This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," July 12, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now for the top story tonight, another view of this. Joining us from Washington, FOX News analyst Newt Gingrich, author of the new book "Never Call Retreat."
Fair "Talking Points" Memo? Did I leave anything out?
NEWT GINGRICH, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Well, I think it's a fair "Talking Points Memo", but in terms of I won't say you left them out. It is a fact that Wilson alleged that the vice president had sent him to Niger. And that's what Karl Rove (search) was responding to. It is a fact that his response was to say to a reporter, don't go overboard on this story because you don't have the whole story.
All right, it's a fact that the law says you have to have knowingly named a CIA covert operative. And it's pretty clear that Karl Rove did not know her name and didn't know that she was an operative.
O'REILLY: But why - how is it clear? I don't know why this — you say all of this is clear. I don't know what Rove said to these journalists. How do you know what he said?
GINGRICH: Well, I think first of all, there's no evidence at all that he ever used her name.
O'REILLY: No, OK, but I don't know if that's clear. There's no evidence, but we don't know if it's clear. Let's back off a little and step it up.
O'REILLY: Because you're an inside player. You know how this stuff goes. It's fair to say that Ambassador Wilson embarrassed the Bush administration by writing this op-ed in The Times.
O'REILLY: All right, that's fair to say, right?
GINGRICH: I think that's accurate.
O'REILLY: OK. So they're mad about it.
Now Wilson was saying, but not in his op-ed piece, that Cheney sent him to Africa?
O'REILLY: Who'd he say that to?
GINGRICH: He said to the press. There are two or three quotes where Wilson refers to the vice president's office — wanted him to go. He thought the vice president himself wanted him to go. There's a direct quote where Cheney says "I don't know who he is.”
GINGRICH: "…and I certainly didn't ask him to do anything."
O'REILLY: I mean, I don't know - there's no evidence that Cheney ordered anybody anywhere.
GINGRICH: Right. But if you read the Senate Intelligence Committee (search) review of this…
O'REILLY: All right.
GINGRICH: …they make it very clear that Wilson misled the country about who sent him to Africa, that in fact, his wife was the person who recommended him. They make it very clear that Wilson misrepresented what he reported back from Africa.
O'REILLY: Is there a why behind Wilson embarrassing the Bush administration like this and misleading, as you say? Is there a why?
GINGRICH: Here's a liberal Democrat who was for John Kerry (search). He was a Kerry advisor. He gave money to the Kerry campaign. He was for Kerry getting elected. I don't know why the CIA sent him to Niger. And the reports from the CIA themselves were scathing about the laziness and inaccuracy of his report.
O'REILLY: OK. So you think that Wilson attacked the Bush administration to help John Kerry?
GINGRICH: Yes, I think it's pretty clear. I mean, he's a contributor to Kerry. He'd been talking to Kerry for several - to the Kerry campaign for several months before he wrote that article.
But what I find fascinating, Bill, in terms of just the way the system works, here's a guy who lies about who sent him to Africa, lies about what he discovered in Africa, doesn't come up front and say I'm a Kerry supporter as opposed to Bush, who then writes a book called "The Politics of Truth." I mean, if you think about it, it's one of the great acts of chutzpah of the 2004 campaign.
O'REILLY: OK. Isn't it possible, though, that Rove was so angry about him doing all of these things, that he picked up the phone and told Miller and Cooper, or maybe Novak as well, hey, Plame did this. Plame was the one behind sending him to Africa. But I don't see how Valerie Plame (search), a CIA officer, could send anybody to Africa to do anything.
GINGRICH: Well, she recommended him to her boss.
GINGRICH: Apparently, she recommended him out of the blue.
O'REILLY: To Tenet?
GINGRICH: No, no, to the Bureau — the Disarmament Bureau chief or something like that. So this is three or four layers below Tenet. Tenet had nothing to do.
O'REILLY: All right. So the disarmament chief sent him over there to find out what was going on.
GINGRICH: Sure. Yes. But here's the thing people just need to keep in context. You're Karl Rove. The truth is, you don't care who Valerie Plame is. You don't have any idea that she's a covert operative. You hear a rumor that his wife got him the job. OK? That's all you heard. His wife got him the job.
Now it's a big jump to go from I understand his wife got him the job, to deliberate effort to out a covert agent.
GINGRICH: And once again, Wilson was acting hypocritically. I mean, think about it, Bill. Here's a guy who writes a New York Times (search) piece attacking the president of the United States and he thinks nobody will figure out who his wife is? I mean, give me a break.
O'REILLY: All right. So you are putting your substantial reputation on the line here, saying that this is all a bunch of hooey politically motivated…
O'REILLY: …whipped up by the anti-Bush press.
GINGRICH: And I think it's inevitable. Just use common sense for a second. How can Ambassador Wilson believe he can pick a fight with the president of the United States and nobody in the entire press corps will ever notice that his wife works at the CIA? Particularly when she got him the job? I mean, it goes beyond belief.
And then, of course, he's offended that we notice who got him the job, which happens to be his wife.
O'REILLY: All right. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you about the London bombing, but I'm going to carry the Speaker over for a minute. Let's give him one more minute. We'll shave it off Napolitano's time. We don't want to hear from Napolitano that much anyway.
He's going to kill me for saying that.
GINGRICH: He's going to kill me.
O'REILLY: You have a theory about the London bombing and what it shows the world?
GINGRICH: Well, the thing that worries me is two things, Bill, very quickly. First, that we really don't understand who our enemies are. And we don't - we didn't anticipate the Madrid bombing. We didn't anticipate the London bombing.
By anticipate, I mean have any kind of real intelligence that let us to understand and penetrate the cells that are doing this.
The second thing that truly worries me that people just have to remember. Both after 9/11, after Madrid, and after London, as terrible as the losses have been, they are going to be overwhelmed if we have a nuclear event. And these are — we have enemies. These are not just random nuts. We have enemies who are desperately trying to find a way to truly cripple us.
O'REILLY: That's true.
GINGRICH: And I think it should make us committed deeply to winning the long war with irreconcilable.
O'REILLY: Yes, it should, but as we're going to show you two segments down, the BBC won't even call these people terrorists.
GINGRICH: It's sickening.
O'REILLY: It is.
GINGRICH: I agree.
O'REILLY: Thanks again. We appreciate your point of view, as always.
Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.