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.
Escaping the ravages of the Hurricane Wilma, which is battering the EIB Southern Command, even as we speak.
The Western Eyewall, last time I checked, the wind gusts were about 80 miles an hour with the wind speed at 66.
Got up to 105 at the EIB Southern Command when the Eastern Eyewall went there.
A lot of landscape damage.
Power is out down there, except for those who have generators.
But 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 2 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 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 Chuck Schumer who said of Patrick Fitzgerald, this guy's a prosecutor's prosecutor.
He's a prose.
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 apolitical.
He's a Republican, but he's apolitical.
There's no pull-up politics going on here.
And in fact, the Washington Post today, in a story by Peter Slevin and Carol 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 Hurricane Fitzgerald's going to hit on Wednesday, Tuesday or Wednesday.
Could have hit today.
Don't know if it's going to be a category four, category five, category 10.
But it's going to be a wall-up a loser.
There's going to be a lot of wind out there.
Too many leaks here, folks.
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 somebody is so confident that they know what's coming, that they're setting this guy up.
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 I told you this.
I'm going to tell you what this is really all about.
You know, there's no, it's apparent now.
I mean, too many people have looked into it.
The people who wrote the law, it is, it's risky to say this before anything happens, but it just seems on paper that the whole reason for the impanelment of this independent counsel's inquiry can be written off as a non-crime.
There was no violation of this Espionage Act because what's her face?
Plain.
She wasn't even covert.
And you have to have been covert within 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 came out.
And it just seems to me 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.
I mean, if you look at it there, we've got a cover-up of a non-crime.
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 going to come out and say, oops, sorry, nothing here.
But I'm still hesitant to start acting 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.
And I predicted this to you before the 2004 election.
If Bush wins, there's going to be an all-out effort to impeach him.
And that's what this is.
And this is all about.
If you want to know what this is all about, read the New York Times implosion on itself.
They are, I know exactly what's going on at the Times.
They're throwing Judy Miller overboard, and they are beating themselves up in advance for coming out.
They are going to nuke this White House.
They're going to try to get back in everybody's good graces by single-handedly leading the charge to take out this administration.
And they're going to set themselves up as credible because they're going to 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 going to come down now that it was all lies.
It was all lies from the beginning.
We're not going to 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 going to forget the fact that there were weapons of mass destruction used by Saddam Hussein.
It's going to come down to Bush lied, and people are going to 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.
Press also upset.
We're starting to release the body count of the insurgents, the terrorists, 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.
So they're a little bit upset about that.
You know, 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's a process of decapitation afoot here.
They have sought to sideline delay.
They're now trying to take out Carl Rove and Scooter Libby.
And there's new news on Bill Christ.
They're going after Bill Frist again today on his blind trust and his investments.
So they're trying to do this via the legal system, trying to do this with prosecutors.
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 is, 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 going to 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 triggered it.
What happens is the CIA watches the media.
And if the CIA sees something in the media that they think violates secrecy, classified information, they ask the Justice Department for a special prosecutor.
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 are behind all this, that really triggered this.
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 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 going to get the bad apples out of the CIA.
He's going to 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 going to put up with it.
And so you have a CIA referral.
And look, here's another thing.
The CIA has, 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 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 covert 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 trying to criminalize the political process.
And in this case, I'll tell you how to whack it is, 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.
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 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.
We've been saying 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 investigation of a non-crime.
So we've got apparently cover-up of a non-crime.
As I say, you get to ask 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, hair splitting at times.
These are going to now be called crimes, perjury, obstruction of justice.
And so we've got the, 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.
I'm just trying to get ahead of the loop here.
This is all based on assumptions.
We'll see how it all plays out in the coming days.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Again, the telephone number is 800-282-2882, and we be back after this.
Stay with us.
And we are back, 800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Excuse me, for those of you using the rush at EIBnet.com email address, that server farm is down in Florida, and we're having intermittent power outages and back.
And we've got a generator running down there.
So we think circuit breakers keep tripping.
And so we're doing our best to stay online with that.
But that's so far the only thing that is on the fritz regarding the program.
The Wall Street Journal today has a good piece on this whole special prosecutor case.
And as I just mentioned to you, they say that this is all about Iraq.
And the second to last paragraph here 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 Scooter Libby, and again, all this is based on sketchy reports of people who say they're familiar with testimony and so forth.
And we really don't know all that the prosecutor knows.
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 babe pulled this off.
This babe has got some muscle.
She's got some sort of bureaucratic skills.
It took her two times, but she got her husband sent over there.
And the CIA was out, you know, to protect itself, cover its own rear-end mode because all 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.
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 catalogued with the Senate Intelligence Committee, Select Intelligence Committee, bipartisan committee.
None of that seems to be remembered.
None of that seems to be a factor in all of this.
The guy is 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, and let's just leave it at Scooter Libby because he apparently was, well, Rove too.
They're trying to undermine, not undermine, they're trying to protect their boss.
They're trying to protect their administration.
These guys out there telling lies about him, Wilson.
And so 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 criminalizing.
Rush, what are you used to?
What about lying and so forth?
Look, I understand all that, folks.
I just, you know, there's hardball politics in that town, and that's what this was.
And now it's being criminalized.
And apparently, again, all this is jumping the gun.
And I have to keep adding that caveat because we don't know what's going to happen.
It's very easy to get caught up in the inertia and the momentum of all this.
Rove's already convicted.
Libby's already convicted.
Rove's in a gas chamber in the next couple years after his appeals are all exhausted.
Libby probably be put to death instantly.
He didn't even deserve appeals.
Bush is back in Texas chopping wood and looking up at an airplane being flown by Cindy Sheehan saying, you suck.
I mean, the press has got this picture painted.
It's hard not to get caught up in it.
You keep hoping, oh, God, wouldn't it be great if none of this is true?
And we've got evidence the press can get out on their tangents, aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a number of other things.
So just wait and see.
But Rush, but Rush, but Rush, what about lying?
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.
But this is simply, you're bringing some, well, how come you went after Joe Wilson?
Well, the guys 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.
That's about what it adds up to here.
That's based on all that I have read.
So we have the criminalization, and you add delay to it, criminalization of political differences, add delay to it.
Now, this latest attempt on Bill Frist.
And this will not be the last.
We'll link to the Wall Street Journal editorial today as it runs through all of this in a timeline, and it's very well documented and sourced.
The last paragraph here is a very short sentence, two sentences.
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 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, folks, a lot of wealthy people have suffered quite a lot of damage in Hurricane Wilma, starting out on the southwest coast of Florida in the Naples area.
But the east coast of Florida really took the hit, and that's where wealthy white people live.
And I'm just wondering if Calypso Louie's mothership 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 9th ward in New Orleans.
Now, watch that quote be taken out of context and put it up on 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.
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 winds on the western eye wall.
And I've got a friend who lives.
I live on the ocean.
I've got a friend who lives on the intercoastal side.
And of course, during the morning hit of the hurricane, the winds were pretty much out of the south and the east, which we had some sand in the house, a little bit of sliders and some water in there, but we got it up real quickly.
But over on the intercoastal side, they had all the houses and the vegetation shielding them.
Now they're exposed.
I just got a note from him saying, 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 that area, all the way up from Fort Lauderdale, way past Jupiter, Fort Pierce, 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, 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 eyewall last year in September, and they were two weeks apart.
And they were slow movers.
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, and it's pretty much the same this time around in West Palm Beach.
The mayor just said that there's less vegetation down over there than this time, but she may be speaking too soon because now they're getting the westerlies there.
It's the westerlies that took all the vegetation down last time.
So as I say, I got back here.
I made the 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 and this program ahead of that, folks.
And I came back here and it's probably going to be a couple days before we can get back down there and get back in because if it happened the way last time, this time as it did last time, they're not going to allow anybody on the island until they assess the damage.
It's going to take heavy equipment to move all these trees and poles and things 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.
Louie 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'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 these disloyal people in the CIA?
Well, as to the first question, I don't know.
I have stated on the program a number of times, I don't even know if Wilson has been called in to testify before this special prosecutor.
And I wish I knew that.
What about his wife?
Well, I don't know that she's been called in either.
She may have.
I just don't know.
I haven't seen one ounce of reporting 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, if we're going to 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 sort of a, that's a, 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.
How about to the Senate?
Well, that's up to the Senate to pursue.
That's up to the Senate.
And I don't know that he lied in the Senate.
Well, yes, I do, but it's up to them to pursue.
I don't think they had the desire.
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 best chat 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 working well.
And then your question about Bush, what was it specifically again?
Bush, you know, you could fire people that are being loyal to you, maybe putting their necks out for you, you know.
Why can't you fire disloyal people?
The CIA answers to the president.
I don't understand why he can't just demote him or get it the hell out of them.
Well, I think, look, I can only speculate on this because I really, 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 9-11.
And he was trying to look forward and not point fingers of blame anyway.
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.
It might have been a misjudgment.
I think if heads had rolled with the information that was finally learned, people would have understand it.
But it's too late now to go back and try to do that, relive that.
The second thing is that it's quite telling if you go back and remember George W. Bush at the portrait unveilings for both Slick Willie 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 going to be the one to besmirch it, and he's not going to besmirch others who've held it.
It's a special thing.
People have held it, have all been elected.
And so he's just, he's not going to 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 very seldom, if ever, gets partisan outside of a campaign.
And only rarely then does he get partisan.
And I think it's because of his desire to have this vaunted ideal of the office of the presidency and his desire to try to unify things after 2000 and the hectic 90s.
The problem here is 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, don't misunderstand that, by the way.
He's conservative.
But he's not an ideologue in the sense that 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 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.
He'll go along with Senator McCain's campaign finance reform.
He'll do a number of these kinds of things.
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.
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 and the power of 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 he didn't need to have his age talk to 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 have to whine and dine the New York Times to try to make them not hate him so much.
So he was, 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.
He used the bully pulpit not just to advance the policies that he believed in, but also the ideals that were the foundation for those policies.
And that's what's been missing here.
And I think part of that, quite simply, is born of this notion that, well, you know, yeah, I know these liberals hate us, but I think we can make them like us.
We can get along with them.
We need to work together anyway to move the country forward.
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, in a political sense, and 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.
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?
It's not his nature.
He doesn't view that as his role as a president.
And in this is, in case you're wondering, where are our leaders?
This is why you ask that question.
Where are the leaders?
This is the things that you believe and want to happen don't seem to be voiced.
Sometimes you get them in policy, like tax cuts and this, that, and the other thing.
And there have been quite a few of us, so don't misunderstand me.
I mean, there's been on balance, there's been a far more conservative presidency than not by any stretch of the imagination.
Got to take a quick time out.
We will continue in mere moments.
Stay with.
All right, hang on.
Just checking one thing in the audio soundbite.
Yes, yes.
Grab audio soundbite number 17.
I think this is the grab 16 and 17.
I haven't had a chance to look at these very carefully, but I think those two will get it with this next call.
This is John and Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Thanks, Rush.
Wondering if 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.
I mean, look at how far out they've gone.
They said prosecutors, prosecutor.
This guy's apolitical.
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 parents.
I've got a couple stories to back this up.
This is in the New York Times and this is from today.
With a decision expected this week on possible indictments of the CIA leak case, allies of the White House suggest 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.
The story goes on to say it's really disputing Democrat talking points is all this story is by Richard Stevenson and David Johnston.
I'll guarantee you, if Fitzgerald splits hairs, you know he's going to 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.
The suggestion that 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 has simply come up with talking points.
There will be no substance to any opposition to this prosecutor if he, in fact, 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 cat fight yesterday with Maureen Downs 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.
This woman's been thrown overboard.
She's going to be savage.
She's going to be trashed.
She dared to join forces with the Bush White House.
This is all in advance, as I said earlier, of the New York Times preparing an all-out assault on this administration.
So you see, I have a story like this.
Prosecutor is 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 Howard Dean of the Merlot Democrats.
Howard Dean of the Merlot Democrats said he won't accept no indictment decision by Fitzgerald.
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 direct question asked of Dean by George, whatever his name is, of ABC's This Week, 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 a leap.
And when Stephanopoulos 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 push now is this climate of corruption.
We've got a couple soundbites, not enough time to get to them right now here.
And I'm going to get a better look at him and see exactly what he says.
But he's not going to accept it.
Now, I don't know what that means.
And 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 happens.
But nevertheless, yes, to answer your question, if he doesn't indict, folks, you're going to 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 excellences in the can, folks.
We'll have the Ditto Cam coming up at some point in the next hour, not at the top, but at, well, I still have to have my lunch digest.
And after that happens, we'll turn on the Ditto Cam.
We'll have it on for the remainder of the program at rushlimbaugh.com.
And still lots to go here today besides this CIA leak investigation.
Lots of some Harriet Myers news, audio soundbites as well.
So we've only just begun, folks.
Two more big, big broadcast hours to go.
▲
Export Selection