Rush Limbaugh Program - July 13, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 13, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:22

July 13, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Well, here we are, folks.
	I was hoping I was hoping to be able to get beyond the uh the Carl Rose story, but I in all in all honesty and exercising the responsibility that I have to you, the audience of this program, and to this country.
	I just can't blow this off.
	We've got to continue to deal with this.
	And so we will.
	But we'll do our best to integrate other items uh into the program today as well.
	Greetings, and it is great to be with you.
	Here we are, hump day.
	It's the middle of the week already.
	Great to be with you from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	The telephone number is 800 282-2882.
	The email address, rush at eIB net.com.
	Michael Goodwin writing in the uh in the New York Daily News today, uh perfectly describes the mainstream media in Washington today.
	They are an opposition party.
	They are not at uh in any stretch of the imagination about fairness or uh anything else.
	He further theorizes that maybe the press is acting the way they are because the Democrats aren't.
	And so the press has to pick up the slack that the Democrats are uh leaving around by not being vociferous and demanding rove.
	I don't know where he's getting this, but he is right about the fact that what we're witnessing here, and as Howard Feynman has said, is the uh mainstream press as an opposition party, Hectoring and hounding uh Scott McClellan, the president today.
	We got audio soundbites to back all this up.
	There's also another angle of this, folks.
	I want to I want to get into it here just a second, after I do a setup of what's happened uh since we last spoke.
	There's an angle of this that that needs to be uh broadcast or explained for the purposes of reminding everybody just why this is all a story in the first place.
	And it's it's uh it it it uh many of you will remember it once they go down that road, but it's uh I'm gonna have some shocking uh attitudes and opinions for you on all this.
	Uh and I g so let's let's just get going with where we are here.
	Let's let's take a look first at the Wall Street Journal editorial today, in case you missed it, Carl Rove Whistleblower.
	Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps baying for Carl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife.
	On the contrary, uh we at the journal would say the White House political guru deserves a prize.
	Maybe the next iteration of the truth-telling award at the Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.
	For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real whistleblower in this whole sorry pseudo scandal.
	He's the one who warned Time Magazine's Matt Cooper.
	And by the way, let me just tell you Matt Cooper's married too, just so we can connect all the dots here.
	Matt Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald.
	And Mandy Grunwald is one of these high-ranking Democratic Party operatives, and actually currently is on Hillary staff.
	So Matt Cooper married to Mandy Grumma.
	It's an incestuous bunch up there.
	And I uh by the way, if I just want to say none of this, I mean it's frustrating.
	I'm not really worried about it in a popularity contest between the president and the press, or a popularity contest between Carl Rove and the press.
	The press is gonna lose every time.
	And this is also, by the way, uh Michael Goodwin's point, but uh no matter what the press does here, that they are they're gonna lose.
	That they they just they don't they don't really have a uh a chance.
	In fact, interrupt the journal editorial just to read his point here.
	It's a war the media can't win and shouldn't wage, he says.
	The intense grilling that White House reporters inflicted on Scott McClellan Monday uh was no ordinary give and take.
	It was a hostile hectoring that revealed much of the mainstream press for what it's become the opposition party.
	Forget fairness or even the pretense of it.
	With one of its own locked up, Judith Miller of the New York Times, much of the Beltway gang has declared war on the White House.
	Reporters apparently decided Democrats are not up to the job.
	Can't really blame them with Democrats reduced to Howard Dean's rants and Hillary Clinton's juvenile jab that President Bush looks like Alfred E. Newman, somebody has to offer a substantive alternative, and the press has volunteered.
	That they are basically liberals with press passes has been documented by virtually Every study that measures reporters' political ID and issues positions.
	But bias is now slopped over into blatant opposition, a stance the media will regret.
	Instead of providing unvarnished facts obtained by aggressive but fair-minded reporting, the media will be reduced to providing comfort food to ideological comrades.
	Already in lower esteem by the public than lawyers in Congress, the press risks lose looking like a special interest group.
	It claims to represent the American people, uh, as one McClellan uh inquisitor did, uh, are easily ignored when it serves as an echo chamber for the anti-bush.
	Indeed, as soon as Monday's bash by press session ended, Senator Carey called on Rove to resign.
	If anybody resigned when Kerry demanded it, Washington would be empty.
	And he goes on.
	So I and I agree with that totally.
	I'm I'm not, you know, you get frustrated by this stuff, so I said yesterday, I'm not afraid of the press.
	I'm not afraid they're going to win in this, uh, particularly in turning public opinion.
	Uh, and that's of course where this program is concerned, is the minds and hearts of the American people.
	So uh they're they're fighting a losing battle here, and as I said yesterday, they're all involved, all these people on the left are in their last stand or second to last stand, they know they're desperate, and this is illustrating it.
	Uh, just as the the Democrats uh in their frustration are showing us who they really are now after all these years, the same thing's happening to the press.
	Uh they can no longer get away, the mainstream media, they can no longer get away with saying that they're just uh, you know, an unobjective or an objective uh uh nonpartisan group uh searching for the facts.
	It's clear what they've become.
	And uh and as their respect in the public uh worsens or lessens, their frustration mounts, and they become even more so what they are, and thereby further illustrating to everybody who they are, and then just continuing that cycle, which is a cycle downward.
	Now back to the Wall Street Journal editorial.
	Media chance aside, C H A N T S. There is no evidence that Carl Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Valerie Play may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger.
	But it appears Rolfe didn't even know her name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.
	On the no underlying crime point, moreover, no less than the New York Times, this is the key part of the journal editorial.
	On the no underlying crime point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and the Washington Post now agree that there hasn't been a crime committed here.
	So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and uh and the New York Times Judith Miller out of jail.
	Now, this is something I didn't know.
	The Wall Street Journal editorial says that both the Washington Post and the New York Times joined in briefs, court papers, arguing that there is no underlying crime here.
	Now, if that's their position, if there's no underlying crime in all of this, how can they uh then say that Rove be said to have committed any offense as a matter of law?
	At least according to their own logic.
	There's no underlying crime when you're trying to protect your reporters, but there is an underlying crime if you're trying to nail Rove.
	New York Times is real I think the New York Times is really far out, folks.
	They are their editorial today is absurd.
	They're sticking their necks way out.
	They have walked the plank on this case and this whole story, and I think that's part of the frustration that comes from the fact that they're losing influence.
	They there was just a poll taken the other day by some inside trade group of journalists, newspaper reporters or readers, I don't know who it was, but the Times used to be the number one most respected paper in the world, it's number six now.
	Uh the Financial Times is number one, the Wall Street Journal is number two.
	Uh Times is losing circulation, they're losing advertising revenue.
	Their uh quarterly uh statements, business statements uh are not encouraging to investors.
	They're in trouble.
	Uh, like so much of the left is in trouble.
	And what are they doing?
	They're getting stubborn and obstinate and refusing to respond to what they must, and that is a public on whom they are dependent for their revenue.
	It's it's It's amazing.
	It's the news business.
	Mainstream news business continues to be the only business I know of where the customer is always wrong without a doubt.
	Not only is the customer wrong, the customer's an idiot.
	The customer is a fool.
	And this this has been the attitude the mainstream press has had about you for years.
	It's just now becoming obvious to people.
	So now we have in these court papers, we got the Washington Post, the New York Times saying there's no underlying crime here when they're protecting their reporters.
	There is apparently a crime when they're trying to nail Rove.
	And now we have the outrageous hypocrisy of the New York Times obstructing an investigation that it demanded in the first place by keeping their reporter in jail.
	And by the way, another point about this.
	Well, Rush Judith Miller said that the waiver that she got authorizing her to reveal her source was coerced.
	Hey, let me tell you something.
	Confidentiality is the prerogative of the source, not the reporter.
	If the source wants to give up his or her confidentiality, that's it.
	The reporter is then under no compulsion to keep the identity of the source secret.
	It's not a it's not the reporter's prerogative, it's the sources.
	And the sources, I don't care, got a waiver, go ahead.
	But the New York Times will not let her.
	Or she will not do it herself, whichever is the case.
	And I maintain, as I said yesterday, because there's something really embarrassing here that she's trying to hide.
	And this is brought up what I what I said yesterday has spawned a lot of speculation, yesterday afternoon or last night on blogs.
	Who is she protecting?
	Does she even have a source?
	Did she do a Jason Blair and make it up?
	Is herself the source?
	Is she the source that's told everybody that Valerie Plame was uh was uh was a CIA agent.
	As we told you yesterday, she wasn't even covert.
	There isn't any crime here.
	The law that applies will not apply in this case.
	She hadn't been a covert agent for nine years.
	That's really all you need to know about this.
	What it adds up to is that the press is just ecstatic.
	Look at they've been trying to get delay and they're gonna fail at getting delay.
	They try to get me, they're gonna fail trying to get me.
	They've tried to get Bush since 2000, they're gonna fail trying to get Bush.
	Anytime they have an opportunity, they experience pure unbridled happiness trying to lop somebody off, and and Rove just has become the latest target.
	Rove is the guy, and of course, they've always wanted to get to Bush.
	Uh, and that's that's why they've they hated Ashcroft.
	They hated anybody had any do uh with George W. Bush because all roads lead back to Bush, and that's the the road that Carl Rove happens to be on.
	Now, I was driving into work and I was listening to uh uh CNN on the radio, and I heard a new spin.
	And because these people can read too, and it was Victor Camber, I'm pretty sure I couldn't see who it was, but his voice sounded like Victor Camber.
	The new spin is that Rove lied to Bush and thus can't be trusted and thus should be fired.
	They're gonna emphasize starting today the political aspects of this, not the legal, because I think they're all becoming aware that there really isn't anything legal to go on.
	They don't know what the special prosecutor has.
	They can't say Rove broke the law, because it may not be the case, but they can focus on the political aspect of this.
	And if you've been watching the news, reading the new news and watching the networks this morning, you've noticed the shift, the change in direction.
	Rove can't be trusted.
	Rove lied.
	Rove lied to the president.
	We can't have people lying to the president this close to the president in the White House, he's got to go.
	So that's that's the shift that um that uh that has taken place.
	Uh so they're they're they're getting off the tack they were on yesterday.
	This is all illegal, and Rove may be a criminal, he may be set up and he may be doing uh jail time.
	Now it's just he lied.
	He can't be trusted.
	The president can't trust him.
	Mr. President, when are you gonna get rid of him?
	A quick timeout.
	We will be back.
	We will roll on and continue right after this.
	Ha, how are you?
	Welcome back.
	Great to be with you, ladies and gentlemen.
	Rush Limbaugh feeling fine and on top of things here today, the EIB network, firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone, as America's anchorman and truth detector.
	We are at 800-282-2882.
	And the email address again, rush at EIBNet.com.
	Here's where I see it.
	As of today, Carl Rove has not committed a crime, but the New York Times has.
	The New York Times is obstructing a federal investigation that they demanded.
	Carl Rove is not.
	Carl Rove has testified three times to the grand jury.
	I don't know what in the world crime he's committed, and I think the Libs have figured this out because they're now off on this new tack.
	Well, he still can't be trusted.
	He lied to the president.
	You can't have somebody there.
	He ought to go.
	But if there are obstructionists here, it is the New York Times.
	They have an editorial today that is just pathetic.
	I'm not even going to bother reading it to you.
	We'll post it or link to it on our website today.
	If you if you want to go take a gander at it, feel free.
	All I can tell you is that it is a lie from top to bottom.
	You you uh you cannot read it and conclude that Rove was out to get anyone.
	You cannot read that email that uh goes before you know Matt Cooper email to his bosses and conclude that Rove was out to get anybody.
	Uh he was correcting Joseph Wilson's blatant lies.
	And so now we have the New York Times demanding this investigation uh and are the ones now obstructing it.
	Uh it's the height of Hutzp if you ask me for it to write an utterly false editorial like this since it ran the false Wilson op-ed, then demanded this investigation, and now they blocked the investigation illegally, and today they lie about the facts relating to Rove and the law.
	So, you know, I think what the Libs are hoping to do here is create such clutter and noise that no one will understand or see the truth.
	So everyone will just conclude that Rove is a distraction and liability to the president's agenda.
	Uh same people that want to uh derail his agenda.
	In fact, there's a there's a great story today in one of the wire services.
	Uh in a month or so next month, Rove is scheduled to go into Maryland to do a fundraiser for the lieutenant governor there, Michael Steele, who wants to become the governor someday as if he's a he's an African American Republican.
	And of course the Democrats are all saying, you must cancel that fundraiser.
	You can't go forward, given what the trouble that Rove is in now, you must cancel that fundraiser.
	Now, if the Democrats and if the Libs are really confident of their position, and if they really knew that they had Rove and Bush on the ropes and all this, they would welcome Rove doing public appearances anywhere.
	Why?
	Because it would embarrass Bush.
	It would embarrass the president.
	They should be urging Rove to do these fundraisers.
	They should be sending the limousine or the airplane to pick him up and make sure he gets DeMichael Steele's fundraiser down in Maryland.
	Because if Rove is such baggage, if Rove is such a noose around the president's neck, why why not publicize him and give him free airtime on television and have all kinds of news stories and quote everything he says as a fundraiser or during a fundraising speech.
	But no, they're trying to get him canceled.
	They're trying to get it canceled because they're afraid of Rove.
	They are still desperately afraid of Rove, and the very fact that they're on this tack now of getting rid of him is a testament to me to just how frightened of Carl Rove and George W. Bush these people are.
	When you get right down to it, as you can almost always count, folks, this is not this is this is not clear-cut true 100% of the time, but most of the time when you see people unhinged and acting hysterically at the root of it is fear.
	Fear and frustration, and that's, I think, what is mobilizing uh or motivating uh the Libs uh and particularly the uh the media uh today.
	But let me just tease this.
	Um Steele's gonna run for the Senate, I'm sorry, not Governor Steele is gonna run for the Senate, and that's why Rove would be down there to do a fundraiser for him.
	Uh and Libs are afraid to death he's gonna come down and raise a lot of money for him.
	You know, th in our pop culture today, this is gonna make Carl Rove an even bigger celebrity than he already may be, which is not much of one.
	Uh speculated yesterday that uh most of the people in this country probably never heard of him uh in in a name recognition survey wouldn't get very high.
	They're elevating now.
	They're making Rove a big celebrity, they're making Rove a huge, huge get and a huge draw, send him out there on fundraisers, and he's gonna draw in people and contribute money with who will contribute money that haven't probably.
	Uh because the Libs don't understand how much they are despised.
	The Libs don't understand the press, they don't really Understand just how much they are disrespected.
	And when they pick on somebody, and when they put somebody in their crosshairs and they behave as they behaved against Carl Rove for the obvious purpose of destroying him, all they do is rally untold millions of people to support Carl Rove.
	Or whoever it is that they're trying to target.
	So especially when it's as unfair and as blatantly biased and unobjective as this is.
	This is what they don't understand.
	And they never will because in the old days when they had their media monopoly, this is how they did destroy people, and it worked then, but they haven't realized yet, or they're refusing to admit that this is the kind of stuff now that is causing them to ever so rapidly fade away.
	Uh back, ladies and gentlemen, much more right after this.
	Don't go away.
	That's exactly what I'm gonna do.
	It's exactly what I'm gonna do.
	I'm gonna make the complex understandable.
	I'm gonna make it so simple, nobody will have a single question when I finish with all this.
	And then after I do this, there won't be anything else left to be said.
	We move on to other things.
	By the way, I'm watching the uh the space shuttle discovery crew arrive atop the launch pad.
	They're being outfitted now to get into the uh into the shuttle, and I tell you what, the power of our club gitmo line uh at Rushlimbaugh.com is amazing.
	You ought to the space suits are the exact color of our club Gitmo line, ladies and gentlemen.
	What i how many of you saw Club Gitmo shirts in the All-Star Game crowd last night?
	You see all that orange as they came to pan the crowd.
	Uh there had to be, I knew it would be the case.
	Club getmoged attire all over the all-star game in the uh in the stands last night.
	I want to grab a quick phone call uh from a friendly liberal from Indianapolis.
	Hello, Jeff, welcome to the program, sir.
	Yes, well, I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it.
	I don't have how to turn progress.
	I'll say I'm a liberal.
	Now, it this this Carl Row situation is really really shows the hypocrisy of the GOP in the right wing.
	Because you guys were all over Bill Clinton about any other thing you could possibly bring up on him.
	Start with Whitewater, starting with travel gate, all the way up to Monarch.
	But now, when there's any impropriety about the GOP, all of a sudden the press is biased, Democrats are desperate, and everything else is going on.
	I mean, that's kind of strange.
	This shows how desperate the administration was to try to sell that war in Iraq.
	Oh, oh, Jeff, wait, uh, forget the previous stuff you said.
	That's what I was interested in.
	That this shows how desperate the administration is to sell its war in Iraq.
	Uh I'm I I wanted to take your call here because uh I I'm I'm gonna well, I'm not I'm not gonna agree with you, but I'm gonna tell you without knowing it, you have swerved into what is the central problem here.
	It's not what you think it is, but you're close.
	So do me a favor and listen to this, because this is the this is the aspect of all this that needs to be pointed out.
	I think, folks, that what this don't worry about Clint, I'm not even talking about Clinton.
	This that to compare this to what happened to Clinton is irrelevant, not the point.
	This all goes back to Bush's State of the Union speech and what he said about Iraq seeking nuclear material in Africa, Niger.
	Remember this, it was true.
	The White House later apologized for saying it, and I do not to this day understand why, but it was true.
	The Brits confirmed it, they have never denied it, and that fact is all you need to know to illustrate the wanton lies told by Joseph Wilson.
	The British stood behind their intel.
	And even later, the Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded there was good reason to credit the Brits for the intel that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger.
	But the administration panicked in the face of uh outright left-wing criticism and apologized for it.
	I I I guess it was still part of the new tone back then.
	I do not understand it.
	The guy who was in the in the middle of all of this, a guy named Steve Hadley, ended up getting promoted after he Took the bullet for something that nobody should have taken a bullet over.
	I mean, the simple fact of the matter is that it was true.
	And yet the administration apologized for it, and that gave every enemy of the administration free reign to go out and say that the administration was wrong about it, and they lied about it, when in fact, to this day, it remains true.
	And that this was back in the days of the administration was not fighting back on this kind of thing.
	They just go, okay, okay, okay, if you don't like that, we'll take it out.
	I don't know what you call it surrender or whatever.
	The the the Wilson trip debacle, and this, Jeff, is, you know, you you talked about how eager the White House was to sell this war in Iraq.
	I want you to listen carefully here.
	Because Joe Wilson ending up getting the assignment to go to Niger to figure all this out, and then coming back and lying in an op-ed to the New York Times and anybody else he would speak to about what he found over there is one of the central problems this administration has.
	As we told you yesterday, Joe Wilson got this gig via his wife, George Tennett, who ran the CIA, didn't even know.
	You have a rogue CIA here, and let me make no mistake about what may please you make no mistake about this.
	During this period of time, the CIA is out to get Bush every bit as much as the State Department had people there out to get Bush.
	I'm not saying tenet, I'm saying career lifers in the CIA.
	And one of the reasons they were out to get Bush is there's a bunch of libs in there.
	The CIA never allows former agents to write books.
	This CIA did allow some guy, what's his name?
	Sean Shane since he's been out there all over television, Matthew's show, uh writing books about how we're screwing up the war on terror, how we don't have a chance to win it.
	They send with with his wife's recommendation, Wilson gets sent over to Niger to come back and write a false description of what he learned and then continue to lie about it and become a hero of the American left.
	The CIA summarily embarrassed because, and they don't want there to be any connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq because they missed it.
	They don't want to look bad.
	So you've got a rogue CIA who is out to screw the sitting president.
	I'm not saying the whole organization.
	You've got members in it, and Wilson and his wife are part of this cabal.
	And the administration doesn't fight back against any of this.
	The administration goes ahead.
	Cheney didn't know that Wilson was part of this mission.
	He didn't know that he was authorized to go.
	Leave aside for a moment, folks, the fact that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq and a connection between Iraq trying to get yellow cake uranium.
	Leave aside for the fact that it's legitimate, even necessary for the public to be informed about all this, and that Wilson got the job because of his wife, not because he had any special expertise.
	The more important thing here is there's a pattern that the administration still does nothing about, and namely that is the CIA between 2000 and 2004 was an out-of-control politicized agency actively campaigning to defeat a sitting U.S. president in the 2004 elections.
	And Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson are just a couple of members of it.
	And the administration sat back and didn't fight back because Bush is loyal to the government.
	He's a president who takes it seriously, and he's not going to sit there and publicly fight back on these things because it'll discredit the government, and he's not going to do this.
	CIA, somebody there, and it wasn't Tenet, not only sent Wilson, then let him write an op-ed in the New York Times that was wrong and misleading, and they knew it was wrong and misleading.
	Then they allowed this guy, this agent Schuer or Scheuer or somebody to write his book.
	And it it uh it that that book leaked damaging half-truths to the CIA or to about about Iraq, and the CIA was doing this as well, all these leaks on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, leaking a bunch of things about half-truths about under about Iraq, how things weren't working out well there.
	Uh, and as I say, they continue to try to cover up the fact they missed the ties between Al-Qaeda and uh and Iraq, not over 9-11, just the ties, just the fact that there were ties.
	The CIA has publicly said they have no evidence.
	But there's plenty of evidence, and it's been documented in a number of places.
	I mean, Frank Gaffney reported last week at National Review that the new National Intelligence Directorate that was the 9-11 Commission's brilliant idea was with John Negra Ponty's pals from the foreign service.
	It's just the same bunch of people.
	The State Department having been second only to the CIA and doing all it could to undermine Bush's foreign policy.
	And yet the thing that amazes me is the administration apparently lets all this go on.
	We have talked about this on this program for the longest time.
	Why apologize for something that you said that was true in the State of the Union?
	What is it with all these uh rogue CIA people?
	This one guy writing books, why not fight back against Wilson?
	Why not publicly get out there and say that he's he's he's writing lies about what he found in Niger?
	I said yesterday, so many a lot of people getting tired of carrying this administration's water, folks.
	Uh and and it and this is just another uh example of this.
	So Jeff and Indianapolis, while you sit there and think that the administration went out of its way and that they what you're watching here is evidence and proof that the administration was desperate to sell its position in Iraq.
	I'm here to tell you this administration's position and policy in Iraq was actively being undermined, and they knew it by other agencies of the government, and they didn't do anything to stop it.
	And Joe Wilson is just part of this, and his wife, Valerie Plame is just part of this.
	And now look where it gets them for not fighting back and not setting the record straight, apologizing for all this.
	Now we got this whole notion, the the the press and a whole bunch of people believe that Wilson told the truth when he came back and said, there's nothing to this story.
	Iraq never did try to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger.
	The Brits to this day say their report is true and they stand by it.
	Wilson did lie about it.
	Most people think he was telling the truth.
	So most people like you, Jeff, think the president totally lied and made things up because that's what's been planted by people who don't want the president to succeed.
	And the administration has just sat around while a whole lot of this has gone on and it has not, it has not been uh been challenged.
	Uh, you know, the the the it it's just frustrating, folks.
	Some of this stuff is is just literally frustrating, and that's why I'm glad that Jeff called, because that was the perfect point to use this information or this this belief of mine, as I just explained it to you, uh, to bounce off of.
	Because it it's just the opposite.
	The administration wasn't doing all it could make clear the reasons for this.
	The administration has not even sufficiently stood up for itself to make the case that there was an Al-Qaeda Iraq connection.
	Not Saddam and 9-11.
	Now, don't misunderstand me here.
	But they haven't stood up and even and even and even backed that up, even though they know it uh to be true.
	I can't, don't ask me to tell you why.
	I I can only speculate that Bush, as I said earlier, is just uncomfortable with uh anything that would uh anything he would say in public that would bring um disrespect uh or or something similar to the to the whole government.
	I mean, he's the president, he's you know, the executive, he runs the thing, so there's obviously a number of uh considerations, but it's now come to this.
	Because of all these things that were allowed to stand, which are not true, we have all this attention now focused on Rove, and it's uh it's a giant distraction.
	I know some of you are gonna say, well, hey, Rush, you know, this is actually kind of brilliant.
	It's uh it's a it's a rova dope.
	Uh Bush is roping them in while he's got some other plan going on somewhere else down the line, could well be, but uh it's it's the reason it's frustrating, we all know who the left is, we all know who they how they operate, uh, and we would think the White House would too.
	And uh shut it down and just and and and beat it into the ground when it's obviously called for necessary.
	A little little time out here, we'll be back and continue in mere moments after this.
	Don't go away.
	You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, phony, scandals, and even a good times, Rushlin bought the EIB network.
	See, here's folks, this this is what's let me just open the frustration floodgates, all right?
	The Senate Intelligence Committee, even with a bunch of Democrats on that committee, came to the strong conclusion that Joe Wilson lied.
	Particularly when he claimed that his wife had nothing to do with his being sent to Niger and lied about his report in Niger.
	Now, if a bipartisan Senate committee could do that, how in the world can the Department of Justice not do it and not figure it out?
	If the if the Department of Justice, if somebody in the administration had simply revealed how politicized and fraudulent the whole Wilson trip was, at the preliminary investigation stage, there would have been no reason to have an independent prosecutor delve into how Plaim's status got leaked.
	And even if there was a technical violation of the law, which probably did not happen, uh that would have been vastly outweighed by how outrageous the whole Wilson to Niger scheme was.
	Yeah, the Democrats would have screamed for a week or two.
	How can you?
	This is a great public servant and his wife.
	How can you dare slam him?
	He went over there and risked his wife, and he came back and he wrote a re- Yeah, he lied about it.
	He lied through his teeth about it.
	He's a carry supporter, he's a carry contributor.
	What in the world is this guy going over there to file this report in the first place?
	When the vice president doesn't know he's going, and when Tenet doesn't know he's going, how does the guy end up in Niger?
	How does a Democrat carry supporter end up with the opportunity to write this BS report, which undermines the whole Bush Iraq war policy?
	And then that uh icing on the cake comes back and and uh and gets this investigation started by acting outraged that his wife's name has been made public.
	What's the real crime here?
	What's what's the real scandal here?
	The real scandal here is that a lying sack of you know what, Kerry supporter, anti-Bush guy, has been lionized and made a big hero by the opposition party, the mainstream press, and the Democrats.
	And they know he's lying.
	They know that he is the one who was it was sent over there by his wife.
	They know his report was a bunch of BS.
	They know all this, but it doesn't matter.
	Because they've got their sights set on Bush via Rove.
	So I I think, you know, I I don't know the the specifics beyond any more of this uh than what I've mentioned, but this some of the if this is just smelled for the longest, longest time, and there's nobody that I can remember in the administration who stepped forward to defend themselves or further to attack the credibility of their critics making these kinds of outrageous statements based on lies.
	And now they find themselves where they are.
	Here's uh here's Mark in Charlottesville, Virginia.
	Grab you quickly here before you have to go to the break.
	Welcome, sir.
	Hey Rush, pleasure to talk to you.
	Thank you.
	I'd like to remind you that liberals have been doing this stuff for so long, like it's not a big deal.
	Um, you're saying it's like their last desperate attempt or whatever, but think about Robert Bork, think about Dan Quayle, George Bush the first.
	I even saw Bob Woodward on Hardball talking about how you wanted to impeach Reagan over a RAN contrast.
	Yeah, but you know, I really don't think it's anything new.
	Well, you know, that's the point.
	It is nothing new, but they're not getting away with it anymore.
	They got away with it with Bork, they got away with it with Quayle, they got away with a bunch of things because there was no alternative media.
	I am not when I when I describe their last stand, I'm not saying if they don't survive this, their history.
	I'm not saying that at all.
	I'm talking about this is a you know the second to last or the last nail in the coffin that's gonna forever cement their uh loss of dominant influence, of monopolistic influence over the American news cycle and dissemination of information.
	And they're doing it to themselves largely.
	I would love to take a lot of credit for this, as would a lot of people in the new alternative media, but with the Democrats and Libs behaving as they are, they are showing themselves ever more so every day, just who they really are to people.
	And it's become it's a surprise to a lot of people.
	Why do you think more and more people are not identifying themselves as liberals and taking shelter into this so-called term of moderate?
	Because they're embarrassing even old-line Democrats with who they have become now.
	There is there's is not the the party or movement of uh inspiration building a majority, and and this this kind of behavior they're engaged in now, is just gonna sink them even further into irrelevance.
	Back after this, folks, stay with us.
	First hours in the can.
	The Ditto Cam will be coming up uh later this afternoon at some point, ladies and gentlemen, sit tight and be patient, and we will uh move on to other items of the stacks of stuff, plus take your phone calls when we resume, when we return, which won't be long.

▲