All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
July 19, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, part of the scuttle butt's true.
The uh Supreme Court announcement will be made at nine o'clock tonight, folks.
Nine P.M. tonight.
Not 2 30 this afternoon.
Greetings.
Great to have you with us.
We're back.
Broadcast excellence rolls on.
The award-winning thrill packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular Rush Limbaugh program, the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
All right, I want to stay focused for a moment here because the president commented again today about it on the press's attempt to move to goalpost.
Uh in terms of under what circumstances he said he would fire Carl Rove.
Remember now the premise here is that uh being a presidential political operative is a crime if that republic president's a republican.
Conservatism is a crime.
Uh conservative policies are criminal.
Uh and as such, uh the press is justified in forcing the president to get rid of Carl Rove, because Rove's there uh by virtue of criminal activity, he got Bush elected, or helped to do that.
And so the press is stuck on this notion that the president has changed the threshold.
Uh they say that the first thing the president said was he would simply fire somebody if they leaked her name.
Uh that and and I and I I remember that the first caller we had on this, uh a friendly lib, said he was talking about a June 10th presidential news conference.
So we went back and we found what what was said on June 10th.
And this is really, really lame.
This is just uh it's it it is it is typical of of what's happening.
The press is more concerned with their version of the story, and even if they have to change the president's meaning, they will do it.
Because again, remember their reputation is what's at stake.
Their reputation to make a news story in their own image, their reputation to have you only know the facts they want you to know, their reputation to be able to get rid of people whenever they want to get rid of them.
But think of how unhinged they've become.
They now say anybody in the White House, anybody who administration leaks ought to be fired.
And yet who have they just made a hero out of but Deep Throat?
Mark Felt.
They don't think anything should have happened to him.
They don't think he should have gotten any money from Woodward and Bernstein either, but by the same token, where would they be without all these leakers?
If all these leakers were in jail, where would the press be?
So there's totally unhinged uh and and making absolutely no sense because they're poisoned uh with anger and they are poisoned with frustration over the fact that they are losing their ability to shape American opinion.
They're losing the ability to make people realize only the facts the mainstream press wants them to know.
All right, so here's I I'm just gonna read these in order.
Here is the president on 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.
That's September 30th of 2003.
Uh the June 10th, 2004 press conference.
Uh and this is where the press is trying to play games.
They are claiming that President Bush changed his pledge to fire anybody involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name, saying he's now added the qualifier if somebody committed a crime.
However, the AP cited a June 10th news conference of 2004, where according to the wire service, a reporter asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge.
The earlier pledge is what I just read to you, September 30th, 2003.
And again, if there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
If the person's violated the law, the person will be taken care of.
Reporter says, do you stand by your pledge to fire anybody found to have leaked her name?
Bush said yes.
And it's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts, meaning it's a criminal matter.
And so the press is saying, he said they'd fire, he said he'd fire anybody if they just leaked.
That's not Bush has never said it.
It is totally twisting the words.
Then yesterday Bush said, and if someone committed a crime, they'll no longer work in my administration.
He'd been utterly consistent.
He's always made this a matter of law.
He's always predicated it on being found by the judicial system to have been a criminal act.
The AP, Terrence Hunt doing his ever-loving best to twist this in Isakoff fashion.
Is in Dan Rather fashion?
You name it, the guidelines, you know, the the press said that they wanted to be judged by their work in Watergate.
Fine.
We'll we'll gladly use that.
You will use people who break the law in order to get stories to force Republicans from office.
You want to be judged on the way you did your uh work in Watergate?
Fine.
That's exactly how we see you right now.
You're trying to replicate what you did in Watergate, even to the fact of going and making the president appear to have changed his meaning and lied about his previous statements when he has done no such thing.
Uh let's go to Cut 20, came up again uh this afternoon, this morning, actually, press con well, it was this afternoon, a press conference with the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, unidentified reporter said in light of the concerns that the CIA leak investigation is distracting you.
Has uh has Mr. Rove or any of your aides offered their resignation of what sort of crime constitutes a firing offense.
I appreciate you bringing that up.
My answer really hadn't changed from 24 hours ago.
It's the same answer.
Yeah, I'd be glad to answer another question if you got one.
I mean, I'll be glad to repeat what I said yesterday, which is there's an ongoing investigation, and people shouldn't uh jump to conclusions in the press until the investigation is over.
Once the investigation's over, I'll deal with it.
Have you got another question?
What do you think of Edith Clement for the court?
Oh, well, I think it's important.
Let me refer you back to the first question.
These people are coming across as the journalism students that you would find on a high school newspaper.
You know, it's really they're no better than that.
They have the same juvenile punk attitudes as a teenager would have.
They have the same level of professionalism.
It's just an embarrassment to watch these people.
It's a flat out embarrassment to be treated to these people's work.
You know, I there there's there's very few of them that I feel comfortable in ever complimenting their work.
There are some, but this is just this is outrageous what they are attempting to do.
Again, Mike Grab cut two and c and cut one.
Here is what the president said on September 30th of 2003.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And uh if the person is uh violated law, the person will be taken care of.
All right, so that sets the standard.
If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person's violated the law, the person will be taken care of.
June 10, 2004, which is what the AP is now saying constitutes Bush moving the bar.
Question was do you stand by your earlier pledge to fire anybody found to have leaked Playm's name?
Bush said yes.
Press says, see, he's changed the bar.
He said last year that all he had to do is leak.
No, you gotta go back to September 30th.
Do you stand by?
Do you stand by your earlier pledge?
The earlier pledge was if the person's violated a law, the person will be taken care of.
And then yesterday, the president said.
And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
So I'm just telling all of you out there who believe this manipulation is just what it is on the part of the press.
Then erase it from your memory.
This is nothing more than just that.
It's manipulation.
It's a bunch of people trying to protect their reputations.
It's trying to show to themselves, illustrate to themselves they can still be the lone arbiters of what people think is going on.
They are the sole providers of news, the sole providers of opinion.
They're the sole people uh uh uh able to shape public opinion in this country.
They're worried they no longer have that ability and their right to be worried because they don't.
They're trying to re-establish it.
This is a test case, and it's all based on the fact that Carl Rove's a criminal anyway, because he's a conservative.
And Bush is a criminal because he's a republic, he's a criminal because of Florida 2000.
Conservatism is a crime.
That's the attempt here on the part of the American left to criminalize conservatism in the minds of the American people.
They're trying to do this to save and and and and re-establish their own reputations, and they are failing miserable.
This is so childish.
This is so immature.
This is no different than Dan Rather running forged documents.
When you try to say the president said something he didn't say, when we've got what he said on tape, and when we can display it for anybody who wants to hear it.
And when you ask a question, do you stand by your earlier pledge and the answer is yes?
And then the earlier pledge question does not include the full content and uh context of the pledge.
Do you stand by your pledge earlier to fire anybody caught leaking her name?
Well, that in itself is said to be a crime.
Bush is understanding that is part of the equation.
Yeah.
I haven't changed my mind at all on this.
But man, all the media thinks he has.
They're so excited.
And you noticed every day it's a new tack with Rove.
Because every day that tack fails.
So as every tack fails, the next day they gotta come up with a new one.
We'll take a break and be back.
Don't go away, folks.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, press distortions, press juvenile behavior, media lying, as well as the good times, my friends.
And we're here at 800-282-2882.
The uh email address rush at EIB net.com.
Arlene in Brattleboro, Utah.
Welcome to the program.
I'm good.
Hi.
Um hi.
I think the people are missing something really important here.
I think the big picture isn't exactly what it looks like.
And here's what I think that it is.
We have from the onset of this nation, set ourselves up as a beacon of moral authority.
We have always been the almost the holier than thous.
We are the ones that don't do those things that are morally wrong.
Rightly or wrongly, and this administration has certainly perpetuated that with um the pr the verbal um verbiage about Judeo-Christian ethics.
We do it the right way, we do it the moral way.
Um what happened here is as things as pragmatics have sunk into it.
Uh it's as I'm great, it wasn't whether or not these people were insurgents, whether or not they were dangerous.
It's our country doesn't do this.
And so what is pragmatically wrong.
I I'm sorry.
Arlene, I'm sorry.
I have no idea what you're what what you're saying.
What I'm saying is, what is what could you synthesize your point here for me?
Are you are you let me let me try my hand at analyze what we're saying?
Are you saying, are you saying that the United States sets itself up as the beacon of all that's great, but that we're not acting that way when we have Carl Rove in office and we do what we do at Gitmo?
I'm saying that absolutely.
I'm saying that it's not that we're not acting that way.
It's a public perception.
We have set too high of a standard.
We have set a standard that we can't meet in this world.
And in their lies the problem, and people judge us, and we judge ourselves by that.
Oh, okay.
I'm I'm uh because I don't think that's true.
I think that's another fabrication of the left.
To be quite honest with you, you know, when you're in the midst of fighting a war, you first do what it takes to win.
Especially when it's a war that's this dangerous and is this threatening, and has the possibility to totally disrupt the fabric of this country.
You know, if you go back to World War II, you will not find all these concerns that the left is amounted to day or as as has raised about we're the beacon of this or the beacon of that, and how do we how do we expect the world to love us if we don't pour and uphold our own standards?
Uh, here's another thing about this.
Even if we had the highest moral standards in the world, and we do, and even if we had the greatest ethics in the world, which we do compared to other nations in the world, what good has it done us with France and Germany?
What good has it done us with our supposed allies?
We can't rely on anyway, no matter who and what we are.
In fact, France and Germany would just assume that we were not the beacon of morality, and that's what we'd have if John Kerry or Bill Clinton were still in the White House.
We were the beacon of nothing that was worth recommending when Clinton ran this country.
There was nothing about this country a lot of people were proud of when Bill Clinton was in there in the White House.
And to suggest that that didn't do us damage, you what it did us damage out there, Arlene, Bill Clinton cutting and running out of Mogadishu, Bill Clinton having a four-day war against Iraq on a microphone, launching a couple of missiles on a Saturday night, and after that Saddam says, brothers of Arab unite against the big evil.
You could say that Clinton's attacks on Saddam caused all this.
If you wanted to apply the same standard, you're applying to George W. Bush.
You are just looking for any reason you can to blame this country.
And Arlene, that is what we don't understand.
Throughout the world, comparatively, we are the good guys.
We do more for the other people on this planet combined than all the other nations of the world.
And we have, and that is our history.
And for people to continually look for little nicks and knacks where we're not perfect, and then suggest because we're not perfect, it gives Everybody else in the world the right to think we're horrible is something it doesn't compute.
And you're gonna have to change your sense of proportion on this because you're so off base and so out of balance on it that it's frightening.
Who's next on the who was I gonna take before this call came up?
Where was I gonna go?
Samantha in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you.
Hey Rushmega Diddle, how are you?
Fine, thank you.
Listen, uh I was listening to the Ted Kennedy cut from the first hour, and I just was sitting there listening, and I just found it really interesting that all of a sudden he and the liberals are interested in results and not about intentions.
And it's like if you look at the Carl Rove case, well, why aren't they paying attention to his intentions?
I mean, I'm sure he didn't mean to hurt her.
Well, while this is a good point, you are uh uh, and it's actually a very, very good point, you are failing to recognize something that trumps even good intentions.
See, good intentions are only asked of failures.
You only ask about the intentions of people whose work bombed, which is the liberals.
You're not supposed to ask what happened to the war on poverty, what happened to the great society.
Well, uh, our intentions were good, our hearts were the right place.
With Carl Rove, there's something that trumps even that, and that is he's a conservative, therefore he's a criminal, or at least a suspect, simply because he's a conservative.
You've heard the press say it.
If you've been watching TV, the press saying, yeah, the Democrats are totally totally justified in going after Rove.
After all, he beat them in all these elections.
Yeah, they're totally justified.
Really?
You're justified in trying to proclaim somebody a criminal because they beat you in elections, fine.
If that's what we have to know now about the left, we beat you in elections and we're criminal, glad to know it.
We'll be glad to look at it that way, even though you're you're you're cock eyed.
Uh and as to as to the perspective on this, I actually think the way to look at this compare the uh uh the two situations uh like Club Gitmo or Abu Ghrab and Joel Wilson, as I did in the last hour.
The media has absolutely no interest on Joe Wilson or what he did.
Or Valerie Plain.
They're not concerned if they broke the law.
They're not concerned if they leaked themselves.
They're not concerned.
After all, Joe Wilson did leak, folks.
He leaked a false story to the Washington Post.
Then the Washington Post ran that false story.
It was about documents that Joe Wilson never saw.
Now is the media saying that anybody who leaks from a white house and is caught should be fired.
Is that what they're really saying?
Because on TV, they're also saying that confidential sources they're lifeblood.
And they want to make Mark Felt Deep Throat a hero.
They want to put Carl Rove in jail.
They are unhinged, they are stupid, and they are partisan.
They're not interested at all in what Wilson did.
They're they're not really interested even in a crime being committed here, if you want to know the truth.
They couldn't care less whether a crime's been committed.
They want you to think a crime has been committed because they think that's what'll turn your public opinion on this.
They don't care.
They just want Rove out, and then they want Bush out.
Then they want Cheney out, and they want Rice out, then they want Rumsfeld out, and they want anybody else they don't like out because they all stink.
As far as they're that's that's what this that's what the Democratic Party has been since Bush won the election.
Since Bush won the election in 2000, we have been treated too.
Rumsfeld has to go, he's a jerk.
Rice has to go.
He the only guy that the press has not made a move to get rid of is Colin Powell.
He left on his own.
So they're not interested in what Wilson did.
They're only interested in how the administration might have reacted to what Wilson did.
Wilson could have been a terrorist himself.
But since he's the media's terrorist, he's untouchable.
You can't criticize him, you can't say a word about him.
All we're gonna judge is the reaction to the administration to Joe Wilson.
By the same token, the media wants to ignore 9-11.
They don't want you to remember that 9-11 happened.
All they want you to remember is our reacting to what happened on 9-11.
And by that I mean they only want you focused on Abu Ghrab and they only want you focused on Club Gitmo.
They don't want you to think of what happened at 9-11.
They don't they don't want you to think and oh, they also want you to think about all the deaths that we are causing in Iraq.
Civilian deaths and all that.
They don't want you to have any recollection whatsoever of 9-11.
So we can't focus on what Wilson did.
We can't focus on what Valerie Plaim did.
We're gonna focus on what Rove reacted to it or Bush or anybody else how they reacted to it, but the same token.
We can't we can't focus on 9-11, it's too horrible.
It's too traumatic.
But we can focus on our reaction to it.
And that's how cockeyed this is, and I give you my friends the American left.
And they're willing accomplices, some of whom are in the media and some of whom are in the Democratic Party.
And there you have their world view.
And then you have on top of that, the worldview is, as you just heard from our caller from Utah.
Well, who are we to be setting still?
We don't reach the top of the mountain when it comes to ethics and morality, and we never have.
And so we're telling people they need to do this and do that and do that, but we don't do it ourselves.
And I don't know where this comes from.
I really don't know because we do not take over countries and occupy them and try to recreate them in our image.
We believe in freedom and we trust free people and get them out of bondage and tyranny and dictatorship and let them turn their own lives to themselves and their elected officials.
And we deal with that, whatever it ends up being.
We trust it.
They don't.
We'll be back after this.
Yeah, it's the usual screams of joy, sometimes agony, depending on who hears it, the very mention of my name.
Firmly ensconced right behind this, the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It always makes Brian mad when I do that because it pegs the meter.
He's afraid the meter's gonna break.
We can afford a new meter.
I'd be I'd be honored to break a new meter every day.
Just uh just with my passion.
Bill in Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
Welcome, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Okay.
I I can feel it.
The Bushes are doing it to us again.
I'm gonna see a suitor two coming on, and we're all gonna be told that she's a conservative, and we just don't worry, guys.
She's gonna be great.
She's a conservative, you're gonna love her, and we're gonna see another another suitor.
Are you talking about uh uh Edith Clement?
Exactly.
I mean, I just I just feel that Bush is not again, he's doing it to us like his father did, where they just don't have a.
Why wait a minute?
Wait, hold it a second.
One question.
It may well be the case, but how do you know it?
Why do you think you know it now?
You know why, Rush?
Because I I it'll ask it'll ask if you get elected a second term, and I'm a big conservative Republican here.
I could feel the weakness coming on, I could feel the Bushes collapsing because the media they want love from the media.
They want to be loved, Rush.
And I it's getting me very nervous.
I I Bill, I have to I look, I totally understand that.
Uh let me first say, because I hear this, I can't tell you how often.
There is a palpable fear, because this is what the election was about, folks.
Make no mistake, as far as the base of the Republican Party was concerned, this is what the election was about.
And there are a lot of people who are obsessed, a lot of people I should say, uh who possess uh a a pessimism on this that I have noticed.
And it is it is logically based.
I mean, I I can't say that it isn't.
Uh and it and the and the pessimism comes from wanting to get along with the Clintons now, and uh, you know, wanting to let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, and so understand that, but at this point, I uh if if if I I'm not gonna join this uh uh chorus right now, if you will, because I simply don't know enough about this judge.
And I uh here's what I've found out.
I'll just tell you what I have found out, and I've I've I've been working on this a lot uh in the morning here prior to the program starting, and I've even gotten some emails today in reaction to some of the comments I made in the opening segment of this program about this.
And many conservatives are telling me that she's fine, she's excellent.
Uh people that uh know her and her family uh from uh from Louisiana, she's excellent.
She's she's perfect, she's she's what the doctor ordered.
Of course, you have to take that with some reservation because if they're friends, of course they're gonna say this.
Um the there are uh uh other people who are uh worried that there's no record, no sufficient record to track.
And uh I've had people say to me, uh Rush, now wait a minute, we're not gonna get another Anthony Kennedy.
I'm not gonna put up another Anthony Kennedy, or you're usually as you say suitor.
Uh Kennedy, as you know, was the replacement for Bork.
And he came out of Sacramento, by the way.
And I I I knew of him uh while he was in uh in in California and he he had a reputation as uh as an originalist and as a as a conservative, and we see what's happened.
Uh uh Bill, uh uh let me go on an assumption here just to make it a point, uh make a point.
I I'm gonna assume the woman's fine for the sake of this little example I want to give you.
I I'm gonna I'm gonna judge that uh that this woman is uh is would be a great addition to the court.
Even at that, there's something that happens when all these people get there, and that is they live and work in Washington, D.C., wherein there is a culture.
There is a culture that is dominated by the left, the media culture, the social structure and culture is dominated by the left.
And all of these judges that end up on the Supreme Court, this is an understandable aspect of human nature, cannot help but think of themselves as having reached the pinnacle of their profession.
There's no higher court, no higher honor, no higher position one can attain in terms of stature.
You can certainly earn more money doing other things like suing the manufacturers of Viox or something, but you uh you you will not reach any higher stature than being on the Supreme Court.
Well, when you get there, uh, and I've we have seen this.
You get there and you start writing your opinions.
And if the Washington Post and New York Times don't like them, they come after you.
They come after how you're destroying the history of the court.
And they come after you to talk about how you're destroying civil rights and you want to turn back the hands of the clock on freedom and civil rights and all these other garbage issues.
And that I have seen it work.
I have seen it affect them.
I think, just my personal opinion, I think that Justice Kennedy's big transformation was after Florida 2000, when the DC culture essentially wrote that the Supreme Court caved and violated the Constitution and selected a president, and these guys have their legacy too.
The these people on the Supreme Court, they worry about their legacies as well.
Everybody knows who Supreme Court justices are, their opinions live forever.
Uh and and they they care about uh their own uh legacy and its immortality.
So I think there's a there's a greater harm of of of getting just the right person and having that person buckle uh than there is of getting the wrong person, or at least an equal chance.
Now, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have remained rock solid.
Uh I've I've I've talked to Justice Scalia on the phone twice.
Both times I've told him if I didn't have my own brain, I'd want his.
Uh Justice Thomas is a personal friend of mine.
And I I I can I can say assuredly that Justice Thomas isn't gonna buckle.
He's not after what he was put through, and not after who I know him as a man to be.
I know his core, I know I know that he is an originalist, and I know that he is he is uh a man who is unaffected by what others think of him.
And that's what we need more of throughout society.
Uh in your neighborhood, in your office, uh at the Supreme Court, wherever.
We need as many people who couldn't care less what people think of them.
Because when you're governed by what people think of you, you're gonna change who you are to please them.
And when the people judging you in Washington are the leaders of the liberal culture there, uh what do you have to do to please them?
And so Justice Kennedy, who was part of the majority in the Bush v.
Gore Florida 2000 case, uh came under some really big fire from the media and the culture in Washington.
And as such, he has uh, you know, if you look at his uh decisions and his opinions lately, uh they uh they're being praised by that very culture and his role, whatever it was in Florida 2000 is uh uh been relegated now to not as prominent a status as it was.
Now back to uh Edith Clement or Clinton.
I haven't heard her name pronounced, is it Clement?
It is Clement.
They say, because I've heard it both ways now, so I'm not sure.
So it is Clement.
All right.
Uh you'll have to forgive me on that, folks.
I read closed captioning on the television uh rather than listen to to it, even at home.
Uh I just I love this the quietness and the the noise is just a racket to me, uh unless it's a perfectly uh uh made room with just the right kind of absorptive acoustics where there's not all this reverb and echo going around.
But so forgive me if I mispronounce some names only because I haven't heard them.
Uh but she uh from what you know people who are on her side letting me know, she's fine.
He's good.
Uh but there's still these these fears that Bush wants to avoid a fight.
Some people think Bush is going to pick somebody less than perfect just because of the Rove business.
And I frankly don't think that's the case, because I think they know that they're going to go after Rove no matter what happens tonight with the Supreme Court announcement.
Rove is not going to be taken off the front pages very long.
They'll make room for Rove on the front page because their reputation is tied up in that story.
May I make no mistake about it.
So Rove isn't going anywhere, and they know this.
They may put him in the Sunday pull-out section, but he'll be there.
I mean, he's he's he may not.
Don't worry about that.
I I don't think that's the case.
I and I understand the pessimism.
I understand the the fear uh that goes along with this, but the president has kept asserting through all this that he's not gonna do anything other than what he said during the campaign.
And uh I think you should also note that Gonzalez is not part of the equation.
And remember the left was all for Gonzalez, the current attorney general.
They hated him for attorney general.
He was writing torture memos.
But boy, he'd be perfect on the Supreme Court.
Another disconnect when it comes to principles and consistency with the left.
But nevertheless, conservatives said, no, no, Mr. President, not Mr. Gonzalez, and Gonzalez isn't there, even though the president slapped conservatives down for saying it, he's not there.
So there are there are hopeful signs uh to to uh look at in this case.
And it look, it may not even be her.
Uh this could be a big PR feint.
I don't know.
Which is likely is, but we'll we we will not know until uh until nine o'clock tonight.
I wouldn't go off the deep end assuming that whoever he appoints is gonna fail.
I I that that kind of pessimism is not gonna do your health any good, it's not gonna do your attitude any good, and it's not gonna do what needs to be done uh overall here any good to have that kind of pessimistic attitude going in.
Uh quick timeout, gotta go.
Be after uh be back after this uh brief EIB profit center break and continue this great program.
Stay with us.
Hi.
Hi, you welcome back.
Having more fun than a human being.
Should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh back to the phones.
This is um Fraim, Fraim in New York.
Hi, Ephraim, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Ross Megadiddle from the Mecca of liberalism, the West Side of Manhattan.
Thank you.
Absolutely right.
You've been to Zaybars lately?
Uh I'm around there, yes, sir.
Good.
I'm 19 years old.
I've been listening to you since the age of two, and my father first turned you on when Dave Dorson introduced you in New York at 10 o'clock.
Thank you, sir.
That just warms my heart.
You are the future of America because of this program.
That's fabulous.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And we enjoy your analysis and your sense of humor.
You're just great.
Better than ever, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
I just wanted to ask.
Uh I guess it's lucky for Tom Delay now that they've got Carl Rove, the President of the Democrats finally uh got off of Tom Delay, huh?
I guess they finally got car Carl Rove.
For now.
For now.
These people are never gotten rid of.
They just changed their positions on the liberal chess board.
The reason that they have abandoned Rove for now is because look what they did.
They go after delay.
Or and they've abandoned delay for now.
The reason they go the reason it happened is they go after delay.
Delay did all this.
A, B, C, D, and E. And what, lo and behold, did we learn?
We learn that more Democrats have done it than Delay did.
And so the Democrats have been rushing around filing late travel reports, late this, late that, saying, oh, we didn't know we had to do this.
We find out that all kinds of lobbyists have been paying for all kinds of trips for all kinds of congressmen.
So now the delay thing is actually shifted to the lobbyist Abramoff.
Abramov is who they're going after now because Abramov may have corrupted some Democrats along the way too, and he's gonna get it for that.
Because Democrats don't corrupt themselves.
Democrats are only corrupted by voters and by Republicans.
Democrats are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
It's only it's like McCain said.
Money corrupts members of Congress and the Senate.
Which is just crazy.
You know, that's why he said we had to get money out of politics with campaign finance reform and ergo, why there's more money than ever before in it.
So Rove replaces delay, but delay is still in reserve over there.
If they have to go back, but it before delay, who Was it?
It was Abu Ghraib.
But before that, what was it?
It was missing weapons in Iraq.
And before that, what was it?
It was the National Guard story.
Before that, what was there's always something.
Rove has now been replaced or is replacing all those other things.
And last Friday it appeared that Rove was going to have to be moved off the chessboard, but the media got together.
Nope, we got our reputation at stake on this.
We got four days of pronouncing this guy guilty.
We're not going to let one day in the news cycle get rid of this.
And so they ginned back up with a bunch of absurd presentations on the Sunday shows, and they followed what happened on the Sunday shows with a brand new news cycle on Monday that was totally based on fabrications and lies and misstatements.
They've tried to keep it alive today by misrepresenting what the president has said about who he would fire when.
It is pathetic.
It is transparent, but their reputation is at stake.
So yeah, you you're correct in thinking a delay is off the front page, but he's still in the paper.
And uh he's it can bring him back to the front page if this if this Rove thing bombs up, which which of course it will.
Uh uh, we know it will because the media keeps changing the story, not Rove.
The president's not changing the story.
I'll tell you that the media's you wonder they're gonna get caught on this.
Can I tell you exactly why they're gonna end up eating themselves over this?
Look at who they've chosen sides with.
A reprobate like Joe Lou, uh, Joe, what's his face?
Wilson.
They have chosen sides with an absolute loser.
They've chosen sides with a liar.
They have chosen sides with a guy who is easily manipulated by the Democratic Party.
Remember, Joe Wilson said he was all upset because when Bush talked of the 16 words in the State of the Union address, Wilson said, Well, I'm outraged.
That's not what my report said.
Do you know when he said this?
Some many months after the State of the Union address, after he started work with the Kerry campaign.
In fact, I've got an LA Times column uh that he wrote uh on February 8th of 2003, about a month after the State of the Union address, two or three weeks after, does even mention it.
Not even outraged by it.
I have it right here in a stack.
I'll share it with you in the next hour.
I mean, if if you're watching State of Union Address and a president says something, it's uh totally at odds with what you reported to him.
Your op-ed's out the next day.
But if your op-ed doesn't come up for two to three weeks, you're still angry.
Your reputation's at stake.
He doesn't even mention it.
And it was many more months after that before he started mentioning it, not till he joined the Kerry campaign.
Well, the press has chosen sides with somebody it's undependable.
The press has chosen sides with somebody that ultimately is going to end up embarrassing them.
He has lied to them already.
He leaked things to the Washington Post.
They chose to ignore that he's leaked to them and lied to them, and they still treat him as God when it comes to sources.
And folks, you know, you you know, you you get in bed with a louse, you're gonna get lice.
You get in bed with a bad actor, you're you're you're gonna get what you deserve, and that's who they're in bed with here.
They're not interested in anything he's done.
They're not interested in anything his wife's done.
And we know what he and his wife have done, and I've got a story about what his wife did in terms of outing her own cover in registering to vote for Al Gore.
That also is a piece in the um October 4th, 2003 Washington Post.
Leak of agents name causes exposure of CIA front firm.
Where do you hear this story?
She did it.
So this is who they've chosen sides with, this is who they're in bed with.
And as time goes on, the American people are gonna learn about Joe Wilson, even more so than they have already, and Valerie Plame, and once again the press will go down in flames over this, just as Dan Rather believed Bill Burkett.
Dan Rather believed Mary Mapes, Mary Mapes believed rather.
Mary Mapes is uh trying to shovel Bill Burkett on to Joe Lockhart at the carry campaign.
There's no reason this incident should be any different.
That's what's amazing to watch.
They do not learn.
They keep making the same mistake, only bigger.
They keep making the same mistake, only with bigger spotlight shining on them.
I love it.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Here's a little tease on the uh Valerie Plain story for the Washington Post in October of 2003.
The leak of a CIA ops name has also exposed the identity of a CIA Front Company potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.
The company's identity, Brewster Jennings and Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 99 by Valerie Plaim, the case officer at the center of the controversy when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
So she, it wasn't to register to vote.
She actually gave the name of a CIA front company when she uh contributed a grand to Al Gore.
▲
Export Selection