All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:53
March 15, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Rush Limbaugh, ensconced firmly, confidently behind the golden EIB microphone.
What are you smiling at?
Come on, tell me, what are you smiling at?
He just smiling looking at me.
Hey, prestigious Attila the Hun chair.
You thought I'd lose my place.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program today, the uh email address rush at eIBNet.com.
Tom Delay has a new book coming out.
Uh it's called No Retreat, No Surrender, One America's uh One American's Fight.
We will be talking to Tom DeLay tomorrow at this time, 24 hours from now, we'll be talking to Tom DeLay here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
The Washington Post has a story that it's Robert Novak actually column uh entitled The Uh The Wrath of Tom DeLay.
And there's some interesting tidbits from Delay's book.
Uh there's a there's a thing, I guess Delay feels a little liberated here.
Uh because he really he fires both barrels at Dick Army and at Newt Gingrich.
Uh probably even more critical of Army.
He also assails President Bush as being more compassionate than conservative.
Uh even has a couple of words for Denny Hastert, uh, who he accuses along with Gingrich and Army of opening the door to the democratic purge of uh Tom DeLay.
Now now uh we'll ask him about this tomorrow, but Novak says he's an angry man after being driven from the leadership and from Congress and so far from public life by what he writes as a concerted effort to destroy him legally, financially, and personally via this 2005 indictment in Texas.
Uh wrote Novak says this is this is uh familiar to read DeLay's thoughts on uh on Ronnie Earl.
What's unusual are Delay's claims that pre-existing tensions I had with Gingrich and Army partially explained their role in kicking delay out of the leadership.
Now Delay admits the Republican leaders uh empowered by the 94 elections, including himself as majority whip and Gingrich's speaker and Dick Army as majority leader.
He said they weren't a cohesive team, uh, and it hindered their ability to change the nation.
He puts most of the blame at the feet of uh Newt Gingrich in describing Gingrich as an ineffective speaker, Delay writes he knew nothing about running meetings, nothing about driving an agenda.
Nearly every other day he had a new agenda, new direction he wanted us to take.
It was impossible to uh to follow him.
He also says that, quote, our leadership was in no moral shape to press for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
And he wrote this uh well before Gingrich admitted last week uh that he had had an affair during all that.
Uh Delay said it's now public knowledge that Newt Gingrich was having an affair with a staffer during the entire impeachment crisis.
Clearly, men with such secrets are not likely to sound a high moral tone at a moment of national crisis.
About Dick Army.
Uh Delay says that Army was so blinded by ambition as to be useless to the cause, and a poor leader who had few fresh ideas, says that Army resented anybody he thought might get in the way of his becoming Speaker of the House himself.
He said, Beware the man drunk with ambition.
Pleads innocence in his version of the uh failed 97 coup against Gingrich, accuses Army of that after realizing he would not succeed Gingrich, telling the speaker that Delay was also plotting against him.
He had lied to cover his ambitions, betraying both his movement and his uh and his fellow leaders.
So he uh Well, his revelation that that uh Republican leaders didn't constitute a band of brothers helps explain why twelve years of control produced much less than was anticipated.
That's how Novak concludes his You're still smiling.
Uh that's how Novak concludes his uh his column.
So we'll be talking to uh Tom DeLay tomorrow about this and get even more fodder uh for you about this.
But it seems uh that the I mean the I've got my emails.
Everybody's upset about something.
Uh and and uh even the left is cracking up.
Uh left can't get their get their act together.
Uh the New York Times starting to hit gore on his global warming movie.
Uh there's a there's a jet There's a general sense of unrest out there, and it's actually on uh on both parties.
Uh no sense of unrest for me.
I mean, uh, clearly times are troubling and and so forth, but I maintain my cheerful optimism about things.
Nothing's happened to cause me to change that.
Uh another Gonzalez thing is still percolating out there, and it's becoming absurd.
It is just it's just absurd.
But the White House doesn't seem interested in doing anything about it uh in a PR sense, other than uh trying to stop the resignation of Gonzalez, but now you get John Sununu, a Republican, he's a backbencher from uh uh New Hampshire has called for Gonzalez to step down.
Uh big mistake.
Why do we keep giving them scalps?
Now I don't know what influence Sununo's gonna have.
I doubt I doubt he's gonna have any influence with uh the people.
Of course the media are gonna eat it up, and you never know what what's gonna happen with other Republican senators.
Uh it only takes one for the rest of the lemmings to go over the cliff, as you know.
Uh we'll have more details on this.
We've got some sound bites of it coming up.
But up next is Howard Dean.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has been meeting with world leaders to repair, quote, the extraordinary damage, unquote the Bush administration has done to America's image, and to prepare the way for a new Democrat president.
Dean said, I'm trying to build relationships with other governments in preparation for a Democrat takeover.
This is from Roger Simon and the Politico.
I I want to make clear that there is an opposition in America, and that we're ready to take power, and that when we do, we're gonna have much better relationships with them.
So Dean's out there doing what John Kerry said he was gonna do and denied he was doing.
Remember John Kerry saying, Oh, we're all leaders, uh, world leaders have told me that they want me to be elected president.
I served in Vietnam.
Uh Dean's out there doing much the same thing.
I thought the Democrats thought they had power.
I thought the November elections, I thought there was this giant mandate, Howard.
I thought the November elections gave you guys cart blanc.
Go out and do what you want to do.
Pull us out of a rock.
Can't seem to get that done, can you?
You can't seem to get anything in a piece of legislation that would forestall the president from going into Iraq.
Hey, leadership's tough.
I thought you guys had all the power.
I thought you were going to get rid of this Bush guy, and you're going to make him ineffective, and none of his policies were going to continue.
Obviously, Dean's admitting they don't have anything yet.
And they're as fractured in the House as they could possibly be.
There's no unity there, and uh, you know, these malcontents.
Uh it's politics as usual.
I'm not surprised, but I never I, for one, was not one who bought into this notion of Democrats of all people going to bring along the most ethically pure Congress in the nation's history.
But they're out there saying all this.
Pelosi's out there saying all this.
We now know what the price for the uh continuing funding of the war is, at 20 billion dollars in pork.
Now all you people were upset at the Republicans back in November for not doing anything about earmarks and not doing anything about pork and not doing anything about all this extraneous spending.
Looky here.
We've just learned the price.
We know the Democrats in Congress are a bunch of whores.
They always have been.
We just didn't know the price.
Now we do.
Twenty billion dollars of pork in order uh for them to uh go along, get get some faction of the Democrat caucus to go along with the latest budget and Iraq uh uh Iraq bill.
At any rate, uh in an hour-long interview at the DNC on Tuesday with uh Roger Simon of the Politico.com.
Howard Dean also revealed he's been quietly meeting with well-known Christian evangelical leaders in order to build new bridges between them and the uh Democrat Party.
Dean said we're never gonna convince them on civil rights uh for gay people or abortion rights, but we certainly can focus on the things we both care about a lot: global warming, poverty, and the materiality of our culture.
Does he mean materialism?
Uh and he also intimated that he could in fact run for president again.
Which may be what this uh what this is all about.
Uh David Broder, column in the Washington Post today, um basically accusing a New York Times of liberal bias.
Uh his piece reports of the GOP's death are way hasty, and it's premature.
Months before the first votes are cast in a campaign of 2008, some in the media, he knows who they are, are conducting last rights for the Republicans.
The rush to bury the GOP is as hasty as it is premature.
The New York Times, not normally solicitous of Republican feelings, also reported widespread concern among those that interviewed that their party had drifted from the principles of Ronaldus Magnus, its most popular figure of the past fifty years.
But the fine print of the Times survey, it's a CBS New York Times poll, told a little bit of a different story.
Support for President Bush and his policies remains high among Republicans.
His overall job rating among Republican voters, 75%.
By overwhelming numbers, they approve of his handling of foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the management of the economy.
Now, that doesn't suggest a party racked by anxiety or guilt does it, but the New York Times taking no chances.
Its survey finds that Republicans are less satisfied with their current field of presidential candidates than Democrats are with theirs, and that more Republicans than Democrats have yet to make up their minds about their respective parties front runners.
Given the rich variety of choices available, you might ask, what's the problem?
It's not as if nobody thinks the Republican nomination is worth seeking.
There are all kinds of Republicans that want the job.
His uh he's really excoriating the New York Times here for getting in a little quick here on uh predicting the demise of the Republican Party.
Just as Republicans in the past have made that same mistake about the Democrats.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
We'll roll right on in the EIB network after this.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, depression, tumult, chaos, whining and moaning, dispiritedness, torture, waterboarding, humiliation, and even the good times.
L. Rushbow from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All right, to the phones to Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Hello, Rick.
You're up.
Professor Limbaugh.
Greetings from the college town that created the Clintons.
Thanks much, sir.
I was watching uh Rosie's show this morning, and when they refer to it.
What are you doing watching that show?
I can't believe you would call.
I can't believe you'd call here and admit that.
Well, I make it a point to watch the first 20 minutes because I know she's gonna say something stupid.
And I just get a big kick out of it.
All right.
Um I'll accept that.
Mrs. Hasselbeck asked her about the gentleman who hit the old lady in the lobby.
And um she said, you know, don't you doesn't it make you want to tear off his you know what?
And Rosie said that she would, quote, personally like to physically harm him.
And I thought to myself, well, so apparently physical pain is okay to inflict on someone when Rosie approves of it, but if it's someone trying to annihilate a nation, uh that doesn't quite meet the standard.
Now, see, you're you're illustr you're illustrating a point.
I appreciate the uh the anecdote about Rosie on the view, but she's an idiot.
She is a blithering ignoramus.
She is stupid.
She look it, I understand certain lingo, and for those of you out there who think and speak this way, Rosie has issues.
And they are huge.
And she is headed for a huge crack up.
This is a woman who is miserable.
This is a woman who is unhappy, and she has a whole lot of reasons to be unhappy.
Uh this business about about uh inconsistency.
What do you you expect consistency from somebody who does not have one informed thought in her mind?
Uh I'm I'm stunned.
Look, I've met Barbara Walters a couple times, and I know uh how important integrity is to her.
So I get some emails.
The first amendment makes you say whatever she wants to say.
What the hell?
We're we're yes, the first amendment's a government thing.
I mean, we all have the first amendment, but it says government shall not pass a law.
Congress shall not pass a law that restricts free speech, even though they have.
But let me tell you, I think I've I've mentioned this before.
When I when I went to Sacramento in 1984 to start the program that eventually became this one, uh at KFBK, the then consultant and program director said, Look, we want controversy.
But what we don't want is somebody who's just gonna mouth off and say the most outrageous things in the world just to anger people and get them all worked up.
Anybody can do that, and that's not where and if that's what you're going to do, then don't do it and leave.
Get out of here.
And you if you can back up what you think and what you say, if people think it's outrageous, that's another thing.
But we want intelligent people on this radio station, and we want informed people.
We don't.
Well, that is always stuck with me.
I don't say things on this program I don't believe, and I don't say things in this program I can't back up, and I don't say things on this program just to make you mad or just to irritate you.
Uh but that is a perfect summation of what Rosie O'Donnell does.
She may believe this stuff, but it's insanity.
Uh and there are there are standards that major broadcast networks that I am telling you are not being upheld or uh even concerned, not even being they're not concerned about, apparently, at the at ABC and the View.
Now she's out there saying such such idiotic things today, as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad has been in custody since 1993.
She portrayed this picture of him that everybody's showing as having been taken after he was tortured to get this confession, and she's in the chorus of people that are out there saying, We can't believe what this guy says, and we're calling him a terrorist, and that's robbing him of his humanity.
Let me give you some facts about this.
Khalid Sheikh Muhammad has been under indictment in the United States since 1996.
He was under indictment in 1996 in connection with the uh the plot was called Operation Bochinka from 1994.
That was the plot to bomb a dozen U.S. airlines over the Pacific.
Now, an indictment means that the government had enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt as a terrorist and send him away forever, or maybe execute him, even if 9-11 had never happened.
Even if he had never been waterboarded, and even if he had never said a syllable to us, this was known.
Now the left is claiming, and uh uh Rosie O'Donnell joining in this fray that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's statements are all unreliable because he would say anything we wanted him to say when we tortured him, when we waterboarded him.
How many of you people remember the trial of Zacharias Missawi?
Massawi wanted desperately to call Khalid Sheikh Muhammad as a defense witness.
And the reason is because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the guy who would theoretically under oath for a terrorist, have to admit his role in all this and uh downplay the role of Zacharius Missawi.
Now, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told interrogators that Missawi was not involved in the 9-11 plot, uh, which means I I guess I guess we didn't torture him so well since we were trying to prove that Massawi was one of the 9-11 plotters.
There's so many inconsistencies uh here, and there's so many forgotten facts, uh, and there are so many facts which are just simply unknown by people who have been granted huge forum uh to go out and spew a bunch of drivel and bilge at a at a sponge-like audience.
Uh and this is gonna come back, uh, frustrating as it is, it's gonna come back to haunt these people uh left and right big time, as it always shall, always does.
Don in Davison, Michigan, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Spongebob, SquarePants, eternal optimist dettos to you.
Thank you, sir.
Real quick, I'm Rosie and the rest of the leftists and drive-by media.
Mass will have served two tours overseas.
And I'm telling you right now, Rash, I know that they say that soldiers go over there and they defend the Constitution and they defend the right to free speech.
But I can tell you from a firsthand account that soldiers are getting tired, are tiring of going over there and watching their buddies die.
So that Rosie O'Donnell and the rest of the leftists over here can literally destroy all the hard work and dedication that these men put into capturing men like KFM and and and and and territories and provinces and other countries where there is no protection, there is no safe haven to retreat to all this time and effort, men die capturing this man.
I understand this these comments by Rosie O'Donnell because of your two tours for which the American people are eternally grateful, as and I, no doubt hit you in the gut because she is one of these people all well, she may not be one, but the people that are making the claims is you are the ones at the same time claiming they support the troops.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, while from the transcript, while claiming credit for the 9-11 attacks, he was unhappy that 3,000 Americans die.
Even he, he said, doesn't like killing children.
Well, that's that's that's gonna play well in the uh in the in the hearts of liberalism.
All right, on to the continuing non story of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the Senate Judiciary Committee uh today cleared the way for subpoenas, compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the federal prosecutors they fired to tell the story of a purge of U.S. attorneys that has prompted demands for the ouster of the attorney general Alberto Gonzalez.
You know, it's interesting.
I uh uh you do a Google search, you go to a Google search and uh and and search for the terms Watergate and Gonzalez.
You will find about I found at the time 303 hits, and they all mentioned Watergate.
Watergate, Watergate, Watergate, Watergate, Watergate.
This is not Watergate.
Did I not tell you people that what the Democrats are trying to create here is another Watergate, the war in Iraq, Bush lied, all of these things.
Now this Gonzalez story and the so-called purge of eight U.S. attorneys, this is Nixon-esque.
They are attempting to redo Watergate and the Vietnam War all in the same bubble.
It is their standard practice.
If you if you search just on Google for Watergate and Alberto Gonzalez, you'll find 141,000 hits, and a whole bunch of them mention Watergate.
Uh from Salon.com uh to CBS News to uh bunch of blogs, uh, to the Washington Post, you'll find references to Watergate with this U.S. attorney business.
Now, Andy McCarthy, my friend at National Review Online and uh one of the prosecutors of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, one of the U.S. attorneys that prosecuted that case, associate U.S. attorneys, sent me a little note last night about all this, He said the maddening thing with these controversies is it's never about the guy so much.
It is about the fight.
Gonzalez was probably never on anybody's big list of AG candidates except the president's.
But it was worth fighting for his confirmation because Democrats had turned it into a referendum on the conduct of the war.
Now, no matter what you think of Gonzalez's performance, it'd be a travesty to allow him to be forced out.
Because the opposition has turned the U.S. attorney fiasco into a referendum on abuse of presidential power.
Well, how absurd can this be?
There cannot be abuse of presidential power when the president is exercising his constitutional authority.
And still the drive-by media is stretching and bending over forwards and backwards to make all kinds of distinctions between Bill Clinton firing 93 U.S. attorneys and Bush getting rid of eight.
They're doing it by saying, well, Bush was trying to stop some corruption investigations against his friends.
Oh, as though Clinton didn't get rid of Jay Stevens in Chicago to stop an investigation into Dan Ross Rostinkowski, and he didn't get rid of the U.S. attorney in Little Rock and replace him with Paula Casey to stop an investigation into Whitewater, which worked.
By the way, it was the U.S. attorney Little Rock that was Clinton's real target and tried to cover it up by having Reno announce and getting rid of all 93, Jay Stevens in Chicago being one of them.
But this is a powerful Paragraph.
It is remarkable that this is what it comes down to after the disgraceful Sandy Burglar Sweetheart plea.
The inexplicable lack of movement on the Jefferson investigation.
That would be Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, who is now on the Homeland Security Committee, despite the fact that there are two people who have pled guilty to bribing Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
Also, the happenstance of his being on tape, taking a 100,000 dollar bribe, 90,000 of which was seized from his refrigerator.
And there is an agent who has sworn under oath that he obstructed the search of his home.
We've had the about face on Jose Padilla.
Now he's an enemy combatant.
Now he's a criminal defendant, keeps going back and forth.
We've had the sudden shift of the NSA's terrorist surveillance program to the FISA court after a year of the administration asserting that this vital program couldn't work under the Pfizer statute, then they put it under the FISA statute.
We've had a lack of movement on any of the wartime classified information leaks, not one, and the absence of meaningful immigration enforcement against employers and on the borders.
Now, if you look at this, and this is this is this is just a partial list, but these are the big stories.
These are the things the Justice Department is not doing.
Where is action on Congressman Jefferson?
For example, why the slap on the wrist to Sandy Burglar?
You take a look at what those two guys alone are accused of doing, and two people have already admitted to taking bribes from Johnson or Jefferson, uh.
Well, they pled guilty to bribing him, and the Justice Department is doing diddly squat.
I I think if you're a liberal Democrat, you've got to look at Alberto Gonzalez, you've got to love him.
He's not doing anything.
He's letting he he's he went after Scooter Libby.
Well, he, but didn't stop it.
You look at the Scooter Libby fiasco, you look at this fiasco, the drive-by media getting away totally with mischaracterizing this as an abuse of presidential power, comparing it now to Watergate over and over and over again.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department sitting on its hands and not doing anything.
And it gives gives rise to the question who's really running the show in this place, and not just plus Andy's right.
All of these leaks to the Washington Times and New York Post, or uh Washington Post and uh New York Times, where where's the investigation into these?
There isn't one.
Nobody cares, it seems.
So you have to ask who's in there bottling this stuff up, who's making sure it doesn't happen?
Uh this is not about the U.S. attorneys.
The U.S. attorneys are located in 93 cities around the country, 93 states, or cities and states.
This is I'm asking questions about the Justice Department.
The same thing can be asked about state, the same thing can be asked about the Pentagon, the same thing could be asked about the CIA.
Uh where is all and and the what what's frustrating about it is uh the administration seems just willing to bend over and give the Democrats part of what they want every time they start bellyaching and complaining.
Now, McCarthy tells me in his note here that Gonzalez rates being defended strictly because it would be an outrage if he lost his job over this manufactured scandal.
But the president shouldn't be shocked that there isn't exactly a title wave rushing to the attorney general's defense, because there are a lot of people with a lot of questions about what the hell the Department of Justice has been doing or not doing, and who in the DOJ is stifling these investigations.
Why is why is Congressman Jefferson really on the Homeland Security Committee when two people have admitted to bribing him?
Uh Sandy Berger, and what do we get?
We get breathless, unrelenting pursuits of scooter libby over a process crime, and now we've got this phony controversy going on.
Listen to Ram Emanuel, who got some audio sound bites about it, Rahm Emanuel on the floor of the House of Representatives this morning.
The fired U.S. attorneys were aggressively investigating public corruption cases, and they were fired ostensibly for job performance, which in this White House means you're guilty of doing your job.
Is where are these public corruption cases today?
As Washington debates whether Alberto Gonzalez, the attorney general, survives by the weekend.
Some of us want to know whether we can bring back to life these public corruption investigations in these five jurisdictions.
That's not the question, Rom.
The question is, what about the investigation of Sandy Berger and a light snap on the wrist and no pursuit?
What's happening to the Congressman Jefferson and there's all kinds of things out there that DOJ itself is not doing.
As to these corruption cases, in these five jurisdictions, Ed Whalen also national review online.
I don't claim to have been following closely the controversy over the recent dismissal of these U.S. attorneys, but I have reviewed the internal administration documents posted on the House Judiciary Committee's website, and based on what these documents show, the reaction of these dismissals seems curiously overwrought.
Washington Post story from yesterday, for example, seems to strain to characterize the documents in the most one-sided manner possible.
So let me explain my understanding.
Number one, U.S. attorneys are executive branch officials who serve at the pleasure of the president.
On the one hand, the president has plenary power to dismiss them for any reason, including failure to adhere to administration priorities on law enforcement, but he doesn't need a reason either.
On the other, it's widely accepted that decisions regarding prosecutions should not be politicized.
For that reason, it's generally highly imprudent for the White House to intervene or to offer advice or direction with regard to a specific pending matter involving, say prosecution of elected officials or candidates for elective office.
And it would follow as well that absent Malfeasans, U.S. attorneys, shouldn't be fired because of dissatisfaction with their handling of an ongoing matter of that nature.
Now the post story asserts that decisions to dismiss the eight U.S. attorneys were heavily influenced by assessments of the prosecutor's political loyalty.
This assertion evidently rests on a March the second email from Kyle Sampson to the White House counsel Harriet Myers that groups U.S. attorneys in three categories.
Those whom the DOG recommends be retained, those it recommends be removed, and those as to whom it makes no recommendation at all.
Those in the to be retained category said to be strong U.S. attorneys who have produced, managed well and exhibited loyalty to the President and the Attorney General.
By contrast, those in the to be removed category are weak U.S. attorneys who've been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against administration initiatives, etc.
Now, in context, it seems clear that Kyle Sampson and DOJ are not assessing political loyalty, broadly understood, but rather fidelity to administration initiatives.
That's an entirely proper standard for assessing the performance of U.S. attorneys.
As to several of the seven or eight removed U.S. attorneys, the documents that have been made available provide specific affirmative evidence that the decision to remove them were not made on improper grounds.
For example, September 20th, 2006, email from DOJ attorney Brent Ward to Kyle Sampson is titled Obscenity Cases and complains we have two U.S. attorneys who are unwilling to take good cases that we've presented to them.
They are Paul Charlton in Phoenix, and this one's urgent, and Dan Bogdan in Vegas.
The email further indicates that the Attorney General had told folks to kick button take names.
May 31, 2006, email from Kyle Sampson to Bill Mercer in the office of the Deputy Attorney General.
Has uh Odeg ever called Carol Lamb and woodshed her R. E. Immigration Enforcement.
Has anyone?
She was the attorney for the Southern District of California.
Nobody was doing anything on illegal immigration in the Justice Department.
They were upset about the White House wanted Tim Griffin to become U.S. attorney in Arkansas does not suggest any nefarious reason for the removal of the U.S. attorney there, Bud Cummins.
No one should be surprised, much less scandalized, that political favorites get political appointments.
The very fact that this decision-making process on the dismissals took so long, nearly two years, is powerful evidence that the dismissals were not a general effort to push people out in a hurry in order to affect the handling of pending cases.
And Ed Whalen is exactly right.
This was a two-year process to identify these eight U.S. attorneys who were not performing up to administration standards.
People get fired all the time.
It is not a scandal for this to have happened.
And this story, the analysis by Ed Whalen, is so logical, of course it will be ignored totally by the drive-by media.
Quick timeout, folks.
Back with more in just a second.
And now some more of the fanaticism from the left and make no mistake about this.
Howard Dean's even got a fundraising letter out to uh members of the Democratic National Committee donors to the Democrat Party that this is George W. Bush's Watergate.
Make no mistake, that's the attempt now to link this to Watergate.
It's just, as I've said all along, they're trying to take this president out if they can before uh 08 comes around.
Uh and short of that, they want to isolate Bush so that he will have no support whatsoever from members of his own party on virtually anything.
Uh they'll fail on a rock, but it looks like they'll succeed on on uh some of the other things.
Here's Dingy Harry at a Washington press conference talking about Gonzalez.
It's unethical, it's immoral, I believe it's illegal, and Gonzalez should be fired, or he should resign.
And uh, Mrs. Bill Clinton has joined that fray, by the way, is saying that Gonzalez uh should be uh should be fired.
Here's Pat Lahey on the situation room with Wolf Blitzer last night.
Uh Wolf's question is there anything illegal in putting one of Carl Rove's associates uh in and making him the U.S. attorney in Arkansas?
There's nothing illegal in a president firing by itself and firing a U.S. attorney.
What I am saying is that that hurts law enforcement.
That hurts fights fighting against crime.
How the hell does it do that?
And since when do you care about crime?
You're a liberal Democrat.
And no, I don't say that casually or with uh any sense of an exaggeration.
What when do these people start caring about crime?
What does this have to do with crime?
What about the crimes that are being committed?
The DOJ is sweeping under the rug.
I still can't get over this Sandy Burglar stuff, folks.
Stealing documents from the National Archives, originals.
Who knows what he put back in there?
We got a pretty good idea.
Literally a $10,000 fine slap on the wrist, loses his uh security clearance for a short time.
We'll get it back in 2009, just in time to rejoin a Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton administration.
And you look at the things they are going after.
Uh here's Leahy again this uh morning at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
I do not get the cooperation.
I will subpoena it.
We will have testimony under oath before this committee.
We'll have the chance for both Republicans and Democrats to ask questions.
And we'll find out what happened.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
There's no scandal.
There is no crime.
There has been no damage to law enforcement, except maybe s you know the frustrating thing about here's here's the frustrating thing.
The Democrats are being who they are.
This is this is not a shock.
I'm wasting my breath and I'm wasting my energy getting upset about them.
I think the thing.
I finally zeroed in on this, got deep down inside the gut to get to the root feelings on this.
And the thing that has continually surprised me, stunned me, amazed me is the appearance that this administration does not understand.
They are under an attack designed to destroy them.
I know that sounds incredulous.
It sounds difficult to believe.
And that's why it took me so long to get deep down into gut to realize this, because it seems so obvious that any political neophyte would understand it, but it seems to me they don't.
This is not politics as you well, it is for the Democrats, but that is that's a that's another indication of what is faced here.
But they don't seem to understand that they are targeted for destruction.
And I and they're using diplomacy in return.
And I just don't I don't understand.
I just literally do not under.
Okay, folks, lots more on this U.S. attorney business, some details, some background.
The stuff the administration ought to be putting out there.
▲
Export Selection