday on the program, talking about the way some liberals were going to react to the events in London — and I told you that I had found some stuff on websites yesterday where liberals were not wanting to call what happened in London yesterday a “war.” They wanted to call it “murder,” and, lo and behold, I found another one.
This is from The Nation, big lib publication, a guy named John Nichols, and his headline: “President Bush Unwittingly Provided an Appropriate Response to the Gruesome Terrorist Attacks in London,” and to jump to the relevant paragraph here, Mr. Nichols writes this: “Bush went on to promise that ‘we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.'” He writes, “Imagine the cries of outrage and incomprehension that would have arisen from right-wing talk radio and TV pundits if a President Gore or Kerry had called an immediate aftermath of an attack linked to bin Laden for ‘spreading a ideology of hope and compassion as part of a response to terrorism.'” This is another classic example of how this guy and the left doesn’t get it. What we are doing in Iraq is “spreading an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.” That’s what they don’t get. It was the answer I gave yesterday to the nice liberal that called and wanted to know how we defeat terrorism long-term by getting those young kids that are not yet born or have been born but they’re very young and they’re going to be inculcated with hate, and I said, “That’s what we’re doing in Iraq.” So they’re thinking that when the president said yesterday, “We will spread an ideology of hope and compassion,” that the president said, “We’re not going to use war.” I marvel, folks. I really still marvel at the ignorance. They’re all flowery and lovey-dovey at the notion of “spreading an ideology of hope and compassion,” and yet when it’s right under their nose, when it’s right under their eyes, when it’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don’t recognize it for what it is. That’s precisely what Bush’s policy is, and it’s exactly what he has articulated. They just don’t get it, and I don’t know that they really ever will when it comes to things that he does. They have such a personal hatred for the guy; they can’t see facts and truth to save themselves.