All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:20
July 12, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm here.
I know.
I know.
I just greetings and welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
And this is the one and only EIB network.
I am the Doctor of Democracy, America's Anchorman.
Can we do something about the reverb on the mixed minus?
You got thank you very good.
America's Anchorman and a news commentator all rolled into one here.
Great to have you with us, folks.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800 282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
It is comical.
I have to tell you, it is comical to watch the I know it makes some of you people frustrated.
Of course it does me too.
But folks, this is this is this is so pathetic to watch the media and the Democratic Party come together as one to go after Carl Rove on what is essentially a non-story.
I I I I've I'm going to give you the details of this story soon here.
I'm going to have some audio soundbites I want to show you first to just illustrate this media frenzy that's that's going on, the press conference uh yesterday, the White House press briefing with Scott McClellan.
But it is just I'll tell you what I see.
I see utter desperation.
I see exactly what I have seen all along.
The Democrats and the Liberals, if it's not their last stand, it is, it is one of them.
I was thinking last night, you know, we sit here, we talk about the Democrats' uh uh behavior, the seething rage, the anger, the hatred.
And I remembered something last night.
We all ask ourselves, what are they doing?
What I mean we want we want to make some sense of it.
And I remembered something last night, maybe some of you have remembered this all along, but I remembered that the Democrats shortly after the election decided, and they did they announced this, that they were going to implement the Newt strategy back in 1994 when the House Republicans took power.
And remembered all during the Clinton years, all the the Democrats' perspective of those years is that all the Republicans did was yip at Clinton and criticize him constantly, never letting up, constantly trying to get him thrown in jail, constantly trying to do this, constantly, and they said they're going to replicate that, and they are, but there's a big difference.
The House Republicans at the same time had a plan.
They had a philosophy.
They were able to say what they're for at the same time, that they were out there.
And by the way, I'm not saying, I'm not comparing the criticism of Clinton in the 90s with the criticism of Bush today.
I'm just simply saying the Democrats are.
The Democrats think that the criticism of the 90s was unwarranted.
They think Clinton was cleaner in the wind-driven snow and that it was just all uncalled for.
And they're trying to duplicate this because they think it worked.
They think they think that's why they lost the White House in 90.
They think that's why they've not been able to get the Congress back, because the Republicans did nothing but constantly bash them.
So they're returning the favor.
They're constantly bashing, and they will take any opportunity to ratchet it up.
Um you throw in the mix here the fact that there are uh the very seminal issues important to liberals, the Supreme Court being number one, uh, and a subset of that abortion being number one A, uh, that they have a reason to get together and and and try to obstruct here, but you know, theirs is an irrational, and that's what this Rove thing is illustrating, as does all of their attacks, or as do all their attacks on Bush.
This is irrational.
The uh the attacks on Clinton were based on genuine substance, and there were genuine scandals, and there was genuine misbehavior, and there was there were indeed questionable ethics.
This stuff that they've used to go after Bush baseless, they're having to make it up, forged documents at CBS, this this kind of thing.
Same thing with Rove here.
This is the the dirty little, can I just I'll just give you a little preview of of some of my my thinking on this.
The dirty little secret here is the New York Times.
We've got Matt Cooper who stayed out of jail because he got a waiver.
He got a general waiver and a personal waiver from his source to go ahead and testify.
Now, in this case, it was Carl Rove.
People are saying, how come Rove hasn't hasn't hasn't given Judith Miller a waiver?
I mean, Rove sits there in the White House and Judith Miller is in jail.
Let me just taste Judith Miller's in jail, not because of Rove.
She's in jail because of her newspaper.
She's in jail because the New York Times.
If anybody wants to ask anybody why Judith Miller languishes and rots away in a prison, quote unquote.
Ask the New York Times.
Ask Little Pinch.
Ask Mr. Schultzberger.
Because Judith has a waiver.
She had a general waiver to release and reveal her source and testify.
She refused the waiver because as she said, well, I don't think that this was genuine.
I think it was pressured.
I think this waiver was asked for rather than uh a voluntary waiver on the part of the source.
My point here is I'm not sure Rove is her source.
If Rove would give up uh, you know, Miller and if Cooper say, okay, Matt, go ahead, uh, talk about me, share our emails, why wouldn't he do the same thing for Judith Miller?
I think her source, my guess is it's somebody different.
And it's somebody embarrassing.
And they don't want to give it up at the New York Times.
I don't know who the source is.
I can only speculate.
Maybe it's another reporter.
Maybe it's uh Joe Wilson himself, for all I know.
Valerie Plaim's husband.
But there's something that doesn't, it doesn't pass the smell test here, folks.
I mean, if if if Carl Rove is willing to uh grant a specific waiver, a general waiver to Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine, I'm sure he would do the same thing for Judith Miller, and he did.
He gave her a general waiver, or somebody did, I don't know who, but she sits in jail, and I'm telling you, the best guess I have for why is the New York Times does not want it known who her source is.
And so she's, you know, little pinch is out there talking about what a great stand-on principle Judith Miller is making.
Judith Miller is in jail because her company, you know, every these people are not independent contractors, these people work for big corporations.
Matt Cooper works for Time.
Judith Miller works for the New York Times company.
And if the New York Times company doesn't want to give up the source, Judith Miller can, you know, she can sing songs all day long or get fired or what have you, but I she's not going to do that.
She's going to do whatever the corporate bosses want, and it's the it's the New York Times doesn't want this source known who uh who her source is.
So anyway, that's just a little heads up on what's what's to come here.
But I I I think that the the uh seriously, folks, follow that out.
Track that down, follow it, keep your eye on this because it's not being reported at all.
And I think that the Times is doing a uh sort of a bait and switch here by trying to focus the attention on Rove and focus the attention on Bush and the administration, at the same time diverting everybody's attention away from themselves.
Uh and of course to try to pretend to paint Judith Miller as this great principled sympathetic figure and all that.
And I'm just telling you it's not flying with me because there has been no crime committed here.
And to watch the Democrats rally together.
I saw a video right before the program started of John Kerry.
Looks like he got some Botox again, by the way.
And there's Hillary and all these, and some of the people that Bush had up to the White House this morning to discuss the SCOTUS opening.
Harry Reid and Leahy, there they are.
I don't understand this about the White House.
I really don't.
Sometimes the White House is more accommodating of its enemies than it is loyal to its friends.
Smacks down uh conservatives for uh being critical of Gonzales and says that but when Gonzalez is attacked by the left, Bush doesn't defend him.
But when he's a when he's when he's criticized by conservative groups, Bush slaps them down, and then and now we have these big Democrats in the Senate up to the White House to so supposedly consult.
You know, we we're all scratching our heads here today about this, and at the same time that they're having all these Democrats up to the White House talk about SCOTUS, those same Democrats are circling the wagons and trying to get Bush to fire Rove, which isn't gonna happen, because what you're seeing on television is the media aspect of it.
The White House is not going to fire Rove over anything to do with the media.
Now the legal case is something we don't know about because that's grand jury testimony, nobody's leaked any of that.
That's secret, and you know, who knows what's going on with that prosecutor there?
You have no idea.
Uh and we may never know, depending if there if there's no indictment and and there's and there's no guilty plead, we may never know what went on.
We may never get a report.
We may not be uh entitled to one on somebody told me that this prosecutor may not be required to divulge anything if at the end of the day there's nothing.
Uh but nevertheless we do have a huge media firestorm here, and we have a Democrat fire storm, and the two are combined because it's the same group, same people, same group of allies, and it's just hysterical.
It's funny to see how desperate they are.
They've got to get rid of Rove, as though that's going to make a difference in the over.
How many Americans do you think could identify Carl Rove?
In a name recognition survey, how many people, if one percent may know who Carl Rove is, and and 99% don't care.
And of the one percent that know who he is, how many of those don't care?
And yet here they are going after somebody because he's the political advisor and they want, they just they're desperate folks.
It's the Watergate template in action.
They're trying to do with via scandal, manufactured scandal, what they can't do at the ballot box, and it's hilarious to watch this.
I have yet to see them so desperate.
This there's more of an uncontrolled feeding frenzy than there was during the Bush National Guard story.
They just they just can taste it.
They're so desperate for a victory on anything.
So desperate that getting rid of Carl Rove, they would use to notch their belt, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.
If Rove's gone or not, in terms of their fortunes, they're just mad because Rove has skunked them every time he's gone up against them from Texas to Florida and to Washington in the White House.
A quick time out.
We come back, I'm gonna let you hear the the a montage of reporters' questions to Scott McClellan yesterday, and this'll illustrate better than I can say it, the absolute hysteria and the desperation that the lift in this country is experiencing.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
And we're back.
You know what we got?
And I knew this was gonna happen.
I just saw, I saw a screenshot of this is still shot, but five women last Friday in the audience at Live with Regis and Kelly are wearing their club Gitmo t-shirts.
Yes, yes, yes, we got the tape, we got a still shot.
Uh Coco sent me the webmaster sent me a steel shot of it.
Uh I knew this is gonna happen.
I do think these t-shirts are gonna be popping up uh everywhere, and they're still flying off the shelves from the uh the uh Club Gitmo gift shop here at Rushlinbaugh.com.
Now, folks, just sit tight.
I'm gonna go through this whole Valerie Plame and and Carl Rove and and uh uh Bob Novak thing, explain to you uh what this is all about, and I'm gonna do it as simply as it can be done.
And I I'm I'm also going to at the same time uh illustrate for you just how everybody that I have seen in the mainstream press is ignoring the real facts of this.
They are they are stuck on one version of things, and that is nobody knew Valerie Plame's name, and nobody knew that she was at CIA until the White House told somebody, and Robert Novak then ran a column about it.
The facts are everybody knew that Valerie Plane worked at the CIA, and everybody in the in the reporter community, many of them did, and many of them knew that Joe Wilson was her husband.
Um but they're acting like nobody knew this.
Nobody in Washington knew, and she has been compromised, and she was an agent.
When's the last time you heard the left care about the CIA?
When is the last time you heard the left care about a CIA agent?
When's the first time you heard the left care about the CIA?
Everything's upside down here because the press is willingly purposely ignoring the facts about this to pursue what is another template, and that is the Watergate template.
If you don't have it, make it up.
If you don't have what exactly what you need, make it up and use the power of all of your forces being joined to send out the same message so that no matter what people watch or read, that's what they get.
That one version of things.
Now, before I go through all that, though, I want you to listen to this hysteria.
You may have heard snippets of the White House press briefing yesterday.
You may have heard that the press went after Scott McClellan on this rove non-story.
Well, only here on the EIB network will you hear every single question asked by the rabid press corps acting like they've got a Watergator Lewinsky here when they've got nothing.
It's a pathetic display.
It's how much they hate Bush.
It is disgusting.
And as you listen to this, I want you to recall Janet Reno.
Remember Janet Reno would not say a word about any envoying investigation involving Clinton or anybody else.
Well, I I can't comment.
Oh, I can't comment.
It's an ongoing and must be okay.
And she that was her out.
That's what McClellan did yesterday.
Oh no, not good enough now.
When Janet Reno did it, yep, that was fine.
Way to go, Janet.
Way to cover up.
You're doing better than Mac McClarty ever could have.
Way to keep doing it, Jonah.
You just you just keep saying you can't talk.
McClellan does it, and they're hiding something.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is the montage.
Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak in the name of a uh CIA operative?
The president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak of classified information.
I just wanted to know is that still his position.
Now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it.
Under the statement of we're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.
When did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?
When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott?
Can you pick that a date?
Did Carl Road commit a crime?
Scott, I mean, just I mean, this is ridiculous.
Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?
You're not saying anything.
You stood at that podium and said the Carl Roe was not involved, and now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife.
So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation?
Was he involved or was he not?
Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his his wife.
Didn't he?
I think people will accept that what you're saying today.
We are going to keep asking them.
When did the president learn that Carl Rubin had a conversation with the president with the news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send it?
When did the president learn that Carl Rove had after the investigation is completed?
Uh, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?
Because the president's continued to have confidence in Mr. Rowe.
So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief inspector.
Is there a plan for Mr. Rose's portfolio to be altered in any way?
Newsweek put out a story, an email saying that Carl Rowe passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer.
Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that?
Who is called Rogue as it relates to this administration?
No, no, no, no.
Who is called Well as it relates to this current administration?
Who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about about the investigation?
With the request mate of you or or of Ruimber in the White House.
In your dealings with the special counsel, have you consolidated the personal attorney?
You're in a bad spot here, Scott.
Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed, peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.
So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore.
And since then you have Yep, yep, yep.
You're at a bad spot here, Scott.
That was Terry Moran of ABC News.
Some of the others, Terrence Hunt of AP, uh John Roberts, the cookie cutter, weekend anchor from CBS, uh David Gregory, uh Bob Franken of CNN, Carl Cameron of Fox, David Korn from The Nation.
Uh, and uh what was it?
April somebody, April um well, she's from American urban uh radio, April Ryan.
Uh but you see, it was the feeding frenzy.
It's just they can't help themselves.
I mean, you needed one person to ask this question 15 times.
A all asked the same question.
There was you talk about diversity, there wasn't diversity anywhere.
And of course, McClellan wasn't allowed to get away with the no comment.
This is an ongoing investigation.
You never heard him pursue Janet Reno this way.
But all these questions are are predicated on a false premise, folks.
Actually, a couple of false premises.
And after this time out here, EIB obscene profit breaking the bottom of the hour, I shall explain it all to you.
Sit tight.
We're coming right back.
And we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have amidst billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic first and second hand cigar smoke generated by me in the privacy of my own property.
For how much longer, who knows?
I'll be allowed to do it, But until such time I shall.
800-282-2882 is the telephone number.
Folks, let me ask you a question if you watch this feeding frenzy out there, and you hear this uh montage replay to the press going absolutely ape, uh, no offense to gorillas over the uh over this this leak, would you not get the impression that the Democrats and the press think this is worse than Abu Ghrab and Gitmo.
Do you notice how they keep ratcheting it up?
And as each effort that they make fails and bombs out, the next one, whatever it is that comes along and is handed to them on a silver platter, it's why you would think that whoever leaked this information.
Uh, you would think that this leak led to mass murder.
You would think that this leak led to nuclear secrets being stolen by the Chicoms of the North Koreans.
You would think that this leak led to the war on terror being surrendered without our having been advised of it.
You would think that this leak might have provided the bombers in London, the targets and the way to get away with it.
You would you might think that this leak was the absolute worst compromise of national security ever.
When you they're talking treason.
The Democrats claim this is treason because some identity of an already known CIA agent was compromised.
And this is the first time in my life I can ever remember the CIA being a cause of concern of the left.
I don't remember the left caring a whit about the CIA.
Well, when they wanted to dismantle it, but that's what I'm they cared about it then.
That's what my point, their effort has always been to been to to to neuter it.
They've wanted the CIA reduced in scope and strength and power.
Now all of a sudden, they are forced to do a 180 and come to the defense of a CIA agent who normally they would throw in prison if they had the chance just because the person works there.
You get my drift on this, folks.
It all doesn't make any sense.
It's so obviously political and manufactured.
Now here's the story.
According to this week's Newsweek, Carl Rove said something in a in an email to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper.
In the Cooper emails that Time just gave up to the prosecutor, Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a big warning shot not to get too far out on Wilson.
This would be Joe Wilson.
Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by either George Tenet of the CIA or Vice President Cheney.
You know, Wilson's out there lying through his teeth about so much of this, and he's getting a total pass.
The administration did not send Wilson over to Niger.
They were not his choice.
George Tennett didn't send him.
It was it was Wilson's wife.
Valerie Plame, who suggested him for the mission and got it done because he was sitting around on his ass not doing anything.
He was bored, he didn't have anything to do.
He has a working wife, she's a big star in the CIA.
She funneled him a job so over to Niger.
But Tennant didn't know about it.
Cheney didn't know about it.
And this is what Rove said in the email.
Wilson's wife, it was Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency, meaning the CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, who authorized the trip.
Now, what Matt Cooper was doing, Matt Cooper was trying to follow the story here that somehow the administration had sent Wilson over to Niger to find the evidence of uh Iraq trying to buy uh yellow cake uranium.
And the the story the press was tracking down was that the uh White House had asked Wilson to lie about it, to come up with some results that made it look true.
And and Rove was said, don't go there, don't go there.
We didn't send this guy over there.
His wife who works at the CIA did, we didn't have anything to do with it.
In fact, I mean the the purpose here is clear.
Rove wasn't trying to discredit Valerie Playm at all.
What he was trying to do was throw cold water on the uh uh uh uh uh on how important whatever Wilson's findings were.
It had nothing to do with outing Wilson's wife.
Uh as John Padorch writes in the New York Post today, Rove was suggesting to Cooper that folks lowered down in the CIA that its own director commandeered the process so that the husband of one of their own could get the gig.
And the husband in question then went and misrepresented his findings to various journalists, including Walter Pinkis at the Washington Post and Nicholas Christoph of the New York Times, and then in his really now famous Times op-ed where he lied through his teeth about his job and his findings and everything else.
This Joe Wilson is the snake in this story.
The New York Times is uh is another snake in this story.
We need to know why they are letting their reporters sit in jail.
It's the New York Times that's keeping Matt uh or uh Judith Miller in jail, folks.
It isn't Carl Rove.
And the press, I don't even know if they've they've had the sense to come up for air to look at this in an objective fashion.
But if Rove has granted a general waiver to both uh Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, well, we don't know who granted the the the the waiver to Miller.
She'd been granted a waiver.
General waiver, not a specific one.
By the source, whoever the source is.
Now I'm telling you, the New York Times here is hard at work protecting a source.
The New York Times is going to be embarrassed if their source ever comes out, Judith Miller's source.
It isn't Rove, it's got to be somebody else.
Because if it were Rove, she'd be out of jail, and she would have had the general waiver, and he would have granted her a specific waiver as well.
And he did that to Matthew Cooper, but he hasn't done it to Judith Miller, which may mean he can't because he's not her source.
Now, this email between Carl Rove and Matt Cooper discredits Wilson.
It doesn't discredit Valerie Plame, doesn't say a word about her.
It doesn't even comment on her.
It doesn't even mention her by name, folks.
Nothing we know so far was done either with the purpose of exposing or even the knowledge that these remarks would be exposing an undercover CIA operative.
Here's another little known secret.
Plaim's undercover status at the time was and is a little questionable in any case.
How undercover could she have been when her name was published at the at the time as part of Joe Wilson's own biography online.
He identified his own wife on his own online biography.
So if the offense was not against Valerie Plame, what of the offense against Wilson?
There was no offense.
As many of Wilson's own hottest defenders would no doubt argue in relation to President Bush, exposing a liar is not only a crime, it's a public service.
But nobody is interested in exposing the lies of Joe Wilson because the target in the crosshairs right here is Carl Rove.
Here's the story of Wilson.
First, he long denied that he was recommended for the job by his wife.
In his book, he writes, Valerie had nothing to do with the matter.
She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.
However, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence actually found the memo in which Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the job.
Joe Wilson lied in his own book about it.
The press believes Joe Wilson.
There were other lies as well.
Wilson's own report was far from definitive in any way on the question of whether Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.
And this gives the uh the lie to his later bald claim that he came back insisting there was no link.
The Senate Select Committee said the report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March of 2002, did not change any analysts' assessment of the Niger Iraq uranium deal.
For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research analysts believe that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.
Thus, if we go back to the Rove and Matt Cooper emails, Rove was telling Cooper the truth.
According to one of Cooper's emails, not only the genesis of the trip is flawed and suspect, but so is the report.
Rove implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium.
This was an email from Cooper to his editors, to his bosses.
And let me read this to you again.
Rove was telling Cooper the truth.
Here's Cooper's email, quote, to his one of his bosses.
Not only the genesis of the trip is flawed and suspect, but so is the report.
Rove implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium from Niger.
There's nothing in that email about, hey, guess what happened today?
Carl Rove gave up me and gave gave up an identity to me.
Carl Rove outed Joe Wilson's wife.
You know, and and so, you know, the the email that the trail here firmly establishes, folks, that the the uh, and I don't think well, these emails are actually all these emails are Cooper talking to his bosses recounting what he had said on the phone to Rove.
Rove's not going to have an email trail on this, but but the butt the fact is that uh there's there's no story here that in any way warrants this this this feeding frenzy.
This whole feeding frenzy is based on the fact that the president said anybody in his in his administration found to have lied in an illegal manner and so forth would be taken care of.
And they're just so eager for a scalp.
They've been trying for a scalp for so long.
They've tried to get mine, they've tried to get Bush's, they've tried to get uh uh any number of scalps as as uh uh after 2000, and they failed.
They have just literally failed, and they can just they can just taste it.
This is how they the left, the media and the uh and the Democrats define their success.
Call Rove did not out Valerie Plame as a CIA agent to intimidate Joe Wilson.
That's not what he was trying to do.
Wilson's work was done.
He was dismissing Joe Joe Wilson.
Uh uh as a low-level has-been hack to whom nobody should pay attention.
He was right then, and if he said it today, he'd still be right.
Joe Wilson is somebody that you shouldn't trust.
He has lied in op-eds, he's lied in his own book.
His wife did recommend him for the job in Niger.
He's denied it, but the memo has been found.
Senate Select Committee has identified it.
He lied to a couple of journalists about his mission.
And what Rove was doing with this whole conversation was Matt Cooper, was trying to steer Cooper away from that road that Cooper was driving, because the media all believe Wilson because Wilson ended up criticizing Bush.
Wilson ended up saying all kinds of things, but the Bush policy is killing people and so forth, and the media love that.
So Wilson became an icon.
Wilson became a god.
So Rove's in there, say, you guys are going down the wrong trail.
I'm you're going down the wrong road.
His wife's the one that sent him over there.
He's, you know, the the uh thinks he's a CIA agent sending over the weapons of mass destruction.
So Carl Rove took the phone call from Matt Cooper.
He's in trouble now for talking to a reporter.
Trying to help him get it right, trying to help a reporter get it right, and now now Rove is the victim of a media.
And I'm sure that Rove, well, I don't know what's going on on the legal side of this, and that's really where I would be focusing my attention if I were you, because this all this stuff in the press is not going to result in anything happening to Rove other than his stature growing in the White House.
Mark my words on this, and not gonna get rid of Rove because of any sort of packed journalism mentality from the Democratic Party and the media.
Uh it'll steal their resolve to do just the opposite.
Whatever's going on with this grand jury, who knows?
Nobody can know because it's obviously uh uh private, confidential.
But folks, uh, you know, Valerie Plame herself, I have to make mention, I mentioned this a number of times.
She has posed for pictures in Vanity Fair magazine.
This is not a woman who seems awfully distressed about the fact that her name was made public.
And again, I want to stress to you that long before Carl Rove had these phone conversations with Matt Miller or Matt Cooper.
I keep confusing these two.
Matt Cooper at Time Magazine, all kinds of people all over Washington knew who Valerie Plame was and what she did, and that she was the wife of Joe Wilson.
This is all nothing more than a smoke screen.
For the New York Times, it's a way to divert people from their cover-up of a news story.
Because they know who their reporter's source is.
And they don't want anybody else to know that because it's embarrassing.
More on that, we come back.
Stay with us.
And welcome back.
Great to have you, folks.
L. Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all feeling, all concerned, Maha Roshi.
From the distinguished and prestigious Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We'll get to your phone calls in a moment.
800-282-2882 is the phone number to call.
If you ask me, we got we got a reporter in jail here.
This reporter, Judith Miller, works for the New York Times.
She was granted a general waiver to reveal her source.
In fact, uh, this is a let me just read the exact paragraph to you from uh the LA Times today.
Miller, who never wrote about the case, was subpoeded by the prosecutor to testify about conversations that she had with a government official about Wilson and Plame between the time of the Wilson and Novak columns.
Fitzgerald has asserted that the unnamed official with whom she spoke has given a general waiver permitting Miller to testify.
Miller has said she does not consider the waiver to be voluntary.
She thinks obviously that it's been coerced by the prosecutor.
And so she's not going to reveal her source.
Matt Cooper has.
He wouldn't sit there and uh and and and voluntarily waver Matt Cooper and not do so with Judith Miller.
Uh so that's that's that's where my head started percolating last night.
Then there's got to be another source here that Judith Miller won't give up, even though there is a general waiver.
That leads me to ask, isn't the New York Times really in conflict here?
What the New York Times is trying to do is protect one of their reporters, and they're doing it by attacking Carl Rove.
They're not acting in the public interest, they're acting out of their own corporate interest and their own ideological interest.
I don't know who their leaker is.
I don't know who Judith Miller's leak is.
What if it's a Democrat?
What if it's a big lib somewhere?
What if it's Wilson himself?
Well, whoever it is, they need to come clean.
Because the First Amendment is not without exceptions, folks.
We know this because of all their editorials at the times endorsing speech limitations under the guise of supporting McCain Feingold.
And there's a law here says that in a criminal investigation, reporters have to give up their sources and the first amendment's the first amendment.
And if it gets bastardized for one, it gets bastardized for all.
And the New York Times certainly knows who the source is, but they're preferring to let their reporter sit in jail rather than release that source.
The New York Times obviously believes the courts have the final word on the law.
Well, the courts have spoken, so cough up the source.
I mean, it really is is uh is not complicated.
You have the big New York Times company, multi-billion dollar corporate enterprise, the liberal elites there like little Pinch Schultzberger and his sycophants, sitting pretty while he lets their working reporter Judith Miller sit in jail.
And why?
To conceal a source.
The same New York Times that demanded the investigation, the same New York Times that was willing to throw Robert Novak and his source overboard, the same New York Times that demanded this special prosecutor and got it.
They gave up the principle here long ago for political expediency, and now they are part of a cover-up.
This is not about civil disobedience.
This is about protecting their sorry rear ends, exposing themselves as the partisan political hacks that they are.
That's why they don't want Judith Miller's source known, because it'll expose them as the partisan political hacks they are.
That's why we need to know her source, because that'll tell us what's really going on here instead of their desperate effort to divert attention to Carl Rove, who did not give up Valerie Plain.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
And that old reliable Senator Chuck Schumer, New York, demanding that Rove testify, sent Rove a letter.
Hey, Rove, go ahead and testify.
Give us the truth.
But he doesn't demand the same thing of the New York Times.
It's the New York Times that's protecting a source.
Carl Rove's protecting nothing, hiding nothing.
It the only people hiding things here anymore are the New York Times and their reporter.
And we want to know why, and we want to know who.
▲
Export Selection