All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
October 19, 2012, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Readings, my good friends.
How are you?
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network coming to you from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There are no graduates.
There are no degrees.
The learning never stops.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And the telephone number is 1-800-282-288-2.
The email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
And remember, on Friday, very few restrictions on whatever you wish to talk about.
It's not the case Monday through Thursday.
Monday through Thursday has to be something I've either brought up or that I care about.
But on Friday, we broomed that.
And I mentioned an hour ago that there's a McClatchy news story out, and actually an AP story as well.
More continues to be learned about the aftermath of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi.
The upshot of it is that the CIA and the State Department knew practically immediately that it was a terror attack, the result of a planned terror attack, and that what the administration began saying two days later that it was all about a video that had riled tensions in that region was not true.
Purposefully not true.
That Jay Carney got that ball rolling on the video, then Obama sent Susan Rice out.
And what we basically learn from McClatchy, but I want to get into some of the detail of it here.
What we basically learned from the McClatchy story is that the concoction of the video story was to cover for the disaster that our operation removing Mo Mark Gaddafi proved to be.
See, after getting bin Laden, there was no more Al Qaeda.
That's the bubble that Obama lives in.
He created it, and that's what getting bin Laden meant with the Democrats always.
The Democrats always said during the Bush administration, well, you can't win the war on terror until you get Osama bin Laden.
That was their definition because they wanted to make it an impossible thing for Bush to have victory in the war on terror.
So they get bin Laden, and that means there's no war on terror because there's no more Al Qaeda, and that's the thing Obama created.
Then this happened, and that whole narrative is turned upside down.
So they had to come up with an alternate explanation.
And Obama's ideology, well, it's got to be America's fault.
Something like this happened.
It can't be their fault.
We had to go to them into it.
So the video.
The video did it.
And what really did it was we went in and took Qaddafi out and we left.
There was we left a country leaderless, stateless, just like Afghanistan used to be.
And uh a new branch of Al Qaeda moved into Benghazi over which Tripoli has no control, and established an al-Qaeda beachhead, and they attacked the embassy.
So the purpose of the video was to keep people from understanding that taking out Qaddafi was not a great thing.
Taking out Qaddafi led to the creation of the Al-Qaeda Beachhead.
But we couldn't have anybody know that.
We couldn't have that reported.
The mastermind, by the way, of the Benghazi attack is now doing TV appearances in the Middle East bragging about the attack.
And he's going on television.
He's happily known.
He bragging.
He's doing the tour of whatever is the Oprah network in the Middle East, bragging about it.
Now Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air has really done a good job of putting a lot of this together.
Earlier this morning, McClatchy asked why the Obama administration changed its story on the Benghazi terror attack after three days from an initial vague reference to terror attacks to a demonstrably false narrative about a spontaneous demonstration that never took place and a YouTube video that had been online for months.
And that question got more pressing this morning as the AP now reports that the CIA linked the attack to militants in eastern Libya.
So he had the CIA linking it in a way that the Obama administration did not, along with the State Department, they knew the truth.
CIA, State Department knew the truth.
Obama was trying to cover it up.
The CIA, this is the AP story, CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of the deadly attack that there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob.
Now this is devastating because the regime immediately blamed Intel.
Remember, they said the intelligence was bad.
Well, the first thing we got is the intel was the spontaneous.
The Intel never said that.
Folks, we have got a lie and a cover-up here that is bigger than Watergate was.
In my mind, there's no question about it.
If you go back and recall the early days of this, the administration, Biden in the debate with riot, well, the best we knew at the time, the best we knew at the time, our intel at the time was, it was a protest, got out of hand.
No intel ever said that, folks.
And none other than administration media says that today.
The administration press, the intel never said, they never reported what the regime attributed to them.
And Biden's in the debate with Ryan, and he said, well, it's the best intel we had at the time, and nobody told us that there was a request for more security, and that's not true either.
The CIA station chief, not some desk jockey, the head honcho, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington, within 24 hours of the attack, that it was carried out, there was evidence it was carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob, upset about a video.
U.S. officials have now told this to the administration press.
It's unclear who, if anyone saw the cable, outside the CIA at that point, and how high up in the agency the information went.
The regime maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador was a result of mobs that staged less than deadly protests all over the Muslim world because of the video.
Turns out to be not true.
And that takes us back to the McClatchy report, which basically says it was a cover-up of the disastrous effects of taking out Gaddafi.
It was not until the 14th, remember this all happened on 9-11 this year, was not until the 14th that the Obama administration went all in on the YouTube video.
They didn't do it immediately, but they also didn't assign it to a terrorist attack, contrary to what Obama and Candy Crowley tried to say at the debate.
They did not attribute it to a terrorist attack.
Specifically, they attributed it to a mob, a protest that went nuts, and then in the third day, the video story started.
Now, the Associated Press, in their story, wonders if anybody read the CIA cable that had the information.
And it's a good question because the CIA station chief reports to Washington that it was a planned terror Attack in 24 hours.
If somebody in Washington read that cable, then they purposely went out and were telling lies.
So the CIA or the AP is asking in their story if anybody read the CIA cable.
Anyone at the regime, anybody in Washington?
Now stop and think about that for a minute.
Ed Morrissey here at Hot Air has a good question.
He says, let's parse that out for just a second.
We've got the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in the attack on the consulate, key area of the world.
Wouldn't one of the first items to check be information from the CIA's station chief?
If you're sitting in Washington, you're the president or you're his national security team, you get a cable from the CIA, or there's an attack.
Your ambassador's dead.
Your consulate is in flames.
It's natural to assume that there's going to be some curiosity at the highest levels of the administration to explain this.
And indeed there was an explanation.
It was a CIA cable.
And the AP in its story even asks if somebody in Washington even read the CIA cable because what the administration said was so different than what the CIA cable said.
This is really stunning stuff here.
Not to treat you like second graders.
Let me run through this again.
You have the attack.
Within 24 hours, both the State Department and the CIA report that it was a terror attack premeditated and pre-planned.
Within that 24 hours, the CIA sends a cable to Washington, probably to the director of CIA and to the White House and National Security Team explaining that this was a terror attack.
They have evidence, and it turned out the State Department had a video.
It was not spontaneous.
It was not a protest.
Within 24 hours, the CIA had told the White House.
The White House never told that story.
The White House concocted first a protest that was ragtag, that stemmed...
In fact, what they said was that the protest was inspired by what was going on at the Cairo embassy, same day.
Then three days later, two days after the State Department had or the State Department and the CIA had reported what really happened, three days later, then they start with the lie about the video.
But they had in their hands, after the first day, the CIA station chief explanation and the State Department explanation, two different sources, what really happened.
And for over a week they lied.
Every administration figure that went on television from the president on down to Susan Rice to Jay Carney in the White House press room to the president at the UN lied about this being the result of a video.
And the point of all this is the CIA, again, and I pardon me if for being redundant here, but I just drill this home.
CIA State Department within 24 hours had sent the truth of what happened to the White House.
The AP is being generous when they ask, did anybody in Washington read what the CIA said?
Because what the White House and the administration was saying bore no resemblance to the truth.
AP didn't know what it's nobody knew it.
We're all going on the basis it was a video.
That's the story that's out there.
Now, after the fact when everything's known, the CIA, I'm sorry, the AP is wondering, did Obama read this?
Did anybody read the CIA?
They can't get their arms around the fact that Obama purposely lied.
So they're concocting this possibility.
You know what?
Maybe they just didn't See it.
That's why when the AP wonders whether anybody read the CIA cable with the information when you parse that, which is what I just did here, we've got an ambassador and three others dead.
We have a lie being told for seven or more days with the truth on somebody's desk in the White House.
And again, this is from the station chief.
It's not desk jockey.
So you have to conclude one of two things.
Either the people running the show in Washington at the White House are just brazenly incompetent.
Or they are engaged in Watergate II.
The leak, the leak of this information is interesting too.
Because you see that the defense from uh Obama himself at the last presidential debate, as well as Susan Rice in the Wall Street Journal, is that the spontaneous demonstration story is what they were hearing from the intel community, and they never heard that.
The intel community never said that.
Obama and Candy Crowley lied through their collective teeth at the debate.
Susan Rice lied in an op-ed and on television, five separate Sunday shows on a Sunday morning.
The intel never told them it was a video.
We know the State Department has testified to this under oath before Congressional Committee.
Nobody over there in Cairo, in Libya, ever said it was a video.
And yet, as recently as the debate Monday night, Obama said that the time the best intel they had was that it was a spontaneous demonstration inspired by the video.
Now this makes it very clear that the Obama administration excuses are false.
The State Department watched the attack unfold in real time.
They have video of it.
That fact revealed at the House Oversight Committee hearings.
And unlike Mrs. Clinton, the intel community apparently has no intention of being scapegoated for the White House's cover story.
That's what the as for the AP story about the CIA is today.
They're not gonna get scapegoat.
They're not falling on Obama's sword.
The McClatchy story is the one that says why they concocted the video to cover up for the fact that they left Libya wide open for Al-Qaeda after taking Al Qaeda.
It's stunning.
Literally, it's either brazen incompetence or huge calculated coordinated lying.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back.
Now you know what's gonna happen now that this story's out, and if Obama's even asked about this, what'll happen is this.
Somebody, Jay Carney, somebody in the regime will say, Well, yeah, the station chief did send out a report, but you know, that doesn't go straight to the White House.
Uh the media reports on that are not correct.
What happens is these uh these intelligence reports, these uh raw reports when they go to analysts at the CIA and the agency then analyzes it can take a day or two before the president would even been told that's what they're going to say.
That's all the regime can do, which is poppy cock.
This is the heat of the moment.
You've got a dead ambassador and three other Americans.
They're not gonna somebody who cares is going to demand to know instantly what the heck happened there.
The idea that I I bet you I'm right.
I'll bet you that the version we get is well it had to go to CIA had to be analyzed, it'd be vetted, it had to be uh compared against other things that we knew, blah, blah, blah.
And all the while, then of course, nobody at the White House is interested.
They're content to wait a couple days to find out what happened.
Why an ambassador's dead.
It's all a crock.
Now the question is, uh, ladies and gentlemen, what was Obama doing at that time.
What was Barack Obama doing 24 hours after the terror attack?
It's right, Snergley, great memory.
He left for Las Vegas.
Now remember, the 24 hours afterwards, the State Department, the CIA, both say it was a terror attack, planned and orchestrated.
It was not a demonstration, nothing protest, no ragtag bunch of people just got out of control.
It was not the video, it was a coordinated terror attack.
And reported that the first 24 hours.
Did Obama read that?
Or did somebody forget to put that in the binder?
We don't know if he read it.
Because he was he might have read it and said, Well, I got people dealing with this.
He'd left for Las Vegas.
He did not call an all-hands meeting of his security defense and foreign policy top staff.
He didn't want to be bothered with this.
We know that.
He did not put everybody together to figure out what the heck had happened.
He has shown complete disinterest in intelligence briefings, my friends.
Doesn't even show up at half of them.
Okay, now as for let's just see.
Let's just see if the White House, if this if this story has any legs beyond the conservative blogs in this show, and if somebody there is asked about the CIA station chief report in the first 24 hours, let's see what they say.
My prediction is they will say, well, you know, it's got to go up to the agency analysts have to look at this thing.
We wouldn't see that for a day or two.
That's BS, folks.
This is the station chief.
This go right from, it's like it is being vetted by him.
It would go right to the White House.
It'd go to the agency, go right to the White House.
National Security Team.
We got a dead ambassador here.
So we'll see.
Now as for the cover-up, the cover story.
Mrs. Clinton's taking the fall for this now, folks.
Let's not forget that.
She flew off to Peru and she took the fall for it.
Partially.
She didn't take the blame, but she said security's her responsibility.
Now everybody assumes.
There's one thing about Americans.
This is one of the big problems that I've had with this administration.
See, every American rightfully, by the way, rightfully, properly, considers that a Secretary of State is properly overseeing the department.
And everybody, every American assumes it's a lock.
It's guaranteed the president of the United States is up to speed on threats to this country, is up to speed on national security.
You might have presidents that are commy SOBs when it comes to welfare nest, but most, if not every American, thinks that every president is as focused on protecting this country as anybody would be.
And so as part of that, we would assume that Mrs. Clinton was properly overseeing the State Department.
Most people would assume that.
Others who know that she's incompetent and in over her head would not think that.
And I put myself in that group, but it's most Americans are just going to assume that exceptional people, exceptionally qualified people get these jobs.
We want to believe that.
We want to believe that we got really qualified people in these jobs.
So the assumption is that Mrs. Clinton is properly overseeing her department, the State Department.
We know, for example, that she's if she's not the most, she's one of the most traveled secretaries of state in history.
She is the most.
Okay, I'm right.
Yep.
The most traveled.
Now people assume that that means that she's the most knowledgeable.
She's experienced all that travel.
She's seeing the world.
She's up to speed.
These are the assumptions that people make.
This cover-up could be far more extensive than just covering up a CIA station chief report that wasn't listened to, that was ignored, that might not have even been seen.
This cover-up could be far greater than that.
They might be covering up not only the spread of Al-Qaeda in Libya.
Remember, that's the McClatchy story.
The McClatchy story is that the reason they blame the video and angry Muslims is because taking Qaddafi out, left Benghazi wide open, Al-Qaeda has run in there and taken it over.
They've got there's non-A-Qaeda state, if you will in Benghazi, and they're trying to cover that up.
But maybe there's more.
What they might be covering up here is not just the spread of Al-Qaeda in Libya and North Africa generally.
They might be covering up their own incompetence and their own disinterest.
This was 9-11.
This was an anniversary date.
There were things that were happening that should have been prepared for.
Things happened for which there should have been responses to the anniversary of 9-11, particularly in that part of the world, and folks, it is obvious we weren't prepared.
It's a what remembered the first thing we learned is that some yokel in the Cairo embassy, before anything had happened, sends out an apology memo.
Apologizing for the video before anything is before the protests in Cairo, before Benghazi happened, somebody in the Cairo embassy sends out an apology memo, and the and which Obama then later disavowed, but said he could understand.
They were trying to apologize in advance to make sure there wasn't any unrest.
Conflict resolution 101.
Go back to John Bolton and these guys'ideology and their worldview.
We're the problem.
And if we just show that we're not the problem, then they'll stand down.
So if we apologize in advance, that they'll say, okay, Americans are really sorry.
You know what?
Okay, we'll be nice.
They really believe that.
Don't forget the first thing in this is an apology for nothing that had happened yet.
So it could well be here that what's being covered up is grand incompetence and disinterest at large in all of this.
National security writ large.
Ladies and gentlemen, the American people, even dork actresses, will not tolerate a president whose priority is fundraising and golf ahead of national security.
They will not tolerate that.
They might tolerate some guy who wants to redistribute wealth.
They might tolerate some guy who wants to raise taxes on the rich.
They might tolerate some guy who does not know what he's doing in creating jobs, because they might like him or has got some historical aspect of his presidency, first black president.
But they will not tolerate when they find out that a president put his own fundraising and his own pleasure ahead of national security.
And that might be exactly what they're covering up because he did go out and fundraise.
He went out and fundraised, he left for Vegas and Jay-Z, then Letterman.
On the same day, 24 hours after this, after the sob story session in the Rose Garden, where both he and Candy Crowley lied, saying that he had called it a terrorist attack.
So it could well be that they're covering up far more here than just the fact Northern Africa's gone Al-Qaeda on Obama's watch.
They could be covering up the fact they don't want anybody to find out how disinterested they were in all of this.
Especially.
The American people will not tolerate somebody who puts his own pleasure and fundraising ahead of national security, especially when the result is the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans.
They find out.
If they are shown conclusively that the president put his own pleasure and his own political needs fundraising ahead of all this, that they won't tolerate.
Well, the Obama phone woman will, but most Americans won't put up with it.
This is profound what has been reported in the state controlled media.
It's profound.
This is A.P. and McClatchy that have unearthed this.
Okay, we've got the daily Gallup poll.
Yesterday it was Obama down by seven.
The day before it was Obama down six.
Likely voters.
Today, 5145 Romney, six points.
The drive buys.
There's a piece in the Hill.com by A. B. Stoddard.
You're starting to see more of these people write about how Obama's losing it.
Losing the moment, not the election yet, losing the momentum.
The blooms off the road.
These kinds of stories are being written a little bit more frequently here.
In this Gallup poll, this is post-debate now, post-debate number two.
They're also learning there wasn't a bounce out of debate two.
There was not.
Don't doubt me.
I'm I'm just with the pollsters are saying.
No bounce for Obama after debate.
Why was that there was no bounce?
Just like I told you he didn't do well.
That was my whole point after the only people who thought he won the thing in the inside the Bellway eggheads are scoring it in ways that the American people don't look at these debates.
Points.
I'm telling you, Romney is not going to be penalized for not refuting an Obama lie.
Obama telling the lie is the penalty.
Romney not going to be penalized by voters because he doesn't refute an Obama lie, but these guys scored that debate.
Oh boy, Romney really blew it.
Obama got away with a big whopper there.
Minus two for Mitt.
No, it doesn't work that way.
Minus one for Obama for telling the lie.
Minus one for Obama because Sandy Candy Crowley was on his side and ended up lying up.
The whole next day was about how that whole thing was a lie.
The reason there's no bounce is because he didn't win it.
Contrary to what the political class thinks.
I told you that.
Are you asking me this just to irritate me because you like the show when I get irritated?
Is that what you're doing in there?
You just wanted to hear it.
He knew.
He knew.
You're goading me in there.
So the bottom line here is that Obama's still 45%.
Romney's still over 50%.
And let's go to uh Bob Beckle.
Yesterday on Fox News Channels the Five.
The co-host Andrea Tarantula is speaking to Bob Beckle about the Gallup poll yesterday, seven points.
And Andrea Tarantula says, you have to admit, Bob, they're panic out there.
I talked to a senior Democrat in a green room a couple hours ago.
I said, shoot straight with me how much panic is there.
And this Democrat, Bob, told me that there's a lot.
If I were looking at those numbers and I was managing a presidential campaign, I would be upset.
If those numbers are correct, it is over.
It is over.
So I mean, you're not going to bring Romney back under 50% for 52.
Not a challenger candidate.
If that's correct.
I have a great deal of admiration for Gallup, but you've got to remember it is outside the margin of area, plus or minus 4%.
So it may be 48.
I don't know the answer to that.
One thing, folks, I don't want anybody going to town yet because Gallup's the only poll saying this.
It's the only one.
The others have it either Romney 4948 or Obama 4948 or Tide 4848 or 4847.
But in no poll is Obama at 50.
And in no poll has he been in 58.
It's approval isn't at 50.
But even you have a six point seven point spread, there's still Ohio out there.
It really nothing against those of you who live in Ohio.
Please.
It just bugs me that if this is going to come down to it would be if it were came down to Florida, it would bug me.
One state?
That means the Democrats, if that's what it's going to come down to is Ohio, they can they can get out of everywhere, take every fraudulent cheating resource they've got and put it into Ohio.
We shall see.
Anyway, Beckle, if it's 52, 45, 51, 45, it's over.
And he didn't throw Ohio in there.
5245, that's not quite landslide, but you're getting there.
Here's F. Chuck Todd last night on the NBC nightly news reporting new polls about the presidential race.
New NBC news polls in two of those states today show the Obama Biden ticket still holding a small but significant edge.
In Iowa, an eight-point advantage, 5143.
And in Wisconsin, it's a six-point contest.
Obama 51, Romney 45.
And we saw no real difference in our poll among respondents we talked to before Tuesday's debate compared to those polled last night.
See, no debate mounts in they can't understand that.
F. Chuck and his buddies in the media can't understand.
They thought Obama cleaned Romney's clock in that debate.
Now the two polls he's talking about here, Wisconsin and Iowa, those are that's uh Marist reported by NBC Wall Street Grantic Break here.
But I need to tell you one interesting fact about these two polls.
Don't go away.
Nate Silver is the numbers cruncher at the New York Times, and he's uh he's pointing everybody to a video at Reuters.
It isn't over, Romney isn't winning anything.
Forget the Gallup poll.
Romney not winning anything.
And he points all these other polls out where it's within the margin of error tide.
And I think it's incorrect to say Romney's not winning anything, but the Gallup poll is the only one that's reporting what it's reporting, although real clear politics.
You know, Missouri's in a tank now for Romney.
That would put him at 210, whatever electoral votes over Obama's 201, whatever it is.
Anyway, that the I want to get some calls in there.
And this the Marist poll of Iowa and Wisconsin, with Romney uh behind in both those polls by five and seven points, six or eight points, whatever it is.
The one thing to know about those two state polls, they do not show any change after the first debate.
They don't.
Those two state polls, the Marist poll reported by NBC in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
I got, um I can't tell you the number of people sent those polls to me all depressed.
Oh, God, Russia, I knew not to believe Gall.
Oh, God, it's over.
Obama's gonna win.
Look at this.
And I looked at it.
And I looked at it, and I saw there's these polls have never changed.
They don't, as far as those two polls were concerned, there wasn't a first debate.
So these are the only two polls that don't reflect any difference in their data after the first debate.
Make of that what you will.
Mindy in West Valley, Utah.
I'm glad you waited.
You're on Open Line Friday.
Hi, thanks so much for taking my call.
This is so so amazing.
Um I wanted to talk about the Benghazi cover-up in the video.
Yeah.
And I personally find it appalling that the Obama regime was willing to arrest an American and lay all the blame on that person.
And I was just wondering how far were they willing to take this?
A man could go to trial and possibly lose his life.
See, they'll be Obama.
He's in jail because of uh parole violation on a bank fraud.
That's what they're saying.
It just happens to coincide with his uh video production.
What here's the scary thing about that.
In your instincts, right in the money, what Obama wants the world to see, what Obama wants Islam to see, is that we put the guy in jail.
He doesn't care if they hear the guy's in jail on a bank fraud uh parole violation.
He is very content for the world to see that a guy who did a video that Obama doesn't like and is blaming for all kinds of hell is in jail.
That ought to scare everybody.
And I and and remember Obama at the UN.
People wonder why we just don't ban the video.
Well, the reason is enshrined in our laws.
Well, I'm sorry, but every tin horn dictator at the UN knows about our first amendment.
They don't need to have it explained to them by Obama.
Yet he felt the need to explain to these ten horn dictators why he hadn't banned the video.
It's enshrined in our laws.
Damn it, is what he meant.
Mindy.
Well, uh yeah, it is.
It is, and you're right to point it out, and we'll be back.
Don't go away.
Anyway, the bottom line here on this uh Benghazi stuff is for the next debate, doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what Obama said in the Oval Office.
Doesn't matter whether he called it a terror attack or not.
That's no longer the story.
It goes much deeper than that.
▲
Export Selection