About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh: Did Wilson commit treason?

November 01, 2005 6:03 pm ET

image

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

In an October 31 discussion of the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh stated, "The more the left talks about Libby's alleged perjury, the more you have to ask did Joseph Wilson commit treason." Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted on October 28 for perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements. Limbaugh later continued, "Did Wilson lie about Niger? Did Wilson commit treason?" Limbaugh also stated, "You still can't convince me ... that this whole thing is not a CIA-hatched plot to destroy Bush, undermine the war effort."

As Media Matters for America has previously noted, conservative critics have repeatedly tried to shift the focus from the leak investigation to questions of Wilson's credibility, baselessly claiming that he lied about his trip to Niger.

From the October 31 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: He [special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Libby] discounted any connection to the war, but the left is out there saying that this whole thing is the cause of the war. The mainstream media might have the template on this, but they do not have the facts about any of this that went on. The more the left talks about Libby's alleged perjury, the more you have to ask did Joseph Wilson commit treason.

Joseph Wilson is out there -- who has been documented by the Senate Intelligence Committee, bipartisan, to be a liar; people have poured over his New York Times and L.A. Times op-eds; found him to be a liar. If, as the left charges, we went to war because of yellowcake [uranium] in Niger, then they have to live with that charge or die with it.

Now, I know it's not our argument, and it's not the president's argument, the argument in Congress and the U.N. [United Nations], but that's the Bush-bash of today; that we went to war because of yellowcake in Niger, and it was all a lie. That's what the left wants to believe themselves, and they try to make everybody else believe it, and so Wilson came back and found no evidence, they say; when that's not even true either. His initial verbal report confirmed what the CIA knew at the time. You still can't convince me, by the way, that this whole thing is not a CIA-hatched plot to destroy Bush, undermine the war effort, and all that.

Mentioned this for the past couple of weeks, but the real question is this: Did Bush lie about yellowcake? Did the Brits lie about uranium in Niger or did Wilson? Did Wilson lie about Niger? Did Wilson commit treason? Did Wilson make up something that he's gonna sip tea and not even investigate, come back and just say what he wanted to say what the plan was?

I mean, I, it didn't even strike me that this was all important until the left started making it the reason for opposing the war and trying to get rid of Bush; that he lied about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons of mass destruction, to get us into war. And Wilson is the agent for that story being moved forward, when Wilson is, himself, a questionable source. So Dingy Harry [Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)] wants Rove to resign? Why? Wants Bush to pledge no pardon ever? Why? Can't wait until Dingy Harry says this goes all the way back to Barbara Bush. Well, how far back are they gonna try to take all of this?
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by solon (November 01, 2005 6:54 pm ET)
         

      Exactly how would this plot play out? Hey we will send Wilson to Niger, when he finds there is no way for Niger TO sell yellowcake to anyone, then the administration will ignore the report, distort the evidence and pretend it happened anyway, when Wilson objects Rove and company will expose his wife as a CIA agent and then be destroyed. WOW, Rube Goldberg would be proud.

      Wilson did NOT lie about the Niger nondeal. The mines where uranium is obtained is not under their control. There is no way to make this deal. Limbaugh is desperate and trying the most ludicrous of defenses. Of course he cannot be convinced he is beyond any reasonable hope of being swayed by mere facts and evidence, who needs facts, he has an ideology.

      I dont think anyone lied, its clear though that Wilson was right and British Intelligence is wrong unless they can cough up some serious evidence we havent so much as heard rumor of. The real question is does Limbaugh commit treason every day by spreading his disinformation throughout the land.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Nuke (November 03, 2005 6:00 pm ET)
           

        -- I dont think anyone lied --

        we know that both Libby and Rove lied about not being involved in leaking the name of a CIA agent during war to Novak, who then informed out enemies.

        The only treason -- as Limbaugh knows -- was committed by the White House when Bush and Cheney staffers gave aid and comfort to our enemies by identifying a CIA agent and her cover company Brewster, Jennings & Ass.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (November 03, 2005 9:55 pm ET)
             

          Nuke - Thursday November 3, 2005 06:00:39 PM EST

          I meant that in the context of this statement. Its my fault for not making that statement clearer.

          Did Bush lie about yellowcake? Did the Brits lie about uranium in Niger or did Wilson? Did Wilson lie about Niger?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (November 01, 2005 7:23 pm ET)
         

      >"but that's the Bush-bash of today; that we went to war because of yellowcake in Niger, and it was all a lie."

      No, Rush, YOU'RE lying. The famous 16 words are only one lie among many. That's the point. The Republicans, not the Democrats, have put all the emphasis on the 16 words, as if that's the only questionable "fact" put forward by the Bushies.

      Does Rush's audience still swallow this nonsense? Hard to believe.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by kwinters79 (November 01, 2005 10:52 pm ET)
           

        I guess Rush forgot the aluminum tube story that the W. House leaked to the NYT, then used the NYT story as evidence of Saddams "active" Nuclear program.

        No Rush, it wasn't "just" because of the Niger claim, the sales pictch for war was based on several fallacious and exagerated claims. And the more they are found to have been bogus, the more we need to press for the truth on what this Administration did and did not know.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (November 01, 2005 7:26 pm ET)
         

      This joker is broadcasting over Armed Forces Radio that the CIA is trying to bring down President Bush? Rush appears to have confused Scootergate with IranContra - when the military tried to take over our civilian government. Somebody needs to rethink this thing...

      And the Pentagon was afraid of Big Eddy Schultz? Why - because he might tell the truth?

      Even the truth (sad as it is) would be better than telling the men and women fighting for our country that the CIA (active in both Afganistan and Iraq, I daresay) is trying to overthrow our government.

      Rush keeps talking like this he is going to get some good people killed. I wonder what the poor family of Mike Span thinks about this?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by newzhound (November 01, 2005 7:32 pm ET)
           

        The gentleman's name was Johnny Michael "Mike" Spann - my apologies to his good family for not having spelled this hero's name correctly.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by koku_jin78 (November 01, 2005 7:32 pm ET)
         

      He's an egregious, vindictive and bitter man. Too bad he won't just melt away.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by west1 (November 02, 2005 1:38 am ET)
         

      Limbaugh makes remarks like this, yet he gets celebrity status with the PGA. Here are a couple of the tournaments he was a celebrity with this year:

      AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, Feb 2005

      American Century Golf Championship, July 2005

      [link to www.golfweb.com]

      Report Abuse
    • Author by LarryE (November 02, 2005 2:44 am ET)
         

      You still can't convince me ... that this whole thing is not a CIA-hatched plot to destroy Bush, undermine the war effort.

      Oh my word! This is hilarious! He has previously said that war opponents are "anti-American" - so now Rush Limbaugh is claiming that the CIA is anti-American!

      Just wonderful....

      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (November 02, 2005 9:28 am ET)
           

        Since Rush and the GOP hierarchy are usually on the same page, this leads me to believe that they are expecting the CIA to eventually admit that the Bush junta cooked the intelligence leading to the war. They may be laying the groundwork now for accusing the CIA of trying to topple the government. Ths looks like another Rovism.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by steve expat (November 02, 2005 3:03 am ET)
         

      "Did Bush lie about yellowcake? Did the Brits lie about uranium in Niger or did Wilson? Did Wilson lie about Niger?"

      Hey Rush, These are all great questions. Why don't we have a non-partisan investigation of the whole matter and find out who was telling the truth, and whether the documents were forged and if so by whom? You seem to be interested in the truth here, so I assume you're up for it.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sagra (November 02, 2005 9:58 am ET)
           

        So that's where Harry Reid got the idea to force that closed door session in the Senate.

        Wow, Rush. Thanks!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by leatherhelmet (November 02, 2005 10:18 pm ET)
           

        I also believe it was a CIA plot and I would welcome an investigation only if no members of congress could be on the committee and none of them could say one word about any of this ever.

        I would like to know the truth but without the jackasses in Congress being involved.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (November 02, 2005 8:04 am ET)
         

      I think Ambassador Wilson may have cause for action against Limbaugh for slander.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by starwheel (November 02, 2005 8:49 am ET)
         

      Hey Rush, These are all great questions. Why don't we have a non-partisan investigation of the whole matter and find out who was telling the truth, and whether the documents were forged and if so by whom?

      ====================================================

      My thoughts EXACTLY.

      And it's really funny that it's a big deal if WILSON lied (Limbaugh speak for committing "treason"). But not such a big deal that LIBBY lied.

      The world would be VERY boring without Limbaugh's idiocy.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (November 02, 2005 9:34 am ET)
           

        The world would be VERY boring without Limbaugh's idiocy. - from starwheel

        Maybe, maybe not. I'd sure like to try it without to see.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by libby (November 02, 2005 9:37 am ET)
         

      Limbaugh.... Wilson lying to the american people and the press is not treason. It's not right but definitely not treason.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by losingfaith (November 02, 2005 10:53 am ET)
           

        "Limbaugh.... Wilson lying to the american people and the press is not treason. It's not right but definitely not treason."

        It's not Treason; It's not right; and it's not true as far as I've seen. Wilson did not lie. I keep hearing from cons that he did, but they've never been able to back it up. The reposnse is always "Go research it for yourself, it's common knowledge", but of course it's only "common knowledge" on con blogs with no supporting facts and those are the only places I can find that mention it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by libby (November 02, 2005 11:27 am ET)
             

          [link to www.factcheck.org] Please read. When I have time I will post other examples.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by losingfaith (November 02, 2005 1:05 pm ET)
               

            "Please read. When I have time I will post other examples"

            I unfortunately don't have time right now to go through every detail on the article you provided, but a fairly in depth look regarding Wilson within the article doesn't turn anything up to me that shows Wilson lied. It shows some people disagreed with him. Please show me what you specifically feel shows Wilson lied within this article.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by libby (November 02, 2005 3:56 pm ET)
                 

              [link to intelligence.senate.gov] see page 39 to start. That is just one of the many lies(since liberals have a very loose definition of lies)uncovered. You could also refer to Wilson's admission of his own lies.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Sagra (November 02, 2005 4:27 pm ET)
                   

                Give it up, Libby. There's no there there.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by newzhound (November 02, 2005 6:12 pm ET)
                   

                Thank you for pointing out page 39 - Please see under Section "B" (for some reason the remaining paragraph numbers are blanked out - doubtless for reasons of National Security):

                "The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf..."

                When idiots like Shear Insanity say Ambassador Wilson was unqualified - when others try to make the case that Mr. Wilson's wife nominated him for the task - here is serious evidence that Mr. Wilson had previously traveled to Niger to assist the CIA.

                Who is surprised that when The Agency needed an expert to investigate a matter in Niger they thought of sending someone who had previously traveled there to help them?

                I guess the NeoConMen have trouble believing the obvious because it just makes too much sense!

                Report Abuse
          • Author by Sagra (November 02, 2005 3:20 pm ET)
               

            Factcheck may have to update their article.

            Joshua Micha Marshall has been working on the story of the forgeries. He posts his results so far on talkingpointsmemo.com The Italian Connection Part I and Part II. A snippet:

            The reports out of Italy were not a separate source of intelligence from the forgeries. They were the forgeries. To be precise, the intelligence reports from Italy were actually text transcriptions and summaries of the forged documents. The reports from Italy and the forgeries were one and the same. The distinction is rather like saying you haven't seen the PDF of a letter only the text from the letter that someone copied down from the PDF. The fact that the Italian reports came from as-yet-to-be-revealed forgeries of course could not be known at the time. That only became clear to intelligence officials much later when these post-9/11 Italian reports and the forgeries were compared. But looking back in retrospect, it was clear that the whole Niger uranium canard seemed to lead back to those forgeries.

            As far as Wilson confirming that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger, here's the actual text from Senate report:

            The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip.... indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,

            ( ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

            [....]

            (U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations." The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

            Wow. For that we go to war.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by Mr Blifil (November 02, 2005 10:19 am ET)
         

      Note to Rush: If you move your feet fast enough, it's possible that people won't notice that you can't dance.

      Report Abuse

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace