All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
October 24, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hang on, folks.
I have a throw one button here, and I'll be right with you.
All right, there we go.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh or welcome, period, since we're starting a brand new week.
Rush Limbaugh from the EIB Northern Command.
Uh escaping the ravages of the Hurricane Wilma, which is battering the EIB Southern Command, even as we speak.
The Western Eye Wall.
Last time I checked, the wind gusts were about 80 miles an hour with the wind speed at 66.
Uh got up to 105 at the EIB Southern Command when the Eastern Eye Wall went through.
A lot of a lot of landscape damage.
Uh powers out down there, except for those who have generators.
But when you're when your driveways are blocked by trees, there's not much you can do.
So it's a good thing we came here.
Got in about two o'clock this morning from Las Vegas, and we are ready to go with broadcast excellence.
Here's the telephone number, 800 282-2882, and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Have you noticed, folks, how how prosecutors who investigate Republicans are always so brilliant, so uncorruptible.
But prosecutors who investigate Democrats are hacks with an agenda like Ken Starr.
I think it was uh Chuck Schumer who said of Patrick Fitzgerald, this guy's a prosecutor's prosecutor.
He's a prosecutor.
It's like somebody says he's a man's man.
This is a prosecutor's prosecutor.
And they're putting out there that he's a political.
He's a Republican, but he's a political.
No pull-up politics going on here.
And in fact, the Washington Post today, in a uh story by Peter Slevin and Carol uh Leonig or Leonig, inquiry as exacting as special counsel is.
We have here a piece basically defending Patrick Fitzgerald and how nonpartisan he is.
So all this is being done to set up.
Whatever he does this week, I'm told that uh Hurricane Fitzgerald's gonna hit on uh on Wednesday, Tuesday or Wednesday.
Could have hit today.
Don't know if it's gonna be a category four, category five, category ten.
But it's gonna be a wallapole loser.
There's gonna be a lot of wind out there.
Too many leaks here, folks.
It's it's it seems to me, I think I don't want to name any names.
It seems like some lawyers are the ones that are leaking things, even now seems like some of the prosecutors are beginning to leak things, but um somebody is so confident that they know what's coming, that they're setting this guy up and why the best prosecutor we've ever had.
Why do you know this guy ought to be named permanent prosecutor of the United States?
And what's happening here, folks, is is I I told you this.
I'm gonna tell you what this is really all about.
You know, there's no the it it's apparent now.
I mean, too many people have looked into it, the people who wrote the law.
It is it is it's risky to say this before anything happens, but it just seems on paper that the whole reason for the impaniment of this uh independent counsel's inquiry uh can be written off as uh as a non-crime.
There was no violation of this espionage act because what's her face?
Plaim she wasn't even covert, and she had you have to have been covert with the last five years, and there's a six-year period of time we're talking about here between the last time she was covert and when her identity uh came out.
And it it just seems to me that that what's happened here is that we've had a crime or a series of crimes or alleged crimes committed in the investigation.
So we've got a cover-up of a non-crime.
If I mean if you look at it, there we've got a cover-up of a non-crime.
If this is all predicated on Fitzgerald doing something, and I, you know, this guy opened up his own website late last week.
You don't see somebody doing that if they're gonna come out and say, oops, sorry, nothing here.
But I you know I'm still hesitant to start acting on on blatant assumptions, but it's hard not to.
When you have all this stuff flittering around out there, and you know what this is all about.
Um, and I it I predicted this to you before the 2004 elections.
Bush wins, there's gonna be an all-out effort to impeach him.
And that's what this is, and this is all about a you if you want to know what this is all about, read the New York Times implosion on itself.
They are uh I know exactly what's going on at the times.
They are they're they're throwing Judy Miller overboard, and they are beating themselves up in advance for coming out.
They are gonna nuke this White House.
They're gonna try to get back at everybody's good graces by single-handedly leading the charge to take out this administration.
And they're gonna set themselves up as credible because they're gonna have thrown one of their own overboard who collaborated with the White House, scooter libby, on all of this phony weapons of mass destruction intelligence.
And of course it was all a lie.
It's gonna come down now that it was all lies.
It was all lies from the beginning.
We're not gonna hear anything about the fact that there were multiple national intelligence sources from Great Britain, UK, around the world that we trusted on this.
We're gonna forget the fact that there were weapons of mass destruction used by Saddam Hussein.
It's gonna come down to Bush lied, and people are gonna say, yeah, well, Clinton lied, and you got him for contempt, but that was only about sex.
This is about 2,000 lives.
That body count's happening now.
Uh press also upset.
We're starting to release the body count of the uh of the insurgents, the terrorists, the the enemy body count press upset about that.
Story here in the Washington Post.
How dare we do this?
This is violating a long-term policy.
We never talked about how many people we killed.
Uh so they're they're a little bit upset about that.
You know, um Bill Clinton escaped indictment, and he lied to a federal judge.
And Bill Clinton is the Democrats and the left's greatest hero.
Hillary was not charged for concealing her billing records.
Some will say justice is not blind, depending on what happens here.
But there is a there's a there's a process of decapitation afoot here.
They have sought to sideline delay.
They're now trying to take out uh Carl Rovan's scooter libby, and there's new news on Bill Chris, they're going after Bill Frist again today on his blind trust and his investments.
So they're trying to do this uh via the legal system, trying to do this with prosecutors.
They can't, they can't, they still can't win at the ballot box.
It's just like Nixon, just like Watergate, just like the Ron Contra, they just keep repeating history.
But you know, this isn't like Clinton.
Clinton was sued and then tried to cover up his own conduct.
These attacks are now coming from the left, and it appears that they may have successfully manipulated the criminal justice system into a political tool, because this is really all about criminalized political decisions.
When you get down to it, let's say, let's just assume here, since everybody else says let's join the chorus.
Let's just assume that there are indictments, and let's assume the indictments have nothing to do with leaking the name of Valerie Plame.
Oh, and I'm gonna tell you what else is going on here, folks, and I touched on this Friday.
And I want to mention this before I forget it.
I think something at the root of it, because I read something today that jogged my memory.
It was not the media asking for a special prosecutor in this case that that triggered it.
What happens is the CIA watches the media.
And if the CIA sees something in the media that they think violates uh secrecy, classified information, they ask the Justice Department for a special prosecutor.
They it's called a referral, and they refer this news that they pick up to the Justice Department, ask for a special counsel.
That's what happened in this case.
In this case, it appears that Joe Wilson is the man and his wife, who I speculated last week or behind all this, that really triggered this.
It's isn't it fascinating how none of the reporting reports that Joe Wilson lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee, lied in his New York Times op-ed.
We go pro we go forward on the basis that this guy and his wife are angelic and they've told the truth about everything, and they're a couple of injured, wounded, great patriots.
Makes you want to get sick.
The root of this, therefore, is Bush rode into town and he was intended to shake up the bureaucracy.
He was gonna get the bad apples out of the CIA, is gonna get the bad apples out of the State Department, and this is the bureaucracy fighting back, and they are not, they just, if they can do it, they're not gonna put up with it.
And so you have a CIA referral.
And look, here's another thing.
The CIA has, they they don't they don't have a success track record they can point to here.
Weapons of mass destruction, it was their intelligence that served in part for everybody to go, and it turns out now that it looks like some of their intelligence was weak, and they were trying to cover up that fact, and so they trigger this uh this referral to the Justice Department,
which gives us a special prosecutor, which changes the focus from the ineptitude at the CIA on to now this supposed leak in the outing of a brave and brilliant covert agent who wasn't brave or wasn't covert, and her and her child of the 60s husband, who apparently was sent by her over to Niger to set all this up in the first place.
Then you had that speech last week from that Wilkerson guy from the State Department, Colin Powell's ex-chief of staff.
You can see what's happening here.
They're going to political, they try to criminalize the political process.
And in this case, it I tell you how out of how to whack it is that the liberals and the Democrats love the CIA.
They love, they've never, they've hated the CIA.
CIA murders innocent people.
It sponsors coups in Central America.
I've grown up all this hearing about the imperialism of the CIA and how rotten.
Now all of a sudden the CIA is sacred.
They love the CIA.
They love CIA agents.
They think CIA agents ought to be protected.
So we have a successful, apparently successful manipulation of the criminal justice system here that is designed to exact uh political retribution because they can't do so at the ballot box.
You know, whatever charges this prosecutor makes or brings, if any, are going to be used to undermine the war effort and to bring the president up on impeachment charges for lying.
I'm telling you, this is what I fear.
But saying for they're going to try to impeach him for two years or so now, and this is why this is going to become a battle royale, and our side better be ready for this.
This is about much more than just an indictment over hair splitting memory recollections.
And that's what if there is no violation of this espionage act, if there's no crime here that anybody committed by revealing the name of Valerie Plain, then there was no crime.
So we've got some crimes that were created in the uh investigation of a non-crime.
So we've got apparently cover-up of a non-crime.
As I say, you get asked people bring them up four times, four hours each to the grand jury, their lawyers aren't in there, so you've got memory lapses, memory recollection problems, uh hair splitting at times.
These are going to now be called crimes, perjury, obstruction of justice.
And so we've got the uh, you know, we've got the criminal investigation process leading to crimes, where the original investigation's purpose shows nothing.
This is all based now, you know, I'm just trying to get ahead of the loop here, where this is all based on assumptions.
Uh we'll see how it all plays out in the uh coming days.
A quick time out, we'll be back.
Again, the telephone number's 800-282-2882, and we be back after this.
Stay with us.
And we are back, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Uh excuse me, for those of you using the um rush at EIBNet.com email address, that server uh farm is down in Florida, and we're having intermittent uh power outages and back, and we've got a generator running down there.
So I think circuit breakers keep tripping.
Uh and so we're we're doing our best to stay online with that.
But that's uh so far the only thing uh that that is on the fritz uh regarding the uh the program.
Now, the Wall Street Journal today has a uh a good piece on uh on this whole special prosecutor case, and as as I just mentioned to you, they say that this is um this is all about Iraq.
And they the the second to last paragraph here is uh is pretty telling.
The temptation for any special counsel who has only one case to prosecute is to show an indictment for his money and his long effort, but Mr. Fitzgerald's larger obligation is to see that justice is done.
And that should include ensuring that he doesn't become the agent for criminalizing policy differences.
Defending a policy by attacking the credibility of a political opponent, Mr. Wilson, should not be a felony.
And that pretty much cuts to the chase here.
Because what what Scooter Libby and and uh again, all this is based on this sketchy reports of of people who say they're familiar with testimony and so forth, and we really don't know all that uh the prosecutor knows, and we probably know very little of the total that the prosecutor knows despite all these leaks.
But basically what you have here is you have a guy who set himself up with his wife to go over to Niger for the purposes of undermining the war on Iraq and the war on terror for the purposes of undermining the Bush administration.
He comes back, he lies through his teeth about things.
His initial report verbal to the CIA pretty much confirmed the reason he was sent over there.
That's been twisted around.
People forget about that.
He didn't issue a written report.
There wasn't one for the vice president to read.
Vice President didn't send him over there.
He came back and said he did.
Vice President was not up to speed day to day on what he was doing over there.
This appears to have been an end run, which I think goes to show you what a great desk jockey his wife is.
I mean, this this babe pulled this off.
This babe has got some muscle.
She's uh she's got some sort of bureaucratic skills.
She took her two times, but she got her husband sent over there.
And the CIA was out, you know, protect itself, cover its own rear-end mode because all the uh the negative publicity that is attached to it from the 9-11 attacks and so forth, and you've got Bush trying to reform it.
Uh publicly, Bush was as supportive of the CIA then as he is today, but apparently behind the scenes he was upset, understandably so, but heads didn't roll.
They should have, but they didn't, and so there were all kinds of efforts with the CIA to undermine and protect itself at the same time.
So this Wilson guy comes back, and for a while it's pretty quiet after he gets back, and all of a sudden, here comes this New York Times op-ed that he writes, which is full of really lots of lies.
We've chronicled for you on this program the legion of lies that were cataloged to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Select Intelligence Committee, bipartisan committee.
None of that seems to be remembered.
None of that seems to uh be a factor in all of this.
The guy's angelic.
Something about liars that Democrats like.
They love Bill Clinton, especially liars that can get away with it.
Those are their favorite people.
So you've got Scooter Libby, uh, and I guess let's just leave it at Scooter Libby because he apparently was um well, Rove, too.
They're trying to undermine, not undermine, they're trying to protect their boss, they're trying to protect their administration.
This guy's out there telling lies about him.
Wilson.
And so they're they're when given a chance, they talk to the press, don't bother this, don't go down the road with this guy.
No, we're going to criminalize this.
Well, we're going to criminalize.
Well, you said, no, Rush, we're not criminalized.
The Rush, what are you used to?
What about lying and so forth?
Now look, I understand all that, folks.
I just, you know, there's there's there's hardball politics in that town, and that's what this was, and now it's being criminalized, and it's apparently, again, all this is jumping the gun.
Uh and I have to keep adding that caveat, because we don't know what's going to happen.
It's easy.
It's very easy to get caught up in the inertia and the momentum of all this.
Uh Roves already convicted, Libby's already convicted, Rov's in a gas chamber in the next couple years after his appeals are all exhausted.
Libby probably put to death instantly.
He didn't even deserve appeals.
Uh Bush is back in Texas chopping wood and then looking up at an airplane being flown by Cindy Sheehan saying you suck.
Uh I mean, the press has got this picture painted.
You know, it's hard it's hard, it's hard not to get caught up in it.
You keep hoping, oh, God, wouldn't it wouldn't it be great if none of this is true?
And we've got it, we've got we've got evidence the press can get out on their tangents, uh, aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a number of other things.
So just wait and see.
But but Rush, but Rush, but Resh, what about what about lying?
Well, I Yeah, lying.
We didn't indict Clinton for it, even though he was found in contempt.
Because it would be too disruptive to the government.
That's why Robert Ray and these other prosecutors didn't do it.
That's why Starr didn't do it.
Um this is this is simply you're bringing some.
Well, how come you went after Joe Wilson?
Well, the guy's out there trying to undermine our policy.
Well, did you lie what you said of him?
No, he lied.
Well, then we're going to indict you.
It's about what it adds up to here.
That's that's that's based on all that I have read.
So we have the criminalism, you add delay to it, criminalization of uh political differences, ad delay to it.
Now this latest attempt on on Bill Frist.
Uh, and this this will not be the last.
We'll link to the Wall Street Journal uh uh editorial today.
As it runs through all of this in a timeline, and then it's very well documented and uh and sourced.
The last paragraph here is a very short sentence, uh, two sentences is as for President Bush.
We hope he realizes that anybody who's indicted was defending his policy and his presidency.
He should consider carefully the nature of the charges and the evidence before he dismisses his most loyal advisors.
You know, some might say that these lawyers were idiots to let Rove and Libby go to the grand jury, but come on, we know Bush was going to insist they go there because it was a serious investigation and uh quote unquote.
Hey, reach out your hand to friendship to the left.
This is what you get.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
You know, uh folks, uh, a lot of uh a lot of wealthy people have suffered quite a lot of damage in Hurricane Wilma starting out on the uh southwest coast of Florida in the Naples area, but the east coast of Florida really took the hit, and that's where uh wealthy white people live.
And I'm just wondering if Calypso Lewis' mother ship up there did something to steer this hurricane into wealthy white neighborhoods and cause all this damage just to get even for us blowing up those levees in the ninth ward uh in New Orleans.
Now watch that quote be taken out of context and put it up on a some website.
I just got a note from Brian, Brian Johnson, who is our broadcast engineer at West Palm Beach, he said, hey boss, this one seems to be much worse than the last five hurricanes that hit here.
Nobody I know seems to have power.
My satellite dish blew down at my house.
Uh you probably know what's going on better than I do.
My wireless is still working on my laptop.
I'll check back in in a couple hours and give you an update.
I'm leaving next time.
Meaning he's not going to stay around for the hurricane.
It's getting bad.
The uh winds down the western Iowa.
And I've got a I got a friend who lives, I live on the ocean.
I got a friend who lives on the intercoastal side.
And of course, during the morning uh hit of the hurricane, the winds were pretty much out of the south and the east, which uh we got some sand in the house, a little bit in the sliders and some water in there, but we we got it up real quickly.
Uh but over on the on the intercoastal side, they had all the houses and the and the uh vegetation shielding them.
Now they're exposed.
He I just got a note from him saying it's this is worse than it was this morning.
I wrote back, I said, Yeah, because you're facing the water this time and the wind's blowing the waves up and so forth.
So uh that area all the way up from uh Fort Lauderdale to way past Jupiter, uh uh Fort Pierce uh getting both sides of the eye is a huge eye as it passes through the saving grace that it's going through their lickety split, uh going through really fast.
Now we had two hurricanes that hit within 30 miles of us, the eye to southern Iowa.
No, the eye, we didn't get the eye, we got 30 miles south of the southern IWall last week last year in September, and they were two weeks apart, and they were slow movers.
Uh just that that gave us where we were, that gave us westerly winds, so we didn't have any storm surge or sand off the beach.
We have vegetation down, uh, and it's pretty much the same this time around.
West Palm Beach, the mayor just said that there's uh less vegetation down over there than this time, but she may be speaking too soon because now they're getting the westerlies there, and it's the westerlies that took all the vegetation down last time.
So as I say, I got back here, I made a decision.
They could have gotten, I could have gotten back in last night without any problem.
The weather wasn't bad.
But I would not have been able to leave this morning because there are trees blocking both driveways, and it would have been impossible.
And I just want you to know that I put the EIB network in this program ahead of that, folks.
And I came back here, and uh it's probably gonna be a couple days before we can get back down there and get back in, because if it happened the way uh last time, uh this time as it did last time, they're not gonna allow anybody on the island until they assess the damage.
It's gonna take heavy equipment to move all these trees and poles and things that are uh that are down.
So not only is all that happening, but the New York state and city tax authorities are raping me blind as I have to sit here stuck, unable to do anything about it.
But that's okay, folks.
I'm not whining.
I'm not complaining.
I'm Just passing along information.
Louis in Manhattan, I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Long time listener.
Thank you, sir.
I want to I'm I've been dying to ask this question.
Why can't an indictment be coming down against Wilson and his wife?
That's the first question.
The second question is why doesn't Bush come down on l on these disloyal people in the CIA.
Well, as to the first question, I don't know.
I I I have I have uh stated on the program a number of times, I don't even know if Wilson has been called in to testify before this this special prosecutor.
And that's that I would I wish I wish I knew that.
I think what about his wife?
Well, I don't I don't know that she's been called in either.
I sh she may have, I just don't know.
I haven't seen one ounce of reporting on uh on whether or not either of them have been called as to whether they could be indicted for hell you can indict a ham sandwich.
As the saying goes, I guess they could be.
I mean, I uh if if we're gonna criminalize what Scooter Libby and Rove did, we certainly ought to be able to criminalize what Joe Wilson did.
He lied.
But see, the lying here is a is sort of a that's uh it's it's not may not even be perjury, it may be obstruction of justice.
It may be something that's you know a big catch-all, and you can't go after somebody for lying in an op ed in the New York Times, they'd have to lie to you under oath in the grand jury.
And I don't know if Wilson.
Uh well, that's up to the Senate to pursue.
If they would that's up to the Senate, and I don't know that he lied in the Senate.
Um well, yes, I do, but I uh it's up to them to pursue it.
They they don't I don't think they had the desire.
This is this is not what Republicans are cut out to do.
Republicans aren't cut out to go prosecute their enemies in court.
They're just not made that way.
The Liberals, it's the only option they've got.
They can't win at the ballot box.
They can't persuade people of an agenda that they won't even announce.
So this is the uh this is the best chat uh shot that they have.
Seems to be working well for them, though.
Well, I know you see you get caught up in this and you think it is it is working well.
And then your your question about Bush.
Um what was it specifically again?
Bush, y you know, you you could fire people that are being loyal to you, maybe putting their necks out, uh you know, out for you, you know.
Why can't you fire disloyal people?
The CIA answers the president.
I don't understand why he can't just demote it or get it the hell out of him or I don't know.
Well, I think look, I can only speculate on this because I I really I I I don't know.
But if you look at the circumstances and then combine them with the kind of man George W. Bush is first place, he was trying to unify the country after 91.
And he was trying to look forward and not point fingers of blame anywhere.
I'm talking about publicly.
To fire somebody and to cause heads to roll would have taken whatever he was doing privately, public, and I'm sure he thought would have been detrimental to morale.
Might have been a misjudgment, I think, if heads had rolled with the information that was finally learned, people would have understanded it.
But it's too late now to go back and try to do that.
The sa uh relive that.
The second thing is that i i think it's quite telling if you go back and and remember uh George W. Bush at the portrait unveilings for both Slick Willie and uh and uh and Chairman Hillary at the White House.
They had their portraits unveiled, and when he spoke of them, you would have thought they were part of the founding fathers, the greatness of America, the backbone of the country why if it hadn't been for those two people giving up their life of luxury in Arkansas to come to Washington to serve and save America, why America might not exist.
Well, what you take away from that is that Bush has this, and this is something about him, I think, to respect.
He has a very high ideal of the office of the presidency.
Only 43 people have occupied that office.
And he's not gonna be the one to sp besmirch it, and he's not gonna besmirch others who've held it.
It's a special thing.
It's people have held it, have all been elected.
And so he's just he's not gonna disparage past occupants of the White House.
And so I just if you take that and couple it with what was going on, I just don't think it's in his nature to get partisan in a political way.
He had he did very seldom, if ever gets partisan outside of a campaign, and only rarely then does he get partisan.
Uh and And I think it's because of his uh desire to to to have this vaunted ideal of the uh of the office of the presidency and his desire to try to you know unify things after after 2000 and the uh the hectic nineties.
The problem here is that that not being an ideologue cost him on this, not being a true down, I mean, you know, in his bones conservative.
And he's uh don't misunderstand that, by the way.
He's conservative.
But he's not an ideologue in the sense that he he didn't he doesn't view the presidency as an opportunity to lead and build a movement.
Yeah, he'll do conservative things on policy.
He'll have tax cuts and he'll he'll beat the hell out of the enemy and the war on terror and the war on Iraq, but he'll also get together with the Democrats and let them write the education bill.
Uh he'll go along with Senator McCain's campaign finance reform.
He'll do a number of these kind of things that a conservative ideologue would not do that.
But he doesn't view ideology as having a role in the presidency in the White House.
And this is where he differs from Reagan.
Reagan, at every opportunity to address the American people, spoke ideologically.
When I say ideologically, Ronald Reagan always explained to people you remember when Reagan took office, just to give you a point of reference here.
This is not Reagan idolatry, but just to give you a point of reference.
Reagan took office, this country was very down in the dumps, very dispirited.
And one of the things that people said most in their remembrances of Reagan was he made us all feel good as Americans.
Well, how did he do that?
Well, he basically did it by telling Americans how important they were to their country's future, how great they were, how important they were.
He took it all on the power government, he took it back to the people.
And he made them realize that it was they who make the country great, not him, not a single leader.
We don't put trust in one man to save us or doom us.
It takes all of us working every day, and this is the thing that he did.
And when he when he he didn't need to have his age talk the Washington Post or the New York Times to get his message out, because he could go right over the press's head in a press conference or a speech to the American people.
He didn't he didn't uh you know he didn't have to whine and dine the New York Times to try to make them not hate him so much.
Uh this he was he he this is what I mean by leading a movement.
He was elected on the basis of a movement and kept promoting it at every opportunity.
And so he was that's what I mean by ideological in this sense.
Uh he used the bully pulpit not just to advance the policies that he believed in, but also the ideals uh that that were the foundation for those policies.
And that's what's been missing here, and I think part of that, quite simply, is uh born of this notion that, well, you know, yeah, I know these liberals hate us, but I well, I think we can make them uh like us.
I I think we can we can get along with them.
We need to work together anyway to move the country forward, blah, blah.
An ideologue doesn't think that.
An ideologue will look at the liberals and see they are the primary obstacle to this country's future, and we've got to defeat them.
You know, it in a political sense, uh, and that's that's that's what's been missing here.
I mean, you can't possibly want to defeat the left if you're letting them write the education bill with you.
For whatever reason.
I mean, you're trying to promote goodwill.
So the reason for this long answer is to explain to you why isn't Bush not firing people?
Why isn't Bush tackling this verbally?
Why isn't he taking people out, taking people on?
Uh it's not his nature.
He doesn't view that as the uh as his role as uh as as a president.
And in this is in case you're wondering, well, where are our leaders?
This is why you ask that question.
Uh, where are the leaders?
Because the uh things that you believe and want to happen don't seem to be voiced.
Sometimes you get them in policy like tax cuts and and uh this, that, and the other thing.
And there have been quite a few of them, so don't misunderstand me.
I mean, th there's there's been unbalanced, there's been a far more conservative presidency than than not by any stretch of the imagination.
Got to take a quick time out.
We will continue in mere moments.
Stay with just checking one thing in the audio soundbite.
Yes, yes.
Grab audio soundbite uh uh this number 17.
I think this is grab sixteen and seventeen.
I haven't had a chance to look at these very carefully, but I think those two will get it with his next call.
This is John and Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Thanks, Rush.
Um, wondering if uh Mr. Fitzgerald doesn't hand down the expected indictments, or perhaps doesn't go as far as the left wants him to.
How quickly do you think Schumer and the rest of the press now praising him will turn on him and he becomes a partisan hack?
That will take about half a second.
And I kid you not.
They I mean, look at how far out they've gone.
They said prosecutors, prosecutor.
This guy's apolitical.
They've got they've got these indictments have already come down as far as these people are concerned.
They know what they're getting for Christmas.
And if they get up on Christmas morning and there's nothing under that tree but sticks and stones, there is going to be hell to pay, and you're not going to want to be their parent.
I'm I'm I'm look, I've got a couple stories to uh to to back this up.
This is in the New York Times, and this is from today.
Uh with a decision expected this week on possible indictments of the CIA leak case.
Allies of the White House suggests Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.
Uh story goes on to uh to say uh it's it's really dispuing Democrat talking points, uh, is is all this story is by Richard Stevenson and uh and David Johnston.
I'll guarantee you if if if Fitzgerald splits hairs, you know he's gonna be criticized for it.
I don't recall this kind of so-called news piece when Ken Starr was under attack.
Democrats testing ways to blunt star's activities.
Uh the suggestion of this piece wants to leave is that anybody who questions this brilliant, perfect, unassailable prosecutor is working off some set of talking points.
The White House is simply come up with talking points.
There will be no substance to any opposition to this prosecutor if he in fact uh hands down indictments.
It's nothing but a bunch of strategic talking points.
Now, this is a newspaper that's at war with its own reporter, Judith Miller.
Did you see that catfight yesterday with Maureen Dowd's piece?
Holy cow, folks, send them off to the WWE or whatever they call themselves now.
Let's see that one in the ring.
I mean, this is just too this paper, I'm telling they're they're going, they're just through this woman's been thrown overboard.
She's gonna be savage, she's gonna be trashed.
She dared to join forces with the Bush White House.
This is all in advance, as I said earlier, of the of the New York Times preparing an all-out assault on this administration.
So you see, have a story like this.
Prosecutor's unassailable, he's brilliant, he's apolitical.
If he doesn't come up with something, he's going to need a security detail.
And then, of course, you had uh you had Howard Dean of the Merlot Democrats.
Howard Dean of the Merlot Democrats said he won't accept and uh no indictment decision by Fitzgerald.
He did he won't accept it.
If prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald decides not to indict Carl Rover scooter Livy, DNC chairman Howard Dean will refuse to accept the decision.
In a uh direct question asked of Dean by George, whatever his name is of ABC's this week, because Stephanopoulos, Dean said he would not respect Fitzgerald's decision because he doesn't believe that these are honest people who are running our government.
Dean appeared confused at times during the interview, at one point implying that former House Majority Leader Tom Delay of being involved in a cover-up to stonewall Fitzgerald's investigation.
You link delay to this.
I mean, that's that's a leap.
And when Stephanopoulos called called him on it, Dean admitted to having trouble keeping his thoughts straight and chalked it up to all the scandals coming from this White House.
I wouldn't be surprised if he did that on purpose just to get these all confused, because their whole their whole push now is this climate of um of of corruption.
We've got a couple sound bites, not enough time to get to them right now here, and I'm gonna get a better look at them and see exactly what he says.
But he's not gonna accept it.
Now, I don't know what that means.
When the when the chairman of the Democratic National Committee does not accept the fact that there are no indictments.
I don't know what Merlot Democrats do when that when that happens.
But uh nevertheless, yes, to answer your question, if he doesn't indict, folks, you're gonna see the fastest 180 in press coverage of an individual that you've ever seen in your life.
Quick time out, be right back.
Okay, the first hour of broadcast excellence is in the can, folks.
Uh, we will um we'll have the ditto cam coming up at some point in the next hour, not at the top.
Uh, but at uh well, I still have to have you know my my lunch digest.
And after that happens, and we'll we'll turn on the ditto cam.
We'll have it on for the remainder of the program at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Um and still lots to go here today besides this uh CIA leak investigation, lots of uh some Harriet Myers news, uh audio sound bites as well.
So we've only just begun, folks, two more big, big broadcast hours to go.
▲
Export Selection