Rush Limbaugh Program - June 8, 2012, Friday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 8, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program

30:40

June 8, 2012, Friday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi folks, welcome back.
	You are where you need to be.
	You don't need to be anywhere else.
	And when you are somewhere else, you know that you're not where you need to be and you feel bad about it.
	So be happy that you are where not only you need to be, where you want to be.
	And it's Friday, by the way.
	Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
	It's open line Friday.
	One big exciting busy broadcast hour remains, as everybody knows we make the most of it.
	We say more in a few sentences than most hosts say in a month.
	A week.
	A career.
	Happy to have you.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882.
	And the email address L Rushmore at EIB net.com.
	The RNC is already out with an ad mocking Obama.
	The private sector is doing fine.
	It's a great TV ad.
	It doesn't, it won't do any good to play it here on air.
	The only audio is Obama saying the private sector's doing fine.
	The rest of it is uh is graphics.
	Cookie, send it up to uh send it up to Coco, and then we might put a link to that ad at uh at rushlinbaugh.com.
	But they're out already with an ad that mocks Obama saying the private sector's doing fine.
	Again, the number of people on food stamps under Obama has doubled.
	That equals the private sector doing fine.
	People are eating.
	It's everything's okay.
	Private sector's fine.
	It's state and local government workers who are in trouble.
	That's what Obama says.
	Why would he say that?
	Coming out of Wisconsin.
	He's trying to tell them he's got their back, even though he didn't.
	He's trying to tell them.
	No, it was at his press conference this morning.
	He said private sector's doing fine.
	It's state local uh uh government employees.
	That's that's where our problem is.
	Okay, he just got shellacked in Wisconsin, and he didn't go in there to help the union.
	He did not have their backs.
	Big no-no.
	So coming out and saying, state and local union workers, state local government workers.
	That's he's trying to tell them he's he's got their back.
	But they know.
	Uh they're beginning to doubt that he does.
	Uh folks, I pulled together uh during the break here some relevant pages from the first New York Times article on these leaks.
	Now remember, the New York Times has a story, and the managing editor talked to the politico, and and they're openly saying that Obama did not leak to them.
	I honest, I've never seen this before, but but they're doing it.
	Because everybody says special prosecutor, we've got to get to the bottom of these leaks.
	This is huge stuff.
	This is really detailed, damaging things.
	Obama doesn't care about that, trust me.
	But traditional Washington, this is a bad thing.
	This this is this is unacceptable.
	And all of this is to make Obama look macho, make him look big, tough, make him look like he really cares about the country and so forth.
	And mission accomplished in that sense.
	Now that people are calling for special prosecutor, Obama didn't count on that.
	There's not gonna be any special prosecutors.
	So the New York Times are protecting him.
	We didn't get our information from Obama.
	You believe that.
	Normally they were not gonna tell you diddly squat about our sources.
	So we went back, I look at this New York Times story on the assassination list on the kill list.
	The New York Times article itself says in many places they got their information from current and former regime officials.
	The article quotes Bill Daly.
	He's just Obama's former chief of staff, and General Jim Jones, the former National Security Advisor.
	The New York Times article quotes those guys.
	It also quotes Tom Donald, the current National Security Advisor.
	He happened to tell the New York Times that Obama quote quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States, Unquote.
	The current national security guys quoted in this story as saying, oh yeah, our guy loves to pull a trigger.
	Our guy may as well call him Rambo Kardashian.
	Not Barack Kardashian, he's Rambo Kardashian.
	It is totally obvious.
	The administration and people it controls on the outside, former administration people, are the ones feeding info to the New York Times.
	Let me hear relevant passage.
	In interviews with the New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisors describe Mr. Obama's evolution since taking on the role.
	Without precedent in presidential history of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.
	Okay.
	Yet the New York Times says Obama didn't leak us any of this stuff.
	Their own, I'm reading from the story in interviews with the Times.
	Three dozen of his current and former advisors described Obama's evolution since taking on the role.
	Without precedent in presidential history, personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.
	They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal making required to close Guantanamo Bay, but approves lethal action without hand wringing.
	I feel like I need to translate this to make sure you get it.
	What they're saying here, what is Obama guy?
	He's a paradox.
	He he didn't want to work with Congress to come up with a deal to close Gitmo.
	But when it comes, when it comes to pulling the trigger and wiping out these terrorists, lethal action, he does it without even thinking about it.
	He's Mr. Chuff Guy.
	I'm telling you, that's what they're saying here.
	Doesn't flinch.
	This guy, he's got ice water running through his veins.
	Nickname is cold blue steel.
	Doesn't need Viagra.
	Cold blue steel.
	While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, Obama has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands.
	Yeah, he wanted to make nice with the Islamists.
	He wanted to make nice with the jihadists, but they rejected that.
	And so he has followed them wherever they go.
	He put America first, damn right.
	When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrained his ferocious campaign against Al-Qaeda.
	I am reading to you from the New York Times, who claim that Obama was not the source for any of the leaking.
	Even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision Obama told colleagues was an easy one.
	The level of detail this is what people in traditional Washington are reading, and they're shocked.
	This is unprecedented.
	This is the White House writing public relations releases.
	This is not strenuous reporting.
	This is the phone rang.
	It's Obama on the phone or Bill Daly on the phone.
	Here's what we want you to write.
	This is what we're doing.
	This is laughably shameless.
	Here's another oke, or relevant passage, if you will, from the New York Times story.
	Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence until he was fired in May of 2010, said the discussions inside the White House of a long-term strategy against Al-Qaeda were sidelined by the intense focus on strikes.
	The steady refrain in the White House was this is the only game in town.
	It reminded me of body counts in Vietnam, said Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy service during the war.
	You know what that means?
	What that means to hell with this long-term strategy.
	Obama rolled up his sleeves.
	He put on the camo gear, he put on the Kevlar, and this was it.
	Getting on Qaeda.
	That's the only game in town to hell with Obamacare, to hell with the economy to heck with every.
	I am protecting America.
	That's that paragraph translated.
	And again, the source is a former director of national intelligence for Obama.
	But the Times tells us we didn't get this stuff from Obama or the White House.
	And Obama's, I'm offended.
	Anyone would think, not in my White House.
	That's what he said.
	My White House.
	Here's another one.
	Same story, relevant passage, William Daly, Mr. Obama's chief of staff in 2011, said the president and his advisors understood that they could not keep adding new names to a kill list from ever lower on the Al-Qaeda totem pole.
	What remains unanswered is how much killing will be enough.
	Oh man.
	We want somebody to protect this country.
	We've got the guy.
	Barack Kardashian is on the case.
	The only question is how much killing will be enough.
	What do you think they thought the daily cause when they read this?
	She probably didn't.
	They all claim they do, though.
	Another passage.
	The president's directive reinforced the need for caution.
	Counterterrorism officials said, but they did not significantly change the program.
	In part, that's because, quote, the protection of innocent life was always a critical consideration, said Michael Hayden, the last CIA director under President Bush.
	But writes the Times and listen to this.
	It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in.
	In effect, it counts all military age males in a strike zone as combatants.
	According to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
	My buddy Andy McCarthy...
	This is one of his many areas of expertise.
	He writes about this.
	He says Obama's profiling Muslim men.
	This is profiling Muslim.
	Obama has simply granted to himself here, folks, the right to wipe out all Al Qaeda.
	Muslim men, if they're military age, 18 or over, if they're male and they're 18 and they're Muslim, he can wipe them out.
	If they're in a strike zone, doesn't care how they're dressed, doesn't care any, they are subject to death.
	He doesn't allow our soldiers this.
	He doesn't allow combat troops this latitude, but for him, the kill list, piece of cake.
	So Obama's profiling Muslim men.
	Now to A, to go to these links, and B, we assume they went to these links.
	This could just be a bunch of mishmash.
	We don't really know how much of this happened.
	We know that a couple sheikhs get blown away by a drone, but that's not the point.
	Again, the point is.
	Oh, you think he's a Muslim, huh?
	Oh, you think.
	You think he doesn't really care about America, huh?
	You think he's a soft wosh liberal, huh?
	This New York Times story is supposed to counter all that.
	And the detail is what everybody's looking at here saying, My God, where'd they get this?
	Somebody, as I say, this is all coming from either the circle or former members of the circle.
	And this is not leaks.
	Folks, this is not leaks.
	This is public relations.
	This is PR, and there's much more.
	I mean, I just scratched the surface.
	Then there's also the story on the other aspect of this, Stuxnet, the New York Times story on that.
	Relevant passages from that.
	Let me give you one of those before we go to the break.
	At a tense meeting in the White House situation room within days of the worm's escape.
	That's the uh the hack.
	Stuxnet, the computer virus known as the worm.
	At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worms escape.
	Mr. Obama, Vice President Joe Bikney, and the director of CIA at the time, Leon Panetta considered whether America's most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran's nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised.
	Mr. Obama asked, should we shut this thing down?
	That quote from Obama, should we shut this thing down in the New York Times is attributed to members of the President's national security team who were in the room.
	So the Times is quoting Obama from members of his national security team who were in the room leaking.
	The Times is telling us their source.
	President's national security team in the room, and they're giving him quotes.
	Giving the Times quotes.
	While the Times is denying it.
	I guess they lied to their own story.
	And Obama says he's offended that anybody would say the leaks came out of his White House.
	Quickly, Roseville, Minnesota and Jeff.
	Great to have you on the program, sir.
	Open line Friday.
	Hello.
	Megadiddles, Mr. Limbaugh.
	Hey, it is an interesting contrast between the way the Obama administration is handling these leaks as opposed to how the Bush administration handled the outing of Valerie Plane.
	That is interesting, isn't it?
	Valerie Plain, which was not a leak.
	Everybody knew where it came from.
	It came from what was it?
	Richard Metal Block, doesn't matter.
	No Armitage.
	It was Richard Armitage over Colin Powell's office, the titular head of the Republican bar.
	Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plain's name to uh Bob Novak.
	And somehow Scooter Libby went to prison for it.
	And the prosecutor, special as a they demanded a special prosecute to the bottom of this.
	Oh, this was a profound security.
	Poor Valerie Plain.
	Yes, she was a CIA agent and an operative.
	And it was horrible.
	And they leaked her name.
	It was Armitage.
	He never paid a price.
	They wanted Bush for this.
	They wanted Carl Rove.
	They wanted everybody.
	And that's a great.
	I'm glad you reminded me of that.
	Valerie Plaim.
	And there wasn't even a leak.
	Everybody knew who had done it.
	And yet we needed a special prosecutor.
	And on this, we actually don't need a special prosecutor on this.
	The New York Times has told us everything.
	We don't need the New York Times has done the job of special prosecutor.
	The New York Times is quoting people.
	There are names, dates.
	Obama's inner circle.
	The New York Times is the special prosecutor.
	in a sense.
	Even Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco is saying that these leaks have jeopardized American lives.
	Nobody's life was jeopardized by the non-leak of Valerie Plaim's name.
	Anyway, it's that's not the only place fireworks taking place.
	Department of Justice, Eric Holder.
	He was called before the subpoenas, called before Daryl Isis's committee.
	We've got audio of that coming up in a minute.
	But first, open line Friday, more phone calls than usual.
	This is Tulsa and Kent.
	Thank you for calling, sir.
	Great to have you here.
	Hi.
	Hi, Russ.
	It's wonderful to speak with you.
	How are you doing?
	Very well, sir.
	Thank you.
	I'm not a big fan of the words that we use a lot, capitalism and free markets.
	You're not a big fan of the words.
	Of the words.
	Back in uh many years ago in my first econ class, the professor said Business is simply about recognizing a need and then developing a product or service that serves that need.
	It seems like that definition is better than words that describe that definition, capitalism and free markets.
	I mean, I think 80% of the country believes in recognizing a need helping other people with a product or service to serve that need.
	And it could be as simple as the lemonade stand or as complicated as building a fiber optics network.
	You know, but it's all the same thing.
	It's just people helping people.
	So tell me how this would work.
	Uh not supposed to say capitalism or free markets anymore.
	So what would we say?
	To some means the one percent takes advantage of the ninety-nine percent.
	That's what capitalism means.
	Well, free markets to some people mean that.
	To some people.
	And I think we need to just say it's people helping people.
	And that's really what business is.
	Whether it's building a house or you know, fixing their computer or whatever it is.
	Okay, but how would it work?
	How would it work?
	So I'm talking about listen, I'm talking about Goldman Sachs.
	And what am I supposed to say about Goldman Sachs that they're not engaged in free markets, that they're just helping people.
	I think there is a need uh some sort of uh transaction or investment that they're or funding that they're doing and they're solving a problem.
	That's all business is solving problems.
	And somehow we've got it into one versus 99.
	I think that's just uh the a person told me once if you can't win on a certain playing field, you know, change the playing field, change the game.
	And I think there's some lingo that we use.
	Wait a minute.
	Who who says we're losing?
	Well, I think a lot of the independents we're not influencing them like I think we should.
	Are you saying the independents are too stupid to know what that capitalism is a good thing, free markets are a good thing.
	They're not smart enough to know that just by hearing free market.
	What is a free market?
	I think it's a free market where the one percent can screw the ninety-nine.
	I think some people interpret that way.
	I don't believe that's true at all, of course, but I think some people interpret it that way.
	Most people think we're living in the information age.
	And I believe with Ronald Reagan and those that followed, we've kind of gone to the communication age.
	Those that commute w why is Barack Obama so popular?
	It's not because he's a good manager, good business person, a good leader, a good president, it's because he's a great communicator.
	He's not a great manager or great leader.
	And Ronald Reagan was a great leader and a great communicator.
	And I think pe the reason why people didn't like Bush wasn't because of his decisions, it was because he didn't communicate real well.
	Wait, well, you may there's a lot of assumptions that you like.
	For one thing, I don't think Obama's that popular.
	Well, you know, you're the problem that you have, and I understand it.
	Um I've I've said the same thing about using the word communism.
	It turns people off, they don't want to think that we've elected a communist or a socialist, they don't want to think that, so it doesn't work.
	But you're you're basically assuming that the the the that the media is the only place, the only place that people are influenced or have their opinion have their opinions formed and uh and changed, and that therefore the media has sullied the terms capitalism and free market, so we have to admit the media has screwed us, we've lost the language, we've got to go to something else.
	And I understand that uh people who who think this, I I have a different take on it, or a different different I I believe not in dumbing myself down, but in trying to elevate everybody else.
	So I'm perfectly comfortable.
	If somebody doesn't understand what a free market is or has a uh uh misconception of capitalism, I know a lot of people do, I'd be happy to try to straighten them out, which is what we do here on a daily basis, or at least or at least try to.
	But you know, you're you you're you're you you want to take on a lot.
	You're you're upset that people hate ExxonMobil.
	You know, you you you you hate that people don't like ex you you can't understand why people have been made to hate ExxonMobile.
	So we're gonna come up with a way to make sure that they like ExxonMobil.
	This is pure we're we're dealing with people whose mind the people who hate ExxonMobil, we're not gonna change their minds anyway.
	They're not thinkers.
	Right.
	When I went to college, I thought business was about tax and pollution and bad, you know, corporations.
	And when I got in there and studied business, it's like, wow, business is amazing.
	It's it's just developing a product or service that benefits a problem.
	It's not there's nothing wrong with business.
	Yeah, I know, but but I again I'm asking to say So every time I talk about business, I have to stop and say, by the way, all this is is people solving a problem for somebody.
	And then I mean it's it's defensive.
	It's it's I I don't like assuming people are stupid.
	I I rather be opposite.
	That's just my preference.
	I I don't want to think I'm talking to blithering idiots.
	If I thought that, I'm out.
	I I don't have time for that.
	If I have to stop and say, oh, by the way, what I mean by capitalism, it's just a guy building a house so that somebody will have shelter.
	It's really a nice thing to build a house.
	Do you understand?
	I'm gone.
	If everybody in the audience is in the first grade, then you know it's hello, Singapore.
	But it well, I know he's again, there's too much conventional wisdom in here to but the independent the assumption is that Obama's popular don't believe it.
	The assumption the independents were losing them.
	We're not.
	Uh the the assumption that capitalism is hated and despised.
	By definition, it's not by every election that we've had since Obama, it's not despised.
	If Ob if if we were losing the midterms 2010, if we lost the the the recall of Wisconsin, I gotta have a little bit more sympathy for this.
	But I but I'm not gonna sit here and think that that i in the midst of Obama and his people talk about what a rotten week they've had and whether or not the polls that they're conducting are lies or are accurate or not.
	Uh I don't I just don't want to assume that we're losing when we're not.
	Do I dumb it down when I talk deliberate when I'm talking with liberals, do I dunno.
	I I I'm but I don't talk to them.
	This stuff never comes up with liberals.
	They taunt me and I ignore it.
	I'm not gonna change their minds.
	I'm not that that's that's not why I talk to them is to change their mind or to disabuse them of it's pointless.
	Um I don't know.
	I I plus in incumbent in this that bothers me is this assumption that these people can't learn, that we have to subordinate ourselves, not to lower ourselves to a level of ignorance because they just can't learn.
	Sorry, I'm here.
	If somebody's got a bad opinion of capitalism or free markets, that's why I'm here.
	Change it.
	Not acknowledge it.
	I I know where the guy's coming from.
	I just that's um uh we start down that road because what we're doing is eventually ultimately admitting that we can't win with standard ordinary everyday language.
	It's it's no different to say, Rush, if they think two plus two is five, let them think it.
	No, uh two plus two is four.
	This is realville.
	And we'll be back.
	There were fireworks yesterday.
	Uh, ladies and gentlemen, in Washington, Daryl Isis Committee, House Judiciary Committee, and they had Eric Holder up, and they're talking about fast and furious.
	And this is one of the exchanges between ISA and Holder.
	I want to ask you first of all today, have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsive to the subpoenas?
	We believe that we have responded to the subpoena.
	No, Mr. Attorney General, you're not a good witness.
	A good witness answers the question asked.
	So let's go back again.
	Have you and your attorneys produced internally the materials responsive?
	In other words, if you're taking the time to look up our subpoena and find out what material you have responsive to it, or you've simply invented a privilege that doesn't exist.
	Well, we've produced 7600 v.
	Look, I don't want to hear about the 7600.
	Chairman, I would beg to be able to do that.
	The lady is out of order with the ladies.
	How is Sheila Jackson Lee trying to protect Holder?
	He's not being responsive to the subpoena.
	He's not giving the committee what they've asked for.
	He's stonewalling this fast and furious thing.
	And ISA, I have never seen him as loaded for bear as as he was.
	This continued.
	Isn't it true, Mr. Attorney General, that you've not produced a log of materials withheld, even though our uh investigators have asked for it?
	Uh, I know that I'm not sure about that.
	I know that the Okay, I'm sure you didn't.
	Right.
	I'm sure you didn't.
	And it continued, folks.
	I appreciate that there was hostility between the Attorney General and myself.
	It was produced by the fact that I have a great many questions and a relatively little period of time in which to get answers.
	Well, uh, with all due respect to uh Chairman Issa.
	He says there's hostility between us.
	I don't feel that.
	You know, I understand he's asking questions.
	I'm trying to respond as best I can.
	I'm not feeling hostile at all.
	I'm pretty calm.
	I'm okay.
	Jason Chaffetz then chimes in.
	Jason Weinstein sends an email to James Trusty.
	Do you think we should try to have Lanny participate in a press when Fast and Furious and Loris Tucson case are unsealed?
	It's a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked.
	But is it a significant set of prosecutions?
	James Trustee sends back to Jason Weinstein.
	It's not going to be any big surprise that a bunch of U.S. guns are being used in Mexico.
	You claim with passion that nobody at the senior levels of the Department of Justice prior to the to the death of Brian Terry knew that guns were walking, and I've got an email from Jason Weinstein using the term guns walking.
	Let me tell you what's going on here.
	You know, the the the purpose of Fast and Furious, one of the purposes was to get those guns across the border in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, have crimes committed, and then say we got to do something about the second amendment.
	How do American guns get to Mexico?
	Well, we got them there because we gave them.
	That was never supposed to be discovered.
	Now the Second Amendment argument or rationale here goes to the motive for doing what Holder and the DOJ did.
	They wanted controversy around guns.
	They wanted American guns in Mexico, but the problem they engaged in reckless tactics.
	And the the pretext for allowing the guns to walk across the border was to be able later to trace them to crime scenes and then build a case against the Mexican drug cartels.
	And all experienced agents who looked at this thought that it was insane because there wouldn't be crime scenes unless we walked the guns across the border and used in crime, so we created the crimes by making the guns available.
	Therefore, we're contributing to violent criminality.
	And even if you traced the guns to the crime scenes that you create, uh you wouldn't cinch the case against these particular cartels because you you wouldn't know for sure enough information to nail them.
	This was a disaster, and now that that people are trying to get to the bottom of it, the stone wall is taking place.
	And this is just part of it that you heard that it was sound bites from yesterday between Holder and Chaffetz and Darrell Issa.
	Got to take a quick timeout, folks.
	Wrap it up here when we'll get back.
	Well, my friends, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence must sadly come to a screeching halt.
	As a little longer timeout than usual, be back on Monday, revved up and rare to go.
	We'll see you then.
	Hope you have a great weekend, folks.

▲