All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
July 12, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruit and playing.
Time for more broadcast excellence here.
I am Rush Limbaugh, firmly ensconced to the prestigious at Sil of the Hung Chair, right here in the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the largest free education institution known and to exist in the world.
There are no graduates.
The uh the feeding frenzy of the press continues.
The White House press griefing.
Uh let's listen in to just a little bit of this to give you a flavor for it called Grove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform.
Bill Crystal on Fox News, a a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes, and it was just at the end that Rogue discussed this.
So someone is providing this information.
Are you behind the scenes directing a response to this story?
You can talk to the RNC about what they put out.
I'll let them speak to that.
What I know is that the president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means uh supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion.
And that means not commenting on it from this podium.
Well, yeah and I and I no, I understand your question.
And other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reformed.
They're getting that information from here from Carl Roe.
And again, you're asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing continuing investigation.
And you've had my response on that.
At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement of September 29th, 2003?
That is simply not true that Carl Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA operative.
John can you stand by that statement?
John, I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it's not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing.
Hello, Janet Reno.
This was a statement you made on the record 21 months ago.
You you very confidently asserted to to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it.
Can you stand by that statement then?
Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday.
Go ahead, Dick.
Explain why the president chose today to break with his usual practice of taking two questions.
I'll tell you why in a minute taking one.
done last Friday I think with Prime Minister Blair Thursday they did the same thing.
I'm just curious why you want to put it.
They did that last week with Prime Minister Blair as well.
If he had another opportunity to see him this week.
If he had responded to a question today about Carl Rove, would he have gone beyond your uh stance here and just not comment on the other?
Well, you're gonna have other opportunities to ask him questions.
He takes questions on a fairly regular basis, Dick.
Let me let me just do what you did a few moments ago and step back from the context of the investigation to the president's agenda.
Does Carl Rove with all the attention being paid to him now, uh, become a liability to the president, an impediment to his pushing his agenda?
So you're asking all these context and uh all these questions in the context of the news reports.
In the larger sense of robe being the deputy chief.
We're continuing to move forward on our agenda, and the agenda we're on the lawyers are accomplishing some very big things to do with the agenda.
The agenda.
But it's an impediment now with all this attention distracting from that uh that push on your agenda.
Everybody, Bob to advance the agenda in that.
Except you guys, you guys are not reporting any other news.
Uh Helen, I'm I'm not gonna get into private discussion.
He put you on the spot.
He put your credit on the line.
And Helen, I appreciate you all wanting to move forward and find the facts relating to this investigation.
I want to know all the facts relating to the investigation.
The President wants to get to the bottom of it.
And it's just not appropriate.
If you'll remember back two years ago, or almost two years ago, I did draw a line and I said, we're just not gonna get into commenting on a comment and defending we're just not gonna get in commenting on an investigation that continues.
And I think you've heard me explain why Janet Reno ever pursued this way when she reviewed.
Scott, I do want to talk about this, and we will talk about it once the investigation is complete.
You regret what you said in 2003, do you regret putting yourself so far out on a limb when you don't have your try to come back to you if I can, but I think I've responded to the spot to that.
Do you think you went too far two years ago?
Go ahead.
For the first time on the capital food is conference, so that you can only push me as going on.
But for the first time the group is saying that they're showing the other side of the uh meetings being a good thing.
All right, all right, that's enough.
I mean, you you've got you got the flavor of what's going on.
This is day two of the uh of the brow beating of of Scott McClellan.
Has nothing to do with this.
Uh it is.
It's an Inquisition time.
And then and because they they can just smell it.
They really think they got Rove, folks.
They really think they've got him.
And I there's just a couple things here that you need to keep in mind.
First off, Bob Novak is the one who revealed her name.
Novak revealed her name in a column.
Now Novak has testified before the grand jury, and apparently we don't know this, but apparently Novak has squared things away with the with the prosecutor on this, because Novak doesn't seem to be in any trouble.
The press is no longer after Novak.
This all got started after Novak released her name.
It was the media that demanded this special prosecutor to look into this because they so dislike Novak.
And uh and and you know, normally they circle the wagons around members of their community to do things like protect sources, but when the with Novak give up the source, who was it?
Because uh Novak said it was a high government official.
So since the left in this country has had a had a uh uh crosshairs aimed on the Bush administration since uh the Florida aftermath of 2000.
Anytime anybody says somebody administration did this bamboo.
So here comes the pack, here comes the inquisition.
But in the meantime, the second thing is Judith Miller is rotting away in a jail, so to speak.
The New York Times will not let her reveal her source, even though she'd been granted a general waiver to do so.
She says the waiver was probably coerced, it wasn't voluntary, meaning she's not going to reveal it, which tells me the New York Times is not going to let her reveal the source because they're embarrassed about who this source is.
It's the New York Times that really ought to be getting these questions.
The New York Times and Pinch Schultzberger and all those elites over there who really ought to be getting all these questions.
Why won't you let her go testify?
Why won't you let her tell everybody who her source was?
Time has let Matt Cooper do it.
Why won't you let her?
Because it's clear it's a New York Times is trying to keep her buttoned up and willing to go to jail with all these great praises of her as a great principled reporter and so forth.
Well, isn't that little pinch in jail, and it's not Bill Keller in jail, and it's none of their other editors or executives in jail.
It's poor old Judith Miller.
Now they're barking up this tree at Rove, and as I explained to you last hour, Rove didn't reveal a name.
Roves did not do anything that was criminal.
In fact, uh one of the authors of the of the law that's in question, one of the co-authors, Victoria Tensen, uh, who is the wife of Joe de Genova.
She was on television last night.
She was explaining, she wrote the law and she explained what it isn't what involves what you have to do to pass the test here in order to break the law.
She says nothing has gotten anywhere near breaking law in this case.
The agent was not currently assigned.
The agent was not on a covert mission at the time.
The agent was not compromised in any way because a name was not mentioned.
There is no crime here.
And yet you hear this feeding frenzy.
And I, you know, we we know that this administration has as has really uh uh perfected the art of rope-dope.
And now everybody's going after Rove, and the day will come, uh perhaps this is not even certain, but the day will come when it is known who all these sources are.
And I'm just telling you, this New York Times source is something that would be very embarrassing, someone very embarrassing to the Times because not even a general waiver uh has allowed the executives of the New York Times to let Judith Miller come forth and testify and thereby get out of jail.
They want her in jail for some reason, and it's probably to protect them.
They're engaged in the cover-up, and they are the ones that are diverting attention from their actions in this DeCarl Rove.
Quick timeout back after this.
Hi, welcome back.
We are gonna be getting to your phone calls here in this segment.
I just have uh three bites I want to play for you.
Here's the president of the September 30th, 2003, and this is what the uh I guess what is forming the basis of the of the press inquisition of Scott McClellan yesterday and today.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And uh if the person is uh violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Personal be if the person's violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Now, uh Rove is being convicted as we speak in the media, and the media wants their conviction to be uh enough to force Bush to fire Rove.
There hasn't been any legal assessment that Rove broke law yet.
Uh media doesn't want to wait for that.
Dingy Harry Reid got in on this too, yet late yesterday at a press conference.
The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Flame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration.
I trust they will follow through on this pledge.
That's not what the president said, uh Dingy Harry, but you see, now that that doesn't matter because it's just another Democrat voice calling for Rove to be fired.
Uh and I've it it's just it's desperation time on the left.
And it's it really is hilarious uh to to watch this and to see how single-minded they all become.
Actually, that's not an single-minded all the time.
Their news stories are the same from agency to network to wire service, doesn't matter.
There was this funny ex uh exchange also today in Good Morning America.
Uh, Charlie Gibson uh had as one of his guests the forehead, uh Paul Bagala.
And listen, listen to Charlie Gibson here.
Little B-roll uh noise in the background, but l listen, listen to uh Gibson's question.
Is that not a Clintonian defense?
Carl Rove didn't specifically name this person.
He just talked about Wilson's wife, and he didn't actually say she was undercover, and so therefore he didn't technically break the law.
There's a big difference between wrong and illegal.
It may or may not have been illegal, as I say, let's leave that to the grand jury.
It's clearly wrong.
You don't go to the country and say, no, we had nothing to do with this.
When in fact they're at the center of it.
That's lying.
I mean, then you just cannot get away with that.
The way head didn't.
We don't know yet that they are at the center of it.
We don't yet know that.
I'm I I continue to point you all to Judith Miller in the New York Times.
What's her circumstances indicate to me that her source is not Carl Rove.
No way Rove would grant Matt Cooper a specific waiver and not her.
No way that would happen.
General waiver has been given.
That's not good enough for the executives of the New York Times.
She sits and rots away in that jail.
And the New York Times gets away with diverting all this focus to Carl Rove.
When in fact, if there was genuine curiosity, who is her source?
They don't care about any other sources, though, because they think they've got Rove and his neck in the noose, and they're getting close to pulling the platform out from under his feet.
Let's go to Chicago.
Dennis, I'm glad you called, sir.
Thank you for waiting, and welcome to the EIB network.
That's an honor.
It is funny to hear uh Paul Bonala wrong and illegal, but um I do have a question, though.
Don't you think that if uh Clinton were in office and something like this happened, do you think the press wouldn't the press be all over?
Wouldn't you be all over him?
Uh I don't know.
No, see that's that's a big deal.
Well, I might be.
The press wouldn't be.
The press would none of this would be happening if it were Bill Clinton.
Whatever the White House said would be accepted.
No, I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, not a single time, not ever.
And then they all started circling the wagons around him.
It started talking about, well, even if he did lie, it's just about sex, and it didn't impair in the way he did his job, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Thank you, 9-11.
And it didn't have any effect on uh on the on the direction of the country.
Uh I I I don't, you know, as far as myself, and if if this had been with the Clinton administration and so forth, I there were so many other things going on in that administration.
This this might not have even registered a raised eyebrow uh to tell you the truth.
I also cannot, folks.
I cannot.
Listen here, Chuck Schumer.
I cannot express enough to you what a 180, the media and the Democratic Party is doing on the CIA here, acting like They care about the CIA and a particular agent.
In his letter to Carl Rove, Chuck Schumer said that it was time for Rove to tell all.
I urge you to come forward to honestly and fully discuss any and all involvement you have had with this incident.
I believe this is a very serious breach of trust with a woman who has spent her career putting her life on the line to protect our country's freedom.
Oh, so here here's a Democrat all of a sudden cares about the work the CIA is doing.
They haven't cared about the CIA since the church hearings in the 70s when they tried basically to decimate the CIA.
And they succeeded.
The left in this country succeeded, basically in neutering the CIA.
Uh in a whole number of ways, uh limiting their ability to hire certain people as operatives and agents, limiting where they can go, what they can do.
It just it's it's legion.
Now all of a sudden, and of course, John Carr, no, it's Howard Dean.
Howard Dean issued a statement and said that uh this this woman's uh compromise and she was on the front lines in the war on terror.
What war on terror?
I didn't think there was a legitimate war on terror, according to Howard Dean and the Democrats.
I thought we'd gave up the war on terror when we went into Iraq.
The war on terror ended in Afghanistan.
Now they're concerned about the war on terror and they're concerned about the CIA.
And ain't flying here.
Stephen uh Tallon, Connecticut.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Yeah, uh, Rush, nice to talk to you again.
Hey, uh, I've got two major disagreements on the uh points that you've just been discussing.
Number one, uh, you said that uh the outing of Valerie Plum from from whoever did it, uh there was no crime committed because she was never in danger, she wasn't in place undercover in any type of uh uh in any other country.
However, wherever she worked, wherever she was undercover as a CIA operative, all of her contacts have now been exposed.
And I think that put that probably put many lives at risk, as well as the intelligence gathering capabilities of this country.
So that's that's my first disagreement with you.
Well, but wait, you're not disagreeing with me.
You're disagreeing with the woman who co-authored the law, because it's Valerie Tensor uh or uh uh Victoria Tenzing who is and not just her, there are a number of people saying.
Okay, well then.
This is a very, very tough test to break this law and that it hasn't been broken yet here.
Okay, well, well, let's uh uh set aside the legalese then.
Would you agree that uh the outing of uh Mr. Wilson's wife duh did create uh a security detriment to those people that she had contact with, number one, and number two, that it potentially hurt the intelligence gathering capabilities of this country.
Well, uh I'm not sure because I'm I'm also reading from so many different sources that her identity was long known to all kinds of official Washington and the media before this all happened.
I don't think she was the best kept secret in the CIA to begin with.
And she's and she's up to her ears here, and her husband's up to his ears in lying about his mission, and this is the the and and lying to the New York Times and lying in an op-ed, lying to the Washington Post, lying in his own book about who sent him to Niger.
Uh when you add all these things together, and this woman and her husband have posed uh on in Vanity Fair magazine uh even after her identity was named, she willingly put her picture out all over the world.
So I don't know.
Subsequent to her outing.
However, the you I mean you just said that her identity was well known to uh the Washington insiders and the media, but it wasn't publicized before uh whoever leaked this information to Novak, uh, you know, the reporter at uh Time magazine and the uh Judith Miller at the New York Times.
Uh which gets me to my second disagreement with you.
You state that, you know, the New York Times is trying to, you know, cover up this source because it would be an embarrassment to the New York Times.
My interpretation of it is that it could very well, the Time magazine source and the New York Times source could very well be the same individual.
It's just an interpretation of what that waiver is.
Time magazine showed no guts by uh by refus by uh they showed no guts by giving up uh that information and allowing their reporter to testify.
The New York Times is showing some journalistic integrity by by standing by their commitment to wherever that source was.
Steve, now you know uh people people hit me with this all the time.
The law's the law, Rush.
So the law is the law, okay?
And the New York Times has always said the courts of the courts.
Well, the courts rule against them.
There is a law.
You cannot keep a source confidential at criminal investigations, what this is.
And they are.
A general waiver was granted.
Judith Miller chose not to accept it.
If her bosses had accepted it, she probably I don't know what she would do, but it's the New York Times that doesn't want her source known.
It's not the same source.
It just cannot be the same source here.
And the New York Times is breaking the law.
If they're also practicing journalistic principles, so be it.
But they're breaking the law at the same time.
America's anchorman, news commentator, play by play man of the news, all combined here, has one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Aaron and Chico, California.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Sir Megadiddos from Sierra Nevada Chico.
Sir, thank you.
I want to thank you for the uh the one-to punch of reality you gave me about a year ago during the election.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that.
Um my point was I can't believe how much they're making a big deal about this when Sandy Burglar, a while back during the in uh investigation of 901 uh intelligence failures was ten times worse.
This guy stole national security documents, and we're not sure exactly what he took or put back.
Uh I know, that's an excellent point.
Uh in fact, I think Sandy Burglar's supposed to be sentenced this month.
Is he really?
Yeah, I think that they well, they reached some sort of a plea deal.
I'm not I'm not sure what it is, but it's a it's a slap on the wrist.
I think it was a $10,000 fine or whatever the uh whatever the uh whatever the plea deal is.
I don't know, but you're right.
We're talking here about the feeding frenzy.
I mean, the it it's it's no secret that there's press bias.
It's no secret the media is liberal, it's no secret the media hates Bush.
It's no secret they love the Clinton administration and members of the Clinton administration.
This just illustrates it.
Uh but we're trying to give you some context for it here.
Because the this is not really news that the press is hounding Scott McClellan.
It's not really news that they like Rove uh canned, it's not really news that they would love to embarrass the president.
It's not even news that if they could use this to get Bush impeached, that they would do it.
Uh none of none of that's the news.
The the uh larger point here to me is aside from what I've been saying about the New York Times, and I've I I'll repeat it again just to get it on the record officially and without doubt, it seems to me here that while they're pursuing Rove, there's there's a lot of other things that are of uh genuine curiosity.
Judith Miller's in jail.
The New York Times won't let her uh reveal the source.
They don't want her to.
Uh I'm contending to you today that the source is somebody other than Rove.
And therefore it's a source that embarrasses the Times.
Her her story, by the way, was never even published.
She didn't she didn't finish a story that would uh have ever seen the light of day on this, which even makes this even more curious.
Uh she's in jail, and she's in jail for contempt because she will not give up her source, and there is a federal law now that says a source must be given up by a journalist in a criminal investigation, and she's refusing, so she's in jail.
Uh Matt Cooper of Time magazine, uh, his bosses said, go ahead and give it up.
Uh after Rolfe called and said, Go ahead, here's a waiver.
I specify a waiver uh uh specific waiver for uh Matt to testify.
You would think he would do the same thing for Judith Miller.
So I'm more interested in the New York Times behavior in this and who they're trying to help and cover up and what it is that would embarrass them if uh Judith Miller did testify.
Uh there's could be a whole bunch of sources here, and when when you start looking at who her source is, well, who could it be that might invest uh embarrass the New York Times?
Um could it be another reporter?
Could she be protecting another reporter?
Could GP protecting uh you know some lib somewhere?
Could she be protecting uh Joe Wilson himself?
Maybe it's Valerie Plymouth.
I don't know who she's protecting.
But the New York Times does and doesn't want that known.
And so they're doing a good job here of diverting attention back to Carl Rove.
Chesapeake, Virginia, this is Lyle.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey Rush.
Yes, sir.
Yes.
Why is Scott McClellan such a milk toast?
Uh well, there's not much he can do.
Uh well, let me just ask you this.
Okay, I heard him the other night, some bonehead from ABC was pumping him with questions, just getting after him, and he was kind of stumbling over his words.
When when I would be, if I was the spokesman, I'd be saying, hey, listen, you have proof, show us proof.
If not, hey, next question.
But this guy was pumping him.
And he was just being so nice.
When are our spokesman for Bush, we have the opportunity right now, Rush.
We have the opportunity to tell him like it is.
Okay?
Because after the London bombings and stuff, I'll tell you what, everybody in the world, and especially this country knows Bush is the man for the hour.
Do you agree with me?
I I agree with the latter thing, yes, uh, but as far as McClellan, his hands are tied.
He's been told he can't talk about the prosecutors called the White House.
No more comments on this.
But can he just say next question and not just act like he's bumbling over words?
No, because that's not the policy of the administration.
The administration's policy is not to be confrontational with its enemies.
They only do that at fundraisers.
They don't do it in public.
They invite their enemies to the White House.
They invite their enemies to the White House and go through the motions of making their enemies think they're going to have a role in picking a Supreme Court justice.
I'm frustrated about that just like you are.
But that's the tone of this administration.
They are not confrontational in public with their adversaries.
And McClellan's obviously under orders for that, and he's trying to make sure he doesn't make a mistake because he's been told by the prosecutor and the administration, don't say anything more about this.
So he's got to sit there and take all this.
But I think, you know, when you when you look at this Lyle, uh as most Americans are looking at this as an inquisition as a badgering.
The left-wing kooks are gonna, you know, be all hot to trot about it and and and whatever.
But I mean, uh there's nothing any of us can do here to change the operating policies and philosophy of this administration.
So we we get what we get.
Uh Ari Fleischer was a little bit more polished, perhaps, than uh than McClellan is, but he was not confrontational.
And few press secretaries really are confrontational.
Uh they're they go out of their way not to make enemies of these people, even though in this case the press already considers McClellan and the rest of the administration an enemy, but they're just not going to treat them that way.
It's just uh it's just the rule of the day there.
Keith in Chicago, you're next.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey there, Rush.
Um yeah, you're just wrong about four times over.
Um this is a story.
It's a news story.
You by the way, you were called a genius today in the Chicago trivia in editorial fiction.
Look that story up.
Um on this issue.
Um conservatives don't like news.
They like what you do.
I enjoy what you do from an opinion and informational perspective.
It's by no means news.
This is a Republican-driven investigation.
John Ashcroft had it, turned it over to special prosecutor, which was his duty and right.
Now, Keith, I was gonna ask you to get specific about where I'm wrong.
Um the reason that Ashcroft turned it over, so the press hated Ashcroft, and they didn't trust Ashcroft, they'd ask Crockman engaged in cover-ups, they demanded a special prosecutor for this.
The press got the press got exactly look, this is undeniable.
The press got exactly what they wanted today.
The pr in this special prosecutor, and that's what I find hilariously ironic.
They asked for a special prosecutor, and one of them's in jail now.
They asked for it.
They don't trust Ashcroft, they hated Ashcroft too.
They didn't trust him to do an investigation.
It got to the bottom of this.
You know, the administration started the investigation.
You know, Bush asked Ashcroft to look into this, being friendly and cooperative with his enemies again.
And then Ashcroft gets involved in it, and the press said it's not good enough.
We want an independent council.
Bambo, you got an independent counsel.
And and so, you know, that's that's where we are.
I'm glad you enjoy listening to the program, whatever the reasons.
Here's Scott, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Uh a while ago you mentioned uh a top uh government official, and I began who would who would they be protecting?
And I thought maybe it's a senator who had been involved with the Intelligence Committee.
Never know.
Well, I uh correct me on this if I'm wrong.
I think um I think the phrase has been used that it's a high administration official, not high government official.
Uh and and so I don't I don't think it's a I don't think it's a senator.
Uh, but we don't know if that high government official is the first source or one source, uh the second source once removed.
We just don't know who it is.
The but the supposedly Judith Miller's source is a is a high administration official.
Uh I I i i look it, I could well be wrong about the New York Times being embarrassed by their source, but I'm telling you, it's an item of great curiosity to me.
I mean, the the the White House is not engaging in a cover-up here.
And yet the media is not even acting as though the White House engaging in a cover-up.
They are now still pursuing Oh, Bush lied.
He said he would fire Rove.
Well, he may yet fire Rove if Rove is actually found guilty once legal proceedings here start.
He may.
But he said he's not going to fire anybody if he didn't break the law.
The press is trying to twist this around and convict Rove right now, so force Bush to fire him.
But the curiosity is this isn't even about where the leak came from anymore.
This inquisitionist Scott McClellan's got nothing to do about where the leak came from.
They're no longer curious about that.
We still don't know who Novak's source was, and he wrote the piece.
We don't know who Judith Miller's source was, and she's in jail.
We do know who Matt Cooper's source was, but it's questionable that he was even a source in the sense that he was outing a CIA agent.
He was trying to warn Rove, was trying to roll warn Matthew Cooper uh away from the wrong road he was traveling on the whole Joe Wilson story about yellow cake and uranium uh uranium in Niger.
And he was right about it.
Uh and ignored in all this is the dubious character of uh of Joe Wilson himself.
I mean, you got a lot of people telling lies here.
Rove is not one of them.
Bush is not one of them.
And yet where is all the attention focused?
It's on Bush, and it's on will he fire Rove?
And that's what this frenzy is about.
It's no longer about who the leaker is.
And it never has been about who the leaker is.
If you want to know the truth, press couldn't care less who the leaker is because they survive on leaks.
They're not interested in that.
They're interested in getting Bush.
So is the Democratic Party, and that's how this thing is morphed.
And I can tend to you the New York Times has a role in this, leading the investigation in this direction, so as to uh uh take attention away from their role in why Judith Miller is uh is in jail.
Quick time out.
Don't go away, folks.
We'll be right back.
You know what's also fascinating about this is he had his big meeting at the White House today, more coming up on that, by the way, later, with uh with Bush, uh President Bush and uh uh two Democrat senators and two Republican senators about the Supreme Court vacancy.
And this Rove thing has taken that off the front pages, it's taken it off the lead.
They're not even talking about it on the networks.
It's not even making news.
That's that that was all set up to be the big story of the summer.
But they have just gotten so side, because folks they're like sharks in the water and they think they smell blood here.
And it's just it's it's humorous to watch.
Listen to this.
Here is John Kerry uh this afternoon at a press conference.
Um guess what the title of the press conference was?
Home security for average Americans.
Homeland Security for average Americans.
That's the title of Democrat press conference.
John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, said this.
Is the value of day-to-day politics and the value of political advice and the value of his position greater than the national security of our country and the protection of the identity of people as well as their own word and their own policy.
The White House's credibility is at issue here.
And I believe very clearly Carl Rove ought to be fired.
I'm nodding.
Yeah.
Hillary Clinton was standing there nodding, and the reporter said, You agree?
What do you what is your reaction?
No, I'm nodding.
I'm I'm nodding.
Once again, uh wouldn't it be nice for John Kerry to have as much concern for our victory in the war on terror as he is over what is ostensibly the outing of a CIA agent.
I have never seen the Democrats in such high dudgeon.
The Democrats never come to this country's defense.
They never come to the president's defense when he's attacked by our enemies when he is attacked by people who are attempting to defeat us in the war on terror.
More often than not, uh the Democrats echo the things that our enemies say, or vice versa.
Our enemies echo the th the things the Democrats say.
But now all of a sudden, here comes his little CIA agent, and all the our national security's at stake.
These people have compromised our national security, I don't know how many times.
These are people like Pat Lahey who have leaked secrets while he was a member of the intelligence committee.
We have people here who are all concerned about national security when it comes to CIA agent, but they couldn't care less about it in the normal day-to-day ebb and flow of the war on terror.
They are willing to undermine our efforts in that war at every possible turn.
Get out of Iraq now, set a timetable, look at how we're mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghrab and Donnick Club Gitmo.
And now they've turned on a dime.
I don't think they understand how they appear to people.
They don't see themselves as others do.
And it is uh it's fascinating to watch.
I this is a party that has to have meetings to come up with its core values.
This is a party that has to come up with new labels and words to mask who they really are, liberals.
This is a this is a group of people that doesn't dare be honest with the American people about what their plans for the country are.
Uh and yet they there's there's no breaks whatsoever.
They've got this story on Rove, and it shows exactly what they've been about since 2001.
And that's getting rid of Bush.
And anything that wets their appetite, anything that makes them sniff that that might be possible, they just run full speed into it, and a door usually gets slammed on their face before it's all over with.
That's been their history in all of this.
They didn't wait, they didn't stop, they didn't assess, they didn't ask all the right questions, they just have made a beeline, and I don't think they understand how they're perceived.
I don't think they understand how the majority of the American people see them acting as as unhinged and as hysterical as they are at present.
A quick time out, we'll be back and continue right after this.
Okay, I want to move on to other things here in the next hour, uh, ladies and gentlemen, and that is this very Supreme Court vacancy.
There was a um a breakfast meeting at the White House today.
Uh, and he uh uh president came out and discussed that his meeting was with uh let's see, who did he meet with Arlen Spector, uh Harry Reid, Patrick Lahay, and Bill Frist.
Yeah.
Uh so we met with uh Spectre, Leahy, Frist, and Senator Harry Reed uh about this upcoming uh vacancy, uh, or about the current vacancy and what might be an upcoming one.
And uh it just to set this up, last week the president uh he sort of smacked down some conservatives for daring to suggest that the attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, would be an unacceptable Supreme Court nominee because of substantive issues.
One was an opinion he wrote in a Terexis, Texas parental notification case when he was on the Texas Supreme Court, and the other was his role as White House counsel in watering down the administration's brief against uh reverse discrimination in admissions policies at the University of Michigan.
Now, the conservatives didn't attack Gonzalez personally, they were very respectful, but they nevertheless said publicly had problems with him, and the president slapped him down.
And today has a meeting with his enemies, along with Frist and Specter.
And I don't even know you'd call Specter a friend in this in this fight.
And it just, you know, it it just seems that on occasion the uh the administration here is far more friendly to its enemies uh than it is uh uh to its friends.
It does appear that way.
I don't know why he's meeting with these people.
It's not gonna change what the Democrats say about him.
It's not gonna change how they act in the Senate, it's not gonna change a thing unless, of course, they gave him a list of names and he names one of them, uh in which case, you know, I can't imagine that.
So we'll just have to wait and see.
But we do have these audio sound bites.
There's uh there's some public opinion data out there that does not look good for Democrats on this, and it would seem the administration could capitalize on it.
We'll have all that.
▲
Export Selection