All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
July 19, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, let me guy greetings folks and welcome back Rush Limbaugh the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you with us.
We got an hour to go here and we are kicking butt.
We are in control of the thermostat and we're turning it up.
It's getting hot out there.
Great to have you along.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I want cut two and cut one from the beginning of the show.
Those two sentences.
Those one sentence in each bite.
So cut two, cut one.
And then we'll go to cuts five, six, and seven.
Okay.
Maybe cut 20 in there.
So cut two, cut one, and maybe cut 20 and 5, 6, and 7 when we get to it.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want to give you the details here on the Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame stuff.
I've been teasing for the last 15 or 20 minutes.
First off, this Washington Post piece.
And this goes back to October 4th of 2003.
Now, this is really clever, by the way.
The way the press is trying this is Walter Pincus and Mike Allen in the Washington Post.
The opening sentence is no better than what Terry Hunt tried to do today or yesterday by lowering the bar, the president, by making it look like the president lowered the bar for firing Rove.
It doesn't have to be criminal act, just a leak.
The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure.
Next sentence.
The company's identity, the CIA front company's identity, Brewster Jennings and Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.
FEC rules require donors to list their employment.
Valerie Plame used her married name, Valerie Wilson, listed her employment as an analyst with Brewster Jennings and Associates.
Okay, so here's what we have.
Valerie Plame uses her married name.
Her cover name, working at the CIA front company called Brewster Jennings and Associates, contributes $1,000 to the Gore campaign.
The media spins this as a revelation resulting from the Novak article.
And of course, Karl Rove.
But that's not what this shows.
What this shows is that Valerie Plame blew her own cover right here because she contributed to the campaign of Gore under the same name she used for her undercover, her married name, and the name of a CIA front company that she worked for.
Now, is this how an undercover official works?
Making campaign contributions using her undercover name and listing the front company on campaign forms?
But see, there's nothing wrong with that as far as Walter Pincus and Mike Allen are concerned of Washington Post.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
There's nothing wrong with that.
That's perfectly fine.
We love the CIA here in the media.
We love the CIA here on the American left.
Oh, we want the CIA to be the most powerful agency in the world now.
Yeah, we've done our best to rip it to shreds and emasculate it all these years, but now our heroes and our tickets to getting rid of Roven Bush are at the CIA, so we love the CIA.
So Valerie Plame violates who knows what kind of protocol using her undercover name, exposing the existence of a CIA front agency.
Front company.
And all of this is totally ignored because her name was leaked, and that's how people know this.
Now, this is a clever, clever attempt to try to spin this.
She didn't do anything wrong.
Why, it's perfectly normal for an American and a CIA agent to contribute and want to contribute to the Gore campaign.
That's patriotism.
This is patriotism, folks.
You've got a CIA agent who's so concerned that this country be what the left wants it to be.
She was willing to risk it all to make this $1,000 donation.
She was willing to risk the identity of herself and the identity of the CIA front company, and she was willing to expose that to vote for Gore.
That's what kind of woman we're dealing with here.
This is a true patriot.
But then along comes the Prince of Darkness, Robert Novak, along with that fat slob, Karl Rove, and they blow her cover.
She was just a patriot.
She was just trying to contribute to the Gore campaign.
And look what happened.
These guys have now made it impossible for her for to enjoy life.
And we're going to come to her defense, and we're going to expose these two guys.
We're going to make sure we get rid of both of them, along with Bush and Rumsfeld and Delay.
We're going to get rid of Rice.
We're going to get rid of anybody that stinks up there.
We're going to get rid of Chertoff eventually because of what he said about 30 million, 30 people being killed in a subway is not a federal matter of interest.
So you have to love this.
Now, again, I want to point out, if this were 20 years ago, this is all the news there'd be on this.
If this were 17 years ago, our 17th anniversary is coming up August 1st.
If this were 17 years ago, this is all the American people would ever know about this.
That Valerie Plame is a hero, that her husband is a prince, that her husband is a savior and a patriot and a man who cares and deeply loves his country.
George Bush is a dirty, rotten SOB, and Karl Rove's even worse, and they deserve to hang by their fingernails, and we're going to make it happen.
And that's how they got Richard Nixon.
And since there was no alternative media back then, the, you know, these typical Linguini-spined Republicans had to go along with the Democrats to save their own skins on the Watergate Committee.
And Ergo, you forced a Republican president out of office.
Ain't going to happen, gang, this time.
They're not going to get Rove, and they're not going to get Bush.
What's going to end up happening here is that these unassailable great characteristics of Valerie Plame, i.e. Wolfen and Joe Wilson, are going to be exposed to the American people as who they are.
And once again, the American people will make up their minds once they're fully informed, and we will see that the media will once again take its lumps.
A la Dan Rather and Burkitt Gate.
Mary Mapes, you go on down the list.
Michael Issakoff getting people killed in Afghanistan because of reporting a falsehood about what happened at Club Gitmo.
And yet they don't learn.
Now, the other story I have here, as I've also referenced, and that's Joe Wilson himself in a Los Angeles Times op-ed on February 6, 2003.
This is just a little more than a week after the State of the Union.
Now, remember, the story Joe Wilson's spinning out there and the media is just lapping up.
They're sucking it up like an auric vacuum cleaner.
And they're out there, Wilson said, I went over there and I did this great work, and I found out the president lied.
The president made it all up.
Iraq was not trying to find any uranium ore from Niger.
And I came back and I reported that, and then I was watching the State of the Union speech, and I saw the president contradict my report.
I was outraged.
And I said, that's it.
I'm not going to put up with it, except.
Yes, that did happen, but it didn't happen for six months after the State of the Union speech, not until he joined the Kerry campaign.
You want to hear what he wrote one week after the State of the Union speech?
Because I have it here.
My formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Saddam Hussein is a murderous sociopath whose departure from this earth would be welcomed everywhere is how Joe Wilson opens this op-ed on February 8th, 2003.
I met with Hussein for the last time in a heavily curtained room in the foreign ministry late in the morning of August 6, 1990, four days after his invasion of Kuwait.
As a senior diplomat in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad at the time, it was my responsibility to tell him to get out of Kuwait and to let the several thousand Americans, including 150 so-called human shields, leave the region.
I knew from previous meetings that he was always stacked the deck to give himself every advantage, and this session was no different.
I was accompanied by a single embassy note-taker while Hussein had eight senior foreign policy officials with him.
But only Tariq Aziz, then the foreign minister, dared speak in his presence.
The others were as silent as furniture.
Let me cut to the chase at the end of the piece.
There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspector's weapons of mass destruction or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.
And he will use them.
We should be under no illusion about that.
So one week after the present State of the Union speech that so outraged Joe Wilson, he writes a piece about how rotten Hussein is and that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he will use them if we attack.
But Joe Wilson had just gotten back from Niger and he was prepared to tell people that there was no search by Iraq for uranium ore.
Well, that's not true either because his report, which was not written, he did not file a written report.
What is true that CIA analysts and the Senate Intelligence Committee all think that what he came back from Niger and told them made the case more than anything else for the fact that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore.
It's why I said yesterday, this is impossible to deal with because we're dealing with such, we're dealing with a psychopathic liar.
I'm really inept at dealing with these kinds of people.
I just, I really have a strong dislike for these sociopathic liars, and this guy is one.
To write a piece in the L.A. Times one week after the State of the Union speech that so offended him and to tell everybody who reads his op-ed that Hussein is dangerous, that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he will use them, and then later joins the Kerry campaign, and only then does he express outrage over Bush twisting his report.
And this is the man that the American left, the Democrats, and some in the media have chosen sides with.
That's why, folks, I know they're going to go down in flames.
You can't rely on a sociopathic liar unless you're another sociopathic liar, and then you're really in trouble because not only do you believe what you say, you believe what you hear.
Sociopathic liar, pathological liar, is someone who believes their own lies.
I'm sure Joe Wilson thinks he's telling the truth every time he opens his mouth.
And that's why it's tough to deal with these people.
Because what he says today is what's true.
Yesterday, well, if he thought it was true, then it is true.
But if it isn't true, it wasn't.
But he said it was then, so in his mind, it is.
You see what I mean, trying to keep up with these people.
On top of that, here's his holier-than-thou victimized wife.
So eager to vote and contribute money to Al Gore that she exposes her cover name and the front company she's working for at the CIA to make that donation.
And this, these are the two people we are asked to believe that are capable and worthy of forcing Carl Rove out of Washington, D.C. and maybe President Bush.
I think not, folks.
The jig is up, Mr. Wilson.
And the media, you don't know it yet, but the gig is up as well.
It's time to find a new target.
Maybe go back to Tom DeLay because this one's going to fizzle.
Maybe this new Supreme Court nominee will give you something else to focus on for a while.
Because if you stay with this, I'm just trying to help you here.
You all are already flailing away in quicksand.
I'm trying to throw you a life support system, but don't think they're going to take it offered by me.
Back after this, stay with us.
Okay, to Juneau Alaska.
We go to the phones.
Hello, Dan.
Welcome.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Rush, I'm a little disappointed in you this morning.
Really?
You're misdirecting the truth.
You're a man who says you like the truth, but the reality is all morning long you spent covering up the truth and misdirecting the American public.
Not true at all.
I'm not misdirecting or twisting.
I'm not leading this in any direction at all.
I'm simply reacting to the daily assertions, allegations, and accusations of the left in the media.
And I'm blowing them to smithereens.
Here's what happened.
You had Scott McClellan tell the American public on two different occasions that he met with Rove and he met with Lewis Libby, and they assured him that they weren't involved in leaking the story.
We all know now that they were involved.
And now you're trying to shift the story to being whether the bar has changed or whether Valerie Plain or Joe Wilson are bad people or whatever.
But the reality is, Rush, I'm prepared for this.
I am prepared for this, sir, because that's not at all what's happened here, and you know it.
The day the press wants to make a big deal out of McClellan, which they did earlier, we dealt with that.
They've moved off of that now.
I'm simply reacting to the daily points the press and the Democrats are making about this, Dan.
Now, if you want my reaction to your claim that what this is really all about is McClellan lying to the press and saying that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak, we don't know that that's a lie.
We have no idea that that's a lie.
Rove and Libby did not make one phone call to anybody.
They answered their phones.
And guess who's on the other end?
A bunch of journalists.
And the journalists already knew it.
And the journalists are talking about other subjects, welfare reform or something else.
At the end of the conversation, they throw in this bit about Wilson.
And Rove says, well, you know what he says.
But involved in this is a way to be inclusive like a vacuum cleaner.
You still don't have any evidence of a crime here.
And you don't want to wait for the independent counsel to make any charges or bring any indictments and see if there's a conviction on any of this.
You're just convinced that there's a lie that's taken place.
And if you can't make one lie stick, then you'll go say there was a lie somewhere else.
And everywhere you go saying there was a lie, you're going to find me pointing out how there wasn't one.
If anybody's lying about this, it's Joe Wilson.
It's Valerie Plame, and it's the press lying about what the president said, lying about when he said what.
And it really is, I mean, you're using two or three old day-old talking points, Dan.
They tried this earlier and it didn't go anywhere, which is why now they're talking about how Bush lowered the bar.
That's what we're talking about today.
Your point about McClellan, that happened two or three days, and it didn't go anywhere.
They weren't able to get any traction, so they're off to something else now.
And tomorrow, if they're on some other avenue about this, we're going to be right there.
We're going to be scouting them and we're going to be shadowing them and we're going to have our response, which will be the truth to what they're saying.
You can hold out hope all you want.
But you know, the thing that amazes me about this, Dan, and for all of you on the left out there, is I don't think you have any idea how you're perceived.
We don't know one thing that you want to do to protect this country.
We don't know one thing that you want to do to keep the economy of this country moving.
We have no idea because you won't tell us, honestly, what your policies for the country are.
All we know about you is that you hate George W. Bush.
And your hatred for George W. Bush bleeds over and makes it sound like you hate the country.
And it makes it sound like you don't like the country as it is because Bush is running it.
You're embarrassed and you want to get rid of him.
But other than that, you're not telling us who you are, what you stand for, or what your ideas for the country are at all.
And it doesn't matter to me because I'm not going to vote for your people anyway.
But it does.
You people who are looking for votes are going to have to eventually start telling people what you're for.
And you can't do it with this guy George Lackoff rhymes with.
You're going to have to be honest and come up and tell us what you believe in.
This business of McClellan lied, get real.
Fewer people have heard of McClellan than have heard of Rove.
Now you're trying that Bush lied, Bush changed the bar.
It's comical to watch this.
It really is.
It's enjoyable and comical to watch this.
And it's also become predictable to be able to understand where you're going to take this day to day today and what your claims are going to be.
I'm glad you called.
But look, let me, we've had a lot of liberals call over this.
When did this all week ago Monday, right?
Week ago Monday this started.
And since a week ago Monday, we have had, I don't know how many liberals call here.
One day it was nothing but liberals.
Remember that?
Oh, and it was Thursday.
They were loaded for bear.
They could see it in their crosshair.
They were looking through that gun site and they saw Rove with blood coming out of his head and he was laying on the ground outside the White House.
They saw it, folks.
They were all excited.
And then it turns out that it wasn't in the next day's New York Times.
It was Rove who found out from a reporter who Valerie Wilson is.
Not the other way around.
And so they had to change tact, change direction.
And they've all had some things to say at me.
I'm twisting.
I'm maneuvering.
I'm doing this.
I'm not worried about that, folks.
The mediocre always throw stones at the brilliant.
And their stones always end up falling short or miss wide, usually to the left.
We'll be back.
Okay, what have we learned here today, folks?
We've learned that the left is basing all of their procedures here, not on Scott McClellan and not on President Bush, but actually on Joe Wilson.
Because if Joe Wilson hadn't acted outraged after the State of the Union speech, and I told you last week that all goes back to that State of the Union speech.
That's what triggered this.
But we find that Wilson wrote an op-ed in the L.A. Times a week after it and not a word of outrage about it.
In fact, that op-ed in 2003 was warning everybody about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, who Joe Wilson would later say his report to the administration that didn't exist.
There weren't any.
It wasn't until Wilson joined the John Kerry campaign that he became outraged over Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union address about Yellow Cake Uranium Ore in Niger.
Well, some eager beaver researchers decided to go to the John Kerry website, to the John Kerry blog site, to see if there was any conversation between voters and Joe Wilson.
And lo and behold, I have this.
October 29th, 2003, 11.07 a.m.
A guest on the John Kerry website blogs to Wilson.
At what point did you lose faith in the Bush administration?
And why exactly do you feel that John Kerry is the best candidate?
Joe Wilson answered, I lost faith in the Bush administration when Bush, the candidate, went to South Carolina and ran a sub-Rosa campaign against McCain, accusing his wife of being a drug addict and his kids of not being white.
That is not the change of tone I was looking for.
When the neoconservatives got control of our national security policy, I knew we needed to mobilize to fight.
Really?
That's it.
So it wasn't that Bush led the country into war and many died.
It wasn't that Bush lied in his State of the Union address.
He turned against Bush in 2000 because of what Bush did against McCain in the campaign there.
I'm just, this guy is all over the ballpark, folks.
He's all over the ballpark, and this is who the Libs have hitched their wagon to.
And you libs, you can say, I'm trying to misdirect this, and I'm trying to take this to areas that nobody is interested in.
It's areas you're not interested in.
This is the guy you're relying on for your whole case to be made.
You're relying on this guy's lies in order for Rove to have lied, in order for Bush to have lied, and in order for Scooter Libby to have lied.
Because this guy is saying that Karl Rove needed to be frog marched out of the White House because he leaked his wife's name.
We know his wife leaked her own cover name, her own CIA front company, to donate $1,000 to the Gore campaign back in 1999.
As it is said in legal circles, you all don't have a case here.
I'm just wondering, with all of this that's coming up, has Wilson been to the grand jury?
And if he hasn't been to the grand jury, is he going to be called?
And will Valerie Plame be called to the grand jury?
I mean, this prosecutor can read what's going on in the media here.
He can see this for himself, and this may have been one of his intentions to get all this stuff out.
Here's Mick in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
It's an honor to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you for that.
I was just wondering if Valerie Wilson voted under her covert name.
Did she also vote under her real name to cast two votes with Gore instead of one?
I don't know.
People might be able to look that up.
I'm not sure.
I don't know about voting at all.
I was in error when I said that she registered to vote under her CIA name.
What she did was register her CIA name and a front company to donate $1,000 to the Gore campaign.
So we can conclude that she voted for him.
Whether she voted as Valerie Plame and Valerie Wilson, who knows?
I have no clue, haven't seen anything about that.
Brian in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the promo.
Yes.
Rush, I just wanted to respond to that a little bit.
As far as her making the donation to the Gore campaign under and using that front company name, you know, I would imagine that that would be the whole point of the front company name would be to use in a situation like that so she wouldn't write that she works for the CIA.
All right.
Well, that's her CIA name.
She is married.
She's Valerie Wilson, but she could use her maiden name Valerie Plame if she wanted to and do it.
You know.
Make a thousand dollar donation as Valerie Plame and keep forever her cover.
Uh, look that this is all a nice tribe, but the you have to understand the point here.
The point is that this whole town of Dc is up in arms because somebody leaked this poor woman's name.
And i'm just pointing out to you, she did a good job of that herself, as did her husband.
Now, the the idea that you might want to say, well, this is even furthering the cover to go ahead and donate uh, money to the Gore campaign under this company name, with that name.
That's just going to make the company she works for appear to be legitimate.
It also exposes it.
These are fec records.
There's a way of having done this without having any of this ever learned.
She could have donated a grand to AL GO as Valerie Plame.
You know, married people keep their maiden names a lot.
Now she could have done that and she would not have had to expose the CIA at all and its front company.
But look what you're trying to say.
The idea here is, this is all irrelevant.
And it's not irrelevant folks remember you got.
You have to remember that the, the media and the Democrats are making their whole case based on the solid character of these two people.
They're both victims, they're both wonderful, fine patriots and we're demonstrating to you that they are not who their supporters say they are.
And if we're going to get into a little argument here about you know, did somebody's name get leaked or what have you?
It certainly is important.
If they leaked the name first, if they blew their cover first.
It certainly is important to remember that she was not a deep cover agent at all.
Anyway, it's very important to remember that, according to the statute, whatever's happened here doesn't come close to meeting the threshold for criminality.
See, all these things are being ignored.
All those facts that go against the spread that's out there from the mainstream press of the Democrats are all being ignored.
This is not 1972, this is 2005, and you're not going to get away with this anymore.
You're just not ain't going to happen.
Now you can sit there and complain that there are alternative versions of your so-called truth, but deal with it.
It's the way of the world.
Now let's go back and just review what the latest attempt by the media is, to say that Bush changed the threshold of whether or not Rove or anybody else who leaked would be fired.
We're going to go back first to september 30th 2003.
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, that's the standard for our next soundbite.
Keep in mind, that's the standard.
June 10th 2004.
Bush, at a press conference, has this exchange with an unidentified reporter, uh, do you still stand by what you said several months ago suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked, the agent's name?
And and uh, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
Yes, And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the Facts.
Now, the spin today is that that constitutes a change in Bush's attitude.
And it doesn't.
He hasn't changed a thing about what he said.
He hasn't lowered the bar.
He hasn't raised the bar.
The bar is where it always was.
And Democrats and the media trying to lower the bar.
First part of the question, do you stand by what you said several months ago?
Answer, yes.
What did he say months ago?
If the person's violated a law, the person will be taken care of.
Do you pledge, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
Yes.
And it's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
That means if the U.S. attorney finds the facts, there's a criminal matter going on here.
And if there's a criminal matter that finds guilt, then bam, the person's gone.
No change whatsoever.
This is one of the lamest attempts at changing subjects I have ever seen.
And it was led by the White House Press Corps yesterday and Terrence Hunt of the Associated Press by putting words in the president's mouth that he never said.
And it's just, it's comical to watch this.
It's also scary because I'm telling you, 20 years ago that they gotta away with this.
20 years ago, Rove would have been gone by now or very close to it, folks.
And certainly 30 years ago, he would have been gone by now.
But not today.
Now let's go to yesterday.
This is what the president had to say.
Yesterday, what the press says is a change.
Terry Hunt's question.
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, do you, blah, President never said regardless of whether a crime was committed, Terry Hunt is attempting to change the height of the bar with the question.
It's the media raising the bar.
It's not Bush.
Here is Bush's answer.
And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.
Period.
Not if they leak, they commit a crime.
Once again, we have unhinged reporters on this.
We just got through celebrating Mark Felt, who was what?
A leaker.
And no talk of him going to jail.
Oh, no, man, this man is an American hero.
Why, he brought down a Republican president.
Now, all of a sudden, Rove, whoever leaked this, they got to go.
It's a criminal act.
Where would the press be if every leaker was in jail?
My God, you know who would have been marched into the cell block first was Colin Powell.
If we're going to leak, if we're going to put leakers in jail, Colin Powell would be in there.
Half the State Department, half the CIA, and half the Pentagon would be in jail for leaking if it's a criminal matter.
And so that's this came up again today, by the way.
Unidentified reporter, in light of the concerns that the CIA leak investigation is distracting you.
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.
That's the same answer.
Now, I'd be glad to answer another question if you got one.
I mean, I'd be glad to repeat what I said yesterday, which is there's an ongoing investigation and people shouldn't jump to conclusions in the press until the investigation is over.
Once the investigation is 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.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
I have just a fabulous email from a soldier in Iraq that I want to read you here in just a second.
But first, three more sound bites.
Barney Frank from last night's hard ball.
Campbell Brown sitting in for Chris Matthews.
And Congressman Frank, is the question impeachment proceedings?
You're saying impeachment proceedings?
Are we not getting a little in front of this story, sir?
During the Clinton impeachment, the Republicans kept saying, remember, impeachment does not mean the end of the process.
It's the beginning.
But here's my problem.
I must honestly say, I do not trust the president to do an independent investigation here.
But it's not the president, there's a special prosecutor.
Yeah, but it's still also the president, because I don't think being convicted of a crime ought to be the only, not being convicted of a crime, ought to be the only qualification for being deputy chief of staff.
And the president's reluctance to, in fact, find out from Karl Rove what happened makes me think that we cannot rely on the president himself to do this.
And so, yeah, there is a prosecutor, but I don't think being convicted of a crime is the only issue that ought to decide whether or not I should become the deputy chief of staff or the president.
Yeah, this is lowering the bar.
Who again is lowering the bar here?
It's Barney Frank and the Democrats.
See, I told you so, talking about impeachment.
And this is the Helen Thomas refrain.
Just ask him.
Just ask him yourself.
Why don't you have to wait for the prosecutor?
Just ask him, Mr. President, ask him.
Okay, I'll say it again.
If Bush brings Rove in and says, did you do this?
And Rove says, no, sir, I didn't do it.
And Bush goes, hey, I just talked to Rove.
He said, I didn't do it.
Would any of you liberals believe it?
My guess is, my pure wild guess is that everybody in the White House knows there's no crime here.
And that Bush is confident that Rove, and I guarantee you, Rove's not going to lie to the president about this.
And I'll guarantee you that there hasn't been a crime here and that they've talked about it.
And we've got potentially a huge rope of dope going on here.
Next question from Campbell Brown.
But by the way, Jack Kingston from Georgia, Republican Congress, is also on the show.
You'll hear from him in the last bite.
But Campbell Brown says, but is there any way at this point, based on what we know, to know if Karl Rove intentionally even knew she was a covert agent when he leaked this?
Well, we certainly know that he gave the name to Matthew Cooper.
Matthew Cooper said Karl Rove, he did it on, Matthew Cooper said, double super secret background.
Well, frankly, if I have something that I'm not embarrassed about, I don't go to double super secret, fragilistic, expedocious background.
And he identified Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA agent to Matt Cooper for the purpose of discrediting her.
It's not simply something that he blurted out one day.
He was using the fact that she was a CIA operative in a negative way.
Wait a minute.
The super duper, super caliphragic, asthlistic, whatever background was Matt Cooper's phrase.
And it was Matt Cooper that called Rove.
And it was Matt Cooper that advanced the idea.
And it was Rove as I've heard that too.
Oh, that was with Novak.
That was with Novak.
But he did not use her name, didn't know she was a covert agent, didn't tell Cooper she was a covert agent.
And the next bite is Barney echoing Carl Bernstein.
Jack Kingston says, what's interesting is that Barney wants to move this into the realm of politics, not national security.
If this was a national security issue, it'd be nonpartisan.
This is a political issue.
And Campbell Brown says, well, didn't we learn in the last campaign that they're both intertwined to no end?
We're talking about the electoral process.
Karl Rove clearly did it maliciously.
How knowing, I guess I'm ready as an open question.
But his malice because he did it to discredit the guy.
He did it to dis because the guy deserves to be discredited.
He's trying to help a reporter.
The guys out there tell him lies, Barney.
That's the whole point.
The electoral process?
I hear tinges of Florida 2000 still bugging Barney.
Dear Rush, I just wanted to let you know that I enjoy listening to your show when I get a chance.
I'm currently stationed at Camp Anaconda in Iraq.
I don't get a chance to hear you while I'm here.
I wanted to let you know about someone special.
Her name is Darnell.
She's my angel.
In case you aren't familiar with Angels, they are people that correspond via email or letters with soldiers here in Iraq.
They sometimes send care packages as well.
Shortly after I got here, I signed up on a website called Soldiers Angels.
Within a few weeks, I received an email from Darnell.
She wrote that she would be sending me care packages and asked if there was anything specific I wanted.
Since then, I've been receiving at least one package every two weeks from her, as well as an email or two a week.
It's really amazing what some people will do for our fighting forces.
Darnell's apparently a big fan of your show.
She's mentioned you a couple of times in her emails.
The last care package she sent included two of your Club Gitmo t-shirts.
She requested I take a picture and send it to you so that it might get posted on your webpage.
I thought it was the least I could do for her.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy your photo.
I don't know if you send out promoty items, and if you do, I'd be very thankful if you could send something to her.
I'm including her information below and trust that you will use it wisely.
This is Staff Sergeant Jeff Alexander at Camp Anaconda in Iraq.
And his angel lives in Lake City, Florida.
Darnell lives in Lake City, Florida.
So by all means, we'll make sure she gets a care package from the Club Gitmo store and the EIB store.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Another exciting program in the can, definitely for the best of file for when I am out for a day or two.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court nomination will be announced in prime time tonight at 9 o'clock.
Edith Clement is on everybody's list as the top choice.
We will see.
And whatever happens between now and tomorrow when we come back, we'll talk about it and make all the sense in the world out of it you need.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection