KERRY: “I think it’s somewhere between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there’s been a refocusing ?”
BROKAW: “Where has the exaggeration been on the threat on terrorism?”
KERRY: “Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, #1. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, #2. I mean, I can — nuclear weapons, #3. I can run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al-Qaeda, #4. That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The War on Terror is less — it is
RUSH: Now, stop! Stop the tape! Stop the tape. Now, folks, I want you to listen to this because you think the meat of this has occurred, and it has, but I mean what he closes here with sounds awfully good, but I’m going to nuke it here when he finishes it.
KERRY: “…and we will need the best trained and the most well equipped and the most capable military such as we have today, but it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world, the very thing this administration is worst at.”
RUSH: All right. Now, so what Senator Kerry is saying — let’s put it into real life. Senator Kerry says Bush has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, but I don’t think what he cites are examples of terrorism per se. I mean, he talks about the weapons of mass destruction, and the nuclear weapons, and aerial vehicles. He’s simply talking about Iraq there. And, of course, the liberals themselves have always said that Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq. Isn’t it interesting how they keep going in back and forth?
We went in “unilaterally” but now Spain was one of our biggest and loyal allies? These people frost me, folks. I’m just going to tell you, they frost me. But they wouldn’t frost me if it weren’t for the fact that they’ve got a bunch of parrots who the mainstream media that keep squawking this absolutely convoluted bilge that the Democrats keep uttering because if it weren’t for the mainstream media and their megaphone nobody would hear the cockamamie things they say, or it wouldn’t be given credibility, which it is. So Senator Kerry is saying that if he were president, he would have had a decent intelligence agency, and we would have been able to not only stop 9/11, but we would have been able to stop what happened in Spain.
All right, let’s move on 9/11. Let’s go to Spain. Let’s say that Kerry is president and let’s say that he has built up the intelligence committee which he won’t because he single-handedly cut it with his votes. But let’s just play the game here of hypotheticals and say that Kerry’s big new CIA — What a joke: John Kerry and a big CIA is an oxymoron. It isn’t going to happen. But let’s say there are a big CIA and John Kerry’s got it and really good, and we find out a week or two before the Madrid blast that it’s going to happen, and they find out the exact moment it’s going to happen. They know who’s going to do it, and they know where. That’s what Kerry’s promising us. He can do this.
Okay. Now, what do you do? It’s two weeks or two days or a week or whatever the time frame, and you find out it’s going to happen. Of course you’re never really sure it’s going to happen, and until somebody does something, you can’t stop ’em, right? In the legal system. What’s Senator Kerry going to do? Why, he says the answer to this is not military. That’s not the way to fight this. So I guess what we’re going to do is indict them? So we’re going to find out who the terrorists are, and we’re going to know the names of the guys that are going to set the bombs and set them off with the cell phone detonators. 
We’re going to know all of this and we’re going to know it in plenty of time to identify them. We’re going to know where they are and we’re going to have a bunch of process servers dress up as whatever kind of figure that would fool the terrorists, go in and serve a subpoena and a warrant and say, “Guess what? You’ve been indicted.” Is that how we’re going to stop these guys, because that’s what Kerry is saying. My point, ladies and gentlemen, is — because the Democrats are out there now saying, and this is just so predictable, the Democrats are now saying, “Our trains are not safe enough. ” May be true, not for terrorism, because Amtrak runs them. But that’s another story.
Our trains aren’t safe enough. Well, oh, what are we going to do? What
So we’re going to stop the Madrid terrorist bombing with indictments and the threat of jail time. Has Kerry ever heard of suicide bombers? Now, last hour, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I also raised a question, very important question, because, as I say, in Madrid the [socialists] were not the winners. Or, the socialists are not the winners as is being portrayed. The terrorists won that election. And in fact Al-Qaeda websites all over the world are claiming that they have forced out America’s ally Aznar. Whether they did or not they’re claiming credit for it all over their website. So they’re people are going to think they did it, which is what they want.
And so their question that they’re asking, they say, “What do we do next and where?” Now, their biggest enemy was not Spain, biggest enemy is not France, biggest enemy is not Australia, biggest enemy is not New Zealand, biggest enemy is not the Caribbean superpower of Belize. Their biggest enemy is the United States. So what are the terrorists thinking? Could they try to replicate what they did in Spain by having a terrorist bombing here between now and the elections? Or could they wait and have no terrorist activity here and try… See, I think that if they launch a terrorist attack, Democrats are finished. I don’t think the American people are going to hold anything against Bush.
I think a terrorist attack in this country again… After this, the people who are preaching getting-along-with-’em-ism like the Democrats are and surrender and all this are not going to be rewarded by the American people. But the terrorists, I’m not sure they may read it this way. This is an open question. I mean, if there’s a terrorist attack in this country again before the election the left, of course, would do its best to blame it on Bush despite everything that he’s done, and of course despite the left’s objection and obstruction every step of the way, Bush has accomplished a lot here. But I have to believe that the American people would rally behind Bush and reject the left’s efforts at political exploitation, but I could be wrong.
But I do happen to think the terrorists might not look at it that way. Terrorists might think an action here before the election would doom Bush. And, ladies and gentlemen, if they think they succeeded in Spain by getting rid of an anti-terror administration there, what do they want here? What do they want? So the only real question is, if Al-Qaeda is active and capable, what are they going to do, because we know what they want. They want Kerry. They want the Democrats in power. They’d love that, based simply on what they’re saying and how they’re reacting on what happened in Spain. I’m not guessing. Don’t throw this off on me. I am just looking at what their reaction is to what happened in Spain. They’re all excited that a hard-line anti-terrorist is defeated. So I assume that they’d like the same thing to happen here. So the question is: In their minds if they think they can get what they want in this country with terrorist attacks, how will they do it and when? That’s the question.
END TRANSCRIPT
