All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
November 16, 2012, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
Well, General Petraeus did change his story.
He changed his story.
I'm I'm I'm looking, I'm starting with this because I was wrong.
I I thought he would stick with what he said in his first round.
He changed his story.
Doesn't matter.
And not gonna matter Hill of Beans, but he changed his story.
Hi, my friends.
How are you?
It's L. Rushball here.
It's Friday, and you know what that means?
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Okay, for those of you who are new to the program, Monday through Thursday, callers on this program when we take them have to talk about things I care about.
And they don't get on.
And if they lie or cheat, try to talk about things I don't care about, we politely hang up on them in a way you never hear.
You don't know, but they're gone.
But on Friday, whatever you want to talk about is okay with me.
It doesn't matter whether I care about it or not.
Friday is your day.
You can define what the program is all about.
When we go to the phones, the telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Now, Petraeus is claiming that he's saying what he told him in the first briefing, but there's no transcript of that.
Everybody is of the belief that that Petraeus in the first briefing went along with the regime and said that it was uh it was a spontaneous protest due to the video.
I mean, that's what he said.
Now he's saying no, that's not what I said at first, but there's no there's no transcript.
General Petraeus is we have this in Peter King, Congressman New York, General Petraeus is saying that he always thought it was terrorism.
Today is the first day, though, that we are learning that he always thought it was terrorism.
Let's uh let's review the uh the history.
Yes, yes, yes, of course, look.
Here I'm already being, are you gonna talk about host?
Yeah, I'm gonna talk about a host.
You know what there is?
18,500 people gone.
Hostess Twinkies Dingdongs shut down.
Some people might think it's a buy opportunity if you want to get into the ding dong business, but if there's ever, folks, if you if you need an indication that the Democrats will never compromise on anything.
Take a look at this.
This hostess is is going out of business because of unions.
Now you it's 18,500 jobs.
You think in this economy that somebody would might want to show the ability to compromise if only to fool people.
They won't even compromise on this.
The unions are the Democrat Party.
Trump is at the White House again today.
Won't even compromise to save 18,000 jobs.
Are you kidding me?
Obama couldn't step in here even for the optics of it.
I mean, yesterday he saved New York.
Today he could save ding dongs.
He could save Twinkies.
Except the White House, Michelle's probably celebrating.
Because this is, you know, just rotten, no good food to her.
But see, I think they wanted this, folks.
I think they wanted hostess bye-bye.
And you know why?
Because it's not unions.
No wait.
Take that back.
They they they wanted this to happen.
Because this is just going to create more dependence on unions and the government.
It's just gonna create more dependence.
So this is this is all fine with Barry.
I know nobody understands me.
You know, I'm I'm doing this program with a whole different mindset now.
I didn't tell Snerdlies in there panicking.
I'm saying mindset.
As I do this program, I'm imagining how I'm being heard by all these uneducated, ill-educated, maleducated young people.
And it's fun.
And I can hear I I I'm sure that they're throwing daggers at their radio because they just heard me criticize Obama on this hostess thing.
Anyway, it's it's a fun thing.
And it it it it's a it's a actually a build out on on some of the things that we were discussing yesterday about the battles that we face really being cultural as well as, if not more than politics.
Anyway, the hostess thing's what it is, it's gone.
We knew it was coming.
Uh it just illustrates there's no desire to compromise.
When the Democrats lose elections, for example, then nobody ever runs around getting introspective.
Gee, you think we ought to become more pro-life?
Gee, you think we ought to back off this uh immigration that we're in for?
Gee, you think we ought to become more conservative?
It never is said.
When we lose, I don't have to tell you.
And in fact, folks, this was predictable too.
The Republicans are establishing the mechanism to cave on tax increases.
Some governors are McConnell, we've got the soundbite, ready now to talk about revenues as long as there's talk of spending cuts, but you and I know that there won't be any of those, because Obama doesn't have to cut any spending.
That's the last thing there's going to be.
And and so Obama wants 1.6 trillion dollars in new taxes.
Now, here's something to think about.
How's he going to get that?
And he will.
See, this is the thing that we've got to realize.
This is going to happen.
It may be 1.2, but he is going to get this.
And Boehner.
Boehner, you know, we had our note from the chief of staff for the uh for the for the Congress said that Boehner's just let Obama lead and see where it takes us.
McConnell says we're fine and dandy on the revenue side now.
The Republicans are the ones that always, okay, we're gonna we lost the election, we're gonna have to moderate our tone and our beliefs and uh and all this.
So we're we're we're on the verge here of watching it.
Benghazi, too.
If there's I I hope the Republican Party understands what's at stake for them politically in making sure that there is a single select committee on this.
If you have a bunch of different committees looking into it or no committees looking into it, it's gonna blow the opportunity.
There has to be a single select committee on this.
If there is not just for the political value of it, but because it's the right thing to do to find out what have we got for dead Americans.
And it's it is a large scandal.
Which of course takes us back to uh no, finish one thought.
How do you get 1.6 trillion dollars in new taxes?
Now the politics of this is quite simple.
The Republicans have sworn in every campaign that they're not going to permit a tax increase.
The Democrats have said we're gonna raise taxes on rich.
Well, raising taxes on the rich and even getting rid of deductions is not gonna get you anywhere near 1.6 trillion dollars.
It's not gonna get you anywhere near $800 billion, just raising tax on the rich.
So how are they gonna do it?
My friends, I just want to alert you to a possibility.
I I'm like I'm like the old Hogan's heroes uh prison camp guard Sergeant Schultz, I know nothing.
Nothing, but in thinking about it, how do you get to 1.6 trillion dollars and both parties being able to claim that they were true to their political promises.
And there is a way to do it, and it's called the alternative minimum tax.
And it's called expanding the alternative minimum tax to practically everybody.
The alternative minimum tax will not involve one change in income tax rates.
So Obama, for example, be able to go out and raise the rates, marginal rates on the rich at 39.6.
And the uh uh Republicans will be able to say that they fought raising marginal rates on the middle class.
The rates won't change, but over here is gonna be this thing called the alternative minimum tax, which says that everybody's gotta pay a minimum of 30%.
And a bunch of deductions are gone.
They'll probably leave the home mortgage deduction in for cover.
Now, and then the cherry on the top is making it retroactive to 2012.
Just like Clinton did when he raised taxes in 1993.
So if you have an alternative minimum tax that hits 60 million taxpayers, but you haven't changed rates, except on the rich, and you get rid of a bunch of deductions for the rich.
Why you're looking at a win-win until people file.
And of course, the economic impact of this would be an abject disaster.
Taking 1.6 trillion dollars away from people under the guise of reducing the deficit when there is no spending cut anywhere near any of this.
There's a patch, as you well know.
You people have been caught in the AMT.
You know what hell it is.
There's a patch that will expire, I think, this year.
They'll let that go.
I'm just looking, I'm just uh talking off the top of my head here.
I'm trying to figure out how could they get this done and within the realm of politics, be able to tell their voters that I didn't break any promises.
And it's right out there waiting on AMT.
And then if you want, put a VAT on top of it.
And then you know, just claim it, well, yeah, we're gonna tax the rich even more.
We're gonna we're gonna tax every level of consumption.
It's gonna really hit the rich.
And of course, the Obama educated voters go, yay.
The economic impact of this will be an abject disaster.
You know, there's some people have to file an alternative minimum tax even though it doesn't apply to them.
It's a the alternative minimum tax form is a nightmare to have to do a talk to your accountant if you have to, well, you know if you if you pay the AMT if it hits you.
But just think about it.
I could be all wet here.
I'm just thinking how they do this.
And I'm doing this, I'm thinking about this because I'm seeing the signs of Republicans giving in on opposing new taxes.
At the highest levels, the three governors, including Bob McConnell of Virginia.
They're all saying we're willing to put revenue on the table.
As long as we get some spending cuts.
Well, yeah.
And I'm sure that the regime will say, oh, we'll be spending, we'll certainly look at that.
Uh we'll up a couple hundred million off of this and a couple hundred million, and bam, everybody gets, yeah, we cut spending when there really won't be.
I can see this.
Well, elections have consequences.
Now back to Petraeus and back to Benghazi and the select committee and why there had better be one.
Petraeus is saying, and Peter King from New York, the Congressman is saying that uh he said it was terrorism from the get-go, that he always thought it was terrorism.
And he never, he's not really changing his testimony here, which of course is curious because all of us, you, me, have been under the belief since September 13th that Petraeus went out and said that it was a video, like everybody else in the regime.
Well, let's review some of the histoire.
On September 14th, three days after the attack at Benghazi, Petraeus told members of Congress that the video was the problem.
The video is what caused a protest, which led to the attack on the embassy in Benghazi.
Today, November 16th, so just a little over a month.
And Petraeus is saying, well, he's he's he's uh it's being Said for him that his September the 14th story, he's massaging that now, and saying he he he meant or tried to convey on September 14th that it was terrorism.
It was always terrorism.
And I suspect the answer here lies in something Bill Crystal said on Fox earlier this week.
Bill Kristol reported that Crystal's a leader to Neo Cons, he knows these guys.
Crystal said, excuse me, that somebody told him, Congress or somebody, that he ran into Petraeus at that original hearing, September 14th.
So what really happened?
Petra said, you want the real version, or you want our version?
And he said Petraeus said it's terrorism, there's no question, but we're saying it's the video.
I mean, Crystal said something like this on Fox earlier this week.
So therefore, Petraeus could say, Crystal could confirm that it's on record.
Oh, yeah, Petraeus said back then that it was terrorism all the way, but he had to say something else.
But here's his thing.
Greta Van Sestran on her uh blog at Fox says, This is why I don't believe it.
If that were true, if on September 14th, he told members of Congress that it was the video that was the problem, and then today he's saying he's always thought it was terrorism.
If that's true, that he was committed to telling the American people the truth on September 14th that it was terrorism, it was al Qaeda.
Why did he later correct the false story?
Why didn't he correct the false story much before today?
Why wait until today?
He could have issued a public statement or even made a private call to friends in the media to get his no, he but he let it survive for over a month that his interpretation was the video.
But if he's now saying, no, no, no, it's a first damn the box it was terrorism.
Greta is saying if that's true, why didn't he later correct the false story before now?
He had so much opportunity to correct the record.
He had to know what was being said by others in the press and by members of the House and Senate.
He could have corrected it publicly or even privately to those who continued this silly story in order to stop him.
Why didn't he?
If he knows that it was terrorism, here's what she's getting at.
If he knows and if he thought it was terrorism and he's watching Susan Rice out there on the five TV show say it's the video, and he's watching Obama say it's the video.
If he's watching every Democrat say it's the video, why not get a statement of no, no, no, it's not the video.
Because the false stories continued after that congressional testimony on the 14th.
Susan Rice on September 16th on five different shows, it's the video.
Obama won on Letterman, it's the video.
Obama went on the view, it's the video.
Obama at every fundraiser event that he had to say, it's the video.
And there were countless other times where this video story was was spread.
So Petraeus had lots and lots and lots of chances to stop this story and correct it, and he didn't.
And so, why?
Well, I don't know what you're yelling at the radio.
Rush, he's it director.
It works for the regime.
He can't go out and undercut the regime.
He did today.
Yeah, but he's not with the regime now, Rush.
The election's over.
There's all kinds of reasons.
Anyway, let's take a brief time out.
We will continue when we get back, of course.
You know, I'm reminded by a friend that I asked some questions about this very early on, and I I did, and I'm glad to be reminded.
I want to I want to ask these questions again.
This Benghazi thing in this video.
Who came up with that story?
Nobody had ever heard of that video.
That video was not in the public domain.
Well, it was, but it when it was not being discussed in the public domain.
That video was sitting idle In a YouTube library in since June.
There was nothing in the world that was happening that was said to be caused by that video.
Nobody had heard of it.
So who found that video?
And who came up with the idea of using that video as a means to explain what happened both in Cairo at the embassy there and over in Benghazi.
And then after whoever it was found the video and came up with the idea of using the video, then who walked the idea of using the video over to the CIA to the State Department, the FBI and the White House and sold them on the movie idea.
Who's behind this?
And remember that this poor schlub that did the movie is in jail for a year on a supposedly unrelated charge.
This was a cover up from the first moments of this, and the video was the mechanism, and nobody seems to care how that all happened.
Okay, folks, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, as usual.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Again, timeline.
Bill Kristol earlier this week said, quote, somebody told me that General Petraeus on the Hill that day, September the 14th.
A director Petraeus, I should say, said privately to one of the members of Congress, this is what happened in Benghazi.
Do you want the official line or you want the real truth?
So on September 14th, according to Crystal, Petraeus said to a member of Congress, you want the official line, you want the truth.
If Petraeus had told Congressman on September 14th the truth, everybody would have run to the microphones and said, the CIA just said that it was a terror attack.
You don't think they would have?
Of course they wouldn't.
We're in the middle of campaign.
If Petraeus had told them that he didn't, he he followed the official line.
He told them that it was a video.
At the time the video was first mentioned as an excuse it had 200 views on YouTube.
Back in June sometime.
Now, why didn't Petraeus object to Al Qaeda being left out of the talking point?
Because there's another bombshell that's happened here.
And it comes from Peter King.
Here it is this morning in Washington.
King spoke to reporters about the closed door hearing in which Petraeus testified.
He said it went through a long process involving many agencies, including the Department of Justice, the State Department, and no one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points.
Other than to say the original talking points prepared by the CIA were different from the ones that were finally put out.
Now, let me translate this for you.
Peter King comes out of this hearing.
He says that Petraeus told them that the CIA talking points meant for Susan Rice's September 16th TV appearances, originally contained the information that there was evidence Al-Qaeda elements were involved in the attack.
These talking points were then altered through an interagency process and they were removed.
The Al Qaeda element of the talking points, when you hear talking points, that's the stuff given to Rice and every other regime spokesman.
The original talking points that Rice that were prepared for Rice, this is a key.
The talking point, no, no, she never got them.
The talking points that were prepared for her said it was Al Qaeda, said it was a terrorist attack.
Sometime between September 14th and September 16th, somebody took the Al Qaeda element out and put the video in.
This is why Greta is scratching her head.
Well, if you did, then why did Susan Rice go out two days later and say it was the video?
That's why we need a select committee on this, because this is now all over the ballpark.
I mean, this is a bombshell, folks.
that the original talking points for Susan Rice to take out there.
Look at this goes back to Obama.
He admitted the other day in his press conference.
He said a White House sent her out.
Sent her out with the best intel we had at the time.
No, it wasn't the best intel.
The best intel we had at the time was that it was Al Qaeda.
But that was removed.
That element was removed.
The original talking points were much more specific about Al Qaeda involvement.
And yet the final talking points just said indications of extremists.
It said indicate, even though there was clearly evidence at the CIA that there was Al Qaeda involvement.
And we now know that because that's what Petraeus said today.
David Petraeus publicly, September 14th said it was spontaneous combustion protests brought about by a video.
Today, David Petraeus said that that was part of the original talking points that Susan Rice was going to take to television.
Sometime between September 14th and 16th, they took the Al Qaeda stuff out.
And from September 14th on, it was the video.
All the while Petraeus knew it wasn't, but he didn't say anything.
He knew that the talking points had been altered.
That's what the bombshell today is.
And what we still don't know is who came up with the idea to use this video.
Who found that video?
Who took that idea to either Obama or the CIA or the FBI.
Somebody said, we're going to cover this up and I've got the perfect vehicle, this video.
I could be redundant.
I could repeat this timeline.
I feel like I should, because I'm not sure people get this.
I don't, I'm not sure people get anything anymore, tell you the truth, but this is bombshell stuff.
The original talking points for Susan Rice, she was going to be sent out there to say it was Al Qaeda, and somebody stopped it, changed it, took that out, sent her out there with the story of the video.
Petraeus knew it was never a video from the first day.
He admits that today.
And I know a lot of people say, well, my gosh, Russia, we can't count on Petraeus.
Who can we count on?
Exactly.
When asked by a reporter if Petraeus knew why the talking points were changed, King said they just said it goes through a process, an interagency process.
And when they came back, they've been taken out.
So what we're going to believe is the original talking points, the explanation for what happened, Al-Qaeda terror attack, Benghazi.
Then they send that stuff to all the different agencies.
Department of Justice, uh, Department of State.
Uh Hell they probably sent a FEMA for all we know.
And it comes back, and Al Qaeda's taken out when it gets back.
So somewhere in this circuitous route where all these agencies get signed off on it, it gets taken out somewhere.
And when time she hits TV on September 16th, it's the video.
Now, uh, ladies and gentlemen, we uh we now know.
Then their final format, the talking points in question focused exclusively on the false idea that the 9-11 anniversary attack was motivated by a video.
That is a false claim, and that was the final format of the talking points.
Here's more from King.
Uh, his remarks after the Petraeus testimony this morning.
His testimony today was that from the start, he told us that this was a uh terrorist attack of the terrorists involved from the start.
I told him my questions had very different recollection of that.
The clear impression we were given was that uh the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it was a uh Rose had a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a uh a terrorist attack.
Caesar saying that Petraeus said all along it was a terror attack.
No, he didn't all along say it was a terror attack.
All along, Petraeus is saying it's the video.
Petraeus testified today behind closed doors that all along he said it's a video.
Or terrorism.
Here's more king.
Here he says that uh there were many streams of intel, but that Petraeus now maintains terrorism all along.
No, no, you know, he was saying there were many streams of intelligence, but he also stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement.
And that is not my recollection of what he told us at September 14th.
Boy, he's really soft pedaling this.
This is something to be shouting and pounding the podium.
But he's uh he he stated that he told us all along that it was terrorism, and that's not my recollection of what he told us on September 14th.
That's because he didn't tell you that on September.
On September 14th, he was telling you what the regime wanted out there that it was a video.
We all know that they were saying it was a video.
That's the whole point here when they knew it wasn't.
That's the whole point.
Everybody describing this as a spontaneous attack was lying about it.
They were covering something up.
And the truth be told, we still don't know what.
We don't know what is being covered up here.
Here's Saxby Chambless, Republican senator from Georgia.
This is last night, Fox News Special Report, Chris Wallace.
What can you tell us about what you learned about Benghazi?
It was very clear, Chris, from day one, this was a terrorist attack.
I mean, it's just so obvious to uh it'd be so obvious to any inexperienced individual that this was purely a terrorist attack.
Secondly, I think what we learned is that it's not very likely that the intelligence community is going to put out any unclassified talking points anytime in the near future.
Well, so what?
Again, and then Wallace said, after what you heard today, Senator, and this is yesterday.
There's an update on this, but I want you to heard today, Senator, do you come away thinking that what Susan Rice told the American people that Sunday was in good faith based on CIA talking points, which may have been mistaken?
But whereas I say in good faith, or do you think that politics may apply?
In other words, you think she's lying, or do you think she went out there not knowing the truth and was ex and it and telling people what she really thought happened?
What I heard today hasn't changed my mind about what Susan Rice said.
What Susan Rice said was exactly what President Obama told her to say.
That's what he said yesterday.
Just taking a shot at uh Senator McCain and Senator Graham were simply uncalled for.
And if he says, come after me, then by golly, is he gonna shoulder the responsibility?
Because it looks like they were about ready to throw her under the bus.
Uh so it hasn't changed anything from my perspective as to what she said.
She was saying exactly what the political shop at the White House told her to say.
Exactly.
And then they're not going to throw her under the bus.
They were trying to try to build her up and make her the um Secretary of State.
By the way, there's a soundbite coming up later, but I'll interject it here.
Uh there's a and we're it we're drawing an inference ourselves.
It's a soundbite of Senator McCain.
And I don't know.
I mean, I'd play it for it.
I don't know what the number is, I don't have time to find it, but we'll get to it.
But but the interesting thing about it is is that if you hear it right, it could well be that the reason McCain I I almost am afraid to say this for fear of what your reaction is going to be.
One of the theories that explains why McCain is really dumping on Susan Rice is.
Are you ready for it?
Senator McCain wants his good friend John Carey to get Secretary of State.
Well, you be the judge when we get to that.
Here's number eight.
I'm told, let's let's listen to it.
This is last night, your world with Neil Cavuto.
And Cavuto said, what would you do if Susan Rice is picked for Secretary of State?
Clearly, right now I would be opposed because the American people were told false information by her at the direction of the White House.
What would you think if the pick was Senator John Kerr?
We'd obviously want to advise and consent.
Senator John Kerry did come within a whisker of being president of the United States, as you know.
I've known him for many years.
I haven't agreed with him on a number of issues, but you know, as you and I are constantly reminded, I'm not the president.
So I do give some uh latitude to the president of the United States.
Well, maybe I'm too cynical.
I don't know.
I just uh probably not.
I I I look, I will admit that I times like this I can get cynical, but he was asked about Kerry.
He didn't bring Kerry up, but he didn't shoot down the idea of John Kerry being a better Secretary of State Susan Rice.
He didn't at all.
Gotta take a break.
Coming back.
Don't go away.
Okay, ABC News, but just to just to illustrate here that Petraeus could could have a little wiggle room here on September the 14th, ABC News reported the following.
CIA chief says the attack that killed four Americans began as a spontaneous protest against the film The Innocence of Muslims, but Islamic militants who may have links to Al-Qaeda used that opportunity to launch an attack.
That's what Petraeus told the committee.
That it was a spontaneous combustion protest in the video, but then Al Qaeda saw that, and Al Qaeda said, wow, we got an opportunity here.
So he's covered on both sides of it.
But it's still blaming the protest on the video.
But you, if you go back and look at what ABC's reporting, Petraeus did mention terrorists, but only insofar as extill a lie.
It's still a lie.
And they still sent Susan Rice out to lie about the video.
And by the way, this interagency jazz.
The White House coordinates that.
The White House determines who gets to see the talking points and vet them.
This is all Obama.
This all is from the Oval Office.
What Susan Rice said on TV, and he admitted as much.
There's not any interagency debate over this.
No, I don't think that ought to be in there.
There might have been some of that, but Obama's the ultimate decider on what's uh in or out.
Now there's another Republican, a Congressman, Ruppersberger.
He's saying a Petraeus told him that it was a three-hour spontaneous protest over the video.
That was then, and it's again September 14th.
Not today, September 14th, Ruppersberger, Republican Congress from California, I think, said that uh Petraeus told him it was a three-hour spontaneous protest over the video that Al Qaeda then exploited.
And that's why Petraeus, oh, I always know it was terrorism.
But he didn't.
This is this is beneath everybody.
They're playing us for fools.
Uh, and a whole bunch of other things.
The insulting Our Intelligence Daily.
Everybody knows what happened.
There's a big cover-up.
There was never the video was not part of this.
Everybody's in a CYA mode now.
And by the way, as uh as I mentioned yesterday, a dozen women, members of Congress, House representatives have launched a defense of Susan Rice by saying she's being attacked by a bunch of white guys.
And folks, this is how the Democrats shut this stuff down.
The McCain, Lindsey Graham, who are Saxby Chambers, all these people out now questioning Susan Rice.
They're just a bunch of racist old white guys.
A majority of these women in the House are African American.
They lashed out at McCain and Graham.
It's an AP story, by the way, demanding that they retract their criticism of her.
They're demanding that McCain and Graham and Chamblers always retract their criticism to batter this woman and to batter Obama is something we the women are not going to stand by and watch.
They're accusing the Republicans of simply engaging in racism.
Well, that's how they shut this stuff down.
And that's how they get away with it.
The American discredit the criticism.
In this case, legitimate genuine criticism over lying in a cover-up.
No, there's none of that going on.
This is just typical Republican racism, pure and simple.
Okay, that's that.
When we get back, um, the economy, taxes, tax increases, 1.6 trillion dollars in tax increases, and how can they make that happen?
And stay within their political promises.
Both parties will explain it.
▲
Export Selection