All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
March 6, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You are tuned to the most listened-to radio talk show in America, the Rush Limbaugh program on the excellence in broadcasting network.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, El Rushbaugh, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, Maha Rushi, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations each and every day.
Here's the telephone number if you'd like to be on the program with us, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, the Libby verdict is in guilty on four to five counts, a maximum jail time of 25 years.
The juror that is speaking to the media right now, a former reporter, he is a journalist.
His name is Dennis Collins, and he has written a book.
And the title of his book is Spying, the Secret History of History.
And he's saying some very interesting things to the media, questioning him about how they arrived at their verdicts.
And among the most interesting to me was when he said that the jury, he says, we got to tell you this, we and the jury, we had sympathy for Mr. Libby.
We think he was the fall guy.
A lot of the jurors were saying, what are we doing with this guy?
Where's Rove?
Where's Cheney?
Dennis Collins also cites the Joe Wilson column, the op-ed that he wrote of the New York Times when he got back from his bogus trip to Niger looking for yellow cake uranium, ostensibly being purchased or sought for purchase by the Iraqis for their reconstituted nuclear program.
I was telling Mr. Snurdly during the break, it is just stunning to me, and it ought not be, but in a court of law, it remains stunning to me, how there can be two such widely divergent views of the truth, or versions of the truth.
Anybody who has spent any time on this at all knows that Wilson, Joe Wilson, was lying through his teeth when he came back and wrote that op-ed.
Even the Senate Intelligence Committee looking into all this confirmed that Wilson lied.
In fact, everybody concluded that his initial report actually confirmed the theory that the Iraqis had tried to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger.
His first report was not even written down when he got his wife sent him on the trip.
This came out in the trial.
And yet these jurors, or this juror, Dennis Collins, is out there speaking of Joe Wilson as though he's the oracle of truth.
And it's, you know, it's, this might be an interesting way or a good way of explaining it.
You have people in this country, and I've mentioned this before, who watch one newscast a day.
It's the nightly news on whatever network, ABC, CBS, or NBC, and that's all the news they get.
You have other people who only read the New York Times, and whatever is in it is gospel.
You have other people who only read the Washington Post.
Whatever is in it is gospel.
We conservatives, on the other hand, we read the New York Times and we read the Washington Post and find out their take on things.
There are many people on the left, and look at your average journalist.
Your average journalist looks at conservative media as some sort of stepchild of inconvenience that they have to put up with, but they make no effort to understand it.
They make no effort to understand the point of view that conservatives have.
And they have these preconceived notions, their little stories, and the stories are written often before they go to press.
And everything is reported in such a way as to confirm what the agenda and the original thought is.
There's no real quest for truth because they don't think that there's any truth other than their own innate belief systems.
But citing Joe Wilson here as a source with veracity and credibility is just, it's obscene.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Well, plus, this guy is a journalist.
I mean, that tells us all we need to know.
And then he comes out, says there was sympathy for Mr. Libby.
Gee, what are we doing with this guy?
Where's Rove?
Where's Cheney?
This guy actually said we looked at Libby as the fall guy.
And what that means is that this jury from the get-go believed that the administration had committed criminal acts in trying to discredit Joe Wilson by supposedly outing his wife, Valerie Plame, which is not what this case was about.
When the jurors start asking, where's Rove and where is Cheney?
Then you know full well they're not dealing with full attention to the charges here of whether Scooter Libby lied to the FBI and obstructed justice and this sort of thing.
With limited information, I haven't been able to see or hear everything this juror is saying.
So I say this with reserving the right to revise my remarks down the road.
But it does seem to me here that we have a Martha Stewart-type conviction where she was convicted by the jury for things she wasn't charged with.
She was charged with lying, too.
And they actually, when you listen, those jurors, when they came out and talked about her trial, it was clear that they got her for what they thought was insider trading, doing things that big people can do that little people can't.
Typical class envy victory.
Same situation here.
It appears to me when they say Libby was the fall guy, means they accepted from the get-go the premise that this administration set out, even though it was Richard Armitage, who leaked to a bunch of people that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA and was Joe Wilson's wife.
This jury bought Hook Land and Sinker the notion that the administration sought to destroy her career, and Libby's the fall guy for this, which is not what this case is about.
But then you go back to the initial press conference of the independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, and announcing the Libby indictment.
He goes on and on and on and on about how the identity of CIA agents is crucial to the safety of the country and law.
Knowing all the while that it was Richard Armitage when he indicted Libby and when he announces all that, he knew all the while that it was Armitage that had done this, that it was not Libby, that it was not anybody at the administration.
It was not Rove.
And yet he gives this flowery speech, which no doubt was reported.
And then the drive-by media and the cable outlets at night continued to hype the fact that this was all about the war in Iraq and Bush getting us there under false premises.
And therefore, the real charges in this case were a bait and switch.
In fact, you have audio soundbite number 22, the Chris Matthew.
I mentioned this to you in the last hour.
Matthews bringing up Alger Hiss and all kinds of things.
This is from Chris Matthews' early analysis of the verdicts.
It's going to give you a good indication of the way the drive-bys are looking at this and always have, to prove my point.
This is all about the war in Iraq.
Of course, it's a perjury case, but to limit itself to the legal aspects is to limit the Alger Hiss case of 1950, that great Cold War spy case, to the simple matter of perjury.
This is not about perjury.
It's about the larger question of how we got in this war with Iraq and the case that was made by the vice president and his chief of staff that we faced a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein.
It is not about that.
The drive-bys made it about that because they wanted it to be about that because they wanted to criminalize policy.
And they've been beating this drum every night ever since this case got going and before, during the investigation.
Furious Alger Hiss is, folks, this is insane.
Alger Hiss was a communist spy for crying out loud.
And of course, the left hates Richard Nixon and hated Richard Nixon because Nixon was the guy who got Hiss.
And they've been trying to get even for years to say this was all about how we went into the war with Iraq.
That's what this case was.
It was not about that, Chris.
It was nowhere near close to that.
You guys made it about this.
And who knows how you tainted the jury pool along with the independent counsel's flowery press conference talking about the sanctity of CIA agents and how their privacy and security and being able to work unknown to the general public is crucial to national security and so forth and so on when this case was not about that at all.
But this is what I, you got to get ready for this.
If you're going to watch the drive-bys this afternoon and tonight, be prepared to hear just this kind of thing.
And before this night is over, if you watch these television shows, you're going to be told, you're going to hear that this conviction today essentially means that Bush lied to get us into the war with Iraq.
There was no reason to go.
Mark my words.
We'll be back after this.
I got a call earlier in the program from somebody asking me my thoughts on a Bush pardon.
Scooter Libby.
I said, don't look for a pardon anytime soon.
If there is a pardon, it will not happen until Bush is on his way out the door of the Oval Orifice.
But moments after the guilty verdict was made public, Dingy Harry, the Senate majority leader, called on President Bush to promise not to let Libby off the hook with a pardon.
Dingy Harry said, I welcome the jury's verdict.
It's about time somebody in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics.
My blood's boiling on this, folks.
My blood is boiling.
I'm not using a figure of speech here.
Held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics.
There is nothing whatsoever to do with either of those two things in this trial, although it was.
The jury looked at it that way.
This is not what Libby was charged with.
He was not charged with manipulating intelligence.
He was not charged with discrediting war critics.
And tell me, Senator Reed, where the hell is the law that says an administration can't sit around and respond to critics who are lying about them?
Joe Wilson implied that Dick Cheney sent him to Niger.
Dick Cheney did not.
The vice president sent Wilson nowhere.
When they found out Wilson had gone to Niger, the White House said, who is this guy?
He comes back.
He writes this op-ed in the New York Times.
It's full of untruths.
And they say, who is this guy?
What happened?
We didn't send this guy.
He's out there saying that he was.
Well, it turns out Wilson was lying about that.
This came out in court.
His wife said him or recommended him to the CIA who sent him.
And why would they send him?
For what reason?
There's so much going on here that people don't understand.
But for Dingy Harry to say that somebody in the administration has been held accountable for manipulating intelligence and discrediting war critics, manipulating intelligence, Bill Clinton spelled out the same Saddam Hussein threats in 1998.
And the drive-by media went right along with it back then, as did the Democrats in the Senate and many of the Republicans.
What Bill Clinton said in 1998, what the drive-by media wrote, is no different than what George W. Bush and the CIA were saying and Colin Powell himself in 2002 about all this.
There was no manipulation of intelligence.
And if there was, it certainly wasn't on trial here.
And discredit war crit.
What makes war critics sacrosanct, Digi Harry?
What is it about war critics that protects them from criticism, especially when they're lying through their teeth?
What is it?
Are administrations now immune from response?
Are they not allowed to reply to critics who are lying about them?
This is what Dingy Harry wants us to believe.
He then said Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair.
Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct.
We have some audio sound bites.
Here's the Chris Matthews bite again.
And it's right along the lines here of what Dingy Harry is saying.
So we've got a coordinated message, although it doesn't need to be coordinated because these people coordinated it a long time ago.
But when Dingy Harry says that the administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence, discredit war critics, he's essentially saying Bush lied, manipulated intelligence to get us into war, and that's what the trial was about.
Here's Chris Matthews with his analysis of this verdict shortly after it was handed down.
This is all about the war in Iraq.
Of course, it's a perjury case, but to limit itself to the legal aspects is to limit the Alger Hiss case of 1950, that great Cold War spy case, to the simple matter of perjury.
This is not about perjury.
It's about the larger question of how we got in this war with Iraq and the case that was made by the vice president and his chief of staff that we faced a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein.
Here's Scooter Libby's attorney Ted Wells' reaction to the verdict.
We are very disappointed in the verdict of the jurors.
This jury deliberated for approximately 10 days.
Despite our disappointment in the jurors' verdict, we believe in the American justice system and we believe in the jury system.
We intend to file a motion for a new trial.
And if that is denied, we will appeal the conviction.
And we have every confidence that ultimately, Mr. Libby will be vindicated.
We believe, as we said at the time of his indictment, that he is totally innocent, totally innocent, and that he did not do anything wrong.
And we intend to keep fighting to establish his innocence.
That is all we will have to say at this time.
And we have a couple bites here from the juror, Dennis Collins, who again is a journalist and author of a book entitled Spying, the Secret History of History.
How does the defense let this guy on the jury?
Maybe they'd run out of challenges.
Anyway, we have two bites from Libby juror, author, and journalist Dennis Collins.
There was a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury.
It was said a number of times: what are we doing with this guy here?
Where's Rove?
Where's, you know, where are these other guys?
We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but that it seemed like he was, to put it in Mr. Wells' point, but he was the fall guy.
So That's something that the defense tried at the outset of this case.
Let's not forget.
And they didn't make much of it after the opening arguments.
In the opening arguments, the defense tried to say that Libby was being cast aside by the administration because they knew that they had a DC jury here.
And the likelihood is that a bunch of people from D.C. on a jury are going to be Bush haters.
They're going to be administration haters.
And so they were trying to set Libby up as a fall guy and so forth.
They didn't go back to it after that.
Didn't talk about it much beyond the opening arguments.
Libby was not on the stand.
But clearly, clearly, the jury says, Where's Rove?
Where are these other guys?
What are we doing with this guy here?
They clearly thought this was about something totally other than whether somebody had lied under oath.
Remember, there was no charge about outing a CIA agent.
There was no charge outing a covert CIA agent.
The trial judge told the jurors twice, I don't know whether she's covert.
You don't know whether she was covert.
To this day, we don't know whether she was covert.
It's still one of the big mysteries in Washington.
But that had nothing to do with anything.
And yet, the jurors clearly thought this was a trial about nailing somebody in the administration for lying about intelligence in order to get us into a war that was unjust and unnecessary.
An unidentified reporter said to the juror, Dennis Collins, Could you tell us what it meant that you did not hear from Libby or Vice President Cheney?
Hearing from Cheney, I think it would have been interesting.
I'm not sure what it would have done.
I don't have any idea what he said, but it was sort of like, you know, we never, I don't remember ever discussing that.
Like, wow, are we going to get to see?
I thought when Wells made his opening and he said, suddenly hit us with that, you know, it's the White House and people in the White House who are setting him up.
I was thinking, wow, maybe we'll get to see President Bush here.
You got to be kidding.
You got to be kidding.
He didn't say that.
Tell me, I just didn't hear a juror say that they expected the President of the United States to show up as a witness in a court trial.
Tell me I didn't hear that.
I did hear it.
Yes, you heard it.
We all heard it.
I'm sad, folks.
This is very sad.
I hate losing to these guys, lying through their teeth about things.
It's just very sad.
I had to take a break here and wallow here in my very sadness.
800-282-2882.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back.
Yeah, welcome back.
The Rush Limbaugh program, America's Real Anchorman here at the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
So this juror, Dennis Collins, a journalist and author, a book about spying.
What's the name of the book?
Well, I just had it here.
I got so many pieces of paper trying to keep track of all this.
At any rate, he says that it sucked.
It basically sucks.
We wish we weren't judging Libby.
Where are these other guys?
Where's Rove and these other guys?
Now, if I'm Ted Wells, the defense attorney, and you know that they're rolling tape on this juror and they're going to have transcripts, we had sympathy for Mr. Libby.
We wish we weren't sitting here judging this poor guy.
This sucks.
But we had to do our job.
By the way, while all this was going on, ladies and gentlemen, the Senate voted to give 45,000 airport screeners the same union rights as Border Patrol, customs, and immigration agents despite a veto threat from the White House.
It was a 51 to 46 vote on an amendment by Senator Jim DeMett, a Republican of South Carolina, to remove the union rights from a broad anti-terrorism bill to implement recommendations of the 9-11 Commission that Congress previously rejected.
The House passed a similar anti-terrorism bill with the same union provision for airport screeners in an indication of organized labor's strength with Democrats now running Congress.
Yep, this is the big payback.
Union membership shrinking.
It's in an all-time low, but the Democrats still get Boku bucks from big labor.
This was the payback.
Senator Richard Burr, Republican, North Carolina, says, this is absolutely absurd.
Terrorists don't go on strike.
Terrorists don't call their union and negotiate before they attack.
Maybe not, but maybe we sick John Meany on them and see if we can get him to organize, unionize.
And al-Qaeda members, this is absurd.
The president has promised a veto on this.
Vetoes from the administration are rare.
We will see.
Which talkans is this is Drew.
Your turn next on the EIB network, sir.
Hey, Roche, good to talk with you again.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This is like our once-a-decade conversation.
You and I get to talk about that often.
I have a question, something you were talking about with this trial, and I agree it's a travesty.
I think most grand jury trials anymore have to be almost considered that.
But in this case in particular, the ancillary conversation came along that this was the CIA making payback.
This was the Justice Department who doesn't follow up and prosecute on cases like the burglar.
But both of these organizations, both of these departments work for the president.
What's going on here if we're not keeping control of these departments, shouldn't we?
You know, it's a popular misconception that these people work for the president.
In both the CIA, well, all three, in the CIA and in the State Department and the Pentagon, you have career people who've been there many, many, many moons.
Most of them are liberals.
It's Washington.
These are the kind of jobs liberals aspire to.
Liberals want to work in government, shift it, to manipulate it.
They want to populate it because liberalism believes that government is the end-all for every problem that exists.
So they aspire to these jobs.
Conservatives don't.
They don't want to be staff pukes.
The president appoints the chairman of Joint Chiefs.
He appoints the director of the CIA, the Secretary of State.
But if you don't think there are people in the State Department that have been trying to undermine Condoleezza Rice, then you don't know the reality of how Washington is.
It is not accurate to say that the CIA works for Bush.
They don't.
They pride themselves on their independence, and the State Department actively works against Bush, and many people in the State Department do.
They totally oppose any of the Bush administration policies, even though he appoints the Secretary of State.
And Rice job is not to go in and clean out the State Department.
She's got a job representing the country, promoting presidential policies within her purview around the world.
At CIA, Porter Goss was tapped to replace George Tenet.
He was a member of Congress in Florida.
He was on the intelligence committee.
He got sent up there and he starts rooting out the place.
He starts getting rid of some of the deadwood and some of the shadow government types, Clinton holdovers and so forth.
Look what happened to him.
He's out.
He was stabbed in the back by another administration member.
I don't know who, but these things happen.
But it's not.
Many people who have a, you know, and I'm not talking about you, Drew.
Your question is a good question.
Many people have a civics 101 understanding of government.
And they think the president is all-powerful and is the boss of everybody.
I'll bet you if people inside write books down the line, and it doesn't happen much, I'll bet we would be, well, I wouldn't be.
I will bet you would be stunned to learn just how many ongoing efforts there have been to undermine this administration at virtually every step of the way in Iraq.
Look at, and I take you back to when the Iraq war was just being talked about as a possibility.
You'd go up to the New York Times one day, open it up, and there's the battle plan.
Somebody in the Pentagon had leaked what we were going to do with comments, this is absurd, this isn't going to work.
And everybody said, well, why can't Bush control this?
Well, tell me what president has been able to control leaks other than Clinton.
And they have their own methods.
Same thing at the Washington Post.
You'd open up the Washington Post one day, and there would be sources from the State Department trashing the war plan and giving up details and the secrets that were entailed in the war plan, what we were going to do.
And the administration sits there and they just have to ignore it.
But the idea that there are not people inside these agencies who want to undermine this administration is naive.
They're there.
And first and foremost, it's about protecting their own little backyards, their own little fiefdoms.
Not just the whole agency, but little fiefdoms inside the agency.
Pentagon 2, folks.
I'm convinced that one of the elements or areas of all of the anti-Rumsfeld sentiment was because he was trying to shake the place up and modernize it.
And there are people, I had dinner with some people last week.
And, you know, they follow politics on a surface level with the media as their primary source of things.
And one of my guests said that he knows somebody who knows somebody who's in the Pentagon.
And he started telling stories about how these guys hate Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld with this and Rumsfeld with that.
Rumsfeld was horrible.
And my friend bought it, hook line, and sinker because somebody in the Pentagon was saying it.
And there have been the long knives have been out for Rumsfeld from day one.
Because when he wants to modernize, when he wants to downsize, there are a lot of people working in a Pentagon who may lose their jobs.
If the downsizing continues, if the reforms that Rumsfeld wanted to do succeeded, you're going to impact a lot of people who have jobs based on the status quo.
And if there's ever a town that is status quo, it is Washington and all of its bureaucracies.
And anybody who comes in and wants to downsize them, reorganize them, reform them, redirect them is going to be the target of a destruction campaign.
You're just talking about people's jobs.
And you're talking about their social status.
You're talking about all kinds of things.
They have nothing to do in many cases with policy.
In other instances, it has everything to do with policy.
It has everything to do with holdovers.
One of the reasons that Bush did not clean house as much as he could was the new tone.
We're coming off the eight years of Clinton country said to be too partisan.
Bush wants to come in and unite the country like he did the Republicans and Democrats, Texas.
And part of that was having the Kennedys come up to watch movies in the White House and letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill, the first education bill of Bush's first term, letting Democrats appointed by Clinton hold on.
This is the kind of thing conservatives do this.
Republicans do this all the time.
They think we just be nice to these people and we'll be able to get along with them, cooperate, and do good things to the country.
It never works out because liberals aren't interested in that.
Liberals are interested in demolishing opponents and forever getting rid of them and triumphing on policy at all times.
That's why they live.
And that's why they covet jobs in Washington and in bureaucracies because that's where policy is made and affected or subordinated or sabotaged.
The current crisis or controversy over these U.S. attorneys is a great, great example.
Seven U.S. attorneys have been fired by the Bush administration.
Fine, they're totally allowed to do this.
The Bush administration could put anybody in there they want.
Nobody's talking about the fact that when Bill Clinton got into office in 1993, he fired every U.S. attorney in the country, every federal district with a U.S. attorney canned them because they were Bush holdovers, put his own people in.
Nobody thought anything about it.
This happens.
Bush did not.
As I mentioned to you earlier this week, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, that's Manhattan, for the first five years of the Bush administration was a Democrat, a protege of Chuck Schumer's.
Mike Garcia, the current U.S. attorney in New York, Southern District of Manhattan, was not appointed until a year and a half ago, two years ago, something like that.
So the first four or five years, we had a Democrat, U.S. attorney, which he runs the office, and he assigns all the cases and reviews what the associate U.S. attorneys are going to do.
He's a protege Chuck Schumer.
So now Bush has gotten rid of seven U.S. attorneys and the Democrats are raising holy hell.
Why, what's happening here?
Demanding to know what, why, why they've been fired.
Is it job performance or is it political?
Is Bush trying to get rid of these guys because they're getting too close to Bush administration corruption and so forth and so on?
And this is the price the administration is paying for waiting so long to do this when it would be totally expected if he'd have just fired every one of them.
But this is what I've always told you.
Bush is not leading a movement of conservatism.
He's a Republican and he's got these ideas.
He came in.
He'd done great things in putting people together in Texas and thought that he could accomplish it in Washington.
But the Florida aftermath destroyed any, any opportunity chance there was going to be for any kind of cooperation or comity between Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
Got to go.
Quick break.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
All right.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has issued a statement here, and it pretty much echoes Dingy Harry's.
And it has inspired in me a reaction and a comment.
Dingy Harry said, I welcome the jury's verdict.
It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics.
Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair.
Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct.
When I first saw that, my blood boiled, and I'm not just using a turn of phrase.
This is just over the top.
The trial was not about manipulating intelligence.
It was not about discrediting war critics.
The idea that any administration is supposed to sit around and let people lie about it.
Poor old Joe Wilson, poor old left-winger, Berkeley 60s retread Joe Wilson is not supposed to be criticized.
He's above it because he was criticizing the law.
And he is not supposed to be criticized.
The Bush administration, well, he's just one guy, the administration mounting an effort against, why, that's just a crime.
So Dingy Harry applauding the fact that in his mind, this trial, which was about perjury and obstruction of justice, not about the war in Iraq, it was not about anything the libs think it was about.
Dingy Harry is now happy to convey the impression that the war in Iraq has been totally discredited with this verdict.
Here's Nancy Pelosi.
Today's guilty verdicts are not solely about the acts of one individual.
This trial provided a troubling picture of the inner workings of the Bush administration.
The testimony unmistakably revealed at the highest levels of the Bush administration, a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.
A callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information.
Valerie Play was national security information, and who was it that leaked her identity?
Ms. Pelosi.
It was Richard Armitage.
And by the way, as somebody who just called and said, well, how can this happen, Rush?
Bush runs these agencies.
Richard Armitage, a buddy of Colin Powell, and they were out to get Bush.
They have not been big fans of Bush.
And they're not even pursued in this.
Armitage was not even pursued in any of this.
So there's another example.
Lawrence Wilkerson, who's one of Colin Powell's aides, has been out trashing the Bush administration ever since this Wilson thing started.
I happen to think that Valerie Wilson and Joe Wilson are anti-war, anti-Bush, and set out with somebody to set all of this up.
And they got their dream realized today.
I think they were trying to undermine the whole war in Iraq and the war on terror for whatever their own political reasons are and set up this whole trip, send Wilson over there to say that there was no evidence.
The Senate Intelligence Committee said that his report actually confirmed that there was an attempt by the Iraqis.
And they also confirmed that he had lied in his op-ed in the New York Times.
And now here we go again, this disposition to smear critics of the war.
How do you smear a liar?
Somebody explained to me how in the world you smear a liar, Joe Wilson.
How do you smear a liar?
Now, I don't think, because of their arrogance, I don't think the Libs have any idea how this decision angers conservatives and Republicans in this country.
They're poking the bear.
The bear of conservatism and Republicans who went dormant last fall for whatever reasons Republicans needed to be taught a lesson.
But you got William Jefferson now, who ought to be under indictment.
He's on the Homeland Security Committee.
He got Sandy Bergler with a slap on the wrist.
He's going to get his security clearance back just in time to join the Clinton administration in 2009.
People out there are upset that libs are poking the bear.
The bear is awakening after hibernating for way too long.
This has the chance to do more for the Republican Party than anything else in the short run.
And the more the Democrats gloat and the more they politicize this and the more they lie about what this case and this trial was about, the angrier they are going to make Republicans and conservatives in this country.
Politics is one thing.
Sending somebody to prison is another, particularly when the jury says, we had sympathy for this guy.
Where are these other guys?
Everybody's going to figure out what this trial was about, and there will be sympathy for Scooter Libby.
Charles Schumer pushed for this special prosecutor.
Now the liberals are doing the equivalent of dancing in the streets over the conviction of a Republican.
And now they're trying to draw the vice president and president into this, too.
So why don't you conservatives out there, I don't care what your conservatism is, economic, foreign policy, or social, they have all these different conservatives, I'm told.
This is the kind of thing that causes all conservatives to circle a wagon as the left behaves like this with their willing accomplices in the media.
We shall see.
All right, when we come back, ladies and gentlemen, I have to get this story.
I don't care what else is going on.
I have to tell you about the cowbird mafia.
One of my favorite stories of the busy broadcast day.
▲
Export Selection