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
And 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, L. Rushball, 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 EIB.com.
Well, the uh 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 says we gotta tell you this, the 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 uh reconstituted nuclear program.
Uh I was telling Mr. Sturdley during the break, it is 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.
Uh 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, it everybody concluded that his uh his initial report actually confirmed the theory that the Iraqis had tried to buy yellow cake uranium.
Uh in in uh uh in in Niger.
He can't 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 um, you know, it's it's I I 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.
Uh 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.
Uh we conservatives, on the other hand, we uh we read the New York Times and we read the Washington Post and find out uh their take on things.
There are many people on the left.
Uh and uh look at look at your average journalist.
Your average journalist looks at conservative media as some sort of uh stepchild of inconvenience that they have to put up with, but they make no effort to understand it.
They make no effort to understand uh the point of view that conservatives have, and they have these preconceived notions.
Uh their little stories, and and uh the stories are written often before they go to press, and everything is uh 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 the uh citing Joe Wilson here as a source uh of uh with veracity and credibility is just it it's it's obscene.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Well, plus, this guy is a journalist.
I mean, that tells us all we need to know, and then he and he comes out, says there was sympathy for Mr. Libby.
Uh gee, uh, what are we doing with this guy?
Where's where's Rove?
Where's Cheney?
Uh This guy actually said uh we looked at Libby as the fall guy.
And what that means is that this jury from the get-go believed uh 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 uh uh with full attention to the charges here of whether Scooter Libby lied to the FBI and obstructed justice and uh and this sort of thing.
With limited information, I haven't been able to see or hear everything this juror is saying.
So I I say this uh uh with uh reserving the right to um revise my remarks uh down the road, but it does seem to me here that we have a a Martha 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 to those jurors when they came out and talked about her trial, they uh it was 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.
Uh 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.
Uh this jury bought Hook Line and Zinker the notion that the administration sought to destroy her career.
Uh 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 uh in announcing the Libby indictment.
He goes on and on and on and on about how the identity of uh CIA agents is crucial to the safety of the country, and knowing all the while that it was Richard Armitage.
When he indicted Libby, and when he announces all the, 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, uh uh, which no doubt uh was reported, and then the drive-by media and the cable outlets at night uh continued to hype the fact that this was uh all about the war in Iraq and Bush getting us there under false premises, uh, and therefore the retal charges in this case were a bait and switch.
In fact, you have audio soundbite number 22, uh the Chris Matthew.
This is this I mentioned this to you in the last hour, ma Matthews uh you know, bringing up Alger Hiss and all kinds of things.
This is from uh Chris Matthews' early analysis of the verdicts, so give you a good indication of the way the drive bys are looking at this and always have, uh, 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 uh Alger Hiss case of 1950, that great Cold War spy case to simple 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-by's made it about that because they wanted it to be about that, because they wanted to criticize uh to criminalize policy, and they've been you know, beating this drum every night ever since this case got going, and before, during the investigation, uh fearing this Alger Hisses.
Folks, we're 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 his.
Uh 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 his 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 gotta get ready for this.
You've gonna watch the drive by us today this afternoon and tonight.
Uh be prepared to hear just this kind of thing.
Uh and before this night is over, if you watch these television shows, you're going to you're you're gonna 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.
We 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 any time 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 uh 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 I 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 said, Who is this guy?
What happened?
What 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.
Now why would they send him?
For what reason?
There's so much going on here that people don't understand.
But but but but for Dingy Harry to say that somebody in the administration's 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 and discredit war cri- what what makes war critics sacrosanct, Dingy 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 uh the administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence, discredit war critics, is 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 uh 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 uh Alger Hiss case of 1950, that great Cold War spy case to simple 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 ten 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, uh, 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 uh Libby juror, author and journalist Dennis Collins.
There was uh a tremendous amount of sympathy for Mr. Libby on the jury.
Um it was uh 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 guilty of, but that it seemed like he was, to put it Mr. Wells' point of it, he was the fall guy.
So um uh that 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 at 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 gonna be Bush haters.
They're gonna be administration haters, and so they were trying to set Libby up as uh as as a fall guy and so forth.
They didn't go back to it after that, uh, didn't talk about it much uh beyond the opening uh arguments.
The ch uh uh uh Libby was not uh was not on the stand.
But clearly, clearly uh the jury uh say, where's Rove?
Where are these other guys?
Um what are we doing with this guy here?
Uh 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 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 uh in Washington.
But that had nothing to do with anything.
And yet the jurors clearly thought this was a trial about nailing somebody, the administration for lying about intelligence in order to get us into a war that was unjust and unnecessary.
An unidentified reporter uh said to the uh juror, Dennis Collins, could you tell us what it meant that you did not hear from Libby or Vice President Cheney?
Hearing from uh Cheney, I think it would have been interesting.
I'm not sure what it was done.
I don't have any idea what he said, but it was sort of like um I you know we never I don't remember ever discussing that, like wow, are we gonna get to see I I thought when um Wells made his opening and he said suddenly hit us with that, you know, it's the 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.
He gotta 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.
Uh got.
I'm sad, folks.
This is very sad.
It is just I hate losing to these guys lying through their teeth about things.
I just it just it's just very sad.
I had to take a break here and uh wallow here in my very sadness.
Uh 800-282-2882.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back.
And welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh program, America's real anchorman here at the EIB network of the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
So this juror, Dennis Collins, uh journalist and author.
A book about spying.
Uh what's the name of the book?
This 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 it sucked.
It basically it sucks.
We wish we weren't judging Libby.
Where are these other guys?
Where's Rove and these other guys?
Now, if I'm if I'm Ted Wells, the defense attorney, and you know that they're rolling tape on this juror, and they're gonna have transcripts.
Uh we had sympathy for Mr. Libby.
We uh 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 Demet, 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 uh 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 the big payback.
Union membership shrinking.
It's at 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 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're sick uh uh uh John Meany on them and see if we can get them to organize.
Uh unionize and Al-Qaeda members.
This is absurd.
President has promised a veto on this.
Uh vetoes from the administration are rare.
Uh we will see.
Which talk, Kansas.
This is Drew.
Your turn next on the EIB uh network, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Good to talk with you again.
Thank you.
This I 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 this trial, and I I agree.
It's a it's a travesty.
I think most grand jury trials anymore are have to be almost considered that.
But in this case in particular, you the answer conversation came along that this was the CIA making payback.
This was the Justice Department who 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 what's going on here if we're not keeping control of these 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.
Liberal liberalism uh believes that that government Uh is uh the end all for every problem that exists.
So they they they aspire to these jobs.
Conservatives don't.
Uh they don't want to be staff pukes.
Uh 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, uh then you don't know the reality of how Washington is.
Uh 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 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, the job is is not to go in and clean out the uh Secretary of the uh State Department, she's got a job representing the country, uh proponing uh promoting presidential policies uh uh within her purview around the world.
Uh at uh CIA, Porter Goss was tapped to replace George Tennett.
He was a member of Congress in Florida.
He was on the intelligence committee, he gets sent up there, and he starts rooting out the place.
He starts getting rid of some of the dead wood 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.
Uh but it it's uh it's it's not it many people who have a you know, and I'm not talking about you, Drew, your question's a good question.
Many people have a uh you know, a civics 101 understanding of government.
And they think the president is all powerful and is the boss of everybody.
Uh I'll bet you if if 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, can 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 uh 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 gonna 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.
Uh same thing at the at the uh Washington Post.
You'd open up the Washington Post one day and there would be sources from um the State Department, trashing the war plan and giving up details and the secrets that were uh entailed in the war plan, what we were gonna do, and here the administration sits there and they just uh you know have to ignore it.
Uh but the idea that there are not people inside these these agencies who want to undermine this administration is uh uh is naive.
Uh they're there.
Uh and first and foremost, it's about protecting their own little backyards, their own little fiefdoms.
Not just the whole agency, but uh uh little fiefdoms inside the agency.
Uh Pentagon, too, folks.
Uh I'm I'm one of the I'm convinced that that one of the uh uh 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 uh I had dinner with some people last week.
And you know, they they they follow politics on a on a surface level with the media is their primary source of things.
And one of my guests said that he knows somebody who knows somebody who's in the Pentagon, and uh he started telling stories about these guys hate Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld with this and Rumsfeld with that, Rumsfeld was horrible, and and and my friend bought it hook, line and sinker.
Uh because somebody in the Pentagon was saying it.
Uh and and there you know there have been the long knives have been out for Rumsfeld from from day one.
Because when he wants to modernize, when he wants to downsize, there are a lot of people working in Pentagon who may lose their jobs.
Uh if the downsizing continues, if uh if if the if the reforms that Rumsell wanted to do uh uh succeeded, you're gonna 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 the Washington and all of its bureaucracies, and anybody comes in and wants to downsize them, uh reorganize them, reform them, or redirect them, is gonna be the target of a destruction campaign.
Because you're 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.
Uh, it has everything to do with holdovers.
One of the reasons that Bush did not clean house as much as he could uh uh was the new tone.
Uh we're coming off the eight years of Clinton, country is said to be two partisan.
Bush wants to come in and unite the country like he did the Republicans and Democrats, Texas.
Uh, and part of that was the having the candidates come up to watch movies in the White House and letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill, uh, the first education bill of Bush's first term, uh, letting Democrats appointed by Clinton hold on.
This is the kind of thing conservatives do this, Republicans do this all the time.
They would 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 uh 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, got 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 uh in New York, Southern District of Manhattan, was not appointed uh until a year and a half ago, two years ago, something like that.
So the first four or five years, we had a Democrat uh U.S. attorney, which run he runs the office.
And he assigns all the cases and uh reviews what the uh associate U.S. attorneys are going to do.
He's a prototype Chuck Schumer.
Uh so now Bush has gotten rid of seven U.S. attorneys and a Democrats are raising holy hell.
Why, why, what's happening here?
Uh demanding to know what why why they've been fired.
Why, what if 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.
Uh, and you know, this this is the price the the administration is paying for waiting so long to do this when it would be totally expected uh 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 did he'd done great things and putting people together in uh in Texas and thought that he could accomplish it uh in Washington.
But the Florida aftermath uh destroyed any, any uh opportunity chance there was gonna be for any kind of cooperation or comedy uh between Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
Gotta 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 is 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.
In fact, when I first saw that, my blood boiled, and I'm not just using a turn of phrase.
This is this is just it it it's over the top.
This 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 wall.
And he is not supposed to be criticized.
The Bush administration, well, he says one guy, the administration mounting an effort against why that's just that's 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 Plaim 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 big 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 one of uh Colin Powell's aides, has been out trashing the Bush administration ever since his Wilson thing started.
Uh I 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, or whatever their own political reasons are, and set up this whole trip, send Wilson over there to say that there was no evidence of 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 explain 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.
Got Sandy Burglar with a slap on the wrist is 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 in 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 don't care what your conservatism is, economic, foreign policy, or social, we 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, and 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