RUSH: By the way, our morning update yesterday in which — do I know these people? Do I know these or do I not know these people? Our morning update yesterday suggested various positions Democrats need to take regarding the Fort Dix Six if they’re to be consistent. One of the things that I suggested was, ‘We need to find out who this store clerk is! The Democrats need to expose this guy. This is the real criminal here, the informant.’ And by golly, by gosh, the New York Times has a story today on the informant and who is he, and how we can’t trust informants and this sort of thing. Oh, let’s take a brief timeout. I’ll come back, share with you the morning update, and then we’ll go to the New York Times story right after this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is this morning’s Morning Update. ‘If Democrats were consistent, they would defend the six foreign-born Muslims under arrest for planning a slaughter at Fort Dix. The plot was exposed by a video store clerk asked to duplicate a DVD showing the Fort Dix Six using weapons and grenades and calling for Jihad. Four of these guys are former Yugoslavians, one’s from Jordan, the other from Turkey. Three are in the country illegally, two have green cards, and one is an American citizen.’ This is what I said in the update. ‘First, the Democrats I know ought to expose the store clerk, who was obviously helping the Bush Administration illegally spy, domestically. Put this guy in jail! Democrats ought to leak his name to the New York Times. Count on it: if they do, that info will be published.’
Well, lo and behold: ‘The Role of an F.B.I. Informer Draws Praise as Well as Questions About Legitimacy,’ is the headline in the New York Times. Do we know these people or do we know these people? ‘It was August 2006 when one of the young Muslim men accused of plotting to kill soldiers at Fort Dix first broached the idea, according to the authorities. Talking to an informer who was secretly taping the exchange, the young man said that he thought he could round up six or seven other men willing to take part, and that a rocket-propelled grenade might be the most effective weapon, the authorities said. And he had one more notion: He wanted the informer to lead the attack, according to a federal complaint. ‘I am at your services,’ the young man is quoted as telling the informer, who had presented himself as an Egyptian with a military background.’
Moving forward in the story: ‘Since 9/11, law enforcement officials have praised the work of such informers, saying they have been doing exactly what they should be doing — gaining access to the world of a possible threat, playing along to see just how far suspects were willing to go, and allowing the authorities to act before the potential terrorists did. In the case of the men arrested this week, the authorities have been emphatic: The men were prepared to kill, and to die in the effort, and the informer was vital to preventing any loss of life. … As the case goes forward, the role of the main informer will almost surely be contested. Over the years, informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigations.’
Well! Later on in the update, I suggest that the Democrats I know ‘would prosecute the authorities who arrested the Fort Dix Six. Not only did investigators racially profile fine, upstanding members of the Fort Dix community, they questioned their immigration status — that’s nobody’s business! Then, the Democrats I know should demand that these wannabe terrorists, especially the undocumented ones, be accorded every protection granted US citizens. They should not be banished to Club Gitmo or be classified as enemy combatants. In fact, they ought to be released on their own recognizance — lest our evil military torture them.’ They should be given lawyers and access to every constitutional right that US citizens have. Here’s the New York Times essentially calling for it:
‘As the case goes forward, the role of the main informer will almost surely be contested. Over the years, informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigations. … Certainly, the work of informers can sometimes seem murky. In one instance, the informer who was the main witness in a major terror financing case in Brooklyn in 2005 almost did not make it to the witness stand after he set himself on fire in front of the White House to protest his compensation by his F.B.I. handlers. … In the criminal complaint they filed against the six men in New Jersey, federal prosecutors took the step of including information about an earlier problem involving their main informer. Prosecutors acknowledged that the informer, two months before he became involved in the Fort Dix case, had misled investigators in order to protect a friend.’
Oh, we ‘used a man of questionable character to save lives.’ That’s how you translate that. The New York Times is distressed. We’ve used somebody of questionable character as an informant to save lives. ”The prosecutors have put out only snippets of conversations, rather than the entire context of conversations,’ said Rocco C. Cipparone, who represents another of the six, Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer. … But on some occasions, the informer appears to have played a slightly more provocative role.’ Anyway, they go on and on and on. This is about discrediting the informer, discrediting the use of informants, playing up the role that the defense lawyers for the Fort Dix Six are going to have. I just wanted to point it out to you, because yesterday I predicted it right here in today’s morning update.
Speaking of the New York Times, get this, this is from yesterday’s New York Times‘ coverage of the Fort Dix Six Jihad: ‘For all the suspects’ talk of holy war and martyrdom, investigators said there is little indication that they were devout, or even practicing, Muslims. Leaders at nearby Muslim houses of worship said they had never seen the suspects and were troubled to learn they had tried to use faith as a justification for their plan.’ See? They weren’t Muslims! They were just a ragtag bunch. Of course, as we pointed out yesterday, it’s not the membership in a group that matters; it’s the ideology that they carry forward. We did a yeoman’s job yesterday of providing information to you about how the ‘white al-Qaeda’ groups from the Kosovo area have infiltrated America. Hell, they were brought here by the Clinton Administration in huge numbers back in 1999! Anyway, all that’s on the website yesterday. I don’t want to repeat all of that. (see links bottom of this page)
So yesterday’s New York Times: ‘Investigators said there is little indication that they were devout, or even practicing, Muslims.’ Here’s today’s New York Times’ coverage of the Fort Dix Six. ‘In Big Immigrant Family, Religion Guided 3 Held in Fort Dix Plot. The three Duka brothers — Eljvir, Shain and Dritan — not only prayed here at the Al Aqsa Islamic Center, but also recently began repairing its roof.’ Ah, they care! ‘The work came naturally to them, as members of a large family of ethnic Albanian immigrants who own more than a dozen roofing companies in New York and New Jersey. They fixed the roof free of charge, encouraged by their imam to do good deeds. One congregant said the men were storing up credit for ‘the afterlife.” Afterlife credits now! You can go out and buy afterlife credits. Yesterday’s New York Times said they have ‘little indication they were devote or even practicing Muslims.’ That’s the template. But now, no, no, no! They pray at the Al Aqsa Islamic Center. They were repairing the roof. Big immigrant family. Religion guided three of the Fort Dix Six. ‘But the job remains half finished after the brothers and three other Muslim men were taken into custody this week, charged with plotting a terrorist attack…’ Ah, you mean the mosque’s roof is now not finished because these three guys have been apprehended because of a squirrelly informant?
‘Their arrests reverberated through the extended Duka dynasty, from southern New Jersey to the village of Debar, in Macedonia, the family’s ancestral home. ‘It’s fine to be a religion man,’ said Murat Duka, 55, a distant relative of the defendants … ‘But if you get too much to the religion, you get out of your mind and you do stupid things.” Yes, see, yesterday they weren’t devout. Now they’re huge. That’s the New York Times and the way they are sifting and are shifting and dancing. A lot of other stories about this today. AP: ‘One of the six Muslim men suspected of plotting the massacre at Fort Dix, had bomb recipes in his car.’ I want to know who planted them. That’s what I want to know. Who set this guy up? He also referred to Osama bin Laden as ‘Uncle Benny.‘ Wait a second. We were told yesterday that these guys were not tied to bin Laden. The Democrats I know would demand an apology to Osama bin Laden. His name has been besmirched here. There are no ties, the New York Times tells us and the rest of the Drive-Bys tell us. There’s no connection between the Fort Dix Six and Osama bin Laden, and his name is being dragged through the mud here. Bin Laden is owed an apology — and maybe from the United States of America as well, just like we need to apologize to all the other Muslim nations and ask for their forgiveness. How are we ever going to be become friends with these people if we continue to do things like this ‘Uncle Benny’? What an absolutely disrespectful way to refer to one of the greatest minds in the Muslim world! Uncle
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Mark in Lawrence, Kansas. Nice to have you, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Well, thanks, Rush. I’ve-been-listening-17-years dittos.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: My 16-year-old daughter will name her first child Reagan, and a lot of that’s due to you. I wanted to call —
RUSH: Wait a second! Why is her first son not being named
CALLER: Well, you know, maybe…
RUSH: I’m just kidding with that. Just kidding.
CALLER: The second one, maybe. With this New York Times story on the informants, it sounds to me like they’re trying to work up their own version of the anti-snitch campaign.
RUSH: Yeah, they are. But, again, it’s more than that. They are trying to discredit the government in the war on terror. They are trying to say that the use of informants is not to be trusted. This guy has a sordid past! Does he have an axe to grind? And, by the way, he’s lied on previous occasions and so he’s tainted. Read some of these stories. Why, these are just good Muslims! They’re building a roof at their mosque! And here comes this informant and this video guy who turned in the video that they wanted duplicated and so forth. The purpose of the New York Times is to advance the liberal agenda, and the liberal agenda today includes defeat in the war on terror and defeat in Iraq, and the liberal agenda today is, ‘We fear — and face — no threat from Muslims. Bush is the threat! Bush is what made the Muslims mad!’