RUSH: The press is buzzing today about Karl Rove being asked back to the grand jury, or asking to go back, and Judith Miller asking to go back, from the New York Times. Now, most of these stories are focusing on “Scooter” Libby, Lewis Libby, the vice president chief of staff, and most are suggesting, “Why, Libby didn’t tell them everything. Libby left out some things.” Guess what, folks. There’s a whole other way of looking at this. Judy Miller didn’t tell them some things. Judy Miller left some things out. Judy Miller’s notes somehow didn’t all get to the independent prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Fitzgerald has asked Judy to come back and explain some of these notes, some of these e-mails that she didn’t submit with her original filing. “The federal prosecutor has summoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller to make a second appearance today before a federal grand jury investigating the leak of Valerie Plame’s name. The decision by a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, comes just days after Miller found notes from a previously undisclosed conversation, June 23rd, 2003 with Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff Scooter Libby. ‘She has to return to the grand jury today to supplement her earlier testimony,’ said the Times’ executive editor Bill Keller in a memo on Tuesday to New York Times staff.” Reuters got a copy of it: “After spending 85 days in jail, Miller testified before the grand jury for the first time on September 30th, and turned over notes from her two previously disclosed conversations with Libby on July 8 and July 12th of 2003. Fitzgerald is wrapping all this up, the grand jury’s term expires on October 28th.”
Now: “Miller’s notes could be significant because they suggest that Cheney’s office knew who Wilson was and started talking to reporters about him some two weeks before Wilson publicly criticized the administration’s Iraq policy in a New York Times opinion piece on July 6,” which is in fact full of lies and everything else. You know, it is fascinating to watch the press cover this, because the press has already got their conclusion. The conclusion is that Rove is going to be indicted. I mean, there are stories out there today, “Can Bush govern without Rove?” and, folks, nobody knows what Fitzgerald has. Nobody knows what he’s looking at. All of this is a pure guessing game. It’s just as reliable as everything the press told us in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and yet now they’ve got “Scooter” Libby. Now he’s going to go, too, and it may even reach all the way to the top, and just to give you an example; it was two weeks ago the New York gossip media was just abuzz with the fact that they had heard that this week, 22 indictments were going to be handed down, and they were going to go all the way to the top, three of them, all the way to the top, including White House people. Well, there haven’t been any indictments. Fitzgerald came out and said, “I haven’t charged anybody with anything. I don’t know if I’m going to.” But yet everybody in the left-wing media has assumed that they know what Fitzgerald is looking at, they know who’s guilty, and it’s just a matter of time, and all these people being called back — and I’ll tell you the big question to me remains Judy Miller and the New York Times, folks. I have to tell you. Somebody let it be known that there were earlier notes from Judy’s that she didn’t hand over. Now, when you’re called back because you didn’t hand over everything the first time, how that becomes bad news for Scooter Libby or Karl Rove, we’ll just have to wait and see.
RUSH: On the Today Show today, Katie Couric talking with Chris Matthews, and they’re talking about the CIA leak case, and this is just where we’ve gotten now. This is how convinced the press is based on who’s been called to the grand jury, and everything else that’s been reported, who’s guilty, and furthermore, what kind of White House we have. Here’s a little exchange between the Perky One and Matthews.
COURIC: Chris, isn’t it more than just Iraq? Doesn’t it speak about the way this White House possibly operates in the minds of some?
MATTHEWS: Well, it’s a question, is there a difference between political hardball going on and trying to discredit someone who’s trying to discredit you. Let’s face it. Joe Wilson was a threat to this administration. He said the president went to war for a bogus reason. They felt they had to discredit him or they were going to be discredited themselves, and the question is, “Did they cross the line? Did they deny him his civil liberties? Did they break the law with regard to espionage? Did they release classified information about his wife illegally, or did they just simply say this guy is not to be trusted this many different ways to the press?”
RUSH: I remain — no, I’m not stunned. I was going to say “remain stunned,” but what Joe Wilson did, what he said, how he ended up in Niger, none of these people apparently know the truth about it. They think this guy is clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. What Joe Wilson did when he came back was basically confirm what everybody thought was going on over there, then he writes a piece saying that he didn’t find it. The guy hasn’t told the truth very often throughout his whole episode. I love Katie’s question, too. “Doesn’t it speak about the way this White House possibly operates, in the minds of some?” That’s the White House, a bunch of lying, stinking criminals, right, Katie? Just a bunch of lying, stinking criminals. That’s who the White House is, because that’s the only way you can beat ’em. The only way you can get rid of them is to make them criminals because you can’t beat the White House when it comes to ideas. You can’t beat the White House. Bush outsmarts you people every time you turn around. So now you’ve got to criminalize him. Joe Wilson, his wife, they’re the angels in all this. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney and George Bush, they are the evil ones. Why are they evil? Because they displaced you, and they’ve displaced you, and your media majority and monopoly, and they’ve displaced liberal Democrats from positions of power throughout our government, and that’s why they’re going to be criminalized, and this answer from Matthews, he didn’t even touch that.
He just wanted to go out and say, “Well, they felt they had to discredit him or they were going to be discredited themselves.” By the way, this business here, “Attack the person who’s attacking you; discredit somebody who’s trying to discredit you.” The latest with Tom DeLay? This just reminds me. DeLay is now, his lawyers have essentially sued the prosecutor, and the presumption is the prosecutor is corrupt, and I am stunned by some of the reaction that I’m hearing to that, ergo, people are saying, “Why, Tom, you don’t go out and attack the prosecutor. You don’t do that. You don’t make the prosecutor mad. Don’t go out and attack the prosecutor! Why are you doing that?” And it leads me to this conclusion — and a lot of people, by the way, saying this are people on the left. “Oh, this is really the bottom of the barrel for Tom DeLay now, to go out and attack the prosecutor.” Folks, would somebody tell me where prosecutors in this country are infallible? Would somebody tell me where whenever a prosecutor says something, it’s gospel? Where is this notion that when the prosecutor attacks, you just bend over, grab the ankles, say, “Okay, take me to jail”? Well, that’s the thing: They tried to destroy Ken Starr. The very people who are now sort of chiding DeLay for fighting back at his prosecutor tried to destroy Ken Starr. But beyond that, this notion that whenever a prosecutor comes up and files charges or whatever, “You have to defend yourself against those charges.” What if the charges are bogus? What if the prosecutor is acting outside of the bounds of propriety in the law? What if a defendant thinks that, like DeLay does? You’re just supposed to sit there? This is one of these things that is perpetually — well, it hasn’t puzzled me because I understand it, but it’s gotten to the point, it’s been this way for a long time when charges are filed against somebody everybody just assumes they’re true because why would they be messing around with this, why would they waste time with this? You got real criminals out there, why would they be messing around with this? Well, you know why they’d be messing around with DeLay because they want to criminalize what DeLay did because they can’t beat DeLay. This is from the situation room on CNN yesterday, Kyra Phillips, CNN, talking to James Carville — and this is a discussion about Karl Rove — and the question was, “You know scandals, Mr. Carville. President Clinton didn’t seem very distracted. He seemed to still carry on and operate.”
CARVILLE: If you think that we weren’t distracted — I mean, we carried on, but if you think you’re not on the phone or you’re not sleeping quite as well at night, or you got something in the back of your mind, of course you do. I mean, President Clinton is like one in a million, his ability to sort of keep going —
PHILLIPS: To handle scandal and handle the presidency?
CARVILLE: Yeah, but I would not say that people were not distracted. I know a lot of my friends that had to go before the grand jury, and they were very distracted. One of the things you’ve got to understand is you can’t talk to other people about this. So you can only talk to your lawyer, and you can only talk to your wife, who has a privilege.
RUSH: Whew! Man, is history being revised here. So Clinton never cared, never cared a whit, didn’t give a diddly-squat. He was able to compartmentalize. Why, he carried on governing the country! Yeah, and he testified before the grand jury, too, and he lied, and he was found in contempt by a federal judge, and he lost his law license for a year — and, by the way, he was so incapacitated by this that he didn’t bother dealing with any terrorist strikes that were occurring against Americans around the world. But, see, what this is all a predicate to is Bush is going to fall apart once Rove is in jail. See, they’ve got Rove indicted. They’ve got him convicted. They’ve got Rove in jail. They’ve got Rove outside the White House. “Scooter” Libby is gone. Petty soon they’re going to have Bush gone and the press is going to start talking, “Is Cheney healthy enough to govern? Is Cheney healthy enough to serve, or should we just maybe indict this whole administration and put a Democrat in there and straighten this country out?” I’m telling you, they have no clue what’s going to come out of this grand jury. The level of assumption knows no bounds in the coverage of this story, and, by the way — why, let me use that as a means of transitioning to this story.
How many of you have heard since the immediate few days after Hurricane Katrina rolled through New Orleans, that there was all kinds of poison and toxic residue in that water and it was going to be uninhabitable for six months, maybe a year, and the people that went in there were going to get sick if they had a little scratch on their arms or legs and that water got in there. It was curtains for them and we were going to need to quarantine people who had come in contact with the water and, oh, folks, it was going to be the worst of all situations. A-hem. “Floodwater Not as Toxic As Feared, Experts Say ? The floodwater that covered New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was not unusually toxic and was ‘typical of storm water runoff in the region,’ according to a study published yesterday. Most of the gasoline-derived substances in the water evaporated quickly,” because they’re on top, “and the bacteria from sewage also declined over time,” because it just, you know, gets absorbed. “The water’s chief hazard was from metals that are potentially toxic to fish. However, no fish kills have been reported in Lake Pontchartrain, where the water that once covered 80 percent of the city was pumped. ‘What it most looks like is the storm water that is present in New Orleans every time it rains,’ said John H. Pardue, an environmental engineer at Louisiana State University… ‘We still don’t think the flood waters are safe, but it could have been a lot worse. It was not the chemical catastrophe some had expected.'” Well, as I remember watching some of this, and I realize it’s approaching the lunch hour for those of you people on the left coast, but we kept hearing about all the floating bodies, the decaying floating bodies — and I remember the press asking experts, “Well, what about the rescue workers coming into contact with these decaying bodies? Isn’t that a reservoir of disease?”
The experts said, “No, no, no, no. A decaying body won’t hurt you. You can do anything you want with a decaying body. You put that decaying body in water, though, oh, I can’t stress how bad it would be.”
Then we had all the chemicals. We had all the gas leaks. We had all the oil. I mean, it was a virtual cesspool. It was a toxic dump. “Toxic soup” is what it was called. Oh, it was going to be horrible! New Orleans was finished. It was going to be uninhabitable, folks. Just like there weren’t any rapes at the Superdome or convention center, there wasn’t anarchy there, and there weren’t mass deaths, and all that. It turns out it’s just water and what happens when it floods, it’s just water. So all of this hysteria turned out not to be true, and the odds are it’s going to be the same thing when the truth of this grand jury comes out, too.