http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082906/content/media_update_2.guest.html

The Media and Fitzgerald Knew Armitage Was the
Leaker, But Continued Smearing Bush & Rove for It

August 29, 2006

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to give you some of the polling questions, some of the
answers during the whole Plamegate scandal to illustrate the difference
between the so-called media frenzy and fraud that was perpetrated on
them by the John Mark Karr case and the Boulder DA versus the Plamegate
business. Real damage to real people, to a real country, during time of
war, and it was done on purpose, and I cannot stress this enough. The
whole thing is scandalous to me. It reeks of a purposeful fraud because
these people that are reporting all of this about Bush and Cheney and
Rove and Scooter Libby had to know that it was Armitage, they had to
know.

They couldn't possibly not know, not during the whole two-year period.
They might not have known during the first four months, but at some
point during this they had to know that it was Armitage and yet it
didn't matter, didn't fit the template. So cast it aside. Armitage
isn't talking so what do we got to lose by reporting that it's Rove or
that Fitzgerald thinks it's Rove or that Fitzgerald is going to indict
Rove? How many months did we go, "Rove's going to be indicted. Rove has
been indicted, but the indictment is sealed. The indictment is
imminent, coming right around the corner, next weekend, perhaps
Saturday," blah, blah, all of this stuff?

(story) "ABC/Washington Post asked in September of 2003," we're coming
up on three years ago now, "the US justice department has opened an
investigation into whether somebody in the White House broke the law by
identifying a former diplomat's wife as an undercover CIA agent. The
former diplomat claims this was done to punish him for criticizing US
policy in Iraq. Have you heard or read anything about this? 68% yes,
32%, no. So over two-thirds of the American people had heard the
allegation. Now, compare that to the recent survey that indicated how
few people could name two Supreme Court justices, at only 24%.

"So how effective was the marketing of this lie? Well, the same
Washington Post/ABC poll asked this question. Just your best guess: How
likely or unlikely do you think it is that someone in the White House
leaked this information? Very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat
unlikely, or very unlikely, 34% very likely; 38% somewhat likely; 10%
somewhat unlikely," blah, blah. So the reporting was so effective, the
reporting was so damning that 72% of the American people indicated they
believed that the White House had done this! When it was Armitage --
all the while the people conducting the poll knew it!

Almost 75% of the United States population duped by the Drive-By Media
reporting that the Bush administration had leaked Valerie Plame's name
in retaliation! Pew Research, April of 2006, this year: "Last week,
documents were released indicating that President Bush may have
authorized his staff to leak prewar intelligence about Iraq to the
press in order undermine war critics. How much have you heard about
this, a little, a lot, or nothing at all? A lot, 32%. A little, 46%.
Nothing, 22%." So again, 78% of Americans heard that George Bush
personally leaked documents to undermine war critics.

Of course, the fact that it is not a leak, since the president has
declassification authority, was not included in the stupid question.
The really interesting part is, now that we know for sure that the
administration didn't go after Plame, how did people determine that
those documents indicated the president did it? In other words, they
were all just going off media reports that were wrong. It goes on, USA
Today and Gallup. "Which of the following statements best describes
your view of George W. Bush in these matters? He did something illegal,
he did not do anything illegal, but did something unethical, or he did
do anything seriously wrong. Illegal 21, unethical 42, a phenomenal 63%
of the public believed that George W. Bush, the president, acted at
least unethically based on mainstream media reporting."

And it goes on and on and on from Bush to Cheney to Rove, poll after
poll indicating a heavy majority of Americans were convinced by the
media coverage that the Bush administration had acted at least
unethically when the unethical behavior, the near-scandalous behavior
here is almost totally owned by the Drive-By Media. It was Armitage,
and they knew it, particularly back in April of this year. This was not
a well-kept secret. You know these people had to know this. Now,
contrast all of this to coverage of the Lewinsky scandal in which
President Clinton actually admitted to committing wrongdoing
eventually.

"As a result of his actions in the Lewinsky investigation, do you think
Bill Clinton should lose his license to practice law or should he keep
his license to practice law? 58% of respondents indicated in May of
2000 a lawyer should keep his law license even after committing
perjury. This is a phenomenal indicator of the power of the Drive-By
Media to literally create a news story from the reporting template and
then hammer it until it becomes ingrained as fact. Of course it goes
without saying that the media owes some balanced coverage to offset the
political damage the Plame affair created." It ain't going to happen.

"A look at the President's personal polling numbers show that they
decline over the course of the unfolding Plame plot, but with other
variables, such as perceived success in Iraq, we can not say for sure
exactly what effect this story had. But we know enough to determine
that the media promulgated a lie so hard and heavy that almost
everybody heard it and absent any hard evidence, convinced the vast
majority," that the lie was true. The American Thinker picked this up.
This is Ray Robison at his blog. We'll provide you a link to it this
afternoon if you want to read through all of this. Now, it's starting
up all over again. Look at the headlines of these two stories.

(story) "CNN Starts Week-Long Katrina Series with Attack on Insurance
Companies." So put Big Insurance on the list of companies that the
Democratic Party and the American left and the Drive-By Media now seek
to destroy. There is also a headline here: "State Farm Calls ABC's
20/20 Show 'Grossly Unfair.'" So 20/20 on ABC, CNN going after the
insurance industry one year after Hurricane Katrina, and that isn't
going to be hard. Who likes their insurance company? Nobody likes their
insurance company, right? Everybody thinks their insurance company is
out to screw 'em. Everybody thinks the insurance company's never going
to pay off a claim, and if they do pay off they're going to then cancel
you, so what's the point of having insurance?

You only have insurance because the law makes you have it for your car,
and the mortgage lender makes you have it for your house, but it's all
a rip-off, right? So the insurance company is next to be targeted right
alongside Wal-Mart. But there is an interesting story here by our old
buddy Nedra Pickler in the Associated Press. This is the last little
bit here on the Plamegate story. "Karl Rove was not 'frog-marched' out
of the White House in handcuffs as his detractors had hoped, but the
past year was certainly a low point for President Bush's close friend
and chief political strategist." Why? Why was it a low point? Nothing
Rove did made it a low point. Not one darn thing that Rove did made it
a low point, Nedra. You had a bona fide media scandal here that
targeted people who had nothing to do with it, and most of you in the
Drive-By Media knew it all along.

"A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months, then he
was forced to surrender a key policy role in a move that raised
questions about his authority in the White House. Rove fell under a
legal cloud after a grand jury began investigating the leak." That just
infuriates me. The investigation was pointless as well! The
investigation -- you know what? There would not have been a crime were
it not for the investigation! The only crime in this whole thing,
unless you want to say Armitage committed one. (laughing) The only
crime occurred as a result of the investigation which should not have
happened in the first place once the justice department found out it
was Armitage. What's the point? Why go any further with it?

The whole thing was who leaked her name to Novak. Answer: Richard
Armitage and his buddy, Colin Powell. I would love to know his
involvement in this, too. I really would. You know, Armitage is the
kind of guy that would take a bullet. But I, ladies and gentlemen, am
not going to speculate about things I don't know. I'm sharing my
curiosity with you, but I am making no claims. This whole thing is
ridiculous. It is worse than an example of how the media can poison the
minds of the population. Staking out Karl Rove at his home, following
him home from the White House, seeing if he stopped off at a phone
booth, you know, change into the Superman suit and go destroy somebody
else at the CIA or what have you, all the while the people doing the
investigation knew it was Armitage!

There wouldn't have been a crime if there hadn't been an investigation.
Now, what does that say? An investigation about something -- I'm sorry
to keep pounding this, folks, but an investigation about something the
investigators knew led to a crime that would never have been committed
were it not for the investigation. Anyway, "Rove learned in June that
he would not be indicted. With that threat behind him, Rove is back to
his old playful self - sporting Elvis sideburns on a recent trip to
Memphis with the president and traveling around the country for
lucrative storytelling to GOP donors. The Republican base never
flinched at suggestions that Rove tried to smear --" and the reason is
that the Republican base understood what this was from the get-go. It
was an attempt to frame members of the Bush administration. "At a
recent presidential fundraiser near Bush's Texas ranch, a line that
formed for photos with Rove was nearly as long as the line waiting to
see the president."

The bottom line here, "Asked about his recent weight loss, Rove,
without mentioning the liquid-based diet, smiled and told reporters
he'd lost 22 pounds through 'clean living.' The mischievous Rove stuck
his head out of the car before it sped off to add gleefully: 'And
avoiding you guys.'" The bottom line is, ladies and gentlemen, when
your opponent hits you and it doesn't stick, you end up stronger for
it. Rove is much stronger now than he was. They gave it their best
shot. They had to lie and make it up, and he is still standing stronger
and more powerful and more feared than ever.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082906/content/media_update_2.guest.html

The Media and Fitzgerald Knew Armitage Was the
Leaker, But Continued Smearing Bush & Rove for It
August 29, 2006