All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
July 19, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, conversationalists and music lovers, thrill seekers, all across the bountiful, fruited plain Rush Limbaugh.
Fun frolic and frivolity for all, as well as, where's Brian?
Oh, good.
Turn on the ditto cam, Brian.
We've got so much stuff going on here, folks, you can't imagine.
Let me turn the bars off.
As I was saying, fun, frolic, and frivolity for all, as well as serious discussion of the issues.
Telephone number on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I've got to give you a warning, the Rove story is not over.
We have some audio soundbites on this.
I found a Joe Wilson piece in the L.A. Times after the State of the Union address, in which he doesn't even mention Rove.
He doesn't even mention Bush's State of the Union speech, I mean.
That didn't happen.
Wilson did not go hog wild on Bush's State of the Union speech for months after he wrote his piece in the New York Times and one in the L.A. Times.
And it wasn't, as best I can determine now, it wasn't until he joined the Kerry campaign that Joseph Wilson actually began worrying about what Bush said in his State of the Union speech.
I'm not going to lead off with this, but we do have some audio soundbites.
As you may know, which are the interesting words of an ABC poll on Carl, did I not predict this?
They have a poll question on Rove, and it starts out, as you may know.
And it pretty much buttresses what I said.
Their poll says 75% think Rove should go if he broke the law.
But if you add up all the people that never heard of the issue, aren't following the issue, don't care about the issue, it's about 75% or 80%.
So we'll get to all that in due course.
But the buzz, ladies and gentlemen, is that there's a Supreme Court nominee to be named this afternoon.
The further buzz is that the name will come about 2.30.
Now, I have to tell you that people who've been giving me this kind of buzz on a number of things for a couple of weeks on the Supreme Court stuff have been wrong, which they readily admit.
But that is the buzz going around.
The president's got a little press conference right now with the Australian Prime Minister John Howard going, I love this John Howard guy.
This guy, one of our staunchest allies in Iraq.
And this is an interesting press conference.
The media, by the way, one other thing in this Rove business, before we move back to the Supreme Court, the media is now hung up on the fact that Bush has lowered the threshold over which he would fire somebody, and that's absolutely untrue.
And here's the way to understand this, folks.
I think what's happening here is that the media feels the need to protect its reputation.
I think they're beginning to be worried about their reputation in a number of ways.
Now, I know that sounds kind of strange.
How are they trying to protect their reputation by being wrong on this?
They're trying to protect their reputation by trying to force something that is inaccurate and wrong to be accepted as normal.
It's what I said yesterday.
Their reputation's at stake, their reputation for power.
And that's what they're attempting to maintain and perhaps strengthen.
They're going to fail, but that's what they're trying to do.
All right.
Edith Clement is the Judge Edith Clement, U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
It's the Fifth Circuit.
Is the name that's being floated and has been all morning as the Supreme Court nominee that Bush will announce today.
No word from the White House on when Bush would disclose.
Well, actually, there has been.
There has been some word from the White House.
The White House told reporters in the press room today, keep your jackets on, keep your coats on.
It's going to be a long day, but we are expecting an announcement today.
So that's why everybody's over this.
Now, there's not much known about Edith Clement.
I've been looking.
I've had staff looking for her judicial record all morning, and we really can't find much.
I would have to say that as of now, she is a stealth candidate.
Now, what happened yesterday was, as you know, Arlen Specter was called to the White House.
I'm told that the president has been consulting with Robert Byrd.
The White House theory is if they can get Byrd on board, I kid you not, they have been consulting with Byrd, if they can get Byrd on board, they think that that will slay a lot of dragons on the Democratic side in the Senate.
Now, what I think this means is that Byrd is such that if you just tell him who the nominee is going to be and bring him in and make him think like he's had a role to support anybody, pretty much, as long as he's perceived to be, he perceives himself to be in the loop.
I'm not saying that he got veto power, and I'm not saying that his names that he wanted were suggested.
I'm saying that he's been brought in, well, talked to and had some favor curried in an attempt to get this passed.
I also think we've been speculating here amongst ourselves all morning long that the reason a stealth candidate might be picked is because of the Rove controversy.
And I don't think the Rove controversy has anything to do with it because I think the White House knows that the Libs are going to treat any nominee the way they treat any nominee, unless it's one of Harry Reid's names, which it isn't going to be because she is not on anybody's list.
She's on one of the second or third tier lists.
Here's all that's really known about her because she doesn't have much of a record.
She, known as a conservative and a strict constructionist in legal circles, this is what the AP says, she has eased fears among abortion rights advocates.
She has stated that the Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion and that the law is settled in that regard.
Now, this is even open to interpretation in this way.
I don't know if she's speaking here as an appellate judge at the Fifth Circuit, meaning, hey, the Supreme Court's the highest law in the land.
I can't touch that here.
Or if she's speaking as a potential Supreme Court nominee.
Don't know.
And I'm not trying to split hairs.
And I really can't give you the source for this other than AP's quote.
I don't know to whom she said it.
I don't know where it was said.
I don't know how it appeared before AP got a hold of it.
But he can say it's a little bit troubling.
I wish she wouldn't say anything about this.
I wish no judge was saying about this at some point because that creates a paper trail, at least.
And that's what this whole argument at Supreme Court, when you talk about the left, really boils down to is abortion.
We have some audio soundbites from Senators Specter and Senator Kennedy.
Let's go to Specter first.
This was before the Senate and House softball game yesterday.
Reporter Ed Henry of CNN talked to Arlen Specter and said, so you're looking for a nominee that's going to keep the ideological balances there now.
There's a lot of talk about the O'Connor seat being a more moderate seat.
Is that the way you view it?
I do.
I think it's important to keep balance on the court.
And that is in every respect.
And I think that Americans are concerned about having somebody who's too far one side or too far to the other side.
And the balance is critical.
Well, there's so much wrong with this.
In the first place, there's no such thing as balance on the Supreme Court referenced in the Constitution.
It's not a political body.
Well, it is, but it's not supposed to be.
You're not supposed to, okay, we got four Lib seats and four conservative seats, and then we got the O'Connor seat.
I mean, that's not what it is.
That's not how this is supposed to work.
And that's what Specter is essentially saying.
Okay, we've got four extreme left-wingers, four extreme right-wingers, and then we've got Goddess O'Connor and her throne.
And we must make certain, ladies and gentlemen, that that throne is occupied by a similar moderate.
BS.
You know, it's absolute 100% BS.
Another thing Senator Specter is wrong about when he says he thinks that Americans are concerned about having somebody who's too far one side, too far to the other side, and balance is critical.
The pre-vacancy polling data on this shows that a vast majority, almost 60%, the American people polled say that Bush ought to nominate a conservative.
They didn't say, I think Bush ought to nominate a balanced candidate.
They didn't say that at all.
The pre-vacancy polls are very clear on this.
So Senator Specter is, I think, off base in the substance of his comments on both points.
Next question was, well, how was your meeting with the president this afternoon, Senator Specter?
Well, there are certainly no announcements that I'm going to make here on the softball field.
And I'm not going to talk about a timeline either.
I did not go to the White House incognito, so it was apparent that I was there.
But I'm sure you'll understand if it's a sort of thing I can't talk about, at least this evening.
But a lot of people were brought in yesterday.
A lot of people were talked to.
Clarence Thomas was invited to the state dinner last night for the Indian prime minister.
He was there.
There were wags buzzing about that.
So it's all still fluid.
Really, this business about Edith Clement, I don't know what to tell you.
There just isn't.
She basically was appointed by Bush 41.
She was to the Federal Circuit.
Then Bush 43, I think, put her in 2001 where she is now.
And so she's been there basically three, four years, and there's just not a whole lot of a record to look at.
And a lot of people think that's on purpose.
So the Libs will have less to shoot at.
But that's not how the Libs will work this, folks.
The Libs are going to shoot at whoever.
And one of the problems, I think, with having a stealth candidate, I think you go for the home run on every pick.
You go for the grand slam and you get it done, get it out of the way the first time around.
So the other two become a little bit more pro forma when you get those other two.
But here's what I fear, at least at this point.
You have this stealth candidate.
I'm not saying she's bad.
I don't know.
I really, I don't know.
There are a lot of, if you go to certain websites, you'll find pro and con on her.
I just, I don't know enough to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, what I think about this yet.
But I can tell you that because she doesn't have much of a record and she might be a little bit of a stealth candidate, what you have here is the Libs.
And I think even if some of the Libs like her, they're still going to make a big point out of raising a ruckus.
They're still going to make it look like she's gingist con.
She's going to make it look like they're going to make it look like she's the absolute worst thing to come down the pike just to get that on the record because then they'll be saying, okay, we're going to let her through, but nobody more conservative than this.
Nobody more conservative than this, Mr. President.
We'll see you on this one, but nobody more conservative on this.
And I'm also going to say, if I get a little bit suspicious, if she gets a lot of Democrat support right off the get-go, a lot of Democrats in the Senate sign off on this one.
Well, I just have to tell you, my natural instincts are going to be a little red flag will start coming out.
Not sure how high it'll go, but setting the table here for what.
And this, of course, could just be all a feint.
It might not be Edith Clement.
We don't know.
We'll just have to wait and see.
But that's the buzz that's circulating even now.
Quick timeout.
We will be back.
Let you hear what Senator Kennedy has to say about all this in just a moment.
Welcome back amidst billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic first and secondhand cigar smoke.
It's El Rushball and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
We are up and running on the Ditto Cam.
It is at rushlimbaugh.com.
Senator Kennedy appeared on CNN yesterday.
Dana Bash or Dana Bash, I'm sorry, asked him a couple questions.
First off, she said, Senator, President Bush has consulted with about 60 members of the Senate.
That's almost two-thirds.
Even your colleague, Senator Byrd, who is a stickler for wanting consultation, issued a statement saying he was quite pleased.
I told you, Mr. Snurdle, they've tried to embrace Bird.
I don't know if they're trying to peel him off, but they've talked to him and he's quite pleased.
Are you pleased with the level of consultation, Senator Kennedy?
Certainly would appear that way, doesn't it?
But consultation is a two-way street.
It's a process.
We'll know whether consultation is good when we know the final result.
And consultation is not only asking members, as Mr. Card asked me for people that I might suggest, but it's also for the president to share those names prior to the nomination, with, I would expect, the ranking members of the judiciary committees, and that they ought to be included.
And then we'll know finally whether this consultation is real consultation or whether it's just been a process without meaning.
And that's why it's so important that the president get it right.
I hope he gets it right.
I hope that it'll be a nominee that I can support with enthusiasm.
I sure as hell don't.
If it's a nominee that I can support, that Senator Kennedy can support with enthusiasm, I'm finished.
I'm through.
I've had it.
And I know it's not going to be that way.
This arrogant old fool.
It's just laughable to listen to these losers sit there and act like they won.
And because they lost, they actually should have won.
So because they should have won, they get rights to determine nominees and to consult and all this.
So Bush has reached out.
This ought to show everybody.
60 senators.
He's brought in.
He's embraced Robert Byrd.
Sheets got the warm, cocoon-like embrace of George W. Bush.
It's not good enough for Senator Kennedy.
Well, it's an ongoing process.
You know, we haven't been invited up there for happy hour yet.
That's part of the process.
We haven't been invited up there for dinner.
We haven't been invited up there for cognac and cigars after dinner.
Until that happens, I don't know how seriously we can take this consultant consultation process.
You just have to shake your heads at these people.
So the next question, Senator Kennedy, you came back from Club Gitmo.
You visited this weekend.
As you know, other Democrats have gone down and have said, well, maybe it's not as bad as we think.
They're sort of cleaned up their act a bit, if you will.
You feel that way, Senator?
And did you actually get some time with prison guards without their supervisors to get a real sense of what's going on there?
I was impressed by the quality and the dedication, the commitment, and the training that our servicemen and women have there today.
But the fact is that Guantanamo has inflamed terrorists all over the world.
I've called on the Kwandano to be close.
I think people have to be brought to justice.
The details are not.
Stop the tape a second.
It has not inflamed terrorists all over the world.
They were attacking us and other innocent people long before Club Gitmo or Abu Ghrab.
And you know it, Senator.
You know, it's an interesting parallel that I think can be drawn here.
Have you noticed that the frustrating thing about the Joe Wilson story, which is now being called the Karl Rove investigation, is the media has no interest in what Wilson did.
They have no interest whatsoever in what Wilson did.
Their only interest is how the administration has reacted to what Wilson did.
And in the war on terror, the media has no interest.
And Senator Kennedy in this soundbite has no interest in focusing on what the terrorists do and what the terrorists did.
All he cares about is how we're reacting to what the terrorists did.
So the way we react to 9-11 is causing more terrorism.
It's 180 degrees out of phase, folks.
It's just, it's insane.
You know, the terrorists are only doing what they're doing because of what we're doing.
And so our reaction to what they do is more important to Senator Kennedy than what the terrorists do.
And I'm going to tell you something, Senator.
If you think that's playing with mainstream America, you need to look at some polls and you need to look at the most recent election returns because you'll find out the American people are not wringing their hands over what we are doing in reacting to terrorism in the way you look at it.
They are interested in kicking ass.
They are interested in kicking butt.
They are interested in selling this once and for all.
You want to hamstring the American military.
You want to punish the American military and the commander-in-chief.
You want to tie everybody's hands here because it's in things most Americans consider to be utterly irrelevant.
And it's what creates questions in people's minds, Senator, as to where your allegiance lies.
You're more concerned about terrorists and how we're reacting to what they did than in focusing on what the terrorists did.
That's just, it's crazy.
Let's move on to the next soundbite.
The rest of that one is worthless.
Dana Bash said, Senator, you say Club Gitmo should be closed.
By the way, do you know why Senator Kennedy actually went to Club Gitmo?
Well, go to rushlimbaugh.com and go look at the Club Gitmo brochure, and you'll see that Senator Kennedy is part of the entertainment staff down there.
You've heard Senator Kennedy on the commercials.
You know, he goes swimming with these guys there.
Last one ends a dead goat is his admonition.
So Senator Kennedy, unbeknownst to people, has a role down at Club Gitmo, and that is part of the entertainment staff.
He's got to go down there and provide these people with their money's worth as it is.
It's all disguised as a trip down there to find out how they're being mistreated and so forth.
And now it looks like I don't even have time for the last Kennedy bite.
The question that he is asked, you say Club Gitmo should be closed, but where would you put them?
You need a maximum security facility offering up Hyannis Port?
Is there some place that you think you could put them outside of Club Gitmo?
And he mentions Leavenworth.
That's right.
Put these people in Kansas.
Put them in a blues in a red state, right, Senator?
Put them in Kansas.
Put them somewhere amongst the U.S. population.
Just incredible.
All right, we'll be back.
Quick break here at the bottom of the hour, and we will continue in moments, mere moments.
Stay with us.
Senator Kennedy blubbers about that the way we've treated prisoners at Club Gitmo has inflamed terrorists all over the world.
I'm not sure about this, but I would venture to say that there have been more people wounded and dead, wounded and killed because of Michael Issakoff's false report about the Koran being destroyed at Club Gitmo than anything that's actually gone on there.
Just like there probably have been more people die at Chappaquittick than have died at Club Gitmo.
And as we all know, what happened at Chappaquittick did not cause a backlash towards Senator Kennedy from women around the country.
We also know this, as it was recently pointed out to me, Senator Kennedy was embraced by George W. Bush in his first term in writing the education bill.
A lot of good it did.
A lot of good consultation does with these people.
Now, I'm told that Robert Byrd has been embraced and he's been brought into this consultation process because the thinking is that Byrd just loves that kind of attention and they want to get him on their side.
We'll have to see how all of this plays out.
Washington Post today has a story by Lois Romano, who I like.
I've dealt with her over the years.
And I've always had a pleasant experience with Lois Romano at the Washington Post.
But this story, five from the Fifth Circuit mentioned for Supreme Court.
Now, here's the lead of this story.
Was it all that long ago that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was on the cutting edge of the civil rights movement, a liberal pocket of scholars aggressively enforcing the Supreme Court's demand for speedy desegregation in the deep south?
But things have changed mightily in 20 years.
Today, the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit is considered among the most conservative in the land, but it is still at the center of politics and history because five names on Bush's list come from this court.
So you could say that the Washington Post has a story here trying to, the first little salvo against anybody, it might come from this court.
This court used to be good.
This court used to care about the Constitution.
This court really used to be good when it came to civil rights, desegregation, and so forth.
But now, now, it's among the most conservative in the land.
Yuck.
So they're doing their best to cast aspersions on anybody that might come out of the Fifth Circuit as a nominee.
Tom in Chicago, we have our first liberal on the phone today.
He says you are.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
I'm just calling to let you know that earlier in the show, you said something about how the media seems to be twisting that Bush changed its position on the leak or that he would fire him.
And I saw him clearly asked, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone in the administration found to be involved in this leak?
And he clearly heard it, and he clearly said yes.
I believe it was an ABC reporter, but I'm not sure.
Well, I've got both Bush statements here, and even the Washington Post, who is it writing about this today?
Maybe it's Terry Hunt in the AP, but whoever I read says it is a very, very, very fine distinction, the difference between the two statements.
I myself don't see much of one here.
Bill or Tom, I'm sorry, hang on just a second, and let's listen to these.
Let's go back to September 30th, 2003.
Let's start with cut two, Mike.
This is what the president said about leaks in his administration.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
All right.
Now, let's define something here.
If the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.
What is a violation of the law?
If you violate the law and you're convicted, what does it make you?
Makes you a criminal.
Okay, that's how that's how I interpret this.
So yesterday, here is the, and I think this bite, by the way, this bite shows the utter disrespect of the White House press corps for the president because they just start laughing after he gets his answer started.
But the question came from, in fact, Terrence Hunt of the Associated Press.
Mr. President, you said that you don't want to talk about an ongoing investigation, so I'd like to ask you, regardless of whether a crime was committed, well, regardless of whether he never said anything about it unless a crime is committed.
So the question is a bit of a setup.
Regardless of that, it's the press trying to change the goalposts.
It's the media trying to move the goalpost a little closer so they can kick their field goal with a little bit more ease.
And that's what this means.
Regardless of whether a crime was committed, do you still intend to fire anyone found to be involved in the CIA leak case?
Here's what he said.
We have a serious ongoing investigation here.
And it's being played out in the press.
And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions.
And I will do so as well.
I don't know all the facts.
I want to know all the facts.
The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it.
I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts.
And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
Okay, so Mike roll off just that last sentence.
That's really all we need here to play these things back and back.
Make a separate cut out of it if you can.
And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
Grab soundbite two again.
And when I give it a cue, hit that because the president said yesterday, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
September 30th, 2003.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
So, Tom, what is the difference there?
Where did he move the goalpost?
Well, I'm talking about, I think it was on June 10th, the question I was talking about.
I don't know if you guys have that one.
But what I see is that, okay, if he did something criminal, he should be in jail.
If he just leaked the name and they can't get the criminal, because I know this law is tough or whatever, he should at least be removed just because exposing, you know, whatever they call a knock is unbelievable.
But she wasn't a knock.
This is Twilight Zone timing it.
She wasn't a knock.
Her boss said she wasn't a knock.
She was never in deep cover.
Wait till you hear the story I've got today.
This woman registered to vote.
Well, she registered to vote under her covert name, under her agency name to vote for Gore.
You could almost say she outed herself.
She went to register to vote using her cover name so she could vote for Al Gore.
She wasn't undercover.
There has been no crime committed here if you look at the statute.
You know, you guys are using selective application of what you want to be true.
You ask me, you call, and you say the president said something different yesterday than he said before.
I played you the two bites.
They sound the same to me.
They sound identical to me.
And then you say, well, I think if somebody leaks somebody's name, whether it's criminal or not, he ought to be fired or gotten rid of it.
And if he's criminal, he ought to be in jail.
We don't even know what the, depending on what the statute says or what the conviction would be, whether there's jail time for this or not.
Now you guys want Rove to go to jail.
So you just want to criminalize somebody who beats you.
The real crime for the left is anybody who beats you.
Next thing you know, you're going to want me in jail.
Except you already do want me in jail.
So, I mean, but that's, as of yet, anyway, that's not how the American judicial system works.
Conservatism is not a crime.
And beating liberals is not a crime.
It's a badge of honor.
But this whole notion of moving the goalposts, as you can hear from the question, starts with the reporter himself.
Mr. President, you said you don't want to talk about an ongoing investigation, so I'd like to ask you, regardless of whether a crime was committed, do you still intend to fire anyone found to be involved in the CIA leak case?
The president never said that he would fire somebody who simply leaked.
It happens all the time.
If you fired everybody in Washington who leaks, Colin Powell wouldn't have been alive as Secretary of State for more than two days, folks.
Can we be honest?
And neither would his pal, Richard Armitage.
We wouldn't have had a Secretary of State after two days if you fired everybody that leaked.
We wouldn't have half the Pentagon.
We wouldn't have half the State Department.
We wouldn't have half the EPA if you put everybody in jail or fired everybody who leaked.
Now, you libs are barking up a tree here that you're going to be like a cat.
You're going to get so high up, it's going to take the fire department to come get you out, except we control the fire department.
We're not going to come get you.
We're going to leave you up there, and you have to jump or spend the rest of your lives up this tree.
I mean, the idea of saying the goalposts changed because of this trick question, which is a lame trick question.
So I'd like to ask you, regardless of whether a crime was committed, you still intend to fire anybody.
He never said he'd fire somebody if a crime was not committed.
He said, if there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person's violated law, that person will be taken care of.
And yesterday he says, if someone committed a crime, they'll no longer work in my administration.
How can it be any more consistent from September 30th of 2003 to yesterday?
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
All right.
I'm not going to let this go just yet.
This media claim that the White House has changed the bar, lowered the threshold.
You know, it'd be interesting if the New York Times said the same thing.
If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work at my newspaper.
A la Judith Miller.
Oh, and folks, have you seen the editor of the New York Times, Mr. Keller, all concerned about Judith Miller's gastrointestinal tract?
The food in prison is horrible, Dawn, and she's not eating enough of it because it's making her sick to her stomach.
And so Bill Keller said, I had to go there and tell her to eat.
Judy, you must eat.
It's horrible in there.
Horrible.
Horrible.
Apparently, she's in a gulag.
She's in whatever this place is.
So they're setting it up that the food is horrible.
She's not dealing with the bad food well, but she's holding up.
She's holding up.
They had to go in there and they held her, told her to make sure, Judy, that you eat.
You have to eat.
Sounds like you're talking to a kid.
So here is, well, I don't know if she's in a fetal position yet, but she is chained to the floor and there is hair.
There are loose strands of hair next to where she's chained.
I'm just kidding, Mr. Snerdley.
I'm just kidding.
Won't be long before we hear such allegations.
All right, I have three soundbites and maybe four here I want you to play.
We're going to replay President Bush from yesterday, then President Bush from September 30th.
In fact, let's reverse that.
We'll go 2-1, Mike, and then Terry Hunt, who asked the question that actually moved the bar, then got to McClellan later in the White House press briefing.
Here is Bush on September 30th.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Here's Bush yesterday.
And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
Here's Terry Hunt, who asked the question yesterday at the White House press briefing.
The president seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for in the leak of a CIA officer's name, in which he said that if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration.
That's never been part of the standard before.
Why is that added now?
It's never been part of the standard before.
Let's go back to audio soundbite number two, September 30th, two years ago.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Mr. Hunt, what in the world?
You're a reporter.
I'm doing a better job than you are, and you are there.
You're there every day.
There has been no qualifier added.
There was no qualifier added yesterday.
What he said yesterday is practically identical to what he said on September 30th of 2003.
And to assert to McClellan that somebody has to have committed a crime before they won't work in his administration, and that's never been part of the standard.
This is an out-and-out lie.
I don't know if it's a misinformed lie or a purposeful lie, but Terrence Hunt of the Associated Press is totally misrepresenting this because the press's reputation is at stake.
Their reputation for being able to kill people.
Folks, what have I told you?
You know, you've laughed at me, some of you, and I've talked young journalism students who've called here and said they want to be journalists and ask my advice.
I say, go get a job at some small paper, pick out some community person and destroy them.
And you'll get noticed by the mainstream press faster than any other type of reporting you do.
You pick out some big, rich guy in that town where you're working and destroy this guy or raise questions about his character of any kind, whether it's worth it or not, whether it's valid or not, and you'll get noticed.
Here we got to kill Karl Rove, and they're protecting their reputation to show that they can still bring people down.
Even though they've lost their monopolistic power, it is their reputation on the line here.
Their ability to cover a story the way they want it covered.
Their ability to report a story the way they want it reported.
Their ability to report only the facts that work for them and ignore the facts that hurt them.
Their ability to shape the news that you get every day and thus their ability to shape your opinion every day.
That's their reputation.
It's at stake.
That's why I say these people are engaged in their second or next to last stand.
And they're got one foot off the cliff, about to fall off the deep end.
When you've got a reporter changing the terms of a president's answer in a question, as Terry Hunt did yesterday, I'd like to ask you, regardless of whether a crime was committed, what happened here, that's a trick question because you set up the premise in the question.
And whatever the president's answer is, you say, well, he changed what he said.
No, he didn't change what he said.
You changed your question.
You changed the premise from breaking law or not breaking the law, will he be fired if he leaked?
And then you took the president's answer and assumed, or you just want everybody to believe, because you don't think anybody else heard this, that the president answered the way you wanted him answered.
But you, Mr. Hunt, have been caught because what you say happened didn't happen.
And that is so often the case now with the mainstream press.
What they say happened didn't happen.
What they say is going to happen doesn't happen.
What they say has happened didn't happen.
It's breathtaking to watch this.
I love pointing it out to you folks, as you know.
I love being right.
Happens a lot more often than not.
And I love hearing myself speak anyway.
So it's a win-win.
Quick timeout.
We will be back and resume.
Oh, wait.
We have to hear from the sitting Buddha.
And that would be Helen Thomas, because she was in there.
And this just, this is a level of respect that's left in the White House Press Corps.
Helen Thomas just asks Bush, well, listen to the question.
You'll get it for yourself.
Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell's going on.
Why is it so difficult to find out the fact you've cost thousands, millions of dollars?
Two years, tied up how many lawyers?
All he's got to do is call him in.
You just heard from the president.
He said he doesn't know all the facts.
I don't know all the facts.
Two things, Helen.
If the president called Rove in, you wouldn't be there.
So Rove says what he says.
President comes out.
Hey, Rove just told me he didn't do it.
You going to accept it, Helen?
You know damn well you're not going to accept it.
The second thing is, Helen, where was this question during the nine months that Bill Clinton was lying to this country about Monica Lewinsky?
Why didn't you just say, why doesn't he just come out and tell us?
He did.
He did.
Yes, Helen, and he lied.
And that's why you have these investigations with supposedly objective prosecutors who have no political interest in the outcome, just going and getting the facts, because you know it as well as anybody, Helen.
If Brush came out and said, I just talked to Carl Carl said, he didn't do it.
You'd be all over him in double time.
Back after this.
Somebody needs to tell the New York Times, Bill Keller, that if Judith Miller's at Club Gitmo, she's eating lemon chicken with rice piloff.
And she'd be eating a lot better than this sweat hole in Virginia, wherever she is.
I say we tell the Times to ask for a transfer of Judith Miller to Club Guitemo.
Do it today.
▲
Export Selection