All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
July 18, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right.
98.5% of the time, I am America's anchor manica's truth detector, serving humanity from the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Looking forward to talking to you.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com from Andy McCarthy National Review Online today, just four months ago.
36 news organizations got together to file a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.
The media's brief was short and it was fairly illuminating.
The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the plane investigation.
Why?
Well, because the media organizations confidently asserted in their brief that no crime had been committed.
36 different news organizations, telling the court that no crime had been committed here.
Now, that's stunning enough, given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story.
Even though, and even more remarkable, were the key details that the media stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp, Details the same news people have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.
You wouldn't know it from watching the news.
You'll learn it from reading the news agency's brief.
That the 1982 law prohibiting disclosure of undercover agents'identities explicitly sets forth a complete defense to this crime.
It is contained in Section 422 of Title 50 U.S. Code.
And it provides that an accused leaker is in the clear if sometime before the leak the U.S. has publicly acknowledged or revealed the covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S. Do you realize the stunning gravity of this?
The media.
36 news organizations sent a brief to the court saying you have no case here against our reporters, and you have no case here in trying to suppress our or get our our reporters to talk about who their sources are, because according to the law itself, there is no crime if sometime before the leak, the U.S. is publicly acknowledged or revealed a covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S. Well, what could this be about?
What is the media asserting here in this brief?
The media is asserting that the United States had already publicly acknowledged Valerie Plaim's status as a member of the CIA long before her name was leaked by Bob Novak.
And indeed, as it happens, the media organizations informed the court that long before the Novak revelation, Plaim's cover was blown not once, but twice.
The media, in its brief to the court, based this contention on reporting by Bill Gertz.
An old school let's find out what really happened kind of journalist, Gertz's relevant article was published a year ago in the Washington Times.
As the media alleged to the judges at the court, Plaim's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow.
Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422, because it was evidently made by a foreign intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires, but neither did they mention the incident idly.
For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen as the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent.
The Kremlin still spies on the U.S. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.
So the media's purpose in highlighting the Russian incident is blatant.
If Plaim was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if any, left of actual intelligence left of any intelligence value in her every operation, every relationship, every network, by the time anybody spoke with Novak or of course David Corn.
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court.
They don't place a precise date on this, but inform the judges that it was more recent than the Russian outing, but prior to Novak's publication, and it's priceless.
The press informed the judges in its uh in its brief, 36 news organizations, that the CIA itself inadvertently compromised Valerie Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents the CIA rooted to the Swiss embassy in Havana.
In Bill Gertz's Washington Times article, he elaborates that the documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government.
But unidentified U.S. intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them.
One of which was Valerie Plame's name and her cover.
Thus, the same media now stampeding on Carl Rove has told a federal court in a brief that to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her.
Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice, but neither did Rove, who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known nor disclosed Plaim's classified status.
Yet, although the New York Times and its cohorts have a bullseye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment, one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.
So, which is a point that I made last week.
I don't understand why they care a whit about the CIA or a CIA agent they never have before.
They've done their best to undermine the CIA.
But now they've got an agent that they can make a victim of, and along with her hapless husband, and make him a victim, and turn the heat on Bush and Rove, then of course they'll act like the biggest supporters of the CIA that there have ever been in this country.
Now the defense in the law, Section 42, requires that the revelation by the U.S. had been done publicly.
At least one U.S. official who spoke to Bill Gertz for his story speculated that because the Havana Snafu was not publicized, it would not be available as a defense to whoever spoke with Novak.
But that seems clearly wrong.
First, the theory under which the media have gleefully pursued Rove, among other Bush officials, holds that if a disclosure offense was committed here, it was complete at the moment the leak was made to Novak.
Whether Novak then proceeded to report the leak to the public is beside the point.
The violation supposedly lies in identifying Plaim to Novak.
Indeed, it has frequently been observed that Judy Miller of the Times is in contempt for protecting one or more sources, even though she never wrote an article about them, and she's still in jail.
So you don't have to publicize it.
Well, the media, in trying to keep their reporters out of jail and to keep their sources secret, and try to keep any contempt charges from being filed against their reporters, file this uh this brief 36 news organizations claiming no crime has been committed here.
None.
And they cite two instances of the CIA inadvertently outed Valerie Plame's identity.
Now you can throw all this together with the fact that she wasn't a covert agency within the time frame prescribed by the law.
You can throw in all the facts that her neighbors all knew who she was, that thousands of journalists or hundreds of journalists around Washington know who she was and her identity.
But the real point here that Andy McCarthy's trying to make is that your very media that's reporting on this, as you saw if you watched the Sunday shows or any day last week except Friday, the media knows full-fledged they are perpetrating a hoax.
This is a full-fledged hoax.
This is the forgery of a story.
This is Rathergate all over again.
This is Bill Burkett all combined with the Newsweek Koran Gate story.
It's all a pack of lies.
The truth, as the media wanted the court and the law to decide, is in their brief.
Do you think they're reporting anything that's in their brief as news as part of this story?
No, why?
If you look at the story they're reporting on Rove and Scooter Libby, why you would think nobody ever heard of Valerie Plame until Robert Novak got her name from somebody and then shared it with Rove, and Rove said, Yeah, I've heard that too.
The importance of this is quite simple.
The mainstream press knows facts that totally take their story down the sewer.
They know facts that make this current aim and direction of the story wrong and irrelevant and a pack of lies, and they are ignoring those facts.
Those facts were in their brief to the court.
The way they're reporting to the story, reporting the story is as though that brief was never filed.
That friend of the court brief.
And folks, it is just it's stunning.
And it's like I said in the last hour, it's just another nail in the coffin of these people and their credibility.
And their believability.
It's another nail in the coffin of their power.
And they don't see it.
They still labor under the notion that nobody will ever find out what's in their brief that they file to the court.
They labor in the notion that this program is not here telling you how they're lying.
They they prevail and believe the notion that there are not others out there who are watching everything they say and writing the contradictory facts to prove how they are lying.
This is all happening in a vacuum as far as they're concerned.
They still haven't come to grips with the fact that they're no longer it.
They haven't come to grips with the fact that they're no longer dominant.
They haven't come to grips with the fact that they've lost their monopoly, and they refuse to admit that there are others out there who are able to tell the truth when they are lying.
They continue to lie, they continue to stubbornly be obstinate and just stick their nose straight up in the air.
And in the process, they're not hurting Rove and they're not hurting Bush.
They're just slowly, they've stabbed themselves and they're just twisting the knife in.
With each day they persist in this.
A quick timeout, we'll be back and continue right after this.
Don't go away.
Hubba Hubba.
Back we are.
El Rushball having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have young liberals last week.
Flock to the nation's capital to hear, among other things, liberal television pundit and Democrat political strata strategist the forehead accused the Republicans of wanting to kill him and his children to preserve tax cuts for the rich.
We are talking, of course, here, ladies and gentlemen of Paul Bagala.
Bagala was featured at the first ever campus progress national student conference designed to provide campus liberals with the tools necessary to fight the conservative movement.
The event also drew um Der Schlieckmeister last week, for whom the forehead once worked as an advisor.
They had a panel discussion.
It was entitled Winning the War of Ideas.
It centered on topics and discussed the book What's the uh the matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank and detailed the challenges that Democrats face in persuading voters in the American heartland and elsewhere to embrace their agenda and support their candidates.
The forehead's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had done a beep poor job of defending the U.S. Republicans, he said want to kill us.
Did you hear about this, Mr. Snurley?
Here's what the forehead said.
I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit on September 11th.
I had friends in that plane.
This is deadly serious for me.
They want to kill me and my children if they can, but if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit, and that is bull bleep national defense, and we should say that.
Now I'm telling you, folks, there's a crack up going on.
Don't ask me to make sense of this.
It's like asking me to make sense of the mainstream press in this whole Carl Rove case or Rathergate or whatever.
There's no more to be said about it.
They're a lying sack of weeds.
These people are just nothing more than a political party and an agenda, and they're losing and they're hysterical, and they are unhinged.
And they cannot tell the truth to save their lives.
So here's Bagala.
He sees an airplane crash into the Pentagon and immediately blames Republicans.
The Republicans are responsible for this.
They want to kill me and my children if they can.
But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted.
Because they won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit because they they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes.
Meaning we are not able to prevent terrorist attacks because Bush cut taxes.
The Bush tax cuts did not provide us a strong enough defense to keep the plane from hitting the Pentagon that killed some of the Foreheads' friends.
And because they want to cut the estate tax, which is what he's talking about, they're gonna be they're gonna kill their Bagala and a bunch of other Democrats, they're gonna kill all of us because they're not gonna have the defense to protect us because they're too busy giving tax cuts to the rich.
But Bagala's kids will be okay because they won't have to pay any taxes on the money they inherit once Bagala is killed.
This is what passes for informative educational inspiring rhetoric to a bunch of liberal college students who are being gathered to tell everyone to be told how to go out and start winning elections again and convert the country back to liberalism.
Now, if you can make sense of this, this is I mean, it's just it it's it's it's bordering on insane is what it is.
It literally is bordering on sheer insanity born of a seething rage, the likes of which I don't think I even understand how deep it must be.
I know we got more tax, we had the story last week.
Yeah, more tax revenue, the economy's going great, the deficit's coming down.
And that's when the forehead had his meeting.
That's when he had his speech.
He had his speech the day that the news was discovered, the news was released that the deficit's coming down because an unexpected uh tax receipt uh uh uh uh well uh splurge came in because the tax cuts created a spanning economy, more workers, uh i.e.
more taxpayers, and so the the economy is this growing leaps and bounds, the deficits coming down, more tax receipts, the tax cuts did not reduce the amount of money coming into the treasury.
It's absurd.
The whole thing is is just patently absurd, and you realize these are the people who ran the Clinton administration, and this sort of confirms everything we've always thought about them.
Uh it's it's it's it's all coming home to roost.
I've always maintained, I've always maintained that as the as the frustrations mount and as the pressure builds, these people are going to more readily and more often remove the camouflage and the masks that they're wearing to hide who they really are, and they're gonna let it be known who they really are, and it's happening.
It's happening throughout the Democratic Party and the American left.
Here's Patrick in Austin, Texas.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Uh mega mega first time called Ditto's from the great red state of Texas.
Thank you, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Uh I consider myself pretty informed, but what I haven't seen are opinions of the general public on this road matter, and it makes me wonder if the media knows something we don't, and they're just not letting these uh uh polls get into their opinions.
Um there well, you know, uh there I expected there to be a poll on Rove by now, too.
Uh there hasn't been, and I suspect there has been, though.
There just hasn't been reported.
My guess is they went out and did a repo, a poll on Rove, and they found out that nobody knows who he is.
And so since they don't know who he is, they don't know what the story's about.
I can imagine the question do you think Carl Rove should be fired for outing the identity of a CIA agent named Valerie Plame, married to a wonderful American hero and diplomat by the name of Joseph Wilson IV.
And probably the don't know's outnumbered all of the yeses or no's because nobody knows who Rove is.
And that's another thing.
These people live inside the beltway.
If you ever talk to these people and work and live and breathe inside the beltway, that's the world.
There's nothing outside of there of any importance to them.
It happens.
That's why they have to concoct the polls.
That's why the polls have become editorials.
The polls are nothing more than a clandestine or secret way, uh, double super secret way, of advancing the news media's agenda.
Now, they did have a poll last week on Bush and his credibility or honesty and so forth, so we were right in predicting a poll.
We were wrong in saying it would be about Rove.
But I'll bet you there was one.
And I wouldn't, I wouldn't, uh Patrick uh uh comfort myself with the fact that there won't be yet.
They can they can go somewhere and find a majority of people who've heard of Carl Rove, like Austin, Texas, you know, where he used to live and work with Bush, and then claim it's a national poll.
They can do anything they want here.
Uh but that that story on Friday shocked them.
The New York Times story on and why did the Times do that?
Why did the Times undercut them because they know their credibility is hanging by a thread here?
They know it, and they had to get the facts on the on the on the front page at some point, but look at how quickly they were ignored.
It's the one time that I can recall.
The New York Times provides the uh agenda every day for the rest of the news.
If you look at the front page of New York Times and watch the nightly newscast that night, you'll see pretty much the same thing in terms of story selection uh and even the order in which stories uh appear on the broadcast news.
I mean, there's no question about This New York Times is uh is the guidepost for broadcast journalism.
Well, that story on Friday didn't provide much guidance.
In fact, after that story came out, it's like they all got together and said, you know, we need to get this back together and we'll start on the Sunday shows.
And we'll just pretend Friday never happened.
And we'll say, well, now we'll throw scooter Libby in there, too.
We'll we'll really muddy the water, we'll throw scooter Libby in there, and we'll go do a poll on scooter Libby and I guarantee you, if they go do a national poll, what do you think scooter Libby uh should be fired?
Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, nobody is gonna have heard of Scooter Libby.
Nobody will have heard of Lewis Libby, and very few more will have heard of uh of Carl Rove.
I gotta go quick time out.
More of your phone calls right around the corner.
Sit tight.
Mr. Sturdley just uh told me he was watching was it Meet the Press yesterday?
And uh ought to give you combat pay for doing that.
I just I refuse anymore.
I I already hear about these things after they happen.
I just refuse.
I can't deal with the lies seven days a week.
And I can't, I'm not gonna sit there and watch John Podesta be brought on as an ethics commentator on the Bush administration, which is one of the chief cover-up artists for Bill Clinton.
I'm just not gonna sit there and watch it.
I'm not gonna have my insult, my intelligence insulted.
But Snurley said, you know, he was on there with Ken Melbourne, who's the chairman of Republican National Committee.
Usually they get Dean in there, the Democratic National Committee head.
And I said, Well, that doesn't surprise me.
I've heard, and I wish I could remember the source.
I'll have to find it, but I've heard it.
Dean refuses to go on a show unless he's the only guest.
He will not go on with anybody else, and that's why they had to go out and get uh and get Podesta.
Uh more on uh on Club Gitmo, ladies and gentlemen, military investigators did not substantiate major charges of prisoner abuse contained in one FBI agent's email that was read on the Senate floor by Dick Durbin as an example of U.S. sanctioned torture at Guanamont Guantanamo Bay.
The unnamed FBI agent wrote that she saw one Al-Qaeda suspect lying in his own excrement, that he had pulled out his own hair, that he had no food and water.
The agent also said he was shackled to the floor, subjected to loud rock music, and to extreme temperatures.
So Durbin, this is the email he read June 14th in a speech attacking the Bush administration, where he likened Gitmo interrogation techniques to the Nazis, the Soviet gulags, and Paul Pott.
John Warner, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, rebuked Durbin in a Senate debate for reading as fact a raw FBI report, the charges at which had not yet been investigated.
Well, that investigation was completed last week by Air Force Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt and General Schmidt wrote in his report another FBI agent stated she witnessed a detainee uh short-shackled and lying in his own excrement.
The investigation was unable to find any documentation, testimony, or other evidence corroborating the third agent's recollection to this allegation or her email allegation that one of the detainees had pulled his hair out while being short-shackled.
The report also said we discovered no evidence to support the allegation that the detainees were denied food and water.
It's quite the opposite, folks.
In fact, the the the the what we're learning about what happens on a club gitmo, we have even underestimated it ourselves on the Club Git Mow website, just what a paradise this place is.
I'll get to that in a moment.
In the meanwhile, Durbin, after this report issued a statement standing by the lies.
Durbin said many aspects of the report made public today are troubling.
This is yet another report that fails to examine the decision by administration officials related to torture policy.
The report did not review the legality of abusive interrogation techniques that the Secretary of Defense explicitly approved.
So here we go again.
This is nothing different than what the media is doing in the Carl Rove case.
Here you had a totally fictitious, apparently the unsubstantiated FBI agent, raw report, Durbin takes it, reads it on the floor of the Senate.
All hell breaks loose.
Five days later he apologizes.
Every day since he's apologized, he's blamed me for the fact that people found out about it.
If he hadn't, if he had been speaking in a vacuum, not on the Senate floor, nobody would have known about it.
But then he goes ahead, he does apologize not for what he said, but for how it might have affected people.
He apologized if it offended anybody.
Then the report comes out, says, this incident never happened.
We can't find one shred of evidence to say it ever happened.
Durbin says, I don't care.
It's still rotten down There, there's torture going on, and we got to find out what Rumsfeld knows about it.
So you can throw facts at these people, you can slap them upside the head.
You can throw those facts in their face.
You can put the paper right in front of their eyes.
They don't see it.
Oh, they do see it.
They just ignore it.
They really do think that what is this flood the zone, I think is the term for what they're trying to do.
Just flood the zone with their with their agenda, flood the zone with their version, flood the zone with their lies, but they can't flood the zone anymore.
They are not powerful enough to cause a flood.
They are, ladies and gentlemen, but a stream, maybe a river, and they get diverted all over the place.
Yeah, there's a lot coming out of the mouth of this river, but there's a lot of tributaries, and the stuff that comes out of their mouth ends up in uh, you know, little offshoots over there where it's nothing more than refuse.
And yet they continue pulling this stuff out of their mouths.
They just defy the facts, no matter who offers them or says them, they pretend they don't even exist.
And it's just delightful to see.
I mean, these people are imploding right in front of our eyes.
It's it's like a put a bag of excrements, speaking of excrement, put a bag in front of them, gonna step in it.
Open the door and welcome them in, and they're gonna slam that door on their own noses and bloody themselves, all the while thinking they just got through the door with nobody noticing.
Here's Mark in uh Cheltenham, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Good afternoon, Rush.
All the uh liberal streams end up in the Dead Sea, I'd say.
Somewhere, and that's that they've certainly polluted.
Yes.
I wanted to get back to uh the discussion on Carl Rove and my theory is that Rove has intentionally and successfully, and I might say masterfully, shifted the mainstream media's lead story off of the Supreme Court and who that will be and on to himself.
And he has basically stolen a week of their agenda away from them and uh taken the momentum direction that they really didn't want to go with it.
Well, I would love to agree with you, but I don't think that's the case.
In fact, it's just the opposite.
The president has announced that he'll have a name of a nominee the end of this week.
It is the president trying to take the Rove story out of the front pages and off the front pages by giving the media something else to squawk about.
And to a certain extent, it's working.
There are now lots of stories uh recycling the whole the whole mess here about the Supreme Court.
That's another thing.
You go through the news on that, and that's the same thing we read two weeks ago.
A bunch of libs writing the president needs to choose a moderate, a bunch of conservatives like Arlen Spe Roger Republicans like Arlen Specter taking a dive for the second week in a row.
Specter first says, Well, we ought to ask Sandra Day O'Connor to stay on.
Now he's going out and say we need to get a moderate.
Uh and and so the uh it's it's you know, it's amazing.
It's like it's like these stories uh are in little incubators, uh or in story file cabinets or whatever.
They never change and never get updated.
Okay, so you got the rove file cabinet, and when Rove is new as you pull out the stuff that you're gonna use on that and you report it, full of lies, uh, full of deception, ignoring all irrelevant facts, and you go with that.
Something else comes along like the Supreme Court, you close the rove drawer, you go back to your Supreme Court drawer, and you pull that out, you start recycling the news that you've been reporting on that for two weeks straight.
Nothing new, same old suggestions, same old complaints, same old warnings to Bush about how he's gonna screw up if he doesn't appoint a moderate.
Uh it's it's breathtaking.
It's breathtaking to watch this.
Well, before we uh get off of this, I want to mention this to you.
This is a story from Jed Babin today, the American Spectator.
And I just want to read to you the beginning of this.
Abdullah M was missing a leg when he got to Club Gitmo.
In due course, he was fitted with a prosthetic leg and given occupational therapy to teach him how to use it.
In the Orwellian inversion that dominates world opinion and requires us to prove we're the good guys, he was interrogated, and after convincing our guys that he really wasn't a terrorist fanatic, he was released and repatriated to Afghanistan.
Now sought for involvement in the kidnapping of Chinese engineers and a bombing of the Islamabad Marriott, Abdullah is walking around on the artificial leg that we evil Americans paid for.
Well, we can add something else to the Club Gitmo brochure.
If you've lost a leg on the battlefield, come to Club Git Go, and we'll replace it.
And then we'll release you to go back and fight your jihad.
All this in the midst of us be, and he's right here.
It's frustrating as hell for us to have to constantly be proving we're the good guys.
Things are so upside down, folks, it is laughable.
They're just so and I and I think, to tell you the truth, I think one of the reasons that news readership is down, circulation of newspapers is down, and TV news viewership is down is because people can't keep track of it anymore.
It's it's so far off the beaten path, so wrong.
It is so intensely anti this country.
Because he's right here.
The whole focus of when you take Durban apart when you take Ted Kennedy apart when you take any of these Senate Democrats, Carl Levin, Patrick Leahy, they are defense lawyers for these terrorist suspects and for these prisoners of war, and they essentially are demanding that we prove we're the good guys.
And that's offensive to people, and I don't think they want to hear it.
I think people want to go about their lives and pursue as much contentment as happiness as they can, and they don't need to be bogged down by a bunch of lying gibberish that's put out from the uh mainstream press every day, along with their allies of the Democratic Party.
It's not so much the mainstream press by themselves, but you go out, you get a Carl Levin, you get a Dick Durbin, you get a Ted Kennedy, start talking about how we're the bad guys, Bush is the bad guy, Rumsfeld's rotten, rice is rotten, Bush stinks, Rove stinks, Libby stinks, uh Rice stinks, and they've all got to go.
People don't want to hear it.
Because people, average ordinary Americans, do not hate their country.
Average ordinary Americans do not suspect their country.
Average ordinary Americans love and appreciate this country and don't understand why other Americans who do their jobs in public every day seem to have this serious opposition to the country.
And they don't want to watch it, and they don't want to hear about it.
They've been hearing about it for too many years as it is, and they don't believe it, and they don't want to believe it.
And they're not going to be made to believe it with a pack of lies.
They're not going to believe that Carl Rove is the devil incarnate.
The sense of proportion in all this is missing.
Why you would think Rove was Nixon.
You would think Rove killed Valerie Plame.
You would think Rove killed Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.
You would think if you just got here from Mars that a death, a mass murder must have occurred here, and Rove did it in the White House.
The sense of proportion here is so and people just don't want to put up with it.
And they don't want to put up with hearing how we're so mean and unkind to a bunch of people who are given half the chance would blow up another 3,000 Americans.
What the average ordinary American wants is to kick some ass around the world and bring these people to justice one way or the other so this stuff stops.
They don't want to make appeasement deals with these people.
They don't want to sit around and wring their hands and wonder why they don't like us.
They know why they don't like us.
They're insane.
They are insane.
These terrorists Well, Russian sane, you know, is a relative thing.
I don't care.
It's insane.
There's no other definition for these people.
They are literally utterly insane.
And why worry about why they think of what they think of us?
And why get all bogged down in trying to appease and make deals with them?
Especially less than one week after the London bombings, that's totally forgotten, and we go right back to Carl Rove as the enemy of the world, the enemy to your country, along with the people running Club Gitmo.
So I just don't think there's there's there's no empathy.
These people inside the Beltway have no sense how they're perceived.
They have no sense what the rest of the country lives like, goes through life looking at on a day-to-day basis, how they make their value judgments.
It's it's uh as I say, it's it's stunning to watch this.
I have always dreamed, folks, of this massive mainstream liberal wing of the media and Democratic Party implosion.
I've dreamed of it.
My dream was it would happen all at once, in one day, it'd be over for these people.
I mean, they'd still be around.
They'd still be around, but they'd be totally ineffective.
But I dreamed when it would happen, it would be over in one day or one week, and so obvious that that would be the end of them as a as a powerful political force in the country.
It's taking a little longer than a day, but perhaps that's good because the length of time it's taking and the ways the media is going about the Democrats, the left, let me just say the American left, the way they're going about destroying themselves is very powerful.
They're leaving no doubt about who they are, where they come from, what their worldview is, and what their agenda is.
And uh for this, we actually do need to be grateful.
A quick time out, back with more.
Your phone calls included after this.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, despair, twilight zone appearances, parallel universes, torture, humiliation, and the good times.
Rush Limbaugh.
As America's truth detector and doctor of democracy.
Here's Michael in Los Angeles.
Hello, so nice to have you on the program.
Thank you.
You know, I I don't know exactly uh uh what the status of the investigation is, but I know this.
Uh Patrick Fitzgerald would not have been able to get the contempt orders against the two reporters unless he'd made a very strong case that someone had committed crimes and that they were pretty serious crimes.
Whether it's the specific one that Rove is being suspected of now, that can't be known.
But note that the federal judge noted that the investigation had shifted.
And for that reason, the contempt orders were necessary.
The courts don't take that lightly.
Someone's done something seriously wrong and is going to be held account.
That is by no means clear as you have described it.
The contempt citation was for Judith Miller and Matt Cooper, the journalists.
Nobody has been cited for contempt that's in the administration, and the law that they have broken is the failure to produce uh sources that uh prosecutors are demanding in the investigation of a criminal affair.
Right, but the federal judge would not have ordered them to answer or go to jail unless the answers were relevant to criminal conduct.
Otherwise, you can't those orders are not allowed.
So that is really what happened.
The investigation shifted.
Those reports, and I think quite frankly, that uh Matt Cooper's emails is probably somewhat like Monica Lewinsky's blue dress.
Once that was revealed, all of a sudden all the scrambling and covering started to come in uh because whatever uh deception had been created could no longer stand.
So now the story changed, and we've had two or three different stories out of the administration since then.
But someone's done something seriously illegal, so the orders could not have been made.
No, that's not that's not the case.
I know that it it might appear that way to you because the eagerness that some might have for that to be the case.
But the reason there's a contempt citation is because the investigation was impaneled in the first place.
The original supposition that got all this going was that the leak of Valerie Playm's name violated a law.
And that is you can't make public the name of a covert CIA agent.
And so, in investigating that, here came these reporters, and they wouldn't give up their notes and they wouldn't testify, so they're cited in contempt.
Just because there's an investigation does not mean that there has been any crime committed.
Uh, this is the mistake a lot of people make with law enforcement.
Investigation, people automatically think there's a crime committed.
This investigation was asked for largely by the press because they wanted to know who Novak's source was.
If you were listening mere moments ago previously in this hour, the news media itself, 36 of them uh in a in a in a combined brief to this court, said there wasn't a crime committed here.
You can't compel our reporters to testify and give up their sources because there was no crime, because they made the case that Valerie Plame's ID had been uh had been uh leaked or or otherwise made known by the CIA on two separate occasions.
Uh primarily in the big one was to the uh the Cuban embassy in uh in Switzerland.
Uh so uh th there there doesn't have to be a crime committed here.
The contempt is strictly on the reporters, and just because they won't reveal their sources, uh that's why she's in jail.
But no crime even there.
She's being held in contempt.
She hasn't even been charged with a crime yet.
Uh and that hasn't changed anything here.
If anything, Rove has been exonerated.
And that's that's being totally ignored as this story is pursued because the media's too embarrassed to miss that they got the whole thing wrong to get-go.
Back after this, folks, stay with us.
Well, that's it, folks.
Another exciting broadcast hour in the can, soon to be on its way to the limbaugh museum of broadcasting.
We'll get into some other items from the stacks of stuff when we get into the next hour, but it's right around the corner.
▲
Export Selection