Rush Limbaugh: Media Mandate: "Whatever It Takes" (Rush nails Dan Ratherbiased on Watergate)

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | 6/3/05 | Rush Limbaugh

[wagglebee]

RUSH: Let's start with this Watergate stuff. Get this. This is a story from WBAL TV, Channel 11 in Baltimore. "The former FBI official who revealed himself this week as Deep Throat apparently also leaked information to The Washington Post about two of the biggest stories in Maryland in the 1970s. Post reporter Bob Woodward wrote in Thursday's paper that Mark Felt told him in the spring of 1972 during the Watergate investigation that the FBI had some information that Vice President Spiro Agnew had received a $2,500 bribe. The tip produced no story, but Agnew resigned in 1973 upon his conviction for income-tax evasion. A Maryland judge found in 1981 that Agnew had accepted kickbacks as Maryland governor. Woodward also said Felt was his source for a 1972 story about the investigation into the wounding of Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace in Laurel. Woodward cited 'high federal officials' as saying there was no indication that suspect Arthur Bremer had been hired to shoot Wallace. George Beall, the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted both Agnew and Bremer, said the leaks didn't hurt either case. He said the reported bribe to Agnew wasn't substantiated, and the Bremer story eased concerns about a possible conspiracy." So here you have Deep Throat also leaking information on Agnew. This guy was leaking all over the place. He clearly had a bug on for the Nixon administration, and let's be honest. They're portraying this guy as a holier-than-thou devotee of the FBI. The FBI was no Romper Room here when J. Edgar Hoover was running that place. I mean, let's put it on the table here.

The FBI had its own brand of power structure corruption, shall we say. Hoover had his own ways of getting presidents to tow his own line because he's out collecting dirt on them. How do you think what's-his-name, Felt, finds out about this stuff? So the more we learn about this, the more we find out how dirty everybody is in all of this. You know, Felt's leaking all the time about all kinds of things, including Agnew. There was no cover-up or threat of a cover-up in that case. Sometimes his information was wrong. It just shows that they liked the guy because he was attacking the Nixon crowd, and I also found this little piece from Michael Ledeen, on the Corner, in the Corner, at National Review Online. Ledeen writes: "I sometimes lecture on 'journalism,' and much of that talk consists of excerpts from All the President's Men by Woodward and Bernstein. In that book, they admit to a wide range of unethical and illegal behavior, from tampering with a grand jury to illegally obtaining and using private telephone records (a kind of private Patiot [sic] Act for the Post). Then I read from a section (pp. 184-192) in which they discuss an unhappy event. They had written that grand jury testimony had fingered Haldeman as a conspirator in 'Watergate'. Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press secretary, had violently denied it. Woodstein went back to their sources, and concluded they had been deceived. The story was wrong. Then (pg 192): 'The reporters said (to Bradlee, their editor) they were virtually certain that Sloan must not have given testimony about Haldeman before the grand jury. Woodward suggested writing that much, at least, and acknowledging their error.'

"No way, said Bradlee... 'Bradlee then turned to his typewriter... after a number of false starts, he issued the following statement: 'We stand by our story.'" So Bradlee stood by a false story published by Woodward and Bernstein. "And there's a footnote: 'He was later to recall: "I issued two statement in that one year...Geez, what options did I really have? ...I can remember sitting down at the typewriter and writing about thirty statements and then sort of saying, 'F**k it, let's go stand by our boys,'" and Ledeen says, "Which is why I have no heroes in this saga..." So here you have, they admit in their book, All the President's Men, a wide range of unethical, illegal behavior: Tampering with a grand jury; illegally obtaining and using private phone records, and then not admitting their mistake or error. So you have Woodward and Bernstein admitting that they lied, that they cheated, and they covered up. I mean, what Ben Bradlee did, standing by his boys, was a cover-up. They covered up. Nobody investigates the Post; nobody investigations other media outlets. Oh, no, no, no, no! They're insulated from what they do to other people. They can go out and destroy anybody they want. You better not try to find out anything about them. They are able to conduct themselves in the same manner in which they try to cite others as unethical or crooked, and then seek to destroy them. Dan Rather was the same thing. It's just he got caught.

But here's what the point is, folks: We have Woodward and Bernstein by their own admission in their book lying, engaging in unethical behavior, and covering up mistakes, and today this is being called great journalism. This whole orgy this week has been about, "This is our high point, this is the peak of our mountaintop, this is when we were the best, this is what journalism is meant to be all about. Yes!" This is great journalism, right? Well, if this is great journalism, then this is the standard by which we should measure them. We should assume that journalists are lying, behaving in unethical ways, and covering up their own mistakes. We should assume that that is what great journalism is. They are every bit what we call them and think of them. You know, frankly, I don't think that Woodward and Bernstein and Bradlee or the mainstream media realizes that the more we learn about Mark Felt and his motives and the Post's reporting techniques, the more sleazy and disreputable they all look. While they're out there touting themselves as, "This is great journalism, this is when it was really good, there weren't any distractions out there like Limbaugh. We were able to go do whatever we wanted to do. If we wanted to destroy a president with phony forged documents from the Texas National Guard, then by God, we could do it and that's great journalism." Fine. We will judge them on this basis, ladies and gentlemen. Just that simple.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: These guys have assumed what Nixon was. They have become what Nixon was. The people in the mainstream press. Let me give you an audio sound bite here to demonstrate it. Dan Rather last night on CNN, the second edition of Larry King Live, a caller called in and said, "Yes, I have a question for Dan Rather. I'd like to know your opinion on the speculation that Mark Felt should have gone to his boss at the FBI or to the president with concerns about the Watergate investigation. You played a major role in investigative journalism, [Gunga Dan.] Is it realistic to even think that?"

RATHER: No, I don't think he had a choice. I think he took the way that he knew would be most effective. I think the country owes Katherine Graham, Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and Mark Felt a debt of gratitude for what they did because I repeat for emphasis this was people believing they were above the Constitution, they were above the law, and they were very nearly pulling it off, and whatever it took to get them -- that is, to expose them, to bring it into the sunlight -- I don't think you can applaud enough.

RUSH: "Whatever it took." Whatever it took? Forged documents! "We know the story's true. If we can't prove it, we'll manufacture the evidence. Whatever it takes; whatever it takes to get them." The media is granting to themselves unchecked, unboundaried behavior to get the bad guys, and in the process they do what they accuse the bad guys of doing, but let somebody start an investigation of their tactics. "Oh, no, no, no! You can't do that." Of course Ben Bradlee, all these people are owed a big debt. Notice that nobody cares to find out what Bill Moyers did, asking the FBI for name checks on Senate staffers of Barry Goldwater, and the legions -- the examples here are legion that I could give you of other presidents, other administrations engaging in Nixonian-like behavior. But of course those were Democrats and as such, they were untouchable. Let's listen to a little bit of Ben Bradlee, the former editor of the Washington Post, who decided to cover up a huge error made by Woodward and Bernstein when they misreported evidence that supposedly had come from grand jury testimony which was leaked, which is illegal. He refused to stand. He, in fact, stood by an error, rather than correct it. Last night, he was -- or I guess yesterday -- Judy Woodruff, Inside Politics, Judy says, "Here's something else that Chuck Colson is saying. He says he thinks it's very sad that Mark Felt broke the trust and the confidence of the president of the United States."

BRADLEE: Terribly sad? I mean, I'm crying. Why is it sad? I don't get that. He said Ben -- and think for a minute. Where would Felt have gone? He's -- he said he -- he saw something wrong in the government, and what should he have done? He can't -- he couldn't really go to his superior, who was L. Patrick Gray who was busy throwing documents into the Potomac River from the bridge. He couldn't go to the attorney general, who was on his way to jail himself.

RUSH: You hear the contempt here? The FBI director throwing documents off the bridge? You hear the contempt here? Let's not forget, ladies and gentlemen, Mark Felt could have resigned publicly and said, "There's corruption here and I'm not going to be a part of it. I love the FBI too much," could have gotten the media in on it. But you see the template here is that -- that no, no, no. The press has to be the ones to uncover this. You can't do it internally. You have to come to us. You have to come to us. It's the only thing he could have done. Rather said it, now Ben Bradlee has said it. The hatred for Nixon is just dripping in this next bite. Judy says, "Let me read you what Colson says. He says, 'If Felt wanted to talk, he should have revealed it to a grand jury or prosecutor.' He says, 'He should have gone to the president himself.' He said, 'If the president thinks the FBI is going to investigate him, he's going to act.' He said, 'The president couldn't have ignored this.'"

BRADLEE: You don't think he could? I mean, a president [sic] goes to Nixon? Give me a break.

WOODRUFF: You mean Felt could have gone directly.

BRADLEE: It is not realistic.

RUSH: Yeah, it's not realistic. I guess Woodward coming to Ben Bradlee saying, "You know, we really goofed up here, we made a mistake, we misreported illegal grand jury testimony, we're going to stand by it." What else could Woodward have done? Could Woodward have gone to the New York Times? Is that what he should have done? Should he have resigned? Should he have said I'm not going to work this way, we made a mistake, you're going to cover it up? So the Washington Post is involved in its own cover-up and admitted ethical lapses and so forth. Here's the final bite. Judy says, "The legacy of Watergate, clearly nobody disagrees that toppling a president, getting this government back on an even keel, critical outcome of this but the other... There is a debate, a bit of..." By the way, we do debate that, Judy. You say, "Nobody disagrees that toppling a president." A lot of people debate this. But she says, "There's a bit of a debate that goes on among journalists about whether what Woodward and Bernstein did, on the one hand, people say, 'Yeah, it led to good vigorous investigative reporting,' when others say, 'But it also lead to people who just want to make a name for themselves.' It led to people like, you know--"

BRADLEE: It wasn't just Woodward and Bernstein. I mean, they did the lion's share of the early work, but there was some great reporting done by other newspapers, including the Times, the LA Times, the Globe in Boston, so -- so we -- we -- we're getting all the credit we need and there are other newspapers who did plenty of things. Second, I -- I mean, the anonymous source was essential to it.

RUSH: Yeah. It gave us guys like Stephen Glass; it gave us guys like Jayson Blair. It gave us guys like reporters that have been fired at the Boston Globe, all these anonymous made-up quotes and sources. Yep. I'll tell you what, if this is the zenith of modern American journalism, Watergate, and what all happened there, we are thus being asked to judge journalism in that way and in that context, and so we're happy to do so because we have been all along. That's the dirty little secret. We have always suspected the media. I'm going to tell you something, folks. It is important to note, here they are committing the same kinds of transgressions that they think they need to put other people out of business for, that they seek to destroy. But by Dan Rather's own admission, "Well, we can do whatever it takes. We are the guardians. We're the guardians of the Constitution. We're the guardians of the First Amendment," and then he went on to say -- and I've got that bite. He went on to say, when he was being asked about his mistakes on the National Guard story, "Well, journalism is not an exact science." Of course not! It cannot be "exact," nor can it be a "science" when your mandate is, "Whatever it takes."

BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Since I mentioned Dan Rather, we may as well get these other two bites in from Larry King Live last night. This is about the forged document, Bill Burkett, Bush National Guard story. Larry said, "As you reflect, and after seeing the report, what went wrong in your matter of the Air National Guard story? Where along the way did it snap?"

RATHER: The documents were part of a fairly wide array of information that we had. The facts that we presented --

RUSH: Stop the tape! There aren't any facts. That's the point! That's the problem. There aren't any facts. The only thing of which there is a wide array is paranoid satellite antenna coming out of Dan Rather's head, thinking that things he's making up are true. There aren't any facts. We'll listen to more of this.

RATHER: -- and some of it new information was supported by all kinds of things other than the documents.

RUSH: Stop the tape. Then why did it get retracted? Why did it get apologized for? Where is all of this other detail or material? Where are all kinds of things other than the documents? Where are they? Why all the people involved quit or fired? Here's more.

RATHER: The panel came forward and what they concluded, among the things they concluded, after months of investigation and spending millions of dollars, they could not determine that the documents were fraudulent.

RUSH: Oh, oh.

RATHER: Important point. Said we don't know whether the documents are fraudulent or not.

RUSH: Be still my beating heart. My God, folks, he thinks they're still real! Does it occur to anybody? Here we have the CBS News investigative journalist department, the investigative journalism division. Something goes wrong with one of their stories; they can't investigate it themselves? If they can find all manner of things about Enron, Wal-Mart, Bill Burkett, George Bush, why can't they find out what went wrong in their own shop? Why does it require an independent commission? Is it because maybe people wouldn't believe what an internal investigation produced? Yes. What does it say about an investigative journalist who cannot investigate his own work? Because nobody would believe the result. So you have to bring in a lawyer, Richard Thornburg -- who, by the way, was also retained by CBS for other things. He can't produce a report that harms his client. He'd be guilty of malpractice. That's why there was no bias as part of the report and that's why we couldn't conclude anything about the documents. So it was a whitewash, in a way, but it was also kid glove treatment for the people inside CBS. But we all know they're forged. Everybody knows it. But here's the last holdout, Dan Rather, and here's a bite on that. Larry says, "Are you saying the story might be correct?"

RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view.

KING: You have that view?

RATHER: Well, I'm saying a prudent person might take that view. Number two, important, the --

RUSH: Wait wait wait wait! Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! We're talking about facts here. We're talking about journalists. Journalists! "A prudent person might take the view that the story's right."

"Well, do you have that view, Dan?"

"I'm just saying a prudent person might take that view."

Isn't that the kind of answer a president would give you, Dan, in a press conference that you'd launch into him all over him as evading? Isn't that the kind of an answer that you'd spend two weeks trying to destroy a president over for not being forthcoming? What's he trying to hide? Why won't he be forthcoming with us? Here's the rest of the bite.

RATHER: The story was not -- the story was not born of any personal or political bias [sic]. I do hope people will keep in mind that two of the findings were what I just described to you, wasn't born of personal or political bias, and they could not determine whether the documents were fraudulent or not.

RUSH: Stop the tape a minute. Did anybody hear Larry ask him about that? When people start denying something that hasn't been asked... Now, I know the allegation has been out there that there was bias in the reporting, but Larry didn't ask him that because Larry wants him to come back. Someday. Larry didn't ask him but he's out there denying it anyway. You always got to be suspicious of that.

RATHER: It's not a complaint but I do want to point out -- and I understand when people write about this story, they often say, "Well, they dealt with fake documents or fraudulent documents." Let's just say gently that that's not known.

RUSH: You know, the obvious thing is, "Come on, Dan. Wake up. I mean, get out of the fog." It's not known that they're forged? Yes, it is. It is! They had their own experts that told them they were forged and they didn't use them because they wanted the story. They didn't want the fact known that these were forged. They tried to get away with this because they forgot that their power no longer exists. They don't have a monopoly anymore. But all that aside, all that aside, we just heard Dan Rather say, in praising Woodward, Bernstein, Felt, Bradlee, et al. "Whatever it takes." Now, clearly, Dan Rather believes that George Bush didn't do right at the National Guard. Clearly Dan Rather believes this. Clearly Dan Rather believes that George W. Bush lied and got favoritism type help from his powerful father and was allowed to get away with without going to Vietnam for a cushy job flying jets. Rather believes this, does he not? He believes it. Well, Dan, what happened to "whatever it takes"? If whatever it takes to get somebody you believe is corrupt and lying at the highest levels of power, why don't you stand behind the forged documents? You're just doing whatever it takes. Why have to defend the document? Why have to get into an argument about whether documents are forged or not? You believe them, so say, "I know this is true." Whatever it takes, Dan.

This wouldn't be the first time that you and your practitioners have used lies and deception and false charges to try to harm people. Why not just follow it up? Follow it through? "Yeah, we forged the documents because we know he's guilty. And whatever it takes to get powerful people." Why not just admit, that's what you're doing about Watergate. You're going back 32 years. What's the Washington Post done for anybody in 32 years but lose subscribers? What are you doing? You have to back 32 years to celebrate the salad days and in the process of celebrating the salad days, we're told the epitome of great journalism is this? Well, if so, Dan, if that's the epitome of great journalism, you need to change your tack on this. You need to admit the documents are forged and give yourself credit for doing what you could, whatever it took, to get a corrupt president out of office. And then keep trying. Don't admit failure. Make up more stuff about Bush. Whatever it takes, Dan.

[ashtanga]

Texas Eagle, even Rush admitted that Nixon gave the Socialists a nice slab of their goodies, including the EPA. Bush, though I respect him at a certain level, called the Minutemen "vigilantes." Where to turn? The birkenstockers don't even know that the so-called conservatives are in their corner, for the most part. I think that they hate Bush because they are only allowed to vent their poison on white Christians. All else is lost in marijuana fog.

[ashtanga]

I have a few problems with Rush, and Lord knows I don't need another Republican apologist, but Rush is utterly fascinating when he dissects the main stream news. His analysis is uncanny, brilliant, explosive and addictive. So fascinating is he sometimes that I can feel my breathing patterns change as he gets ready to probe even more deeply into the festering lie that the gimmicrat party has become.

[potlatch]

Good link, I saved it under Hillary!!

[Texas Eagle]

Where to turn?

Yeah, President Bush's criticism of The Minutemen sticks in my craw, too. The best we can do is vote for the man who we think will best serve the American peoples' interests and pray that they do so.

The Godless Left hated Nixon because he had the letter "R" in parentheses after his name. They hate President Bush for the same reason.

They don't realize it, but they can't keep up the same fervor that brought Nixon down and they can't pass that hatred on to their posterity in sufficient numbers to sustain their worldview.

The future's so bright you gotta wear shades. And suffer the occasional foray to the left by fine men like President Bush. As aggravating as that may be, in the long run Christianity and Conservatism (in that order) will carry the day.

[TBP]

This is nothing new, nothing we didn't already know. But maybe Dan needs a fake memo to explain it to him.

[CyberAnt]

Good point!

[Varmint Al]

I was a charter subscriber to Rush 24/7. I signed in the first hour when Rush first said it was available. Not to wait around, I signed up today for the automatic Pod-Cast and just listened to the second hour's MP3 file while I was reading along with the text. Rush reads very well. As only a professional can he really bring out the meaning and emphasis of an issue. By the way, the Automatic Pod-Cast worked and each hour is 12,700Kb. At this compression rate, an 80 Min CD will hold approximately 17 days of broadcasts. A DVD+R will hold about 123 days or 25 weeks of broadcasts.

  Good Hunting… from Varmint Al

[JasonC]

Every elected official currently in office, and every elected official who has held office for the last 30 years, has taken bribes. Might shock you I suppose, but that is the truth. Not all of them have been removed from office over it. Precious few, in fact.

[Lancey Howard]

Good post! But the title is misleading. I thought that Rush had "nailed" the "ratherbiased" website. I said huh?

[syriacus]

Rather: The story was not -- the story was not born of any personal or political bias [sic].

It was born of out of the Liberal view of what "justice" should be like...
a Star Chamber
where

• lives are destroyed
• verdicts are handed down before legal investigations are completed and
• there is no opportunity for self-defense

[driftless]

Have to agree with you about the direction Hannity's taking. Is he getting paid by Fox to babble about these inconsequential events? What true conservative wants to listen to him go on about a celebrity trial or some nut who ran away from her wedding? Certainly not me. Is Hannity more concerned about Sean Hannity Inc. than presenting a good conservative talk show? I wonder. Hey Sean, here's some free advice. Save the soap opera fluff for Larry King.

[virgil]

Nixon was liberal on some fronts. I wouldn't call him the best president ever, but he was not soft on the commies and the left hated him for it. I think it goes back to Alger Hiss. I don't think Nixon was the beast that he was made out to be then and in the 30 or so years since. He did wrong and he decided to resign for the good of the country. There is no such morality or self examination on the left. To the left, there is only rationalization. Morality does not come into play.

[Matchett-PI]

"Rush was absolutely on fire.." ~ wagglebee

You got it. Here are the links to the articles he talked about:

(WBAL: Deep Throat Also Leaked Information In Agnew's Case)
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/4561061/detail.html

(NRO: Friday, June 03, 2005 - Woodward & Bradlee etc -Michael Ledeen) Woodward and Bernstein admit to a wide range of unethical and illegal behavior http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

(NY Times: Three Decades Later, 'Woodstein' Takes a Victory Lap)
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/politics/03woodstein.html&OP=1af4ebc8/mETQ5BmZ9Q60Q2AK99rNmN__Gm_6m_}mQ3C9JQ5DrQ5DQ60Q2Am_}E99ZQ2ArTQ5DQ22PSrdJ

(American Spectator: I Don't Feel for Felt - Ben Stein)
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8255

(American Spectator: Chic Crassness - George Neumayr)
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8254

(MRC: ABC & CBS Counter Felt Critics, Contend Felt Had to Go to Media)
http://www.mediaresearchcenter.com/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050602.asp#1

[Matchett-PI]

Newsmax http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/3/00901.shtml

Friday, June 3, 2005 12:02 a.m. EDT

Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo

Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," Kerry said, referring to the Downing Street Memo in an interview with Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper.

"I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," the top Democrat added.

The Downing Street Memo, first reported on May 1 by the London Times, was drafted by a Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is said to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Blair allegedly admitted that the Bush administration "fixed" Iraq intelligence to manufacture a rationale for war.

Citing the Downing Street Memo, former presidential candidate Ralph Nader called for an impeachment investigation on Tuesday in an op-ed piece published by the Boston Globe.

"It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists," wrote Nader with co-author Kevin Zeese. "A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step."

The British memo, however, contains no quotes from either Bush or Blair, and is notably slim on evidence implicating Bush in a WMD cover-up.

Though largely ignored in the U.S. outside of rabid anti-Bush Web sites like MichaelMoore.com, the Downing Street Memo won Sen. Kerry's endorsement in the Standard Times interview:

"It's amazing to me," the top Democrat said, "the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

[Matchett-PI]

More from Rush's Friday show:

Posted 6/2/2005 8:28 PM Updated 6/3/2005 1:29 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-02-detainee-records_x.htm

N.Y. judge orders release of Abu Ghraib videos, photos

[Matchett-PI]

More from Rush's show on Friday, 6-3-05:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060305/content/see_i_told_you_so.member.html

Kerry Echoes Kook Impeachment Rumblings
June 3, 2005[]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

I have a little blurb here that I got earlier today from another website. We're already seeing rumblings of the next big thing for the Democratic Party.

It's impeachment. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 610,000 for Impeachment bush. (0.08 seconds)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=Impeachment+bush

Let me count them: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten different web links that you can click on and find impeachment websites or petitions for people to sign.



Now, they're kooks. They're kook sites but, hey, who is dictating things to the Democratic Party these days? They're kooks. I told you before last year's election, "If Bush wins this, keep a sharp eye. They'll start on impeachment," and I'll tell you what it's going to be. Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. This judge, Alvin Hellerstein has decided that not only should pictures from Abu Ghraib be released under the Freedom of Information Act, so should videos. This is a Freedom of Information Act brought by the ACLU. Judge Hellerstein the other day said, okay, the more pictures, the better. Now videos as well, and the purpose, the ACLU says, "is to demonstrate that it's not just a bunch of renegade soldiers but that this went to the top," ergo, impeachment. I'm just warning you. It's percolating out there on these kook Democrat websites, and I predicted it. In fact, there's even one of these links is to a letter to the editor in the South Florida Sun Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, and this letter to the editor talks about how Bush needs to be impeached.

[] Now, my experience with letters to the editor in south Florida newspapers is that they generally are the forerunners of upcoming editorials. So I wouldn't be surprised if there was an editorial from this newspaper someday about the need maybe to look into impeachment, because of Abu Ghraib or whatever they come up with. Forged documents that are true, whatever they come up with. Now, get this: Along the same lines, our buddies at NewsMax today, our old buddy Carl Limbacher has the story. "Failed presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics of President Bush as evidence that he committed impeachable crimes by falsifying evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." John Kerry, on the floor of the Senate -- well, I don't know if he was on the floor of the Senate -- but he said he intends to confront Congress with a document touted by critics, and I'll guarantee you it's from one of these wacko kook websites. Kerry said, "'When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue,' referring to the Downing Street Memo in an interview with Massachusetts' Standard Times newspaper. 'I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home.' The Downing Street Memo, first reported on May 1st by the London Times, was drafted by a Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is said to be minutes of a July 2002 meeting where Blair allegedly admitted that the Bush administration 'fixed' Iraq intelligence to manufacture a rationale for war. Ralph Nader called for an impeachment investigation on Tuesday in an op-ed piece published by the Boston Globe. 'It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists,' wrote Nader... The British memo, however, contains no quotes from either Bush or Blair, and is notably slim on evidence implicating Bush in a WMD cover-up." So when you got John Kerry out there going to confront Congress with this, and I've got Teddy's ten website links, I just want you to remember: I predicted it right here on this program.

They are failing to get Bush discredited any other way. They have three of these judges that they despise who are going to be confirmed to the Circuit Court. There's going to be a Supreme Court nominee coming up, and remember what the purpose of this is. I'm convinced the purpose of the Democratic Party is to live out these eight years with Bush in the White House and at the end of the eight years, have as little to show for it as possible. To them, these whole eight years are illegitimate because 2000 Florida was illegitimate; 2004 was thus illegitimate because Bush was "selected, not elected" so he didn't have a right to run for reelection in 2004. Then he won. That's fraudulent because of the voting machine problems in Ohio, the race was too close to call except for those 130,000 votes (Clearing throat) and so they're trying to de-legitimize these whole eight years. That's their policy by obstructing everything and now to attempt to tie the administration. You watch, this impeachment stuff is not just going to remain on websites. It now hasn't. It's now been actually mentioned by John Kerry.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT
[]

RUSH: Adam in California, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Rush, conservative first Republican, second greetings from the West Coast.

RUSH: That's the way to be. Thank you very much.

CALLER: Yeah. Second time caller. Long time listener. I just want to know -- and it's interesting you brought up that impeachment -- Barbara Boxer, dark horse candidate for 2008? What do you think?

RUSH: I don't think so. I mean, look, I have to tell you something, folks. Maybe I'm getting swept up here in all the hullabaloo and the conventional wisdom myself, but back, you know, a year ago or six months ago when the conventional wisdom was that Hillary has a nomination for asking I said, "Folks, I'm not going to go along with this. Conventional wisdom four years out, it's a bit premature," but I'm just looking. I'm looking at this and she's already gobbling up all the money. She just finished a bunch of LA fund-raisers in secret. Three of them, in fact, that generated a million bucks. I think it's pretty much hers if she wants it. She's got to win '06. You know, that's the next election up. But I think if she wants it, it's hers. Now, there are other candidates that want it. []There are dark horse candidates. John Kerry wants it, which is why he's trying to get his name attached to so much legislation, why he's being so vocal, so often. I think it's why he's leading this impeachment drive. The New York Observer this week had an interesting story, too: "Democrats Trek to Park Avenue for PAC bucks." Now, here are the names in this story: Kerry, the Breck Girl, Wesley Clark -- you remember Wesley Clark; Wesley Clark wants to run again -- Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden. They all made recent trips to New York to try to focus their campaigns and to get money from deep pocket liberals in Hillary's own state. Now, let me give you a little pop quiz. I want to ask you who said this: "Most of the candidates are like dogs, beneath the dining room table, hoping for surreptitious handouts." Who said that? Do you think it was me? Somebody on talk radio? Somebody on FOX News? No, it was Chris Laheinous -- Chris Lehane, the former Clinton spokesman; we call him "Laheinous" here -- commenting that there's very little ground to harvest, given Senator Clinton's role. The translation is: She's not yet running, but she's sucking all the money out of all the donors. If she's already made a California trip and soaked up a million dollars, where does it leave Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden? They're having to trek to her state to try to get money from New York liberal PACs? I don't know. I've heard Barbara Boxer's name as a dark horse candidate because the left kooks so much love her, so very much love her, but it just appears that there's a steamroller going on out there with Hillary at the wheel.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Articles...
(NewsMax: Kerry Touts Bush Impeachment Memo) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/3/00901.shtml

(USAToday: Judge: Release Abu Ghraib material Wants videos, photos)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-02-detainee-records_x.htm

(Boston Globe: The 'I' word - Ralph Nader & Kevin Zeese)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

[Matchett-PI]

Ralph Nader,etal: "IMPEACH Bush and Cheney"

The Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/the_i_word?mode=PF

The 'I' word By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese | May 31, 2005

[snip]

[Matchett-PI]

McGovern: New 'Deep Throat' needed for Iraq, says Nixon rival

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050602/ts_alt_afp/usiraqwatergatebush

New 'Deep Throat' needed for Iraq, says Nixon rival

Thu Jun 2, 5:05 PM ET

[Matchett-PI]

I Don't Feel for Felt
By Ben Stein
Published 6/3/2005 1:09:24 AM
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8255

Just a few more thoughts on the events of the day:

Now, we read that Mark Felt's family and Mark Felt put out their story solely to make money off it. So, this makes the family's karma even more unnerving. The father, patriarch, Mark, took out his anger and frustration for being passed over at the FBI, by ruining the career of the peacemaker, Richard Nixon. So, he condemned a whole subcontinent to genocide and slavery and poverty to please his own wounded vanity. (Maybe his nickname should be "sour grapes" and not "deep throat" because he has as much in common with that fox as with a porn star.) And, blood will tell, as the old saying goes: his posterity is now dragging out his old body and putting it on display to make money. (Have you noticed how Mark Felt looks like one of those old Nazi war criminals they find in Bolivia or Paraguay? That same, haunted, hunted look combined with a glee at what he has managed to get away with so far?)

And it gets worse: it's been reported that Mark Felt is at least part Jewish. The reason this is worse is that at the same time that Mark Felt was betraying Richard Nixon, Nixon was saving Eretz Israel. It is a terrifying chapter in betrayal and ingratitude. If he even knows what shame is, I wonder if he felt a moment's shame as he tortured the man who brought security and salvation to the land of so many of his and my fellow Jews. Somehow, as I look at his demented face, I doubt it.

Third, correct me if I am wrong about this, but isn't it a crime not only to dispense classified information but also to receive classified information? Why wasn't anyone ever prosecuted about this? Is there a statute of limitations?

Finally, there is a lot of debate about whether or not Mark Felt was a hero. Obviously, I don't think so. I think the hero was Richard Nixon, fighting for peace even as he was being horribly mistreated and crucified just for his fight for peace.

But there was and is a bigger story here. Frankly, Nixon is no longer alive. If he was a hero, he is a deceased hero. Bob Woodward is no one's idea of a hero. A super businessman and accomplished writer, but no hero. Mark Felt is only Richard Ben-Veniste's hero. But there are major heroes out there every day. There are 140,000 of them in Iraq and about 15,000 in Afghanistan, at lethal risk every minute of every day. There are a million more ready to go. There are millions of family members of these heroes. Can we possibly, possibly, conceivably forget them? Somehow, I think we have. The lead news stories are almost never about them. The story is about Michael Jackson or about Mark Felt. This is desperately wrong, and I do mean desperately. I am going to write a lot more about this Monday, but in the meantime, let's remember there's a war on, and the best and bravest of our nation are dying every day -- to protect a great nation, but one which seems lately to have forgotten even what the nation is all about.


Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer in Beverly Hills and Malibu, and author of "Ben Stein's Diary" each month in The American Spectator. He is also a former presidential speechwriter. Click here to subscribe to The American Spectator.