All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 10, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:57
October 10, 2012, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, the spokes kid's doing a briefing.
Jay Carney at the White House, first White House press briefing in two weeks.
And this is going to be fascinating.
And it might be boring as heck.
Because Carney was one of the people that lied daily to us and the media when he said it was a video that caused the outbreak of violence, spontaneous outbreak of violence with the Benghazi consulate, resulting in the unfortunate death of our ambassador and three other Americans.
There was a video, and everybody knows it was the video, and there's nothing we can do about it.
It was the video we got first.
I remember he lied through his teeth along with countless other regime officials.
Now he's facing the media.
I don't even know if they'll ask him about it.
I don't know how they wouldn't, because State Department's testifying even as we speak about, hey, we didn't say any intel that said there was a video involved.
We didn't say there was a protest.
I mean, the State Department basically today has undercut everything Obama and the regime have said about this.
So we're rolling on it.
Cookie is watching the spokes kid as we speak.
And if anything of note happens, we'll have it for you.
Great to have you back.
Telephone number Rush Limbaugh 800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the Rush Limbaugh program, email address, L Rushmall at EIBNet.com.
Apparently, Lance Armstrong and his cycling buddies at the Postal Service team, and maybe even beyond, engaged in some of the most sophisticated professional doping schemes anybody has ever seen or heard of.
The news continues to come out.
That's destroyed a lot of people.
Lance Armstrong was an inspiration, is an inspiration to millions of people.
And these revelations has always been hanging over his head that he uh used drugs and other enhancements.
And he's always denied it, and he's never failed a test.
Nevertheless, they think they've got the goods, and he finally threw in the towel said, I'm not fighting this anymore.
I've had it, I'm fed up with it.
And the assumption was that means he's gonna get caught, doesn't want to get caught, just admitting it in his own way, and they've kept at it, and uh now the latest is that the program he was engaged in was the most professional and most sophisticated doping program, the sportest cycling is ever seen.
Which, as I say, is disappointing a lot of people.
Suffolk University polling unit has decided to pull out of North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida.
They're not gonna poll in those states anymore.
You know why?
Because they say Romney wins.
Romney wins.
North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, it's in the bag.
We're not gonna waste any more time or money polling in those three states.
We're moving elsewhere.
We're gonna take our polling resources and we're gonna expend it elsewhere.
Because North Carolina, Virginia, Florida are in the bag.
I've heard of campaigns pulling out of states.
I've never heard of pollsters pulling out of states.
We'll see.
Steve Wynne on Tuesday appeared on a political program in Nevada called Ralston Reports.
The host with John Ralston, and Wynne is livid.
You know what's happening?
Uh a bunch of people are speaking out against Obama.
His economics is playing his presidency at uh at large.
And they're holding nothing back.
Jack Welch came out and basically accused somebody doing something with the unemployment numbers.
And everybody then jumped in Jack Welch chili.
Jack, what are you doing?
Don't go there, man.
It's not a conspiracy.
They couldn't get it, could they couldn't get away with that?
I mean, it's not all Democrats at the BLS.
Come on, Jack.
Conservative pundits were warning other conservatives like me, be very, very careful.
I wouldn't go to conspiracy route, the statistical anomaly, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Jack Welch came back, he's got a column in the Wall Street Journal today, which says to hell with you, I was right about that strange job report.
So he's doubling down on it.
Here you have Steve Wynne.
This is the second or third time, if not more, that Steve Wynne has come out highly critical of Obama.
Now, what's interesting to me about it is that when this kind of stuff happened in the past, there would be an outcry of protest from the media and from how dare you talk of the president of the United States that way.
How dare you say he doesn't know what he's doing?
How dare you accuse the president of not wanting to create jobs?
How you how dare you?
And then with Welch, how dare you accuse the administration of fudging the numbers, the unemployment, how dare you?
And these guys are normally they'd okay, okay.
The uprising in the media would chill these guys out and they'd slink away and not say any more.
Now they're not slinking away.
They come out and level their criticism.
People say, How dare you do that?
Why who do you think you are?
You can't talk about the president that way.
And they're coming back now and saying, oh, yeah.
Not only was I right last time, I'm double right this time.
And there are more and more people.
Pockmarked all over the country.
Business owners, small business owners, large, major corporations making statements, enacting business policies that let their customers know and their employees know that if Obama's re-elected, it's going to be Armageddon.
More and more business owners let their employees know I may have to fire most of you.
I can't afford to keep this business open with all the requirements that I'm going to have to pay.
What would you do?
One business owner said to his employees, what would you do if I automatically withheld half of your paycheck from you?
You quit working.
What the what's the point?
Half of your paycheck is gone before you even see it.
And the business owner said, That's exactly what happens to me.
My tax rate's over 50% after I pay all of you.
I can't afford it anymore.
If this guy is re-elected, has more tax increases, health care on top of that.
More and more people in the private city normally there's a fear of doing that.
It's always bothered me that that fear exists, to be honest with you.
But if your business is regulated by the government, and you've got a you've got a president who will lie about a sit idly by a watch, an American citizen jailed for something he didn't do, all to make you look good.
I mean, if you're a business owner and you watch Obama successfully secure and arrest and get some guy thrown in jail for something you didn't do, the video filmmaker in this uh Middle East uprising.
If your business happens to be regulated by the government, and you think we're dealing here with a statist and a totalitarian, the odds are you will shut up.
Not call attention to yourself.
Not make them want to create a regulation to deal specifically with you and your business.
So you sit there, you say nothing, and you hope that the guy loses the next election, you do what you can behind the scenes, but now people are starting to speak up and they're starting to act, and they're starting to warn their employees.
I don't I I don't want to make too much of it.
I just get the sense that something's happening out there.
I've had this sense before, and then and I was wrong, so I'm I'm not I don't want anybody to go to bank on this.
It's hard, folks, it's very hard to separate my dreams and my hopes and desires from interpretation of what's happening out there.
You know, I want so much for the things I'm sensing to be happening because of what I think is going on out there.
But it's very difficult to be purely objective and to not get caught up in anecdotal evidence about things, which oftentimes is because it's not scientific, it doesn't tell you anything.
You hear a couple of random stories, you cannot project trends, but if you plug those random stories into what may be trends, like the polling, regardless of the wild fluctuations, there's no question that polling is Trending to Romney, and particularly the independence in the swing states and nationally.
It's trending to Romney.
But then you have to temper that because you know that the people that do the polls can really make them say whatever they want to say at any time.
So it's with guarded optimism that we watch all this.
But I want you to hear Steve Wynne.
Steve Wynne, with a couple of sound bites here on the state's NBC affiliates, their Ralston report show, John Ralston said you called the president a socialist, Mr. Wynne, and you used a memorable phrase that business leaders are quote, sitting on their thumbs until he's gone.
I've created about 250,000 direct and indirect jobs, according to the state of Nevada's measurement.
If the number's 250,000, that's exactly 250,000 more than this president.
Who I'll be damned if I want to have him lecture me about small business and jobs.
I'm a job creator.
Guys like me are job creators, and we don't like having a bullseye painted on our back.
A freaking men.
It's about time.
Who is this skinny little guy who thinks he's got the answer to everything?
He's got the answer to health care.
He's got the answer to job creation.
He's got this arrogant know it all attitude about everything, and nobody else knows anything.
And all he is is a faculty lounge lizard.
He and his other buddies sitting around with their theories and liberalism and socialism and all this, and all they do is talk.
Not one of them has ever been responsible for creating anything of value, job service, or product in the private sector.
But yet they have all the answers.
And in the process of having all the answers, guess who becomes the enemy?
Guys like Steve Wynne.
Risk takers, business starters, creators, job creators.
They become the enemy.
You become successful, you become a target.
You got a bullseye on your back as far as it's not just Obama, it's every liberal and practically every Democrat alive these days now, with what's happened to the Democrat Party.
Why in the world should people who create wealth for everybody else, for others, for their employees?
Why should people who create jobs risk money in building anything?
Why should they become targets?
Why should they become the suspects in our but they are?
And and when it is he's had it.
Hey, we've got a neophyte incompetent trying to totally dominate the U.S. economy and take it over and run it himself.
And he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's doing.
And yet he thinks he's the only one who does.
He's smarter than everybody else.
He cares more than anybody else.
He understands more than anybody else.
And he understands that the successful people in this country really haven't been.
They have cheated, they've stolen, they've lied, they have tricked people.
Or they have inherited Kennedy's exempted.
They don't deserve any of it.
And this country doesn't deserve all of its wealth because it stole a lot of what it has.
It's who this guy is, folks.
And that's who the modern day Democrat Party is.
Steve Wins, every business guy I know in this country is frightened of Barack Obama and the way he thinks.
They're frightened of him because of the power he's got and the power that he wants to have that he doesn't now have, and a power he wants to use.
And you couple it with the way he thinks and is just rampant total incompetence, and they're scared of him.
You did you hear Obama?
We had this uh sound of 2002, Obama, well, you know, the rich.
Oh, they're worried about they got theirs, they just they don't want anybody to take away their stuff.
Exactly.
Well, somebody like Obama, that's a legitimate fear to have.
Somebody coming along and taking your stuff.
That's what he's promising to do.
That's what the redistribution of wealth is all about.
Obama's gonna come and take your stuff.
He's out there chiding and ripping the rich for want to hold wanting to hold on to what they for anybody.
Not the 200,000 a year, 250,000 a year.
You're rich.
You don't deserve it.
You haven't paid your fair share, you haven't done your fair share.
We're gonna come for even more, and you don't know what you're doing.
Only Obama does.
I'm telling you, there's A boatload of resentment out there, and most of the people feeling it don't have the courage or the guts or the desire to speak up and say it.
They're already targets in general.
Why become a target specifically?
So they sit out there and see then they hope that the rest of the country sees things as they do, and that this guy gets defeated.
Here's the next Steve Wend bite.
The president has tried to put himself between me and my employees by class warfare, by deprecating and calling a group that makes money billionaires and millionaires who don't pay their share.
I gave a hundred and twenty percent of my salary and bonus away last year to charities, as I do most years.
I can't stand the idea of being demagogue that is put down by a president who's never created any jobs and who doesn't even understand how the economy works.
Yeah, but he thinks he does.
He knows better than win.
He knows better than everybody else.
This is the guy who told everybody not to go to Las Vegas the first three months he's in office.
The days are getting on the corpus yet, and go to Las Vegas, those days are over.
Well, he basically shut down the hospitality industry.
He stigmatized people who are seen in public enjoying themselves.
He stigmatized people who were paying to go to resorts.
Didn't want the rabble coming after him.
Which is what Obama was trying to gin up.
Every business guy I know in the country is frightened of Obama and the way he thinks.
These guys must think they live in Venezuela.
Because Obama talks about business almost the way Chavez does.
Illegitimate until the state owns it.
Illegitimate until the state controls it.
Illegitimate till the state runs it.
Brief timeout, back with much more before you know it.
Patty and Syracuse, I'm glad that you called.
Hello.
Hi, Russ.
It's uh good to talk with you.
Thank you.
Um I was calling because I'm listening to this stuff about the intelligence on this terrorist attack and everything, and it reminds me of when the Democrats and the Liberals came down so hard on Bush about 9-11 and the failure of intelligence and what a big debacle it was.
And now that the tables are turned, you know.
You know what I mean?
That is an excellent point.
Oh, how about the Intel failure, weapons and mass destruction?
Exactly.
That was worldwide intel.
That was that was uh uh the CIA, that was MI5, it was MI6, it was Interpol, it was everybody.
Everybody said Saddam Hussein that weapons of mass destruction, it was intel, and they ripped Bush a new one for listening to the bad intel, for having bad intel for not having good intelligence, and now this bunch is using bad intel as an excuse.
In fact, I just got audio sound bites from some of the stuff that's happened since the program began.
And they are trying to bail Susan Rice out at this State Department hearing by saying, Well, it was a it was just bad intel, even though they've got their own intel unit at the State Department.
They report to the White House.
This is this cover-up is inept, but it's underway.
Let's go to this now.
But here, Jay Carney this afternoon, uh it at the press briefing in the White House, and uh this is during an answer about the newly released information that there was no protest before the attack in the consulate.
There was it was not something spontaneous.
It was not a video that started it.
Here's what Carney said.
The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point.
As time went on, additional information became available.
Clearly, we know more today than we did on the Sunday after the attack.
The point we have made all along.
Initial assessments in the immediate aftermath of the attack in Benghazi were made, and there was a government-wide assessment that was uh the foundation of what Ambassador Rice said, what I said, and what others said.
It is what we knew based on the limited facts we had available to us at that time.
There were conclusions of uh the intelligence community for the entire government.
This is shameless.
And I told you earlier we had a story, share the details with you from the U.S. News and World Report that or maybe it was the Washington examiner.
Any rate, this is exactly what they're trying to do now.
They're to bail Susan Rice out on the phone.
It was bad intel.
Jay Carney, what he's telling you here is I I thought it was the video.
And I, for eight days, I thought it was the video, and the president thought it was the video because we got bad intel.
It was a government-wide assessment that that was uh we all we could do was deal with the intel.
So now she's exactly right.
Bad intel is an understandable, acceptable excuse.
Don't there's nothing to see here, folks.
Don't blame us.
We just had bad, bad intel.
But the State Department threw this overboard.
There's more coming up.
Don't go away.
And we're back, Rush Linbook, cutting edge.
Societal evolution.
By the way, uh folks, is there something happening out there?
I have uh another poll, latest poll, IBD Tip, IBD Investors Business Daily.
They've got a poll out that shows Romney up five with a plus eight Democrat sample.
Investors Business Daily.
Obviously a conservative editorial page at IBD.
The polling period is October 4th through the 9th, although that's through uh yesterday.
Margin of error plus or minus 3.5% at a sample size of 757 likely voters.
Identified from a sample of 873 registered voters with party affiliation of 39 Democrat, 31 Republican, 30% independent, Romney 48.7, Obama 43.7, that's uh Romney plus five, with a plus eight Democrat advantage in the sample.
The AP.
Obviously, the administration press with a story on the State Department.
You know, because you listened all the time, you know, the State Department has said that we had no intel involving a video.
We we there was no intel that said that this is a spontaneous uprising in Benghazi.
State Department says that.
State Department's testifying right now for Congress.
AP headline, State Department reveals new details of Benghazi attack.
Oh, really?
You couldn't get a more Pablum headline.
State Department reveals new details of Benghazi attack.
The account answers some questions and leaves others unanswered.
Chief among them is why for several days the regime said the assault stemmed from a protest against an American-made internet video, and whether the consulate had adequate security.
The account answers some questions and leaves others unanswered, a chief among them, which is which.
This the cover-up is underway.
The cover-up continues with the drive-by's doing everything they can to cover up.
Jay Carney, White House press briefing, first one in two weeks.
Well, we just had bad intel.
I'm sorry, we did the best we could.
We just had bad intel.
The information that Susan Rice had at the time, the information I had, it was the best we had.
They're laying this off on a CIA now.
They're laying this off on General Petraeus.
Petraeus runs a CIA.
And so now they have met, they've had their crisis meeting this afternoon, and they've decided to dump this on Intel.
And they know that the press will accept it.
Of course, weapons of mass destruction.
That's what the Intel said that Saddam had.
And you know how that wasn't accepted.
The bad intel was evidence that Bush ought to go.
Bad intel, that was it.
Bush lied.
Bad intel, Bush is incompetent.
Bad intel, Bush sucks all of this stuff.
And from that, they tried to delegitimize the entire Iraq war.
And now the same people come up and cite bad intel as their excuse for blaming a video for two weeks when the video had nothing to do with it by the State Department's own admission.
Let's continue here with the audio sound bites.
Patrick Kennedy is a State Department employee, undersecretary of state for management.
Some of the bureaucratic levels.
He's testifying on Capitol Hill, and they're trying to save Susan Rice.
That's the uh the UN ambassador.
We have always made clear that we're giving the best information we have at the time, and that information has involved.
For example, if any administration official, including any career official, were on television on Sunday, September 16th, they would have said what Ambassador Rice said.
The information she had at that point from the intelligence community is the same that I had at that point.
Clearly, we know more about today than what we did on September after the Sunday, September after the attention.
So this is this is unbelievable.
And now Hillary's out.
She's uh nope, that's tape.
Let me recap very quickly what we know.
Yesterday, the State Department has a conference call.
They include every media outlet except Fox.
In the conference call, they admit that they did not ever have any evidence that there was a video involved here and that it was not spontaneous.
They come clean because they've got to go testify before Congress today.
That testimony is under oath.
Nobody wants to lie under oath, and so they come clean.
Now, while they're testifying, they're trying to save the bacon if everybody went out there and blamed the video.
Well, on September 16th, that's all anybody knew.
That's the best intel we had.
It wouldn't have mattered if we sent Elmer Fudd out there.
He would have said the same thing Susan Rice did.
Thing is, Susan Rice went out there with something very specific.
Spontaneous riots that were encouraged by what happened earlier in the day at the Cairo embassy, and the spontaneous riots were due to the video made by that rotten filmmaker making fun of the prophet in California, and that just led to an eruption in Benghazi, and then sooner before anybody knew anything, our ambassador was dead.
That was the detailed story she went out with in the State Department saying today that was the best intel we had at the time.
So it's clear what what's happening.
They are falling on the sword that they just didn't have any good intel.
They've got their own intelligence, a Bureau of International Research or some such, the BIR, just like the Defense has the Defense Intelligence Agency.
And they all report to this guy, Clapper at the White House, James Clapper.
Clapper, by the way, is the guy who said that the Muslim Brotherhood, there's no big threat here.
The Muslim Brotherhood are just like uh barbers, you know, and at a corner barbershop.
They're harmless guys.
I don't I this is outrageous to me.
This this is this is a bigger cover-up, far more uh ramifications consequences in Watergate.
This is this is huge.
We got four dead Americans here.
Uh dumping it on Intel.
Well, didn't matter who we sent out of September 16th.
Doesn't matter.
Susan Rice, Elmer Food had the same same story.
Here's Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the government reform committee.
Uh hearing the diplomatic security uh situation in Libya.
The deputy assistant secretary for international programs, Charlene Lamb, had testified, and during the QA, ISA said this to Charlene Lamb.
The September 11th cable from the now deceased ambassador expresses current concerns on that day.
Repeatedly in the cables that were denied to us, what we see is people telling you that Al-Qaeda type organizations are coming together.
The problem I have is that the State Department is basically saying Mr. Nordstrom didn't do his job.
He didn't make a formal request with justification.
The ambassador didn't do his job, he didn't make a good enough case.
And that's what you're standing behind here today, a compound owned by us and serving like a consulate was in fact breached approximately 60 days before the murder of the uh ambassador in that facility.
Isn't that true?
And this is what Charlene Lamb said.
This is her answer and ISIS follow-up.
Sir, we had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9-11 for what had been agreed upon.
To start off by saying you had the correct number, and our ambassador and three other individuals are dead, and people are in the hospital recovering because it only took moments to breach that facility.
Somehow doesn't seem to ring true to the American people.
Okay, now here's, again, just to recap this.
Earlier today, Robert Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, said that Susan Rice was not lying, that she was relying on intelligence briefings.
Okay, so they set this table sometime last night.
After the State Department makes its call.
This is why Fox is not invited now, I'm convinced.
Fox isn't invited because the State Department and the media are coordinating some.
They're collaborating.
They're coordinating the presentation of all this today to bail Rice out, Obama out, Hillary out.
That's what's at stake here.
They didn't invite Fox on purpose.
Guaranteed.
I can't prove it, but guaranteed.
Fox is always included on these conference calls.
So Gibbs goes out this morning and says Susan Rice was just she she wasn't lying.
She's relying on uh intelligence briefings.
Now the State Department Um I hasten to remind you, the State Department is part of the U.S. intelligence community.
There's a State Department Intelligence Division called the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the BIR.
It works closely with the CIA, the Directorate of National Intelligence and the National Security Council, especially on any intelligence matters related to U.S. diplomacy.
Now, if the State Department's now saying that they never put out any info saying the movie caused the attack in Libya, and if state is part of the intelligence community that puts out intelligence briefings, how are we supposed to believe that Susan Rice was relying on intel briefings?
If they they said yesterday they didn't have any intel on the video, they didn't have any intel on spontaneous.
That's now their excuse.
They didn't have any intel on it, and yet that's what everybody in the administration was saying.
So today they say, well, that's the best we knew at the time.
There was no intel that made this absurd movie claim.
They're saying that that to that that's what they said last night.
After the conference call, they said there was no intel involving the movie or the spontaneous eruption.
Today, somehow, Susan Rice and everybody went out and blame the video because of bad intel.
They folks, we're being smoked gloriously here.
Our intelligence is being insulted, and we've got a collaborating media now helping spread this myth.
There was no intel that made this this absurd movie claim.
That's something the White House made up.
And today the State Department's testifying, well, Susan Rice, we're just going on the best intel we had at the time.
So Obama had a choice blame the movie or blame the utter failure of his policy in Libya, and obviously blame the movie.
And he sent everybody out, and now since he sent them all out to lie, now it's time to protect them.
And that's what all this BS testimony is all about.
Okay, so you you probably have an obvious question.
Well, if the State Department didn't have any intel on this movie video and the spontaneous attack, then where'd the White House get it?
They made it up.
They knew there was a video out.
They just used it.
The State Department said last night they didn't have such evidence.
There was no evidence of video had anything to do with this.
Yet today they're saying, well, Susan Rice said there was a video, and that's all anybody could have said on September 16, because that's the way that's all we had.
They said last night they didn't have it.
So it's a legitimate question.
If if nobody had intel that it was the video, then where'd Obama get it?
Being lied to again here, folks.
All to protect Obama and members of his regime who were sent out to lie to cover up.
And Jake Tapper's not having any of it.
Jake Tapper talking to what's his face?
Carney today.
Jake Jake Tapper said, look, Obama shortly after the attack told 60 Minutes that Romney shot first and aimed later.
When he was talking about all of this, Romney had a tendency to shoot first and aim later.
Now, given the fact that so much was made out of that video, Jay, and apparently had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi.
There wasn't even a protest, Jay, outside the Benghazi Post.
Didn't Obama shoot first and aim later?
Your assessment about what we know now is not complete.
But I would simply say that I'm just going by what the State Department said yesterday.
There is no question that in the region, including in Cairo, there were demonstrations reacting to uh the uh release of that video.
And I will leave it to uh those who are testifying on the Hill to talk about as they are.
Yesterday no there was no protest.
I'm not disputing that there was a protest, but what we said at the time is our intelligence community assessed that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo.
Okay.
Okay, so he what he wants to say is that video was responsible for what happened in Cairo, and then the best intel we have is that those protests inspired what happened in Benghazi.
Folks, these people are lying through their teeth, it makes Watergate look like romper room.
I'm telling you, flat out.
And Jake Tapper just called him on it.
Everything we've said on this program, Tapper, look at the State Department say there was no video, there was no spontaneity attack.
Well, yeah, you don't know everything that we know.
He went back to the video.
I can't believe he went back to the video.
Jay Carney went back to the video.
State Department said yesterday no evidence.
So Carney, they're not going to try to make the case that the video was responsible for Cairo.
And then their best intel was that Cairo inspired Benghazi, but now they know they were wrong.
So that's their story, and that is what they're going to stick to.
So the big question now is who gave Rice and everybody else the intel that it was the video that caused all this.
Who's the source?
Because the State Department says it wasn't them.
Jay Carney said it's responsible for what happened at Cairo, so where'd that come from?
I think we all know.
And we'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection