Hey, greetings to you once again, thrill seekers, conversationalists, and music lovers all across the fruited plain.
It's the award-winning, thrill-packed, ever-exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program here on the EIB network.
We're ditto camming today at rushlimbaugh.com.
And if you'd like to be on the program, we'll be getting to phone calls here very shortly.
800-282-2882.
If you would like to appear, we're discussing still Mary McCarthy, ex-Clinton administration, National Security Council staff member in the Inspector General's office of the CIA, leaking secrets, national security secrets to the Washington Post's Dana Priest, who received a Pulitzer Prize for this.
The Democratic Party today seems eager to embrace this culture of treason.
Well, Mr. Snerdley is asking me, well, I first heard the story late Friday afternoon and then into Saturday.
And my first reaction, I wasn't surprised.
Folks, anybody can sit here and tell you 2020 hindsight, I've thought Clinton, the administration, Clinton administration, has I think there's a shadow government operating, and I always have.
I think there are, I know that there are Janet Reno's people at the Justice Department who careered in when she went, and they're still over the Justice Department.
All these leaks that came out prior to the war in Iraq, from the Pentagon to the Washington Post to the New York Times, I've always suspected that, and I've never understood it.
I would love to understand the depth and bond of loyalty that everybody in the Clinton administration has to that guy is something that's always amazed me.
It is always that, I mean, we didn't have any leaks in that administration, did we?
Mary McCarthy wasn't leaking stuff in that administration to do damage to it.
They covered up.
They did everything they could to cover up everything that was going on in the eight years of the Clinton administration.
My first reaction to this was, in fact, I was instant messaging with some people.
And I'll just tell you what I wrote when I first saw this.
I said, blank check your email.
Ain't this just the tip of the iceberg and what's been going on with all these government leaks?
They're all over the place.
They're at state.
They're at the Pentagon, the CIA.
Bush didn't replace them because of this new tone.
They've been out to destroy him and his policies from day one.
Drive-by media will make this woman Daniel Ellsberg.
They are Stalinists.
These people will stop at nothing to get this country back in their hands.
They will don't care how many soldiers die.
These are 60s radicals who have finally grown to power.
They are behaving in a treasonous manner.
And I'm looking for the media to circle the wagons around her and call her a whistleblower.
And this was Friday night at 10.30.
I was instant messaging.
Have you, by the way, heard the joke going around?
Two Iraqi spies met in a busy restaurant after they had successfully slipped into the country, the United States.
The first Iraqi spy starts speaking in Arabic, and the second spy shushes him up.
Hey, shh, shh, don't blow our cover.
You're in America now.
Speak Spanish.
Heard that joke going around?
A little levity here to interject.
Back to the audio soundbite.
It really is true.
If this current crop of Democrats and Drive-By Media had been around during the days of the Revolutionary War, I kid you not, Benedict Arnold would be in the history books today as America's first whistleblower.
Let's go back to George Stephanopoulos, Sam Donaldson.
Cokie Roberts says, how can you tell a CI person, CIA person they can leak?
It's like the early days of in the 60s in the South.
People broke the law.
They sat in at lunch counters.
Remember the great American saying, disobedience to tyranny is obedience to God.
In this case, it wasn't tyranny.
In this case, it was something that clearly I think most Americans would agree is not what we want to do.
Secret prisons, the right of detention not being open to public scrutiny.
They are crying out loud.
I swear the ignorance of these people is getting hard to take.
I have never suffered fools easily, folks, but it's getting more difficult now.
Come on, Sam, you can't possibly be serious comparing this to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
We are at war for crying out loud.
We have always had prisoners of war.
We have always attempted to learn what the enemy's next moves might make so we can preempt them.
This had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
This is all about al-Qaeda and these black prisons.
And it's interesting to note that the New York Times last week, this appears to be too much to be coincidental to me.
But the New York Times runs a story saying that the European Union has investigated this notion that there are black prisons run to the CIA in various European countries.
They can't find any proof of any.
Now, they didn't say they didn't find any.
They said they can't find any proof of any.
But the fact of the matter is, Sam, check your polls.
The American people were not upset about what went on at Abu Ghrab.
George Bush won the election.
They were not upset about what went on at Club Gitmo.
They know we're in a war.
9-11 happened when the movie United 93 comes out, Sam.
Go check out how many people go to see it.
It's rare.
I'm 55 years old.
I have never, I don't think I can recall a time where such a long, consistent period of time, the nation's drive-by media appears so out of touch with what's happening in the country regarding the war on terror.
Now, it gets even better because former presidential candidate John Kerry, and by the way, his foreign policy advisor is knee-deep in this too.
His name is Rand Beers.
Rand Beers was also in the National Security Council, the Clinton administration, along with Mary McCarthy, along with Sandy Burgler, and along with Richard Clark.
And he leaves and he joins the Kerry campaign at some point, become the National Security Director.
And in the Dana Priest story, for which she won a Pulitzer Prize, people bragging about how Rand Beers still has contacts inside the CIA and people are talking to him.
And that's why they don't need all these security briefs.
Remember during the campaign, there was a story that Kerry was bypassing national security briefings.
And he had his own intel.
He had Rand Beers still talking to Mary McCarthy and whoever the hell else is in there.
She's just the tip of the iceberg.
She's not the only one.
Folks, we have, fortunately, we have patriots that are now trying to get to the bottom of this in the CIA and elsewhere.
When Dana Priest was talking to Mary McCarthy, she knew damn well that she was a Clinton person.
She had to know that.
And there must be more bad guys in the CIA.
When we've said that the CIA is at war with the White House, we were more right than we knew.
So I do.
I think we have a shadow government in operation.
I see a relationship between all of this.
Valerie Plame gets her husband Joe Wilson that Niger trip at the CIA.
McCarthy is leaking from the CIA.
I'm not saying they work together, but look at this effort.
Look at how Plame at the CIA gets her husband a critical trip to Niger, and then they turn it around to create a scandal against the White House when this White House did nothing but try to find out what the hell happened.
Wilson continues to lie through his teeth.
This McCarthy at CIA is leaking about the prisons.
Somebody leaked the National Security Agency project.
Somebody leaked that to James Risen at the New York Times.
Look at these Clinton generals.
I mean, these guys were more than happy when they didn't have to actually go to war.
It's just, this is really thick, folks.
And I'm just convinced that we're just at the very beginning of understanding the full scope and nature of this shadow government that's out there.
You know, they're going to have to back this woman up.
They're going to defend her.
And in the process of defending her, the drive-by media is defending what she did.
And there's no shame.
They're proud to do it.
They're proud to point out how happy they are she did it in lionizing this woman.
She is a hero.
They're going to have to defend her because Pulitzers were awarded.
She was doing the job that the Democrats support.
So what we need to do, we demand to know who knew her, if she spoke to any members of Congress, what other reporters she spoke to.
We need to go into full scandal mode here, and we need to get uncovered every bit of information that we can.
We need to turn the tables on these people.
We need to go to Hillary Clinton, who wants all these investigations of the oil companies.
And she's flip-flopped now on the wall.
The wall down in the southeastern border, southwestern border to keep immigration out.
We'll get to that later in the program today.
But we need a hearing about how Hillary's husband, Staffer, came to leak national security secrets.
You know, this whole thing, I have to tell you, makes Jack Abramoff look like a joke.
And I knew that over the weekend that the drive-by media and the Democratic hierarchy working to try to strategize so they're not buried by this.
And I told the people I was flashing with on Friday night, keep a sharp eye on the Sunday shows because that's where the die will be cast, that this woman is a hero, that this woman is a whistleblower.
But we need to demand the media spend at least as much time on this as Abramoff.
We're talking about national security here.
I wonder how many senators this woman leaked to.
And we need to do it fast, folks.
We need to get to the bottom of this before the election.
Here's John Kerry.
He has come to the defense of Mary McCarthy.
He says, I'm glad she told the truth.
But she's going to obviously, I mean, if she did it, if she did it, suffer the consequences of breaking law.
But I'm glad she did it.
We'll let you hear some Kerry soundbites when we come back.
Stay with us.
Let's go back to this week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.
At no time, by the way, during his questioning of Kerry, does Stephanopoulos mention to Kerry that McCarthy, Mary McCarthy, was a Democrat.
At no time does Stephanopoulos mention to Kerry that she contributed to his presidential campaign and $2,000 and about $5,700 to the Democratic Party in soft money.
So here's the question.
Some former CIA officers have described McCarthy as a sacrificial lamb acting in the finest American tradition by revealing human rights violations.
What's your view?
Well, I read that.
I don't know whether she did it or not.
So, I mean, it's hard to have a view on that, but here is my fundamental view about this.
Hold it.
Oh, you just said you didn't have a view.
You just said it hard to have a view.
Yet, here's his fundamental view.
You have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth.
And you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie.
That underscores what's really wrong in Washington.
You know, this is just, this is just unbelievable.
This guy is obviously a buffoon.
If a CIA officer especially leaks something that's true, that's even worse than if you leak something that's not true.
If you leak something that's true for crying out loud, you're compromising national security.
It's what she did.
At the same time, the White House did not reveal a CIA agent's name.
She wasn't covert.
She wasn't an agent at the time.
There was no supporting a lie that Libby was doing.
Libby was trying to counter the lie that Claim and her husband Joe Wilson cooked up, maybe with Mary McCarthy.
They both had the Africa debt.
Who knows what's going on?
But it certainly isn't Scooter Libby that's the problem here.
And Scooter Libby has been fired essentially because he was indicted.
He had to resign.
It's the same thing, practically.
He's the guy that they're all pursuing.
The Democrats can't wait to put Scooter in jail, and now they're trying to say this woman's some kind of a hero.
Let me read to you the law involved here.
It is section 793, paragraph D of Title 18, United States Code.
It clearly makes it an offense punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment for anybody who lawfully has access to national defense information, including information which, quote, the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, unquote, to willfully communicate that information to any person not entitled to have it.
Doesn't say whether it's lies or truth, but if it's true, it's even worse, folks.
That's the whole point.
Some of you people I know aren't to say, well, if she leaked true information, why not?
What's the problem?
The law makes it the problem.
10 years in jail for doing this.
If her purpose was not to harm the United States, she may have ended up helping our enemies.
And we still don't know if these prisons exist or not.
Nobody's been able to find any evidence of it.
But this is not about human rights violations.
Isn't that what he said?
I mean, it's hard to have a view on it, but here my fundamental view of this.
You have somebody being fired at CIA for telling the truth.
No one fired from the White House.
Maybe it was Sam Donaldson said human rights, but this is, that's all this exists to these people.
These prisons are human rights violations.
Putting anybody in prison.
They don't know what went on in these prisons.
They don't even know for sure that they exist.
Already we're assuming that, well, torture, humiliation, dog barking, cigarette burns, Kern's flushing down the toilet, Nazi-like behavior, Dick Durbin said.
I mean, the Soviet gulag type behavior being run by United States agents and allies in all of these prisons.
Next question from Stephanopoulos.
Well, that's one issue of hypocrisy, but should a CIA officer be able to make decisions on his or her own?
The CIA agent has an obligation to uphold the law.
And clearly, leaking is against the law.
And nobody should leak.
I abhor leaking.
I don't like it.
But if you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that and at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you put on that person.
Classification in Washington is a tool that is used to hide the truth from the American people.
So I'm glad she told the truth, but she's going to obviously have to, if she did it, if she did it, suffer the consequences of breaking the law.
So he abhors leaking, then goes on to say he's glad that she leaked.
Sum total of Senator Kerry's comment.
He abhors leaking, but boy, he's glad that she did it.
These Democrats are the prime leakers in our culture today.
We had Jay Rockefeller in Durban who leaked a national security project, black project involving a satellite, spy satellite.
They didn't like the cost of it.
They let that one go up in flames.
This is actually behavior that's become part of the norm.
Let's start on the phones now.
We'll start New Orleans with Rick's.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Yes, I am an ex-Air Force intelligence officer and a retired Ph.D. in political science.
I don't know where to begin.
So many targets of opportunity in so little time.
It's a wonder that Bush has accomplished anything.
If you combine the media, and which you remember during the campaign, Evan Thomas said was worth 15 points to carry, which is a landslide, right?
Right, right.
Okay.
And you combine that with the moles in the State Department.
Remember Kissinger, when he was Secretary of State, treated the State Department like the foreign occupying enemy, right?
Right.
Treated them all like mushrooms.
Keep them in the dark and feed them all, right?
Right.
Then you've got that combined with the academia.
You've got the shadow government, the West Wing, and the major media.
It's a wonder that Bush can accomplish anything.
I think this government, I think government by conservatives is increasingly becoming ungovernable.
Government by conservatives is becoming ungovernable.
It's only because you have this vast array of the major media, the intellectual left in academia, in the entertainment industry.
You know, the sum total of it all, and of course, the moles from the state.
I think what's your name should be taken out in an open field of shot as far as I'm concerned.
You know, look, I hear everything that you say about it's amazing Bush can get anything done.
It's amazing.
But he is.
I mean, the fact of the matter is things are getting done.
Things are happening in Iraq.
We're having an ongoing debate about good news versus bad news.
Hollywood's hurting.
The drive-by media has lost their monopoly.
Now, folks, I'm here I go again.
I don't want to be accused by anybody of being falsely optimistic or unrealistic about things because I'll tell you, none of this matters as much as the gasoline price does when the elections come around.
I mean, let's be honest, but this ought to.
This is serious stuff.
I have, I guess, right part ways with a lot of you is I continue to have faith in the American people.
The American people elected George W. Bush in 2004 despite all this.
This is going on before 2004.
The Democrats are going to run for the House and Senate elections in November, and they're going to be running against Bush.
They're not going to present a plan on their own.
And make no mistake, there are significant numbers of American people who are noticing this, who are cataloging this, following this, and to them, it is treasonous.
And they are not in the dark about it.
I have no clue what's going to happen in the elections in November, but I'm not part of the throw-in-the-towel crowd yet.
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Many of you people say that I continue to be out of touch with you on several things.
Let me try to rectify that right now.
All right.
Let me just make this prediction.
We're going to lose the House and Senate in November.
We will lose the White House in 2008.
Hillary Clinton will be president.
There's nothing we can do to stop this.
The drive-by media will have had six to eight years to chip away at Bush and the Republicans.
Many of you will be demoralized and you won't vote.
The Democrats will sweep to victory.
They're said, done.
There's the pessimism for you.
Now I'm on the same page as you are back to the phones.
Brian in Portland, Oregon.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, how are you doing, Rush?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Well, you know, if they just explain it away all weekend long on these Sunday talk shows, then it's not breaking a law.
It's not a crime.
You know, and especially if they can attach a victim to it, then it's even better.
That's somebody we should feel sorry for.
Exactly.
Exactly.
You know, and we should overlook the fact that they broke the law, that they did something that we couldn't get away with.
You know, I mean, it's the same way that they treated that Chinese protester.
Why don't they treat her like Cynthia McKinney?
Or treat her like Cindy Sheehan.
No, they want to do that.
Exactly.
Here, happy that Chinese protesters in jail.
How dare she embarrass President Hu, a great communist?
Beloved leader.
Yeah, I know.
I tell you, the thing that amazes me is that they're saying, by the way, the woman admitted this.
You know, she failed a polygraph.
She admitted multiple polygraphs.
She admitted she did this.
This is not as John Kerry says, if she did it, if she did it.
She did it.
She admits that she did it.
Look at Sandy Burglar.
Why wouldn't a Democrat be fearless?
Sandy Bergler can steal documents from the National Archives, or he can replace what he stole with something that who knows what it is.
Concocted, contrived, a $10,000 fine, period.
You telling me some careerists in the state, in the Justice Department that might be tied to Janet Reno, didn't have something to do with that?
What are we supposed to think?
So if you're Mary McCarthy and you know that many of your comrades are located throughout the government, why would you have any fear of admitting it?
Why didn't it take the polygraphs, fail them?
And you know you're not going to go to, you might not even be prosecuted.
Andy McCarthy's piece.
National Review Online today, more alarmingly, according to government officials who spoke to the Washington Post, Mary McCarthy may not even be the subject of a criminal investigation.
Indeed, unnamed Justice Department lawyers reportedly told the New York Times that McCarthy's termination could mean that she would be spared criminal prosecution, which again is hard to fathom because federal law, specifically Section 793D of Title 18, clearly makes it an offense punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment for anybody who lawfully has access to national defense information, including information which, quote,
the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the U.S. or the advantage of any foreign nation, unquote, to willfully communicate that information to any person not entitled to have it.
McCarthy had access to classified information about our wartime national defense activities by virtue of her official position at the CIA.
The compromise of that information appears to have been devastating to U.S. intelligence efforts in wartime, no less.
CIA Director Porter Goss testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in February that the damage from leaks has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission.
The unauthorized disclosures were also patently a boon to several foreign nations, which have used it to put immense pressure under the guise of international law on countries that heretofore have been willing to run the risk of helping the United States battle terrorists.
In other words, it seems like a straightforward case.
The Times suggests that the CIA's reliance on the polygraph in McCarthy's case could make it more difficult for the government to prosecute her.
Well, that seems far-fetched.
I mean, yeah, lie detector tests, their results are inadmissible in federal court, but so what?
That has nothing to do with the underlying evidence of conduct, nor should it render problematic any admissions the person makes, including any confessions such as the one McCarthy is reported to have given.
So people are telling the Washington Post, Justice Department, they may not even prosecute her since she went ahead and went quietly.
Well, it's amazing.
Eric in Dubuque, Iowa.
You're nice to call.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Leaking a classified information in order to expose illegal conduct by high government officials is very different than high government officials selectively declassifying information in order to trick the American public into a lying to government.
I don't have much patience for this.
There's no such thing as selective declassification.
Well, I think when you've got an NIE.
I don't care what you think.
There's no such thing.
When the president decides something can be made public, it's been declassified.
That's it.
Period.
End of story.
Do you think that's the question?
I don't care what you think.
I don't care what you think.
It doesn't matter what you think.
You're wrong.
I just tell you the truth.
Pardon me?
I'm asking you, do you think there's a difference between what's right and what's legal?
Do I have an esoteric question, hypothetical?
Give me a specific.
Well, it's legal to cheat on your wife, but you wouldn't do it, would you, if you were married?
Because it's wrong.
You know what?
You know what?
Legal for the president.
I don't know that it is legal.
I'm sorry?
I don't know that it is legal to cheat on your wife.
Well, I don't know.
There are consequences to it.
It's not prosecuted a lot, but it is certainly not legal to go do it, or everybody would be doing it with impunity.
But you end up paying for it.
One way or the other.
Rush, my point is that intelligence professionals decided something should be classified.
The president decided to play politics and ride roughs out over those professionals by declassifying stuff to cover his political buttons.
No, no, no.
Scooter Libby lied about it, and that's what he was prosecuted for when he went before the grand jury and he lied to FBI agents, and that's what he's facing time for.
He's not facing time for the declassification or leaking anything.
He's facing time for lying the same way William Jefferson Clinton faced time for lying.
But William Jefferson Tenton never was charged.
He didn't face time.
Scooter Libby was simply acting on orders to get the right story out.
He was dealing with a concocted lie put out there by Joe Wilson and his wife about something that the Bush administration was lying to the American people about.
If anybody was lying to the American people about anything, it was Joe Wilson and his wife and this whole cabal.
What you have just described is the politicization of or the criminalization of political activity.
All the White House was engaged in was answering a charge made by Joe Wilson in the New York Times in an op-ed, which was chocked full of lies.
The 9-11 Commission has indicated he was lying.
The 9-11 Commission has told people that what he came back and said about Niger was actually helpful to the CIA and confirming what they thought was going on.
This is 180 degrees out of phase.
Scooter Libby's been caught in a process case.
Nothing to do about playing, nothing to do about leaking a covert agent.
In fact, Bob Novak the other day said Fitzgerald knows who the original leaker is, and he's not going after that person because there's no crime.
And I'm convinced that the independent counsel doesn't want all of his work to just be a little perjury case about a crime that wasn't committed.
So now he's expanding the scope to make his case and his career look like it's got something very important going on.
He wants to have a legacy here.
Everybody does.
And it's just, it's obvious this case is not big enough to provide him that.
So let's go out and let's try to criminalize political activities and policy.
Of course, liberals love this.
But, you know, you can, if you want to compare Scooter Libby and Mary McCarthy, I'll sit here all day and do it for you.
I don't see the press championing Scooter.
I don't see the press saying, you know, Scooter's doing what he was doing to serve his country.
He's doing what he was doing to serve his boss.
He saw a bunch of lies being told out there, and he was appointed to go out and try to get the truth out to the press.
But I don't hear that angle.
I don't hear that.
All I hear is selective declassification.
And you agree with fidelity, but you wouldn't do it because it's wrong, even though it's not a crime.
All this gibberish is irrelevant.
Aaron in Charleston, West Virginia.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Oh, Rush, mega dittos.
I used to have to send the Nazi before I listened to you.
Don't get me wrong.
I think that the CIA leakers should be fired.
Absolutely.
Put up for treason.
Great.
My question is, and you mentioned it already, was that the EU didn't find these secret prisons.
So if she leaked something that wasn't true, why was she fired?
I'm confused.
We don't know that it's not.
No, wait a minute.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I said there are some people who think that there was a sting operation going.
You know, one of the ways that it has been used over many, many years to find out if somebody's leaking, and this happens in crime families.
It happens to the CIA.
It happens everywhere.
Give somebody, I mean, you might have done this.
Spread a falsehood amongst some of your friends to see where it comes back just to find out if something's going on.
You plan a story.
You put together some stuff in a file.
Hey, look at this.
We're running rogue prisons over there in Europe.
And then find out who leaks and put a trace on it and spy yourself.
They even gave the Inspector General lie detector tests.
He himself, her boss, had to take some tests on this.
But that's just speculation.
Nobody knows if there was a sting operation or not.
Now, if you leak data, there may have been the data on the spy prisons.
Let's say it is false.
Let's say that it's a total plant.
They have still used it to uncover who's leaking.
This is not the only thing Mary McCarthy has leaked.
I will guarantee you.
This is not the only.
They've had a leak problem, and Porter Gross has known it left and right.
And if that's the case, they planted something in there.
This is an effort to catch whoever is leaking.
Leaking anything that's classified, whether she knows it's true or not or suspects it, is still against the law.
And there's a pattern of leaks with Mary McCarthy here that is going to be looked at, I certainly hope.
And don't forget the provision that if whatever the leak happens to help our enemies, you know, that's part of it too.
So please, look, Aaron, don't get caught up.
You're getting caught up in maybe she was leaking the truth or maybe it wasn't true.
You're missing the point.
You're falling for the drive-by media spin when you get into those kinds of specifics.
I got to run and take a break.
We'll be back and continue.
Just a second.
Stay with us.
All right.
This term selective declassification.
This is a term that's being put out there by the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the drive-by media.
And they're doing this to go after Bush and Scooter Libby for leaking declassified things in a way of manner of defending Mary McCarthy.
On Fox News Sunday yesterday, Chris Wallace interviewed Jane Harmon, Democrat California.
She's a House Intelligence Committee.
He said the CIA dismissed a senior officer this week for leaking classified information to reporters.
And by the way, whether the information is right or wrong, was true or false, it's still classified.
You leak classified data, you're cooked.
It's just that simple.
At any rate, after it came out that the president had authorized the disclosure, the partial disclosure of the National Intelligence Estimate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you had the following to say, and let's put it up on the screen.
Quote, the president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief.
Do you really see any comparison between the president and Mary McCarthy?
You bet I do.
I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information.
However, while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies.
That is wrong.
That is unprecedented.
I've never, ever heard about that happening in other administrations.
What are we talking about here?
Are we talking about selective declassification of information on weapons of mass destruction from that national intelligence estimate?
If we're doing that, can we go back to 1998?
I say, breathlessly, because I'm so sick and tired of repeating all this.
Can we go back to 1998?
Can we find every Clinton administration official in national security and defense, a bunch of members of the Democratic Senate, and go get a bunch of newspapers?
And can we read exactly all about weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was developing and trying to procure, and he was a threat and he was a danger?
George W. Bush leaked this?
How can you leak stuff?
The Democrats have been vomiting all over everybody for two years.
How can you leak?
Now, are we talking about Scooter Libby here?
Is that the selective declassification we're talking about?
Leak it to favored reporters so they can discredit political enemies?
What if political enemies are lying out there, as Joe Wilson is?
Is the White House just supposed to sit around and bend over, grab the ankle, say, okay, you don't like our policy?
Fine.
Spank us?
Were they supposed to sit around and let the critics lie through their teeth to destroy the administration?
I guess so.
I guess the administration is not allowed to fight back.
Yes, the administration is not allowed to get its story out, eh?
Shazam.
And now Wallace says, well, isn't there a big difference?
She was breaking the law.
Mary McCarthy's breaking the law.
Bush wasn't.
He wasn't breaking the law because the president claims to have power that no one else has.
And he should be reminded that the Constitution starts with Article 1, not Article 2.
The inherent powers of the presidency are not unlimited.
He's been ignoring Congress.
He's been refusing to brief the full intelligence committees on the NSA program.
I think that's a violation of law.
Presumably, he's doing that because he's afraid we will leak.
And yet he and his administration are the ones who leak selectively.
And so I am not condoning what this woman allegedly did in the CIA.
Of course, I'm not condoning that.
But I think having a double standard is absolutely wrong.
Well, this is incredible.
Firstly, there's no alleged she did it.
So this woman has as much power or Bush has as little power as she does, as Mary McCarthy does.
This is standing itself on its head.
If anything's been established, Bush let the required relevant members of Congress know about the NSA program a number of times.
And the fact of the matter is that the Democrats know full well that the only reason they want all this information is so they can leak it and destroy it.
If one thing we've learned here, all the Democrats complaining about the NSA program and what they didn't know means the only reason they want it is to destroy it.
They would love to leak it to destroy it.
So, I mean, when we lose the House and Senate in 06, I'm sorry, yes, 06, this woman is going to be the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
You have Charles Wrangell as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
He's going to be writing the tax law.
And you're going to have people like Fortney Pete Stark, people like Jim Moran, Baghdad Jim McDermott.
They're going to be in powerful positions.
So we deedled that out.
I'm sorry he deedled that out.
Passionate show like that should have been allowed to be said.
We deedled a mild profanity, ladies and gentlemen.
I can't tell you what it is.
Otherwise, I'd be violating the deedle.
But no, I mean, this is who we have here slated to run the country here when the Democrats win the House and the Senate in 06.
Gasoline is going to be five bucks a gallon by then.
Bush will be impeached by next February.
Be back in just a second.
Bad news, ladies and gentlemen, about the ports and our security.
It's not good.
Also, Iran making a noise that they're going to exit the nuclear treaty.
That's interesting to analyze.
And I found a great little piece I want to get into in the next hour, The Top 10 Ways to Destroy the Earth.
Top 10 Ways to Destroy the Earth.
Seriously, a scientific analysis of the top 10 ways to destroy the Earth.
A hint, global warming is not on the list.
It is not possible to destroy the Earth with global warming.