Limbaugh gets it right

Was listening to Rush today while driving. He was blustering about Plamegate, and not surprisingly he cut right to the bone. His thesis--lying indeed might be the underlying cause of this whole mess.

Rush basically set up a mathematical if-then corrolary. I.E.- if Bush lied, then Clinton also lied, the CIA also lied, and the MSM reported all the lies. Many, including myself, have been saying this to friends for two years, but it can't be said often enough, because nobody seems to get it. The MSM folks just won't critique themselves, unless it means trashing someone like Judy Miller.

Can you see a reason why the Times might want to target their war correspondress Judy and turn her into the sacrificial lamb for the whole WMD thing? Their editor's drippy hit piece last week almost seemed to suggest that ALL the blame for bogus WMD stories about Saddam's weapons, even through the 90s, can be blamed on her. She also becomes a convenient deflection for ALL THE OTHER stories through the entire MSM spectrum, like this Sheila MacVicar story referenced below. Cheap and tawdry, if true.

Clinton had some motivation to drum up Saddam's power--he needed a deflection from his own peccadillos. Perhaps the MSM was just trying to help. And the CIA's motivation? Rather obvious. We don't need to waste words there. The problem came when Bush actually believed the stories/intel and decided to actually do something.

But the attention span of the American public is short regards politics. The players know that many people get their daily news from short top-of-the-hour blurbs on the radio driving to work, or from the evening news or morning papers. Almost all those are controlled by the mainstreamers. For example, CNN is heralding a poll about 9 out 10 people thought the Bush aides did something wrong. Wonder how that poll was worded?

Let me take a guess:

"If it turns out that Bush political aides leaked the identity of a double secret covert CIA agent engaged in protecting the USA from WMD threat, in retribution against her husband who had earlier reported (after a dangerous fact-finding mission) that Saddam had no WMDs, nor did he covet any, would such a despicable act be right or wrong?"

How do you think a sample of the population would respond, most probably not even knowing who Libby, Rove, Wilson or Plame are?