drlogic

POOR TALIBAN! TERRORISM AND KILLING THE INOCCENT IS OKAY, BUT NOT TAUNTING THE TALIBAN. SHAME ON YOU, MEAN OLE AMERICANS!!! SHAME ON YOU TOM ALLARD FOR TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE WAR ON TERROR. YOU'RE SIDING W/ THE ENEMY FUCK FACE!!! COWARD! PUSSYBITCH! I THINK HE SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED IN THAT REGION. IF THERE ARE SOLDIERS PROTECTING HIM, THEY SHOULD LEAVE HIM ON HIS OWN AND LET THE TALIBAN PROTECT HIM. CALL ME CRAZY?? Film rolls as troops burn dead By Tom Allard October 19, 2005 US soldiers in Afghanistan burnt the bodies of dead Taliban and taunted their opponents about the corpses, in an act deeply offensive to Muslims and in breach of the Geneva conventions. An investigation by SBS's Dateline program, to be aired tonight, filmed the burning of the bodies. It also filmed a US Army psychological operations unit broadcasting a message boasting of the burnt corpses into a village believed to be harbouring Taliban. According to an SBS translation of the message, delivered in the local language, the soldiers accused Taliban fighters near Kandahar of being "cowardly dogs". "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burnt. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be," the message reportedly said. "You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Taliban but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are." AdvertisementAdvertisement The burning of a body is a deep insult to Muslims. Islam requires burial within 24 hours. Under the Geneva conventions the burial of war dead "should be honourable, and, if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged". US soldiers said they burnt the bodies for hygiene reasons but two reporters, Stephen Dupont and John Martinkus, said the explanation was unbelievable, given they were in an isolated area. SBS said Australian special forces in Afghanistan were operating from the same base as the US soldiers involved in the incident, although no Australians took part in the action. The incident is reminiscent of the psychological techniques used in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Leaks Abound in Leakgate Probe Reporters insist that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald runs such a tight ship that it's impossible to discover what's going on with his Valerie Plame Leakgate investigation - before reporting in the next breath their latest "scoop" based, apparently, on leaked information. Our favorite recipient of insider info is MSNBC commentator Lawrence O'Donnell, who confidently predicted last week that Fitzgerald was about to hit the Bush White House with 22 indictments of senior officials. On Tuesday, one left-leaning web site breathlessly reported that a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney was secretly cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe in exchange for not being indicted himself. The next day, the same web site claimed that a second Cheney aide was talking to prosecutors. The Cheney aides were identified by name in both reports - but since we can't vouch for the veracity of the leaks in question, we'll leave the Fitzgerald moles anonymous here. In fact, based on a tsunami of leaks, rumors and tidbits emanating from "lawyers close to the investigation," pundits have been assuring for weeks now that indictments are on the way. Meanwhile, New York Times reporter Judy Miller - whose testimony Fitzgerald deemed so critical that he put her in jail for 85 days to obtain it - turned out to be a dud. When she finally lifted the curtain on what she knew in last Sunday's paper, her account seemed more likely to exonerate Karl Rove and Lewis Libby - who the press tells us are Fitzgerald's most likely targets. Still, the fact that Fitzgerald's star witness went belly up did nothing to dampen the indictment predictions. How can the media be so certain? There are only two possibilities. Either Fitzgerald's probe is so leaky they that these reporters know things they can't discuss. Or they're simply making it up. Far be it for us to accuse these fine journalists of fabricating news, so we can only presume that the leaks they base their predictions on are as genuine as they are ominous. But that raises a different issue. In 1998, when all sorts of insider information from Independent Counsel Ken Starr's impeachment probe turned up in the press - Democrats cried foul and then-Attorney General Janet Reno launched a very public investigation. Given the proliferation of Leakgate leaks seven years later, it would seem the same type Justice Department investigation would be entirely appropriate.

TROOOO WHO WAS THE SECOND CHOICE? by Ann Coulter October 19, 2005 I have finally hit upon a misdeed by the Bush administration so outrageous, so appalling, so egregious, I am calling for a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to investigate: Who told the president to nominate Harriet Miers? The commission should also be charged with getting an answer to this question: Who was his second choice? Things are so bad, the best option for Karl Rove now would be to get himself indicted. Then at least he'd have a colorable claim to having no involvement in the Miers nomination. This week's Miers update is: (1) Miers is a good bowler (New York Times, Oct. 16, 2005, front page — Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget: "'She is a very good bowler"), which, in all honesty, is the most impressive thing I've heard about Miers so far; (2) In 1989, she supported a ban on abortion except to save the life of the mother. From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute ... But without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes. We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge! The maxim "Hard cases make bad law" could be expanded to "Hard cases being decided by judges with 'common sense' make unfathomably bad law." It was "common sense" to allow married couples to buy contraception in Connecticut. That was a decision any randomly selected group of nine good bowlers might well have concurred with on the grounds that, "Well, it's just common sense, isn't it?" But when the Supreme Court used common sense — rather than the text of the Constitution — to strike down Connecticut's law banning contraception, it opened the door to the Supreme Court rewriting all manner of state laws. By creating a nonspecific "right to privacy," Griswold v. Connecticut led like night into day to the famed "constitutional right" to stick a fork in a baby's head. This isn't rank speculation about where "common sense" devoid of constitutional theory gets you: Miers told Sen. Arlen Specter she would have voted with the majority in Griswold. (Miers also told Sen. Patrick Leahy — in front of witnesses — that her favorite justice was "Warren," leaving people wondering whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, memorialized in "Impeach Warren" billboards across America, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, another mediocrity praised for his "common sense" who voted for Roe v. Wade and was laughed at by Rehnquist clerks like John Roberts for his lack of ability.) The sickness of what liberals have done to America is that so many citizens — even conservative citizens — seem to believe the job of a Supreme Court justice entails nothing more than "voting" on public policy issues. The White House considers it relevant to tell us Miers' religious beliefs, her hobbies, her hopes and dreams. She's a good bowler! A stickler for detail! Great dancer! Makes her own clothes! That's nice for her, but what we're really in the market for is a constitutional scholar who can forcefully say, "No — that's not my job." We've been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don't want someone who will decide those issues for us — but decide them "our" way. If we did, a White House bureaucrat with good horse sense might be just the ticket. Admittedly, there isn't much that's more important than ending the abortion holocaust in America. (Abortionist casualties: 7; Unborn casualties 30 million.) But there is one thing. That is democracy. Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws such as the one that prohibited married couples from buying contraception in Connecticut. But allowing Americans to vote has never led to creches being torn down across America. It's never led to prayer being purged from every public school in the nation. It's never led to gay marriage. It's never led to returning slaves who had escaped to free states to their slavemasters. And it's never led to 30 million dead babies. We've gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is — even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one.

October 06, 2005, 7:33 a.m. Ronnie Earle Should Not Be a Prosecutor The abuses of power in the Tom DeLay case should offend Democrats and Republicans alike. If there is one thing liberals and conservatives ought to be able to agree on, it is this: Ronnie Earle, district attorney of Travis County, Texas, has no business wielding the enormous powers of prosecution. I don't know Congressman Tom DeLay, the House Majority Leader. I certainly don't know if he's done anything illegal, let alone something so illegal as to warrant indictment. It doesn't look like it — and at least one grand jury has already refused to indict him (a fact Earle appears to have tried to conceal from the public as he scrambled to find a new grand jury that would). Yet experience shows it is foolhardy for those who don't know all the facts to hazard a judgment about such things. One thing is sure, though, and it ought to make anyone who cares about basic fairness angry. The investigation of DeLay, a matter of national gravity is being pursued with shocking ethical bankruptcy by the district attorney — by Ronnie Earle. For nearly 20 years, I had the privilege of being a prosecutor in the best law-enforcement office in the United States, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Being a prosecutor is the world's greatest job because it is honest work for the highest cause — service to one's own community. And it is work that has precious little to do with politics. In their private lives, many of my fellow government lawyers were political independents, either by design (i.e., out of a conscious rectitude holding that law enforcement should be above politics) or because they were just apolitical. Most, as one would expect in New York, were Democrats. A large percentage, as, again, one would expect from a group of mostly young people educated in top schools, was proudly liberal. Over coffee, or lunch, or dinner, they and we few, hardy conservatives would have spirited debates over all manner of issues. In the four corners of a case, however, none of that mattered a wit. Within those four corners, there were rules and responsibilities. There was recognition that prosecutors have breathtaking power over the lives of those they investigate. Power inarguably vital to the rule of law. But power which, if used recklessly or maliciously, can leave lives in tatters. The lives not only of the innocent and the guilty, but of the justice system itself. This was especially so in investigations of political corruption. We prosecuted Republicans and Democrats, in about equal measure. The cases were hard, but checking your politics at the door was never hard, for at least two reasons. First, there tends to be nothing ideological about the crimes committed by politicians. They are a stew of pettiness, greed and above-it-all arrogance over which neither party has a monopoly, and the offensiveness of which cuts across philosophical divides. Second, some wrongs are simply not intended to be crimes. Among them are political wrongs: sleazy abuses of power, cronyism, most acts of nepotism, half-truths or outright lies in campaigns, etc. In a free society, these get sorted out in our bumptious political system. Usually, absent shades of financial fraud, bribery, and extortion, prosecutors should stay their hands. There are too many real crimes to waste resources on that sort of thing. More significantly, the risk of criminalizing politics would only discourage honest citizens from participating in matters of public concern. The code prosecutors live by is not a liberal or conservative one. It is a code of ethics — of nonpartisan, non-ideological honor. Of course many prosecutors are ambitious. Of course prosecutors want to win. But even the ambitious ones who care a bit too much about winning quickly learn that success is intimately tied to doing things the right way. And not least because that is the norm their colleagues follow — as well as the standard by which the defense bar and the judiciary (populated by no small percentage of former prosecutors) scrutinize them. It is, moreover, the standard the public demands they meet. People want to see the guilty convicted, but they also want to feel good about the way it is done. The prosecutor is the public's lawyer, and his duty is not merely to get the job done but to get it done right. The second part is just as crucial as the first. They are equal parts of doing justice. No one expects perfection, which is unattainable in any human endeavor. But if the outcomes of the justice system are to be regarded as legitimate, as befitting a decent society, people have to be confident that if they stood accused, the prosecutor would enforce their rights and make sure they got a fair fight. So there are certain things that are just flat-out verboten. Most basic are these: to resist public comment about non-public, investigative information; to abjure any personal stake in the litigation that could suggest decisions regarding the public interest are being made to suit the prosecutor's private interests; and — if all that is not Sesame Street simple enough — to remain above any financial or political entanglement that could render one's objectivity and judgment suspect. In the profession, these things come under the hoary rubric of "avoiding the appearance of impropriety." In layman's terms, they are about having an I.Q. high enough that you know to put your socks on before your shoes. This is bedrock stuff. It is central to the presumption of innocence, due process, and equal protection under the law that prosecutors owe even the most despicable offenders. It is foundational to the integrity of the system on which rest our security, our economy, and our freedoms. And Ronnie Earle has flouted it in embarrassing, mind-numbingly brazen ways. As Byron York has been reporting on NRO (see here, here, and here), Earle has partnered up with producers making a movie, called The Big Buy, about his Ahab's pursuit of DeLay. A movie about a real investigation? Giving filmmakers access to investigative information while a secret grand-jury probe is underway? Allowing them to know who is being investigated and why? To view proposed indictments even before the grand jury does? Allowing them into the sanctuary of the grand jury room, and actually to film grand jurors themselves? Creating a powerful incentive — in conflict with the duty of evenhandedness — to bring charges on flimsy evidence? For a prosecutor, these aren't just major lapses. They are firing offenses. For prosecutors such as those I worked with over the years, from across the political spectrum, I daresay they'd be thought firing-squad offenses. Attending partisan fundraisers in order to speak openly about an ongoing grand jury investigation against an uncharged public official. As a moneymaking vehicle. Penning a nakedly partisan op-ed (in the New York Times on November 23, 2004) about the political fallout of his grand-jury investigation of DeLay, then uncharged. Settling cases by squeezing businesses to make hefty financial contributions to pet personal causes in exchange for exercising the public's power to dismiss charges. Secretly shopping for new grand juries when, despite the incalculable advantages the prosecution has in that forum, the earlier grand jurors have found the case too weak to indict. Ignoring the commission by members of his own party of the same conduct that he seeks to brand felonious when engaged in by members of the other party. Such actions and tactics are reprehensible. They constitute inexcusably dishonorable behavior on the part of a public servant, regardless of whether the persons and entities investigated were in the wrong. They warrant universal censure. If Congressman DeLay did something illegal, he, like anyone else, should be called to account. But he, like anyone else, is entitled to procedural fairness, including a prosecutor who not only is, but also appears to be, fair and impartial. Ronnie Earle is not that prosecutor. He has disgraced his profession, and done grievous disservice to thousands of federal, state, and local government attorneys. Prosecutors of all persuasions whose common bond is a good faith commitment to the rules — but who will now bear the burden of suspicions fostered by Earle's excesses. The burden, but not the cost. That will be borne by the public.

fighting words Plame's Lame Game What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 9:27 AM PT Two recent reports allow us to revisit one of the great non-stories, and one of the great missed stories, of the Iraq war argument. The non-story is the alleged martyrdom of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson, supposed by many to have suffered cruel exposure for their commitment to the truth. The missed story is the increasing evidence that Niger, in West Africa, was indeed the locus of an illegal trade in uranium ore for rogue states including Iraq. The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.) Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.) Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill. Given the CIA's institutional hostility to the "regime change" case, the blatantly partisan line taken in public by Wilson himself, and the high probability that an Iraqi delegation had at least met with suppliers from Niger, how wrong was it of Robert Novak to draw attention to the connection between Plame and Wilson's trip? Or of someone who knew of it to tell Novak? The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, notionally violated by this disclosure, is a ridiculous piece of legislation to begin with. It relies in practice on a high standard of proof, effectively requiring that the government demonstrate that someone knowingly intended to divulge the identity of an American secret agent operating under cover, with the intention of harming that agent. The United States managed to get through World War II and most of the Cold War without such an act on its books. The obvious disadvantage of the law, apart from its opacity, is that it could be used to stifle legitimate inquiry about what the CIA was up to. Indeed, that was its original intent. It was put forward by right-wingers who wanted to stifle and if possible arrest Philip Agee, a defector from the 1970s whose whistle-blowing book Inside The Company had exposed much CIA wrongdoing. The act is now being piously cited by liberals to criminalize the disclosure that someone who shuttles dangerously "under cover" between Georgetown and Virginia and takes a surreptitious part in an open public debate, works for the agency and has a track record on a major issue. To say this is not to defend the Bush administration, which typically managed to flourish the only allegation made about Niger that had been faked, and which did not have the courage to confront Mr. and Mrs. Wilson in public with their covert political agenda. But it does draw attention to an interesting aspect of this whole debate: the increasing solidarity of the left with the CIA. The agency disliked Ahmad Chalabi and was institutionally committed to the view that the Saddam regime in Iraq was a) secular and rationally interested in self-preservation. It repeatedly overlooked important evidence to the contrary, even as it failed entirely to infiltrate jihadist groups or to act upon FBI field reports about their activity within our borders. Bob Woodward has a marvelous encapsulating anecdote in his recent book: George Tenet on Sept. 11 saying that he sure hopes this isn't anything to do with those people acting suspiciously in the flight schools. ... The case for closing the CIA and starting again has been overwhelming for some time. But many liberals lately prefer, for reasons of opportunism, to take CIA evidence at face value. I prefer the good old days. It was always alleged against Philip Agee, quite falsely, that he had identified Richard Welch, the CIA station chief in Athens who was gunned down by Greek anarchists in 1975. In fact, Agee had never mentioned his name in any connection. This did not inhibit the authors of the Protection Act from going ahead, or Barbara Bush from saying in her memoirs that Agee had fingered Welch. I actually contacted Agee at that time, pointing out that the book was being published in London and suggesting that he sue. He successfully got Mrs. Bush to change the wording of her paperback version. But we are still stuck with the gag law that resulted from the original defamation, and it is still being invoked to prevent us from discovering what our single worst federal agency is really up to. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback. Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2103795/

Dems Pin Hopes To Two Ludicrous Legal Cases October 17, 2005 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: All right, from last Friday: "Travis County prosecutors," this is Ronnie Earle (story), "admitted that they lack physical proof of a list of Republican candidates that is at the heart of money laundering indictments against Tom DeLay and two of his associates. The list is key to prosecutors being able to prove that corporate money that could not be legally spent on Texas candidates was specifically exchanged at the national level for donations that legally could be spent on Republican candidates for the Texas House. Indictments against DeLay, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro state that Ellis gave 'a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House' to a Republican National Committee official in 2002 in a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates. But prosecutors said Friday in court that they only had a 'similar' list and not the one allegedly received by then-RNC Deputy Director Terry Nelson. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates, but only seven are alleged to have received money in the scheme. A lawyer for Ellis said prosecutors' inability to produce the list mentioned in the indictments is on par with the tactics used by U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the communist witch hunts of the 1950s. "'I'll tell you what I think about this list. In the 1950s, a man named McCarthy claimed to have a list of 200 communists in the State Department, and he didn't,'" [said J.D. Pauerstein, a lawyer for Jim Ellis.] "'They (prosecutors) don't know what list they're talking about, even though they specify it in their indictment.'" Now... "Without the exact list, the prosecutors' case against DeLay, Ellis and Colyandro likely turns on," the testimony of a man named Terry Nelson, the RNC deputy director. "Nelson testified at least twice to grand juries hearing the case. 'That would be something Mr. Nelson could testify to, and the jury could weigh the testimony and decide whether to accept it or whether he's confused about what list he saw three or four years ago in the midst of a heated election cycle,'" said one of the lawyers, the lawyer for Ellis, a man named Pauerstein. Now, folks, let me give you a quick crash course here in the law. Go ask -- if you know any -- go ask a defense lawyer. If a prosecutor gets a grand jury to indict in a case like this and there's no list of these candidates, then there is no basis for the indictment. You're going to have people scratching their heads saying, "Wait a minute. How do you get an indictment here? How do you even get an indictment when there's no list? The list is the evidence, and there's no evidence to support the indictment," and what you're going to be told is that this is unfathomable. What happens is, is that the grand jury is given all the evidence and told it adds up to this, and that prosecutors, "We want you to indict." How many grand juries refused to indict? Was it one or two before they got the first one to indict on the conspiracy charge? There were two grand juries that refused to indict. Now we know why. Then they got the third grand jury with that foreman who went on KLBJ in Austin and admitted that the evidence in the grand jury room meant nothing to him, that he had already formed the basis of DeLay's guilt on television commercials that he didn't like and we found a connection that that foreman has to a defeated sheriff's office candidate who blamed his defeat on DeLay. Then that indictment turned out to be flawed because it didn't even specify a crime within the correct date range, the time that the crime was alleged to have occurred, it wasn't a crime, so he had to tear that one up and go to a different grand jury, come back with this money laundering indictment, but there's no list. Now, you should take this and learn from it and apply from this story what's going on in this whole Valerie Plame special prosecution investigation with that grand jury. Here are the similarities. In both cases -- well, actually, that's not a similarity. Let's describe the first one. In the DeLay case, there has not been any suspicion of the prosecutor at all on the part of the mainstream press. Ronnie Earle... In fact, there have been profiles how he's not political. "Oh, no, no, no! He doesn't have political enemies. Why, that's Democrats. Twelve out of 15 political people he's indicted have been Democrats." Conservative Democrats in his way, but we don't get that little added nugget thrown in. Throughout this story, "Sources close to the investigation say--" and somehow sources close to the investigation are never wrong? "Sources close to the investigation" can be cited as lock, stock and barrel accurate? They're never named? Apparently my first theory on this was true. What they really want is simply the destruction of DeLay's character and to get him out of the legal ability to be the leader in the House. They want him to have -- because the House rules are, if you're indicted you have to give up your leadership positions, and DeLay did, and this is all about stopping the Republican agenda in the House of Representatives. There's no evidence to support the indictment. It's purely political, it appears, and yet I can't find much news. This story hit Friday. I didn't see a whole lot of this news in the mainstream press, did you? Folks, in any other circumstance, I guarantee you, if Ken Starr had ever gotten his grand jury to indict say Bill Clinton or high-ups in that administration and it was learned that there was no evidence to support the indictment, that's all you would have heard about for three weeks. Starr would have been run out of town on a train, Amtrak or whatever. But here we have scant notice of this. Now we move over to the Valerie Plame business. The media, which has Karl Rove indicted, convicted, resigned, which has Scooter Libby indicted, convicted and resigned, and they're hoping the same with Vice President Cheney and maybe President Bush -- know nothing. There hasn't been one indication from a source close to the investigation of where this prosecution is headed. They don't know. They are inferring everything from what witnesses who come out of the grand jury, those who do talk about their appearance, are saying. Now, if you take a look at Judy Miller and this big brouhaha in the New York Times, what you have to conclude, it's very simple. It isn't complicated at all. She doesn't remember who told her Valerie Flame's [sic] identity. That's how she referred to her in her notes: Valerie "Flame." Well, I thought before she went and testified, it was Scooter Libby. Scooter Libby gave her the waiver a year ago and reaffirmed it as a personal waiver just weeks ago, and that got her out of jail, and "I don't remember," right out of the Hillary Clinton how to testify before a grand jury handbook. I can't recall. I don't remember. She doesn't know who told her the identity of Valerie Plame? Well, if she's going to say that, how can you conclude it was Scooter Libby? Only if you want to. There's so much about this story that has been misreported because there are hopeful assumptions being made. Remember, the left looks at this administration in its entirety as Watergate, and so this whole story is just the next one after the National Guard and after Richard Clarke's book and after all these things. Everybody is talking: "Bush administration had a tough week this week, the next couple weeks. Indictments going to be coming down. Rove may have to quit." They don't know diddly-squat, and the last time I looked the Bush administration has gone through a lot of hard weeks. They went through a bunch of hard weeks in the 9/11 investigation. They went through a lot of hard weeks, the 60 Minutes putting Bill Clinton and Richard Clarke face first for two or three segments on 60 Minutes to talk about their books about what a rotten guy Bush was; what a liar he is. We've had Cindy Sheehan up there. We've had all of these things that the left has dragged forth to try to destroy Bush since -- well, basically since he was inaugurated, but the real intense effort was after 9/11, and yet the administration has withstood it all. They might say, "Well, poll numbers are way down. He's weak." Yet the Democrats still forget. Have you seen the polls on congressional Democrat approval in the Congress? They're lower than Bush's. Bush's number is at 42%. Democrats in Congress are in the mid-thirties? Well, they ignore that. "Oh, we got Bush right where we want him! Bush is gone! Bush had it! We're going to win the House in '06, take it back in '08." With what? Nobody still knows what your plan for anything is because you don't have the guts to be honest to tell us. So here you have two legal cases, one in which the prosecutor gets an indictment with no evidence whatsoever, other than the testimony of a guy who's gotta have to remember things three or four years ago, which is not enough to get an indictment in most people's book, and now you've got this Valerie Plame case where it is assumed that the White House is guilty all the way to the top. Yet nobody has given anybody any indication because the special prosecutor is not talking. There are no sources close to the investigation in this one because they're not leaking. They're not talking. When you strip it away, the people reporting this story don't know anything. Just as they accept the word from every prosecutor, whatever sources close to the investigation say, it is accepted as gospel and truth, and yet now we're learning that the Ronnie Earle sources close to the investigation can't be trusted. They don't have any evidence. It's just an amazing thing to watch, and how does this happen? It happens because there is a desire on the part of people who report this for the worst to be true, particularly when it involves Republicans. So the Plame case; it has to be about Rove. I don't know where this is going. I haven't the slightest idea where it's going, folks. I can't tell you. I can tell you what I'm hoping. I hope this prosecutor has this case thrown out on him down in Texas, Ronnie Earle, on the basis this indictment is worthless. I hope it that when this independent counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, does whatever he does, that it is a total shock and a surprise to the people who have Rove convicted, who have "Scooter" Libby convicted. My hope and dream is that the person passing around her identity was a member of the media. But I don't know what's going to happen. But yet, even now, you will find people on television and in the newspapers saying, "These are gruesome days. These are very, very, very, very, very pressing and troubling days for the Bush administration." They are convinced that they know where this is going. They've got themselves convinced now, "Hey, you know, this is not even about the original crime because there wasn't a crime there. Her identity? She wasn't covert, so there's no crime. This is about perjury. This is about obstruction of justice." Those terms are right out of Watergate, are they not? "Conspiracy to obstruct justice." Oh, God, sounds so bad, and then we've got stories. "Yes, Rove will resign. Yes, Rove will resign if he's guilty." Well of course he will! It isn't news. But it's all presented as just a fait accompli, folks. We know it's going to happen -- and I don't have the slightest idea, but I will tell you that I hope something as big as shocking a surprise as anybody could conceive is -- I guess the biggest thing that could happen is for Fitzgerald to come out and say, "I've got nothing. Thanks for your time. We looked everywhere but we got nothing." He'd be vilified. Well, maybe not. He's been respected now. I mean, this guy is the greatest prosecutor (interruption). Ah, ah, ah! Ken Starr was not. Ken Starr (interruption). No, no, they've said some great things about Fitzgerald. "He's doing great work out there, this guy is a no nonsense prosecutor. He's taken on the Chicago city mob and he's doing all these great things," blah, blah, blah. Again, bottom line is, nobody knows, folks, and so whatever you're reading from anybody who claims to know where this is headed, forget it, because you don't know, we don't know, they don't know. By the way, you know, October 28th, he could impanel a new grand jury for 18 more months. This may not be over as soon as they think. We don't know. We just don't know. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: All right, to the phones and Traverse City, Michigan. Hello, Ann. You are up next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi. CALLER: Hello, Rush, and multiple dittos and I want you to know you make more sense than anybody on the planet. So I wanted to tell you that. RUSH: I appreciate that. I agree, and thank you very much. CALLER: You're welcome. But I have a question and I hope you can answer it. If Judith Miller -- back to her. If Judith Miller does not remember who told her about Valerie Plame, if she doesn't know, why did she spend all those months in jail? RUSH: Well, there are only theories on that. The two big theories are -- how shall I say? -- she feels distant from her liberal media colleagues. See, what is not well known is that, and especially if you go to these left-wing websites that are the Democrat base, they hate this woman, because she was the one person of the New York Times pushing the fact that there were weapons of mass destruction. They think Bush lied, they think Bush made it all up, they don't think there was any intelligence from other intelligence agencies, from other nations around the world, the whole thing about weapons of mass destruction was made up, and she helped. She in effect was using the pages of the New York Times to advance the Bush agenda, and she is estranged from her colleagues in the mainstream press. So one theory holds that she went to jail to do some hard time so that she could get back in their good graces to show what a committed, principled journalist she was. CALLER: Oh. RUSH: The second theory is that she did this to get a big book deal. Did she get one? Well, they're saying she's got one, but she said in the New York Times over the weekend that she doesn't have one, I think, in this interview. But those are just some of the theories. I'll tell you something else. I mentioned the crackup. The crackup on the left is even deeper because I was reading -- the left has a website, very left-wing website called Editor and Publisher, and it's a bunch of people who claim to be representatives of the mainstream press on morals, ethics, objectives, and they're just a bunch of left-wing hacks. And they've got some story from some ex-CBS journalist who was in the foreign correspondent area, and he says it's even worse than we knew because Judy Miller got a security clearance from the Department of Defense when she was embedded with one of these teams looking for weapons of mass destruction, and what they say that means is that Judy could not report anything she saw that was of a secure nature. So that means to them that she agreed to keep the administration secrets if there were any, and they're really mad at her. So now the left-wing blogs and the kooks out there have had it with the New York Times. They've had it with Little Pinch. They've had it with Thomas Friedman, because he's defending Miller. They've had it with the whole New York Times. The New York Times is in the tank for Bush, because of Judy Miller and because they're supporting Judy Miller. They want Judy Miller hung up probably next to Bush when both of them go down. The crackup on the left that is happening -- unreported and unseen unless you go out and look for it and find it yourself -- is hilarious. CALLER: Well, in her purported reason for going to prison is false. She didn't really go to prison to protect a source. Is that correct? RUSH: No, no, no, no. I said these are theories. I don't know why she went to jail. I don't know the woman. Maybe she didn't want to go on that Mediterranean cruise with her husband. CALLER: Well, okay. It's all a mystery. I hope it gets solved pretty soon because I'm really curious. RUSH: What is there to solve? She says she doesn't know who gave her the name. CALLER: I know. But, this being made a very big thing, and it's much ado about nothing I think. RUSH: It is much ado about nothing. In fact, this Wilson guy... Actually my hope and dream is that this guy is going to get nailed by the special prosecutor. This guy came back, told an absolute bunch of lies in a New York Times op-ed. He never filed a written report when he got back from Niger, when he was supposedly sent over there by Cheney to check on the Iraqis trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He never filed a written report, yet he's out there saying that Cheney read the report and said we gotta get even with this guy because he's selling us out. In fact, he came back, gave an oral report that pretty much confirmed what everybody thought about the Iraqis trying to get yellow cake. This is such a convoluted thing it defies explanation. END TRANSCRIPT

Monday, Oct. 17, 2005 9:59 a.m. EDT Ronnie Earle: DeLay Evidence Missing The most compelling piece of evidence cited by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle to implicate House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in a money laundering and conspiracy case can't be located, Earle's prosecution team admitted on Friday. Indictments against DeLay and fundraisers Jim Ellis and John Colyandro allege that Ellis gave "a document that contained the names of several candidates for the Texas House" to a Republican National Committee official in 2002, reports the Houston Chronicle. The document was touted as proof that DeLay was part of a scheme to swap $190,000 in restricted corporate money for the same amount of money from individuals that could be legally used by Texas candidates. But Earle's prosecution team told the court on Friday that they had only a "similar" list and not the one allegedly given to the RNC. Late in the day, they released a list of 17 Republican candidates in Texas, but fewer than half are alleged to have received money as part of the alleged DeLay plot. DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin immediately pounced on the development, telling the Chronicle that the lack of a list "destroys" Earle's case against the three men. "That's astonishing, astonishing that they would get a grand jury to indict and allege there is a list and then they have to admit in open court the first time they appear in open court that there is no list," DeGuerin said. Prosecutor Earle engaged in similar tactics in 1993, when he twice indicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison for misuse of campaign funds, only to have the case dismissed both times. Earle indicted a third time, but when the case went to trial he failed to produce any evidence and was forced to dismiss all charges.

Judge in DeLay Case Backed MoveOn.org Supporters of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay might not be overly paranoid to suspect that there is just a hint of politics complicating his legal troubles: When the Texas Republican appears in court on Friday to face money-laundering charges, the presiding judge will be a Democratic Party activist who has contributed money to the George Soros-backed MoveOn.org, Sen. John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee. DeLay will face a hearing in Austin before state district Judge Bob Perkins, whose political contributions include: $200 to presidential candidate John Kerry on July 14, 2004. $200 to Sen. Kerry on July 24, 2004. $475 to Kerry on July 29, 2004. $200 to MoveOn.org on Sept. 11, 2004. $200 to the Democratic National Committee on Oct. 13, 2004. Another $200 to the DNC the very next day.

OMG,,,,Drop the chalupa Pepe and let's go! LOL Racist! I'm printing this post and reporting you to the ACLU! I bet you've got a brothel running from your house w/ illegal Mexican minors you sicko! Well, not really. I just wanted to show how dense you usually sound. Go play in traffic!

True,,,,,It's one thing to bash conservatives...That's en vogue....It's quite another to go after Hillary.......HUGE MISTAKE! She just bit the hand that feeds her! I agree though....She a circus side show...Her son must be turning in his grave (RIP).

Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2005 10:12 a.m. EDT Cindy Sheehan: Hillary Clinton Sounds Like Rush Limbaugh "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan is urging fellow Democrats not to support "pro-war Democrat" Hillary Clinton for president, saying she sounds too much like conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh in her support for U.S. efforts in Iraq. In an open letter posted to Michael Moore's web site, Sheehan blasts Hillary for backing the Iraq invasion, saying, "I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys." Sheehan says that unless Hillary "shows us the wisdom it takes to be a truly great leader" and backs an Iraq pullout, "I will resist her candidacy with every bit of my power and strength." "I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again," she vowed. Sheehan said she thought her meeting with the New York Democrat earlier this month had gone well - until she found out that Mrs. Clinton had dismissed her advice afterwards. Citing Hillary's comments to the Village Voice that a pullout would mean U.S. troops had died in vain, Sheehan complained: "That sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me. That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me. What Sen. Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party talking points I heard from Senators Dole and McCain."

IMHO, this post & the poster are a whole lot about nothing! Nothing from nothing, leaves NOTHING! My advise to that ball of naval lint posing as "destruction" is....... I could give 3 craps about his pseudo-outrage.

Okay Wally?????????? Would you like some cheese w/ that whine? I take it you're still working on getting laid? You need help Scooter! Seek help! Keep taking screen shots, keep printing posts....remember it, write it down, take a picture,,,I don't giveafohk! You are the epitome of IRRELEVANCE! One need not be omniscient to see just how pathetic you are. Love ya' Tonz, honeybuns! Why don't you go play in traffic?

What's New with the Joe Wilson scandal™ By: Mark Kilmer · Section: News http://redstate.org/ Don't let the press lull you to sleep with their gawdawful grasping at evanescent straws, re: the Joe Wilson scandal™. There could be big stuff afoot. To wit, read on… The WashPost tells us that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame." This contradicts Joe Wilson's assertion that it was all about him, but it shows the Veep having his chief of staff, Scooter Libby, leak the name of a CIA desk-jockey to enact revenge against an agency for which he didn't care. There's more!... Reuters, however, lets us know that Libby didn't leak the correct information: According to Miller's account of a meeting with Libby on July 8, she wrote in her notes that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, or Winpac, unit, which tracks unconventional arms. A former intelligence official said Plame did not work at Winpac but for the CIA's clandestine service. The former official, who is familiar with Plame's CIA activities, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity. If this is true, then Libby did not know that Plame was classified as James Bond in drag, super-secret, licensed-to-kill with an AK-47 when he let the cat out of the bag. So we have Cheney directed Libby to leak Valerie Flame's [sic] name of a covert op in order to harm the CIA, but it was really about getting revenge on Joe Wilson for a trip he had not yet taken, and Libby didn't tell anyone that she was a covert op. I almost feel bad for these folks. Someone give them a decent scandal. ==================================== Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case Sources Cite Role Of Feud With CIA By Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, October 18, 2005; A01 As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame. In grand jury sessions, including with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Fitzgerald has pressed witnesses on what Cheney may have known about the effort to push back against ex-diplomat and Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, including the leak of his wife's position at the CIA, Miller and others said. But Fitzgerald has focused more on the role of Cheney's top aides, including Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, lawyers involved in the case said. One former CIA official told prosecutors early in the probe about efforts by Cheney's office and his allies at the National Security Council to obtain information about Wilson's trip as long as two months before Plame was unmasked in July 2003, according to a person familiar with the account. It is not clear whether Fitzgerald plans to charge anyone inside the Bush administration with a crime. But with the case reaching a climax -- administration officials are braced for possible indictments as early as this week-- it is increasingly clear that Cheney and his aides have been deeply enmeshed in events surrounding the Plame affair from the outset. It was a request by Cheney for more CIA information that, unknown to him, started a chain of events that led to Wilson's mission three years ago. His staff pressed the CIA for information about it one year later. And it was Libby who talked about Wilson's wife with at least two reporters before her identity became public, according to evidence Fitzgerald has amassed and which parties close to the case have acknowledged. Lawyers in the case said Fitzgerald has focused extensively on whether behind-the-scenes efforts by the vice president's aides and other senior Bush aides were part of a criminal campaign to punish Wilson in part by unmasking his wife. In a move people involved in the case read as a sign that the end is near, Fitzgerald's spokesman yesterday told the Associated Press that the prosecutor planned to announce his conclusions in Washington, where the grand jury has been meeting, instead of Chicago, where the prosecutor is based. Some lawyers close to the case cited courthouse talk that Fitzgerald might announce his findings as early as tomorrow, though hard evidence about his intentions and timing remained elusive. In the course of the investigation, Fitzgerald has been exposed to the intense, behind-the-scenes fight between Cheney's office and the CIA over prewar intelligence and the vice president's central role in compiling and then defending the intelligence used to justify the war. Miller, in a first-person account Sunday in the Times, recalled that Libby complained in a June 23, 2003, meeting in his office that the CIA was engaged in "selective leaking" and a "hedging strategy" that would make the agency look equally prescient whether or not weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. The special prosecutor has personally interviewed numerous officials from the CIA, White House and State Department. In the process, he and his investigative team have talked to a number of Cheney aides, including Mary Matalin, his former strategist; Catherine Martin, his former communications adviser; and Jennifer Millerwise, his former spokeswoman. In the case of Millerwise, she talked with the prosecutor more than two years ago but never appeared before the grand jury, according to a person familiar with her situation. Starting in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the vice president was at the forefront of a White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that invading Iraq was central to defeating terrorists worldwide. Cheney, a longtime proponent of toppling Saddam Hussein, led the White House effort to build the case that Iraq was an imminent threat because it possessed a dangerous arsenal of weapons. Before the war, he traveled to CIA headquarters for briefings, an unusual move that some critics interpreted as an effort to pressure intelligence officials into supporting his view of the evidence. After the war, when critics started questioning whether the White House relied on faulty information to justify war, Cheney and Libby were central to the effort to defend the intelligence and discredit the naysayers in Congress and elsewhere. Administration officials acknowledge that Cheney was immersed in Iraq intelligence, and pressed aides repeatedly for information on weapons programs. He regularly requested follow-up information from the CIA and others when a piece of intelligence caught his eye. Wilson's trip, for example, was triggered by a question Cheney asked during a regular morning intelligence briefing. He had received a Defense Intelligence Agency report alleging Iraq had sought uranium from Niger and wanted to know what else the CIA may have known. Cheney's office was not told ahead of time about the Wilson mission to investigate the claim. In the Bush White House, Cheney typically has operated secretly, relying on advice from a tight circle of longtime advisers, including Libby; David Addington, his counsel; and his wife, Lynne, and two children, including Liz, a top State Department official. But a former Cheney aide, who requested anonymity, said it is "implausible" that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of Plame's name because he rarely, if ever, involved himself in press strategy. One fact apparently critical to Fitzgerald's inquiry is when Libby learned about Plame and her CIA employment. Information that has emerged so far leaves this issue murky. A former CIA official told investigators that Cheney's office was seeking information about Wilson in May 2003, but it's not certain that officials with the vice president learned of the Plame connection then. Miller, in her account, said Libby raised the issue of Plame in the June 23, 2003, meeting, describing her as a CIA employee and asserting that she had arranged the trip to Niger. Earlier that month, Libby discussed Wilson's trip with The Washington Post but never mentioned his wife. Senior administration officials said there was a document circulated at the State Department -- before Libby talked to Miller -- that mentioned Plame. It was drafted in June as an administrative letter and addressed to then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who was acting secretary at the time since Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage were out of the country. As a former State Department official involved in the process recalled it, Grossman wanted the letter as background for a meeting at the White House, where the discussion was focused on then growing criticism of Bush's inclusion in his January State of the Union speech of the allegation that Hussein had been seeking uranium from Niger. The letter to Grossman discussed the reasons the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) did not believe the intelligence, which originated from foreign sources, was accurate. It had a paragraph near the beginning, marked "(S)," meaning it was classified secret, describing a meeting at the CIA in February 2002, attended by another INR analyst, where Plame introduced her husband as the person who was to go to Niger. Attached to the letter were the notes from the INR analyst who had attended the session, but they were written well after the event occurred and contained mistakes about who was there and what was said, according to a former intelligence official who reviewed the document in the summer of 2003. Grossman has refused to answer questions about the letter, and it is not clear whether he talked about it at the White House meeting he was said to have attended, according to the former State official. Fitzgerald has questioned several witnesses from the CIA and State Department before the grand jury about the INR memo, according to lawyers familiar with the case. © 2005 The Washington Post Company

US security chief strives to expel all illegal immigrants Oct 18 11:47 AM US/Eastern Email this story Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department aims without exception to expel all those who enter the United States illegally. "Our goal at DHS (Homeland Security) is to completely eliminate the 'catch and release' enforcement problem, and return every single illegal entrant, no exceptions. "It should be possible to achieve significant and measurable progress to this end in less than a year," Chertoff told a Senate hearing. Thousands of "Mexicans who are caught entering the United States illegally are returned immediately to Mexico. But other parts of the system have nearly collapsed under the weight of numbers. The problem is especially severe for non-Mexicans apprehended at the southwest border," Chertoff explained. "Today, a non-Mexican illegal immigrant caught trying to enter the United States across the southwest border has an 80 percent chance of being released immediately because we lack the holding facilities," he added. "Through a comprehensive approach, we are moving to end this 'catch and release' style of border enforcement by reengineering our detention and removal process." Chertoff's remarks in favor of returning "every illegal entrant, no exceptions" appeared to conflict directly with the US policy toward illegal Cuban migrants. Though Cubans picked up at sea are returned to their country, those who reach US soil by air, sea or ground are allowed to stay and work -- a fact Cuba says encourages dangerous illegal emigration attempts

"That isn't journalism. It's wishful thinking on the part of those who need Iraq to fail to preserve their credibility." BINGO! If that alone does not highlight the depths to which the American left and their butt pirates in the press have sunk to, nothing will! History will NOT be kind to today's American left, democratic party and liberal agenda driven media.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT I was just watching television here about, oh, 35 or 40 minutes ago, after I had finished the intense show prep period for today, and I saw Dianne Feinstein. I guess this was on CNN, and Dianne Feinstein was saying (paraphrasing), "It is just outrageous. It is just unconscionable to see how to right wing is attacking Harriet Miers. It is unbelievable." She may vote for Miers simply because of the "sexism" being exhibited by conservatives -- and I'm sitting here watching this, and I'm just laughing myself silly. When I hear a Democrat talk about how horrible it is for people to start destroying somebody's character, particularly a Democrat on the Senate judiciary committee, where that art has been perfected! Senator Feinstein, does the name Robert Bork mean anything to you? Does the name Clarence Thomas mean anything to you? There have been any number of them. How about Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor? How about Miguel Estrada? What do you mean? You should have voted for all these people. I guess it's okay when the left destroys people. I guess it's okay when the left sets out to destroy careers and lives and reputations, but when the conservatives simply question the wisdom of a nomination, "Why, we can't have that! It's terrible. I don't believe what I'm seeing." These people live in a totally different world, folks. They do live in a totally different world. I'll give you a little backup for this. I happen to know this, as some of you may know by now, I told you on Friday they had asked me to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and it ran today -- and I have been hearing all morning long from sources that this op-ed stunned a bunch of people in the mainstream media. They had not seen anything like this. They were fascinated by the points made in this op-ed. It was totally new to them. It was foreign, and like I say in the op-ed, liberals will never understand conservatives; they never have, and they never will. One person even said, "You know, it wasn't even knee-jerk. It was so reasonably presented," and true enough, MSNBC today quotes from it, as does CNN, and as I'm listening to people tell me this, I ask myself again, "All people would have to do is listen to this program once in the past two weeks and this op-ed would not be strange to them at all. It wouldn't be odd; it wouldn't be new. It wouldn't be, 'Oh, wow, we never thought of that. Why, I haven't seen that before!'" Or if they don't want to take time to listen, I have a website where my program is transcribed. It's just fascinating. I have been here over 17 years, and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and many in the mainstream press are stunned. They have never heard this kind of logic or reasoning before especially, "It was so reasonably presented! Why, it wasn't knee-jerk, and it wasn't wild or crazy or mean-spirited or extreme or any of that." I must have had ten or 12 e-mails today from people. We have people inside all these places, folks, and people talk and so forth, but I've just been chuckling about it. But it follows right along with Dianne Feinstein. Here she's listening to what she thinks is harsh, mean-spirited, extreme criticism of Harriet Miers from people on the right, and it's got her so fired up she might vote for Harriet Miers, and yet what they have done, as Democrats, to destroy the reputations and lives and careers of so many conservatives just never even registers -- which, frankly, was one of the foundations in my thinking in writing the op-ed at the Wall Street Journal. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: So we had a couple comments in the mainstream press about this today. First on CNN during their American Morning segment, Soledad O'Brien talking to Ron Brownstein of the LA Times, also a CNN contributor, and Soledad said, "You know, Rush Limbaugh has an article he's written in the Wall Street Journal. He says the Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. 'This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives, and we are organized to advance them,' and he's basically saying all this bickering among conservatives isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing, shows how tough and strong we are." BROWNSTEIN: It certainly shows how tough the conservative movement is. What was really interesting to me about reading that paragraph in particular, and I'm glad you cited that one is, you know, the implicit sentiment in the word "crackdown" is that President Bush is the one who has to be cracked down upon. In the -- in the way that Rush Limbaugh's phrasing it in that article he's sort of putting President Bush outside of the conservative movement and basically saying it's the conservative movement's job to bring him back to heel. This is a president who by and large through his first term rarely was at odds with them, pursued very many policy, uh, initiatives both at home and abroad that were -- that were very attractive to conservatives, even at the price of polarizing the electorate and alienating Democrats, and I think the Limbaugh article underscores the extent to which he has now gotten crosswise with -- and he is in a difficult position where he has to repair his standing both with his base and with the middle at the same time. That's not easy to do. RUSH: (sigh) Anybody want to tell me what's wrong with this? You take a stab at one glaring thing wrong with this? There's one glaring thing wrong with this. He's got some of it right. The one glaring thing wrong about this is that they cannot get it through their heads that George Bush isn't on the ballot in 2008, and so whatever we're trying to do here vis-Ã -vis the crackdown, it's not oriented toward making George W. Bush more conservative -- and that's where they don't understand conservatives and where they never will. We're already looking at '06 and '08 and we're looking at other candidates, folks. They're looking at Bush as still the guy they have to run against and they think that we're running against Bush, that we're positioning ourselves against Bush, and that's not the case. We know Bush is in his second term. We know Bush is going to do what he's going to do. Bush is a known commodity. He's a known quantity. He has a lot of love and respect among all of us on the right. We have followed this man through thick and thin. The war on terror is one of the primary reasons why. It is crucial. He has been the standard bearer on this. There have been some things that have not been quintessentially conservative but you know you don't get everything you want all the time. That's why you keep battling for it. But they can continue to focus in Bush in '08, '06 and so forth, but they miss the point about what we're doing and who we're looking at and where and why and what the objective is. I mean the objective is to keep winning elections, and since Bush isn't on the ballot in 2008, "bringing him to heel" is not what this is about. But they think it is. Even despite this, they still look at this as a huge rift. "Uh-oh, Limbaugh has thrown a dagger into the heart of George W. Bush and said, 'Shape up, buddy, or we're shipping out,'" and that's not at all what the piece says, and for this we should be grateful, in a sense, because we're going to continue to be as conservatives, have the ability to operate in a stealth-like fashion because even when they watch us out in the open they don't see what we're doing. They don't see what we're about. They don't see what motivates us. (sigh) Stunning. Let's go to Norah O'Donnell. She was on MSNBC this morning, and this is a little bit of her piece talking about what I had written regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers. O'DONNELL: What's interesting is that when we heard so many conservatives talk about how disappointed they were with Harriet Miers and saddened by this nomination and shows how weak the president is. Well, there's been somewhat of a turnaround, if you will. We already see Rush Limbaugh today writing a piece in the Wall Street Journal saying, listen, this doesn't show a big crackup in the Republican Party. This debate that we're having in fact shows that there's a crackdown and that we can in fact have a strength in the conservative movement, Limbaugh writing, "There is no crackup, it's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives and we are organized to advance them." Limbaugh making the case essentially that the purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. So you see some of the circling of the wagons... RUSH: (Laughing.) I'm sorry, folks. I can't explain that one. All I can tell you is that once again, staring it right in the face, reading it word-for-word, they still get it wrong. This was not circle the wagons. This op-ed piece, nor anything I said last week that led to this op-ed, is not circling the wagons. Circling the wagons is what you do when you take a defensive position, when the Injuns are surrounding you and they're launching the bow and arrows at you, you circle the wagons and so forth. That's not what's happening here. The left is circling the wagons. The left can't figure out who they are. The left is afraid to tell everybody who they are. The stuff in this op-ed that should have awakened them; the stuff in this op-ed that should have opened their eyes the stuff in this op-ed that should have made them go, "Whoa, he may have had a point" has totally escaped them. All they can see no matter what they read is, "The conservatives still mad at Bush! Limbaugh firing latest salvo!" They're totally missing the point. But I know you don't. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: All right, now, I have a couple new stories here to make my point, make the point that I made in the op-ed. First, the Washington Times. It's a piece by Donald Lambro: "Bruised GOP Swinging Back." Te upshot of his piece is that it's the Democrats who are in jeopardy. "Inside the Washington Beltway, things do look problematic for Mr. Bush and Republicans. Their polls are way down, due to, among other things, Iraq, gas prices," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. "But things are much different out in the real world where next month the Democrats could suffer back-to-back gubernatorial defeats in New Jersey and Virginia that would send a powerful message the GOP is very much alive and kicking. New Jersey is by far the most stunning political development in months. Jon Corzine, considered a shoe-in, is suddenly in a dead heat with his opponent, Republican Doug Forrester, according to an independent WNBC Marist poll and 600 registered voters. The latest numbers, along with corroborating internal polling data, have stunned political pros and shaken the Corzine campaign that once seemed to have a lock on the election in this heavily Democratic state. The race is driven by two huge issues: Democrat corruption in Trenton, and punishing property taxes, issues on which Mr. Corzine looks weak and that Mr. Forrester has hammered since day one." It's corruption. It's property taxes." Now, inside the Beltway, the Democrats mantra is that we have a "climate of corruption" going on in the US House and in the Republican Party, and yet out in the real world where we're go to have a real election if you look at some polling data, you'll find that Democrats -- and people in New Jersey, period -- are fed up with high property taxes which is happening throughout the Northeast. I would love to get personal with you about this at some point, and maybe I will someday about why I go to New York so rarely, but that's for another day. Bottom line is that a lot of people are fed up with it and if they could get out, they would, but most can't so they can do only one thing and that's try to change their leadership. High property taxes, corruption in Trenton. Then we move on to the Washington Post where the headline is: "House GOP Leaders Set to Cut Spending -- House Republican leaders have moved from balking at big cuts in Medicaid and other programs to embracing them, driven by pent-up anger from fiscal conservatives concerned about runaway spending and the leadership's own weakening hold on power." Now, I talked to Mike Pence, who is leading the House Republican efforts to cut spending, for an interview in the upcoming issue of The Limbaugh Letter, and he told me last week exactly what this story says, that he's got more and more House Republicans joining his team after they go home on break and they listen to their constituents and they come back and say, "You know, maybe you got something going here. I want to get on your team." So the number of Republicans in the House that want to get their arms around this run away spending is increasing. "The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee launched a public crusade for spending cuts last month with its leaders use news conferences, TV appearances, and media interviews to all but accuse the GOP leadership of profligacy. House leaders first tried to crush the RNC or at least push its efforts behind closed doors, but that didn't work." So the efforts to neuter these House Republicans didn't work. They're coming back and coming on strong. And then from the San Francisco Chronicle, a story written by their bureau chief, Marc Sandalow. "Listen to Democrats, and it's easy to say what they are not." The headline says it all here: "As Republicans Stumble, Democrats Bumble: Strategists Say Dems Having Trouble Finding Identity, Offering Compelling Alternative," and that's because we've defined them. They cannot define themselves, folks. They don't dare! They do not dare. So while the mainstream press looking at my op-ed wants to focus only on what it says about Harriet Miers, they miss the real point of the whole thing which is that it's the Democrats that are cracking up; it's the Democrats that are in trouble. It's the mainstream press that's lost its influence, and we conservatives in the middle of a debate are doing nothing more than advancing our ideas, honestly and openly and with optimism, passion, and courage! And we're afraid of nobody about anything. We're not afraid to tell people who we think, and we're not afraid to persuade them. The Democrats can't even be honest with people about who they are and what they believe. END TRANSCRIPT Read the Articles... (Rush Limbaugh: There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup.") (Washington Times: Bruised GOP Swinging Back) (Washington Post: House GOP Leaders Set to Cut Spending) (SF Chronicle: As Republicans Stumble, Democrats Bumble)