All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
August 29, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
I didn't spend any time on it because I knew this was a hoax from the get-go.
I just, it had to be.
I mean, this everything involved.
I'm talking about this, this real pervert, perverts in the news today.
John Mark Carr and this wacko out in Las Vegas.
Apparently, is this this uh polygamist?
What's a polygamist?
A guy gets married to more than one woman at a time?
Not only is it pervert, he's insane.
That's what all over the news today.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome, Rushland Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Uh hiatop the EIB building, Midtown Manhattan.
Great to be with you.
Uh I know you know it's a thrill and an honor to be here with us.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address is uh rush at EIBNet.com.
I'm a little frustrated today.
I've been trying to get on all the National Weather Service sites attract this stupid hurricane.
Well, it's not a hurricane, it's tropical storm.
Looks like just a big thunderstorm to me.
But you know, we're in the post-Catrina environment, and everything has to be portrayed as disastrous.
It's gonna destroy everything in its path, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Just looks like a big thunderstorm to me.
The uh the pressure is only uh, you know, 1,000 seven millibars.
That's nothing.
No, well, that no, no, they can't find the eye.
They the center of circulation are calling it.
They there's deep convection.
Uh weather talk for heavy rain.
Deep convection shows up as dark red.
Anyway, I can't get the loops to work.
I can get the single frames.
It doesn't tell me anything.
I want to see the movement of this stuff.
Uh, because the EIB Southern Command could be on the uh on the worst side of it, rain content-wise, could miss the heavy part.
Uh, and they only come out with these new tracks every six hours, just had one an hour ago, and they moved it a little further west.
Uh, but uh, I guess everybody's trying to get in and look at these sites, you just can't get the loops.
The radar loops aren't working, the satellite loops aren't working, and I'm mad about it.
This is the United States of America, it's 2006.
These uh government server farms ought to be big enough to handle the uh the uh the load and the and the curiosity.
At any rate, uh, ladies and gentlemen, we are here, be here for three exciting sterling broadcast hours.
Uh right now, Mary Lacey, the uh district attorney out in Boulder.
It's just been a real tough couple of days for us.
I'm sure you can understand.
It was one email from some uh professor.
One email four years ago that got all this going.
You can look at this guy.
If you ever looked at people, say, Thank God I don't look like that.
That's how I feel when I look at John Mark Carr my gosh.
I mean, I've always wanted to be thinner than I am, but I'm an I don't want to be a geek.
At any rate, you gotta hear this, folks.
This we're not gonna talk about this.
How about this?
One thing though.
Drudge had this headline up last night.
Carr wanted Johnny Depp to play him in movie.
He wrote a screenplay.
Had nothing to do with John Bonet, wrote a screenplay, wanted Johnny Depp to play him in a movie.
Now, is that a statement on our sick celebrity pop culture or what?
And this guy has maneuvered himself into it, got a free play and ride back in business class with pate.
Can't even serve that in Chicago anymore unless you call it uh bacon or anything else, which is how they're gonna get around it up there.
Uh but I mean.
Anyway, the media.
The media fit to be tied.
That he didn't do it.
We have a little montage here.
Drive-by media, angry at John Mark Carr and the DA for wasting their time and creating a media frenzy.
Here's this montage, uh, but it doesn't matter who these people are.
Listen.
It's number uh number four.
It's uh number four.
Did I tell you we're starting with three?
I goofed up.
Your mistake.
Cut four.
All the emails, all the media frenzy, all the champagne and pate.
The case against John Mark Carr has gone up in smoke.
You've seen the long drawn-out frenzy over John Mark Carr.
It started out with such a media frenzy.
Confessions that created a media frenzy.
And now it's more TV frenzy.
How come he's not being charged with something like obstruction or making false statements or conspiracy to trigger a media frenzy at the very least?
Now that last was Alison Stewart, and she's at PMSNBC, and I wanted you to hear that because I figured nobody watches that.
Uh how come he's not being charged With a conspiracy to trigger a media frenzy at the very least.
So now it's it's a crime to lead the media on a conspiracy.
If that's the case, where's Joe Wilson behind bars?
Joe Wilson needs to be indicted if it is a crime to lead the media.
Where's Patrick Fitzgerald where all these people that led the media down the wrong path when we knew that Richard Armitage and probably Colin Powell were behind the Valerie Plame leak, ladies and gentlemen?
We'll get to that here in just a second.
Howard Kurtz writes about this in the Washington Post today, and he called the John Binet fraud one of the greatest media embarrassments in uh in modern history, and that is wrong.
Uh who did the John Bene fraud damage?
Okay, we've had a fraud here with this John Mark Carr, but who did it damage?
You can't say it damaged the media because the drive-by media has been damaging itself for years.
Who did it damage?
Who did it really damage?
But the John Bene fraud's just boob bait to catch an audience.
All it was was headlines for circulation and ratings, filler for 24-hour cable TV.
It's exactly what it was intended to be.
It served its purpose.
These people are all upset in the media about a media frenzy having been created by the DA and by this pervert.
The fact of the matter is, this is exactly what the drive-by media has become.
They ought to be celebrating today.
They did it precisely because they got their ratings up.
It's what they do.
It's what they always do.
No harm, no foul.
Trump change.
This is no big this is this is like Hurricane Katrina.
How about the media frenzy over Hurricane Katrina and all the people that lied about the aftermath there?
The real media embarrassment.
Uh what did Howard Kurtz say?
Oh, yeah, the real one of the greatest media embarrassments in modern history.
The plame game, the CIA leak story, the White House vendetta story, that story did real damage.
That story did real damage to real people during a real war to a real country.
The entire fiasco that has been the Valerie Plame Joe Wilson story.
Wilson is an incorrigible liar.
He is an egomaniac.
His wife was not damaged in this, but the whole lot of people were.
Real damage, real people during a real war to a real country, ours.
And even worse, this fraud was not perpetrated by the so-called gossip media, perpetrated by the highly esteemed opinion molding media.
Tell me, my friends, let me ask you a serious question.
What is John Binet and the so-called media frenzy and the fraud have to do with our nation or the John Mark car fraud have to do with the United States?
What would Jimmy Hoffa's missing body have to do with national security or Al Capone's vault have to do with the war on terrorism?
The Joe Wilson Valerie Plame fraud was not a fraud for ratings and circulation.
It was a fraud to manipulate you.
It was a fraud to manipulate the nation to undermine our war effort to possibly bring down a president.
The media is all in a dizzy over what happened here regarding this John Mark Carr fraud.
The big fraud is the Valerie Plame leak scandal case.
And I want to ask, will the exposing of the Plame Game fraud get a gazillionth of the explosure, uh, exposure that the John Mark Carr fraud got?
Maybe even more important, will it get a gazillions of the outrage from Howard Kurtz?
Or anybody else, Allison Stewart, anybody, Chris Matthews, who lived on this story for two years?
Will they feel as though they have had a fraud perpetrated on them?
No way, ladies and gentlemen.
That story accomplished everything it was intended to.
It drove down the president's approval numbers.
It got one of the president's men indicted.
It it portrayed Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson as innocent pawns of a malicious, vicious administration trying to destroy two wonderful public servants.
The first time in my life I can remember anybody to drive by media or the American left caring a whit about a CIA agent or the CIA.
Everything was 180 degrees out of phase on this story.
Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos, Wolf Blitzer, Brian, any of these people gonna feel like they were misled?
They're gonna wonder what about this media frenzy?
I doubt it.
It's not gonna hold my breath after all it's an election year.
And uh the the no plan left's ace in the hole.
They got no plan and got the ace in the hole was the scooter libby, Carl Rove uh rove Dick Cheney scandal.
It never was.
This was what one of the many things they were going to base the impeachment of the president on, ladies and gentlemen.
It has gone up totally in smoke.
Much more on this when we come back.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back.
800-282-2882, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man talent on loan from God.
All right, this um the Isakoff revelation, Michael Isakoff and David Korn.
And by the way, let me say something about that.
David Korn, who writes for the nation, which, if you didn't know better, the nation reads like a right wing satire publication, like they're satirizing uh uh the left.
I mean, it's Saturday Night Live type stuff if the left were made fun of on programs like that.
These guys are dead serious.
This is the place uh in the magazine where the editrix in chief uh is uh Hurricane Katrina Vandenhoovel.
David Korns, one of her head honchos out there.
David Korn, collaborating with Michael Isakoff, finally, once and for all, removes the veneer that Isakoff is some down the line mainstream objective journalist.
Joining forces with corn clearly illustrates that Isakoff himself uh is uh is of the far left.
Now the the cliche here, um you know the the Washington cliche is uh what did they know, and when did they know it?
What did he know?
What did Nixon know?
When did he know it's when he got started?
In this case, it's about Richard Armitage.
Uh but uh the the that what did they know and when did they know it is too soft for this?
Uh the real angle ought to be, did they know it was Armitage who was the leaker when they called for Scooter Libby's head?
Did they know that it was Armitage when they called for Carl Rove's resignation?
And by the way, forgive me on this.
I made the assumption yesterday, everybody would know who Richard Armitage is.
Richard Armitage, barrel chested big guy, bald headed, Carl uh or uh uh uh Colin Powell's trusted number two when he was Secretary of State.
Uh uh Armitage is a Vietnam vet, uh, not part of the White House cabal, not friendly to the White House, not supportive of the Iraq war, uh well known in Washington as uh as a gossip.
Somebody is titillated by it, loves to hear it, loves to pass it on.
Nobody is of the opinion that Armitage was trying to harm anybody when he told Novak that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
Uh uh so uh the the idea that there was an intent to harm anybody here is not evident.
When the primary first leaker is Armitage, but that's that's who he is, and he left with Powell.
I have no idea what he's doing now, but uh he was Powell's number two.
Let me read to you something from Byron York, by the way, who is uh one of Washington's premier investigative reporters.
This is a National Review Online posted just after midnight today.
No one in the press corps knew it at the time.
This is October 3rd, 2003.
I mean, the opening paragraph will help uh give you context on this.
On October 3rd, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell talked to reporters after meeting with Laszlo Kovacs, the foreign minister of Hungary.
The meeting went well, nothing controversial to discuss.
It went so well, in fact, that reporter said to Powell, Mr. Secretary, things are so smooth, uh, thought I'd ask you about something else.
State Department's offering to help the search for the person who leaked the CIA official's name.
Can you say something about that situation?
How might the State Department help?
Powell said, Well, we've been asked by this uh Justice Department, those who are conducting the investigation, to make ourselves available for any purpose that they have.
Promising to cooperate fully, Powell added, we're doing our searches in response to the letter we received yesterday and make ourselves available, but I'm not sure what they'll be looking for or what they wish to contact us about, but we're anxious to be of all assistance to the inquiry inquiry.
Well, no one in the press corps knew it at that time, October 3rd, 2003.
But if a newly published account of this case is accurate, Colin Powell knew much, much more than he let on during that session with the media.
Two days earlier, according to the Isakoff book, Powell had been told by his top deputy and close friend Richard Armitage that he, Armitage, leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak.
Armitage had, in other words, set off the whole thing.
He got a whole kerfuffle going.
According to the book, Armitage had gone through the weekend of September 27 to 28th, and then the continued furor on Monday and Tuesday, not to mention the previous three months without realizing he was Novak's source.
It was only upon reading Novak's no partisan gunslinger column, allegedly, that Armitage knew he was the source and then got in touch with Powell.
Why did Armitage keep the information from Fitzgerald?
In the book, Armitage's allies hint at the same defense that Lewis Libby's lawyers use to explain why he didn't tell investigators everything, and that is that Plame was a relatively inconsequential part of a big story and was not, as administration critics say, the focus of a White House conspiracy.
State Department Intelligence guy told David Korn and Isakoff, well, my sense from Armitage is that just chit-chat.
Armitage simply is screwed up.
Well, if that's true, that makes this whole thing an even bigger embarrassment for everybody involved.
And I want to know all of these media types who so worried they've been taken to the cleaners in the John Boname, John Mark Carr case.
Did they know that it was Armitage when they call for Libby's head?
Did they know it was Armitage when they called for Carl Rove's resignation?
Did they know it was Armitage when they questioned if it went all the way up to Dick Cheney?
Did they know it was Armitage when they wondered if it went all the way up to the president?
Is it possible the New York Times did not know it was Armitage?
Hell, they know everything.
Colin Powell talked to him regularly.
Is it possible Andrea Mitchell?
She's an expert because she's tapped into the State Department and the Pentagon.
Is it possible Andrea Mitchell didn't know it was Armitage?
To call this media bias is uh is the wrong way to frame this.
Bias is partiality.
It's an understandable human trait.
But this goes so far beyond bias, it goes to scandal.
To deliberately and maliciously altering evidence in a story, to ignoring facts in a story that you know, and still pursue your action line based on the White House did this.
It's a conspiracy by the White House to get even with a critic of their policy.
Remember the discussions at the time that we had drive by Media to Democrats were trying to politicize policy decisions.
They were trying to politicize the White House, trying to defend itself against these now ludicrous accusations against Joe Wilson and uh and so forth.
Now, there's a blogger out there by the name of Ray Robeson.
Ray Robeson had his piece, put on the American thinker, which were I found it.
What he did, he went and looked at the polling data during this whole episode of Plame Gate, and he points out the degree to which the drive by media sold you, the public, on the false notion that the Bush administration behaved unethically.
Most tellingly, he contrasts the polling data with polls surrounding the Lewinsky affair when the press was covering up and pushing a pro-White House line in a scandal which involved genuine scandal.
Now, you can say that if the media has any honor, and there's no expectation of that here, uh, they would as prominently highlight the collapse of this whole Plame Gate enterprise with the same vigor they pushed visions of Fitzmas, frog marches, and other uh assorted details.
But as I say, don't hold your breath.
Um, Mr. Robison begins his piece.
Now that we uh media, now that we have media confirmation a leak of Plame's identity was not a Bush Cheney conspiracy, might serve us well to examine the damage done by the media to this administration.
The media unquestionably provided a consistent drumbeat of allegations, corruption surrounding the matter.
I could provide innumerable links to examples, but you can Google it yourselves just as well.
But what was the real damage and is it calculable?
Interestingly enough, there are numbers that show what the damage was to the president's credibility.
Polling report has a page devoted to the plane leak case.
And I'm I I'm I'm hesitant here to start reeling off numbers.
They're hard to keep track of on the radio when you're just listening to them.
But trust me when I say the polling numbers for Bush during this period had a steady, steady decline.
Um the polls asked, are you worried about the ethical lapses coming out of the White House?
Are you concerned about uh potential corruption and blah, blah, blah, this sort of thing?
There's no question this damage was real as opposed to this car case, which is nothing more than an average 24-7 drive-by media.
I have changed my mind.
I want to give you some of the polling questions, some of the answers during the whole Plame Gate scandal to illustrate the difference between the so-called media frenzy and fraud that was perpetrated on them uh by the John Mark Carr case and uh Boulder D.A. versus the Plame Gate business.
Real damage to real people to a real country during time of war, and it was done on purpose.
And I cannot stress this enough.
The whole thing is scandalous to me.
It reeks of a purposeful fraud, because these people that were reporting all of this about Bush and Cheney and Rove and Scooter Libby had to know that it was Armitage.
They had to know.
They couldn't possibly not know.
Not during the whole two year period.
They might not have known the first four months, but at some point during this, they had to know that it was Armitage, and it didn't matter.
Didn't fit the template.
So cast it aside.
Armitage isn't talking, so what do we got to lose by reporting that it's Rove, or that Fitzgerald thinks it's Rove, or that Fitzgerald's going to indict Rove?
How many months did we go with Rove's going to be indicted?
Rove has been indicted, but the indictment is sealed.
Indictment is imminent, coming right around the corner next weekend, perhaps uh Saturday, blah, blah, blah all of this stuff.
ABC Washington Post asked in September of 2003, we're coming up on three years ago now.
The U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether somebody in a White House broke the law by identifying a former diplomat's wife as an undercover CIA agent.
The former diplomat claims this was done to punish him for criticizing U.S. policy on Iraq.
Have you heard or read anything about this?
68% yes, 32% no.
So over two-thirds of the American people had heard the allegation.
Now compare that to the recent survey that indicated how people feel uh, or how few people could name two Supreme Court justices at only 24%.
So how effective was the marketing of this lie?
Well, the same Washington Post ABC poll asked this question.
Just your best guess.
How likely or unlikely do you think it is that someone in the White House leaked this information?
Very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely.
34%?
Very likely.
38%, somewhat likely.
So that the reporting was so effective, the reporting was so damning that 72% of the American people indicated they believed that the White House had done this.
When it was Armitage, all the while the people conducting the poll knew it.
Almost 75% of the United States population duped by the drive-by media reporting that the Bush administration had leaked Valerie Plame's name in retaliation.
Pew Research, April of 2006, this year.
Last week documents were released indicating that President Bush may have authorized his staff to leak pre-war intelligence about Iraq to the press in order to undermine war critics.
How much have you heard about this?
A little, a lot, or nothing at all?
A lot, 32%, a little, 46%, nothing, 22.
So again, 78% of Americans heard that George Bush personally leaked documents to undermine war critics.
Of course, the the uh fact that it is not a leak, since the president has declassification authority was not included in the stupid question.
The really interesting part is uh now that we know for sure that the administration didn't go after play, how did people determine that those documents indicated the president did it?
In other words, they were all just going off media reports that were wrong.
It goes on, USA Today and Gallup.
Which of the following statements best describes your view of George W. Bush in these matters?
He did something illegal, he did not do anything illegal, but did something unethical, or he didn't do anything seriously wrong.
Illegal 21, unethical 42, a phenomenal 63% of the public believe that George W. Bush, the president, acted at least unethically based on mainstream media reporting.
And it goes on and on and on from Bush to Cheney to Rove, poll after poll, indicating a heavy majority of Americans were convinced by the media coverage that the Bush administration had acted at least unethically.
When the unethic, unethical behavior, the near scandalous behavior here, is almost totally owned by the drive-by media.
It was Armitage, and they knew it, particularly back in April of this year.
This was not a well kept secret.
You know these people had to know this.
Now contrast all this to coverage of the Lewinsky scandal in which President Clinton actually admitted to committing wrongdoing eventually.
As a result of his actions in the Lewinsky investigation, do you think Bill Clinton should lose his license to practice law or should he keep his license to practice law?
Fifty-eight percent of respondents indicated in May of 2000 a lawyer should keep his law license even after committing perjury.
This is a phenomenal indicator of the power of the drive-by media to literally create a news story from the reporting template and then hammer it until it becomes ingrained as fact.
Of course, it goes without saying that the media owes some balanced coverage to offset the political damage the plane affair created.
It ain't gonna happen.
A look at the president's personal polling numbers show that they decline over the course of a whole plane plot, but with other variables such as perceived success in Iraq, we can't say for sure exactly what effect the plane story had singularly on all this.
We know enough to determine that the media promulgated a lie so hard and heavy that almost everybody heard it and absent any hard evidence convinced the mass vast majority that the lie was true.
The American spectator picked, or American thinker picked this up.
This is uh Ray Robison at at uh at his blog.
We will uh we'll provide you a link to it this afternoon if you want to read through uh all of this.
Now it's starting up all over again.
Look at the headlines of these two stories.
CNN starts week-long Katrina series with attack on insurance companies.
So put big insurance on a list of companies that the Democratic Party and the American left and a drive-by media now seek to destroy.
Uh there is also a uh a headline here with the State Farm calls ABC's 2020 show grossly unfair.
So 2020 on ABC, CNN going after the insurance engine industry, one year after Hurricane Katrina.
And that isn't going to be hard.
Who likes their insurance company?
Nobody likes their insurance company, right?
Everybody thinks their insurance companies outscrew them.
Everybody thinks the insurance company's never going to pay off a claim.
And if they do pay off, they're going to then cancel you.
So what's the point of having insurance?
You only have insurance because the law makes you have it for your car, and the mortgage lender makes you have it for your house, but it's all a ripoff, right?
So that the the insurance company is next to be targeted right alongside Walmart.
But there is an interesting story here by our old buddy Nedra Pickler in the uh Associated Press, this is the last little bit here on the Plame Gate story.
Carl Rove was not frog marched out of the White House in handcuffs, as his detractors had hoped.
But the past year was certainly A low point for him.
President's close friend and chief political strategist.
Why?
Why was it a low point?
Nothing Rove did made it a low point.
Not one darn thing that Rove did made it a low point nedra.
You had a bona fide media scandal here that targeted people who had nothing to do, and most of you in the drive-by media knew it all along.
A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months.
Then he was forced to surrender a key policy role in a move that raised questions about his authority in the White House.
Rove fell under a legal cloud after a grand jury began investigating the leak.
That just infuriates me.
The investigation was pointless as well.
The investig You know what?
There would not have been a crime were it not for the investigation.
The only crime in this whole thing, unless you want to say Armitage committed one, but that's never.
The only crime occurred as a result of the investigation, which should not have happened in the first place once the Justice Department found out it was Armitage.
What's the point?
Why go any further with it?
Once the whole thing was who leaked her name to Novak.
Answer Richard Armitage.
Pitbull buddy, Colin Powell.
I would love to know his involvement in this too.
I really would.
I you know, Armitage is the kind of guy that would take a bullet.
But I, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to speculate about things I don't know.
I'm sharing my curiosity with you, but I am making no claims.
But I'm just whole thing is ridiculous.
It is.
It's worse than an example of how the media can poison the minds of the population.
It is, it's it's uh stake staking out Carl Robert's home, following home from following home from the White House, seeing if he stopped off at a phone booth, you know, change into the Superman suit and go destroy somebody else of the CIA or what have you.
All the while the people doing the investigation knew it was Armitage.
There wouldn't have been a crime if there hadn't been an investigation.
Now, what does that say?
An investigation about something.
I'm sorry to keep pounding this folks, but an investigation about something.
The investigators knew led to a crime that would never have been committed were it not for the investigation.
Anyway, Rove learned in June he would not be indicted with that threat behind him.
Rove is back to his old playful self, sporting Elvis Sideburns in a recent trip to Memphis with the president, traveling around the country for lucrative storytelling to GOP donors.
The Republican base never flinched at suggestions that Rove tried to smear, and as the reason is that the Republican base understood what this was from the get-go.
It was an attempt to frame members of the Bush administration.
At a recent presidential fundraiser near Bush's ranch, a line that formed for photos with Rove is nearly as long as the line, waiting to see the president.
The bottom line here.
Asked about his recent weight loss, Rove, without mentioning his liquid-based diet, smiled and told reporters he'd lost 22 pounds through clean living.
The mischievous Rove stuck his head out of the car before it sped off and added gleefully, and avoiding you guys.
The bottom line is, ladies and gentlemen, when your opponent hits you and it doesn't stick, you end up stronger for it.
Rove is much stronger now than he was.
They gave it their best shot.
They had to lie and make it up, and he is still standing.
Stronger and more powerful and more feared than ever.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, El Rushbow, the EIB Network.
Just uh a little comment here on this uh this this uh uh I don't even know this guy's name.
The media have been going nuts over this guy they captured in Las Vegas, the uh the polygamist.
Steve, here's the story.
The AP.
The fugitive leader of a polygamist Mormon.
Oh, no wonder.
I get it now.
The fugit- I never heard of this guy.
I don't make it a habit to follow polygamists or perverts.
Only learn about it when the people that do follow these clowns around the drive-by media tell me about well, multiple marriages don't fascinate me, even simultaneously.
At any rate, the fugitive leader of a polygamous Mormon sect has been arrested in southern Nevada.
Here is his name, Warren Steed Jeff's 50, was taken into custody after he and two other people were pulled over late yesterday by a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper on I-15 just north of Vegas.
Aha.
Aha!
The leader of the fundamentalist church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was wanted at Utah and Arizona on suspicion of sexual misconduct for allegedly arranging marriages between underage girls and older men.
You know, the drive-by media would be tripping over each other to lionize this guy if he were arranging gay marriages.
And you just know it because this guy is a Mormon.
This guy When's the last time you in the in the media you saw the Mormon church described as this is what it is, but Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ.
Of latter-day Oh, fundamentalist Christian, eh?
Wacko, gun totin hayseed, pickup truck in the back truck.
Ha ha.
No wonder.
That's it's it just made to order.
But if this guy were arranging gay marriages, I guarantee you'd be a hero.
You know.
Stop and think of this, ladies and gentlemen.
This clown obviously a reprobate and a pervert.
Uh what he is, but apparently it's okay for Muslims to treat women like this.
Over in the Middle East.
Um, Tom in New York City, you're next, sir.
Your first.
Welcome to the EIB network high.
I write well, thanks for taking my call.
Your perseverance and determination is nothing less than inspiring to me, and my days are empty when you're not behind that microphone.
Listen, I have a question for you, Rush, about the Armitage thing.
I recall President Bush stating that he would bring the person who leaked this out to justice, and he would be prosecuted under the full extent of the law, and they kept hammering him, and you know, what if this was a Dick Cheney retaliation because Dick Cheney was crossed by Armitage, and where is the drive-by media now asking, you know, for for Armitage's head?
Why isn't he indicted?
Why isn't he onto prosecution?
Well, I guess.
Because wait, wait a second.
Wait a second.
The first place Armitage has gone for the State Department.
But the second part of your question really gets to the nub of it.
There wasn't a crime.
This is what I try to say.
This is what I was saying, and I made this point redundantly.
In the last segment, there wasn't a crime.
Armitage wasn't indicted because he didn't know she was covert.
Nobody knew she was covert.
She probably wasn't covert.
Fitzgerald, the special counsel said she wasn't covert, and nobody knew she was covert.
Let me back up.
There was no crime.
Let me stand up.
There was no crime.
So you can't indict anybody.
The only way they can indict somebody is to have the crime created during the investigation.
And that's what happened to poor old Scooter Libby.
Real damage, real harm to real people to a real country in time of war.
Damage to an administration, Scooter Libby loses his job, now faces gazillions of dollars of legal fees.
There was no crime.
Which is why Armitage can skate off into the sunset.
If you're wondering by the way, uh, ladies and gentlemen, whether Armitage and Powell are liberals.
I know some people, because they worked in the Republican administration.
Well, Richard Armitage is described by the drive-by media in uh published uh reports, just a big old bear, big old lovable guy, loved to gossip.
Wouldn't ever hurt anybody.
Did say that Bush and Cheney and Rove were jerks.
But he wouldn't hurt anybody.
Lovable little guy, big guy, loves gossip.
What a cool dude.
Contrast that with how the drive-by is described Rove and Chaney.
And Bush.
Check this headline.
Woman crashes car when teaching dog to drive.
This happened in China.
▲
Export Selection