RUSH: We’re going to go to audio sound bite 16, back to Howard Dean, this time on Hannity & Colmes last night. This about the CIA leak investigation. Colmes says to Howard Dean, “Some Democrats in Congress have said there ought to be a larger investigation into the conspiracy to move us toward war. Do you believe that should be the case?”
DEAN: If there is such a thing, it’ll be in the vice president’s office, and I do think there needs to be more investigations of the vice president’s office. One of the things established by the special prosecutor in the indictment is that Vice President Cheney was the source of Scooter Libby’s knowledge about who the CIA agent was. And the question is, did the vice president instruct Scooter Libby to reveal that name? If he did, the vice president probably is criminally negligent and he ought to be indicted as well, and I think we’re going to find that out.
RUSH: Well, you know, Howard, if that’s the case, there would have been such an indictment. The thing is the security clearance that Cheney has is the highest you can get. He’s entitled to know all this, as is Libby. We know how all this happened. It was Joe Wilson out there trying to destroy the Iraq war, the Iraq policy, undermine the presidency and the White House simply trying to defend its policy, and then Libby was talking to people and so forth, and the fact that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA was not part of a smear. It’s simply some little incidental detail that got passed long, and when Novak mentioned it in his column, all hell broke loose. But if you trace this, nobody was trying to discredit her, discredit Wilson because his wife was at the CIA. They were simply trying to establish, “How the hell did he get sent on this trip?” So they’re not satisfied. I’m telling you the bottom line is they wanted this indictment and these indictments that they hoped were multiple to lead to a trial on the lies that led us to the war.
And again I remind you. Bill Clinton said the same thing as Bush back in 1998. The press, the New York Times, the Washington Post was writing stories about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had. Now, if there was lying going on by the Bush administration, then the press was lying in ’98 and Clinton was lying in ’98, which we have thoroughly documented on this program.
Wolf Blitzer interviewed Ambassador Joe Wilson, and this guy is a doozy. This guy is a cup and saucer short of a full place setting, folks. The elevator doesn’t go to the top floor. He’s a publicity whore. He’s a media hound. Blitzer says, “You know, a lot of your critics blame you for the eventual disclosure of your wife as a CIA operative. They go back to that early May 2003 column by the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who first reports about an unnamed US ambassador making this trip to Africa. Were you the source, Nicholas Kristof’s source for that column?”
WILSON: Well, I was a source for that column. But let me just say two things. One, this has never been about Valerie or me. This has always been about the 16 words in the state of the union —
RUSH: Stop the tape! Hold it! Recue that. He just admits it. He just admits he was the source for the column that got all of this started. well, “Who was this Wilson guy?” People start trying to find out who Wilson is, and you find out where his wife works if you’ve got a White House security clearance, and so he said, “Yeah, I was a source for that column.” Let me just say to you. He tries to change the focus of this, and when he changes the focus, what he does is demonstrate what his real purpose of this was. Here’s the whole bite again.
WILSON: Well, I was a source for that column but let me say two things. One, this has never been about Valerie or me. This has always been about the 16 words in the State of the Union address first and foremost, and second, about who leaked Valerie’s name and I would point out to you that the indictment does not name Joe Wilson as somebody who leaked Valerie’s name.
RUSH: Now, let’s take a look at this. “This has never been about Valerie or me.” That’s all this is about! That, pure and simple, is all this has ever been about. It’s Valerie and him. But even after saying, “This has never been about Valerie or me,” he says, “It’s always been about the 16 words in the State of the Union.” Yeah, we had to disprove those to prove Bush was lying. Then second, about who leaked Valerie’s name. If the second thing it’s about is who leaked Valerie’s name, how can you say it’s never been about you or Valerie? This guy is slimy, folks. I’m telling you.
We got more from Wolf Blitzer with the guy. Blitzer says, “Well, even though some of your supporters were on this program last week, Larry Johnson, former CIA officer, they say your decision and your wife’s decision to let her be photographed represented a major mistake because if there were people out there who may have been endangered by her name, certainly when people might have seen her picture, they could have been further endangered.”
WILSON: The photograph of her did not identify her in any way anybody could identify. Now, you asked me this question, you’ve asked me this question three or four times. I’ve never heard you ask the president about the layout in the Oval Office when they did the war layout. I’ve never heard you ask Mr. Wolfowitz about the layout in Vanity Fair but you ask me all the time. So let me just get this very clear. When one is faced with adversity, one of the ways that one acts in the face of adversity is to try and bring a certain amount of humor to the situation. It’s called irony. And if people have no sense of humor or no sense of perspective on that, my response is, it’s about time to get a life.
RUSH: Sense of humor? This is a sense of humor? Joe Wilson is just a rolly poly jocular guy here having a few yucks. He has his wife and himself pictured on the cover Vanity Fair for irony, for humor, that her picture didn’t identify her in any way? No, it just placed her in your car. We could see that she was blonde, and there have since been pictures galore about her. Do you know whose wife works at Vanity Fair? Tim Russert’s wife works at Vanity Fair, and Russert was called before the independent counsel. You know, some of these things don’t appear to be accidental. Why Vanity Fair? Why the cover? Why Joe Wilson and his wife? Why did she agree to do it? Irony is not national security policy. What is it, Mr. Wilson?
You went into this to undermine the war, you went into this to prove Bush a liar, you went into this protect your country or you went into this for irony or you went into this for media coverage, what it you went in for? Every time he’s on television he grants all these interviews. “I want to remind you, this is not about Valerie or me.” Well, then what are you doing on television every chance you can get? Maybe Libby was being ironic when he allegedly leaked your wife’s name. Maybe he thought he’d just have a little fun in the process. So Blitzer says, “So you don’t have any regrets about the Vanity Fair picture?”
WILSON: I think it’s a great picture. I think some days —
BLITZER: It’s a great picture but the fact —
WILSON: I think someday it, too, will Be In The International Spy Museum.
RUSH: He wants the picture that’s on the cover of Vanity Fair to be in the international spy museum and he’s trying to run around at the same time talking about how his wife’s life was destroyed because of her name being leaked, and yet now he wants her and his picture in the international spy museum, and this is who the Democrats have thrown in with. The name Bill Burkett ring a bell? Does the name Cindy Sheehan ring a bell? Because I’m telling you the difference between Burkett and Sheehan and Joe Wilson is so tiny, you could put it in a thimble.
Who’s next on this program? Alice in Spring Lake, New Jersey, I’m glad you waited.
CALLER: Well, you’re right on about everything, Rush, and my husband and I were just discussing this, and we said, “Wouldn’t it drive these liberals crazy if Bush decided to just pardon Libby?” I mean, if Clinton can pardon this Rich crook, then, you know, by golly, Bush should show everyone that Libby is innocent, and darn it, free him, you know, pardon him.
RUSH: Well, whoa, whoa, whoa. The problem with the pardon is it would just cast further doubt on Libby’s guilt, particularly the timing. Are you suggesting he pardon him now before the prosecution?
CALLER: Oh, maybe not before the prosecution. I don’t think he’s guilty of anything, to tell you the truth. But why not right now? That would just drive them crazy, and there’s nothing they can do about it.
RUSH: First, it’s not in Bush’s nature to stick it in libs’ eye that way. Best to do that on policy. If you pardon Libby now, you don’t give Libby a chance to prove his innocence that you are convinced of, and you simply give everybody the ammo to say, “A-ha, Bush knows he’s guilty and doesn’t want any of this testimony at the trial.” They’ll call it the Saturday Night Nassacre Two which is what they called it when Nixon fired the independence counsel Archibald Cox in the Watergate era, the Saturday Night Massacre. That’s when Bork, by the way, went in and took over the gig. Oh, yeah, Bork was solicitor general back then, Bork went in and took over the gig. And people couldn’t believe Bork would do it, and he said, “Well, the law is the law, the president can fire the guy, and I took over.” But yeah, I’d be all for a pardon after any trial, but not now.