RUSH: Last hour, I mentioned to you that Clifford May, who is a former writer for the New York Times and now posts occasionally at National Review Online has a theory that the actual person that “outed” Valerie Plame’s identity to the media was Joseph Wilson. In an interview about a year ago that led to a story by David Corn of the Nation, May theorizes here, putting on his reporter’s cap, that the conversation between David Corn and Joe Wilson had Wilson giving Corn hypotheticals. “Well, if my wife were a covert agent, if my wife had been, if she were a super-secret agent and this had happened, what do you think the result would be?” and he went on and spelled out the results, and Corn said, “Are you saying that’s what she is?”
“Well, I can’t confirm or deny that,” then Wilson went on to say, “Hypothetically, what if she wasn’t one and this happened? What would be the result?”
Now, May says, “Any reporter knows that when you’re talking to somebody and they give you a hypothetical, that it’s a pretty good indication that the truth is not far away,” and so anyway, David Corn’s now on television answering for this, because of what Cliff May has said today. So the attention has been turned away from Karl Rove and now who in the media informed Rove? Because Rove has said that he found out from somebody in the media. He doesn’t remember who. The second person he heard it from was Novak. So he doesn’t remember who the first media person was. So the attention’s off of Rove. The story is over. Wilson’s even said on TV, his wife “was not a clandestine agent when the Novak piece came out.” So my question is: There’s a grand jury on all this? And I don’t know. I’m just wondering if the independent counsel here, Mr. Fitzgerald, is paying attention to what’s going on, will want to talk to Joe Wilson and have him be questioned before the grand jury — and I’m wondering if he’ll ask David Corn. He’s asking other journalists to come in and give testimony. I wonder if now the independent counsel will seek notes from the journalist, David Corn, the notes and records from Joseph Wilson. I do not know, but this is all happening. The independent counsel has to be seeing all of this. I think it’s logical to assume that David Corn would be asked about his contacts with Wilson in the same manner that Robert Novak was asked under oath, in front of a grand jury, and we know the independent counsel is said to be a competent guy and he’s watching all this, and of course he’s watching and learning. So might we be treated to other invitations to appear before the grand jury? And how about Chuck Schumer? Chuck Schumer had a big role in all this. He was eager to go out there front and center.
I’d like to know when Schumer knew that Plame was Wilson’s wife and her status. I would think the independent counsel might want to know when Chuck Schumer knew this too. So Rove spoke to Novak. I guess he should have known in advance not to talk to him or any other reporter? That can’t be the case. So we’ll see now if there’s any effort to bring any of these new players before the grand jury as the effort to get to the bottom of whatever this now is on — is ratcheted up. “The Senate yesterday turned back a democratic-led attempt to deny White House aide Karl Rove access to classified documents as the dispute over the revelation that President Bush’s top political advisor spread information about a covert CIA agent reached a new level of bitter partisan sniping.” This is Rick Klein writing in the Boston Globe today — and of course he wrote this last night, I’m sure, before the New York Times came out and said, “Hey, Rove didn’t spread anything around. It was people spreading it around calling Rove,” and Rove said, “Yeah, I’ve heard that.” Rove’s just sitting there answering his phone. Reporters are calling him under other pretenses, wanting to talk about welfare reform, war in Iraq or what have you, and then they also mention this subject of Valerie Plame. So Harry Reid, on the Senate floor, Dingy Harry, all upset when the Senate yesterday failed to vote for his attempt to deny White House aide Karl Rove access to classified documents. This is what Dingy Harry said.
REID: How in the world can anyone in this body against this? The only reason I can figure out is that there’s an attempt to divert attention, an attempt to cover up this abuse of power. This is absolutely something that everyone should vote for. This is a cover-up. It’s an abuse of power. It’s diversionary. It’s time to quit playing partisan politics with our national security.
RUSH: Don’t make me throw up.
REID: It’s time for the White House to come clean.
RUSH: Don’t make me get sick. It’s time to quit playing partisan politics with our national security? That’s all this is. And Dingy Harry is now among the royally embarrassed, folks. Because he now knows there wasn’t any cover-up. There wasn’t any abuse of power. I guess the lesson here is, that people like Karl Rove in the future don’t dare talk to reporters. It can get you in front of a grand jury. I mean, you people in journalism better stop and think about this. It’s because Karl Rove talked to some of you people that this all started. Now, one of you is now in jail and that would be Judith Miller. Christopher Dodd, this is last night also on the Senate floor during the discussion of the Reid amendment that was to deny security clearance to Karl Rove. Here’s a portion of Chris Dodd’s comments.
DODD: If we’re going to be more secure as a people, then we need to stop revealing important information and the identities of people who we depend upon to make us more secure. That’s what the Reid amendment does. Mr. Rove is not directly the subject of this amendment. It’s simply a response to a problem that exists in our country, and one that needs to be addressed.
RUSH: These guys haven’t cared a rat’s rear end about the CIA since I’ve been an adult. They couldn’t have cared less about a CIA or a CIA agent and now, all of a sudden, they are just appalled and upset at this sorrow disgrace that’s happened to Joe Wilson and his innocent wife. I don’t know if Leahy cosponsored this or not. That’s a good question. But here’s Dodd saying this is not even about Karl Rove specifically. We need to stop revealing important information and the identities of people who we depend upon to make us more secure. Yeah, like Senator Leahy? Let’s not forget he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee once; he was thrown off of that committee because he leaked information about a future bombing run on Libya that President Reagan had planned because he disagreed with it. That’s why we call him Leaky Leahy — and let’s not forget Jay Rockefeller, Ron Wyden and who was the other senator? Oh, yeah. John Kerry! It was, yeah, those three guys who revealed, just within the last year, a super-secret Air Force/CIA plan to come up with a new stealth plane to gather intelligence. They didn’t like how much money was being spent on it, and so they leaked the existence — and let’s not forget the New York Times, Senator Dodd, which just in the last two months ran a story in its newspaper about a clandestine CIA charter air operation which had one purpose and that was to blow the cover on this charter operation and destroy its ability to operate. You sit there — and this is why you guys do not understand how the American people, even moderates that don’t pay a whole lot of attention to politics, are not getting you and think that you are poisonous to the fabric of the political society that we have woven in this country.
It’s just amazing to watch, and it will be interesting to see, now that this Rove thing has been put in perspective, where they go from here. Because they’ve just got to be deflated and depressed like they haven’t been in the longest because, folks, you got to understand: They had it. Just like the forged documents, they had it. This was it. That was the end of Bush — and they had Rove. They already had him decapitated and they were passing Rove’s head around in the Senate and around the democratic national committee, and they were going to make carbon copies and send it around to the blogs. They had Rove’s heads and they had it on a silver platter and they just knew it and that meant they had Bush and Bush was finished and that meant they were going to be able to hold onto the court and now they have been made to look like asses. There’s another senator. There were three senators, Mr. Snerdley, that released the identity of this plane, this super-secret plane. It was Wyden and it was Jay Rockefeller and one other. John Kerry did divulge the name of a CIA agent on the Senate floor — and, by the way, John Kerry, the Harvard Crimson is back. John Kerry, back in 1970, said, “I want to get rid of the CIA.” Remember this? “I want to get rid of the CIA and I only want US troops dispersed under UN authority.” He said that in 1970 and people said, “Well, you got to forgive him that. I mean, that occurred in the context of Vietnam,” and so forth.
RUSH: Since the Democrats are so worried about compromising identities and challenging our national security. So, so, so worried what Karl Rove turned out not to have done as he was accused, the reason why we don’t believe it, folks — for those of you in the audience who are Democrats and liberals — the reason we don’t believe it is because we listen to what your leaders say. Let’s go back to May 12th on the floor of the Senate. Here is Dingy Harry Reid sliming a Bush judicial nominee whose name is Henry Saad.
REID: Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He’s one of those nominees, all you need to have is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI and I think we would all agree that there’s a problem there.
RUSH: This is not done. Nobody divulges contents of any nominee’s FBI raw file. You just don’t do it — and as a nonmember of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harry Reid is not even legally allowed to see that file. But he apparently has, and so he just slimes a Bush judicial nominee on the basis of a raw FBI file. It’s not been vetted. It’s just what the FBI’s collected from neighbors, ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, whoever. They go out and find the worst they can find about you and then they back it up, follow it up, see how much of it is true. This is what Dingy Harry is referring to. And these people want us to believe that they’re concerned about privacy, and national security, and who can have clearance to see private documents and all that? This is why we can’t take these people seriously. This is why we laugh. This is why we just belly laugh over these people’s complaints. I could give you analogy after analogy if you needed one, but it’s preposterous. Here’s another example. April 11th of this year, Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, during the questioning of John Bolton, who’s Bush’s nominee to be ambassador to the UN, Senator Kerry said this.
KERRY: Could I just take one moment, 30 seconds, Mr. Chairman? This is reading from Mr. Flights’ interview where he says, “Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position?” The answer is yes. Did John Bolton share that view? Mr. Flight said yes.
BOLTON: As I said, I had lost confidence in “Mr. Smith” and I conveyed that. I thought that was the honest thing to do.
RUSH: What you just heard here was John Kerry blowing the cover of a CIA operative in his zeal to attack John Bolton. He identified him by name. This is exactly what Rove is accused of doing and didn’t do. Here is John Kerry actually having done it. This is why, when Democrats start making these charges, we know that they can’t possibly mean it because they do this times ten themselves, and they don’t care about the privacy of individuals who are their enemies. They’ll out them and destroy them any way they can. They will lie about people, like George W. Bush and the National Guard, lie Karl Rove — and so I don’t think they realize how practically impossible it is for them to be taken seriously by an increasing number of people across the spectrum in this country.
RUSH: Here’s this story on the senators that leaked information to that spy satellite. The AP, December 14th of last year: “The Justice Department has been asked to investigate who disclosed secret details about a mysterious and expensive US spy satellite project according to federal law enforcement officials. The request came from an unspecified intelligence agency.” Now, what happened was that you had four senators who got all upset about the money this project was costing, and they went public with it. They are Jay Rockefeller, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Carl Levin of Michigan, and Ron Wyden of Oregon — and I’m still amazed that Wyden can find his way home. I’m not sure he knows where Oregon is. You put a map of anything up in front of Ron Wyden and say, “Could you point out Bosnia?”
“Uhhhh, there?” And he’s pointing to the Gulf of Mexico. He doesn’t have any clue, ladies and gentlemen. He’s all upset about the costs of this spy satellite and these senators all refused, the week of December 7th of 2004, to sign a compromise bill that was part of Congress’ new blueprint for US intelligence spending. “Despite their complaints, the Senate voted to send the bill, including the disputed program, to President Bush for approval,” but they outed it. In announcing their lack of support for it, they outed the existence of a secret spy satellite. This is the CIA. It’s the same thing as the CIA. It’s undercover work. It’s a covert thing, this satellite. Nobody’s supposed to know it existed, and yet there they are, Rockefeller, Durbin, Levin and Wyden blowing the whistle on it. Which is why when they start worrying about such insignificant things as this Valerie Plame, nobody really takes them seriously other than the inside-the-Beltway culture, which is based on the Watergate template of getting rid of Republican presidents, and, folks, they thought they had it. I mean, they were holding Bush and Rove’s heads in both hands and it was just a matter of days before they were gone, and just a matter of days before they no longer had to worry about the Supreme Court. They had them. They had them just like they had Bush on the forged documents — and it’s just another fizzle. Just another Democrat scandal that’s fizzled, just like the economy was going south, just like where are the jobs, just like there’s no reason to have this war, just like we’re losing the war.
Every complaint that they have made has come back. It’s like I say: you put a bag of excrement out there in front of them and they’re going to find it. You can hide the bag and they’ll still step into it. They’ll walk in the door with an open door; the door will slam on their faces before they get all the way in the room. That’s been their history since Bush became president. Now, they are succeeding in muddying the waters enough to slow down the agenda, but in terms of helping themselves by inspiring others or coming up with ideas — somebody called earlier today and said, “Well, you know, you talk about the seething rage and hatred that we have for Bush. I don’t know anybody who hates Bush, but what do you call what you had for Clinton?” Big difference and this is where you libs — even if it you’re trying to copy what you think the Republican policy was after Clinton was elected and we got the House in ’94, and I know that’s what you think. You think that we got power back because all we did was criticize Clinton every day, no matter what it was. But what you’re failing to understand is, it was all issue-based. It was all policy-based. Remember healthcare? You remember socializing the nation’s healthcare system? Nationalizing one-seventh of the US economy. People didn’t want that. That Clinton couldn’t tell the truth. The things that he was trying to do, the people he was appointing to the Supreme Court? These were all substantive-based opposition attitudes that people had. If there was any real anger at Clinton, it was because he couldn’t tell the truth and that’s offensive to everybody. A liar obviously thinks the people he’s talking to are stupid. Well, we sat around here every day thinking this guy is insulting our intelligence. That will make you mad, and then when we see the press willingly amplify all these lies and then marveling, marveling at how well he does it, marveling at how clever he is.
Yeah, that makes you mad. That word you liberals might understand: Fairness. It just didn’t quite seem fair. Somebody with all the wrong characteristics, somebody with all the wrong ideas is being promoted as the greatest president we’ve ever had? It made us gag. But our agenda was not just seething rage against Clinton. It was to replace him with somebody who was going to take the country in a different direction — which happened. That’s what’s missing from your seething rage. You’re just full of seething rage but you’ve got no ideas. You can’t join us in the arena of ideas and win a debate. You’ll lose in ten seconds because you don’t stand for anything, and what you do stand for, you don’t have the guts to admit because you know nobody would ever collect you for it. That’s why there’s a huge difference between what you’re doing or trying to do to Bush and what we successfully did to liberals and Democrats all during the Clinton years. You’ll notice we haven’t been run by a bunch of libs since 1994 in the House and we haven’t been run by a bunch of libs since 2000, since Bush won, and you’re upset about that. But you do this with ideas and you do it by electing people and you get voters to stand for what you believe in and vote for your ideas. You don’t go out there and just try to gin up a bunch of anti-support for the incumbent and try to ride power that way, which is what you liberals are the in the midst of doing. I know you people are worried, “Rush, you’re helping them out!” Folks, they think I lie just like everybody else does. The last person they’re going to take advice from is me. Don’t sweat it. I could give them the answer to every problem they have, and they would automatically reject it and do just the opposite, and I know this, which is why the best way to tell a liberal what to do is to be truthful. They’ll do just the opposite out of spite.