All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:26
February 7, 2013, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Great to have you back, folks.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, and as usual.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Telephone number you want to be on the program 800 28282 to email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Look at this from the Washington Post.
Obama makes immigration comeback.
Oh yeah.
It's another poll from the Washington Post.
This uh one more example of how the drive-by media is using polls to push Obama's agenda, and once again it's just the news media using their polls to try to give Obama the mandate he never got from the elections.
You know, back when the polls were against amnesty.
We never heard about those polls.
And we've had countless polls that showed people majority opposed amnesty, and we know that whenever the American people have expressed an opinion about this, it's always been majority opposed amnesty.
Americans have given President Obama major ratings boost on immigration as he in Congress debate the biggest immigration reforms in decades, according to a new ABC News.
By 49 to 44%, slightly more Americans now approve than disapprove of Obama on immigration in July Obama was deep underwater, only 38%, offering positive ratings, 52% negative.
But now so much wonderful has happened, so many great things have happened since July.
And Obama's now soaring.
Up from 38 to 49% approving of Obama on immigration.
So let's see, 4943, that's a six percent edge is now a major ratings boost.
And remember, this is just a poll.
It's being treated as though it's an actual referendum where people have voted on immigration.
We don't know how many Democrats were oversampled in the poll.
can't get that information.
It's not provided.
They usually oversample Democrats by around 7%.
In this poll, but we don't have the uh the data.
We never heard about these polls when immigration was unpopular.
But as the Post says, so this uh this poll just another indicator of Obama's post-election bounce.
Or they ask is something deeper afoot in attitudes about immigration.
It might well be, folks, that it's much more than just love for Obama.
It might be a lot more than just appreciation and adoration for Barack Obama.
It might actually be.
Might actually be.
Might, could be.
The American people have done a quick 180 on immigration amnesty, and now they're all for it.
It could be.
I It could also not be.
But it could be.
Might be, it could be.
Of course it means a dramatic shift in Americans thinking about amnesty.
Otherwise, Congress might have to fear some kind of backlash.
But they don't, according to this poll.
There won't be any bang lash.
So Congress is go ahead.
Vote for amnesty.
ABC Washington Post poll is out, so everybody loves it.
Perhaps most noteworthy is the fact that Obama's solid but not spectacular ratings mark a major change in how Americans have rated recent presidents, Republican or Democrat on Immigration.
So amnesty is now wildly popular, 49% of the American people approve.
It's wildly popular.
Not even over 50%.
Okay, to the let's see, that's The uh to the audio sound bites.
I mentioned that the Senate Arms Services Committee hearings on the Benghazi consulate attack took place today.
Up first, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, General Martin Dempsey testified, and he he threw Mrs. Clinton under the bus here.
McCain said, why didn't you put forces in place to be ready to respond when all broke loose over there?
Because we never received a request to do so, number one, and number two, you never heard of the Ambassador Stevens' repeated warnings about the last time.
I had, sir, through through General Hamm, but we never received a request for support from the State Department, which would have allowed us to put forward the State Department's fault.
I'm not blaming the State Department.
You know, at this point that this business is shifting or blaming Blaine th or shifting blame is is a that that's a distraction.
As we all know what happened.
The important thing here, we never.
This is the joint chiefs of staff.
This is the U.S. military.
This is the guys with the guns and the ammo.
These are the guys of the RPGs and the helicopters.
These are the guys with the laser guided bombs.
These are the Americans who ride to the defense of Americans under assault.
We never received a request to put forces in place.
We, the U.S. military, never were requested.
You mean you hadn't heard about Ambassador Stevens' warnings about lack of security?
Oh, we'd heard about it, but nobody ever asked us to do anything about it.
And we just can't send people all over the world on our own.
General Dempsey can't just deploy troops on his own here, no matter what he hears.
We never got a request for support from the State Department.
That would be Hillary.
That would have allowed us to put forces on the ground.
So, show, show.
It's the State Department.
Well, I'm not blaming the State Department.
Well, we will.
We'll blame them all.
I'll blame Hillary.
We'll blame Obama.
Who else?
Up next was Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense.
And let's see.
Senator Kelly Ayatt.
Republican New Hampshire said, Secretary Panetta, you said that you were in a briefing with the President.
I believe it was about five o'clock our time, and you had just learned about the incident on the consulate.
What conversation did you have with the President?
What did he ask you to do?
As a result of learning about this attack on the consulate, and throughout the night, what communications were you having with the President?
I informed uh the President of uh of that fact, and uh he at that point uh directed both myself and General Dempsey to do everything we needed to do to try to protect lives there.
Did he ask you how long it would take to deploy assets, including armed aviation to the area?
He he basically said, do whatever do whatever you need to do to be able to protect uh our people there.
He just left that up to us.
Did you have any further communications with him that night?
No.
No.
Obama votes present.
I guess this means they weren't in the situation room.
Obama voted present, says, No, you guys do whatever you need to do.
Well, why didn't anybody do anything then?
I mean, clearly, if the president says, do what you need to do to protect our people there, and they weren't protected, then why didn't they do it?
So up next we have Ted Cruz during the QA, Cruz and Pennetta had this exchange.
At 5 p.m.
D.C. time, you met with President Obama for a regularly scheduled meeting during which you discussed the attack at Benghazi that had happened about an hour and twenty minutes earlier.
You said the total meeting lasted roughly thirty minutes.
How much of the meeting would you estimate covered Benghazi?
We teed up that issue uh when we walked into the Oval Office, so I would say that the first 15 or 20 minutes was spent on the concern about that, uh, as well as uh Cairo and what might happen there.
So Panetta discussed it with Obama for less than fifteen minutes, and then that was it.
Here's Ted Cruz.
Do I understand your testimony correct that neither of you had any subsequent conversations with the President the rest of that day and that evening?
Once that concluded, we both went back to the Pentagon, and immediately I ordered the deployment of these forces into place.
Ted Cruz with another question.
In between 9 42 p.m.
Benghazi time, when the first attack started and 5 15 a.m. when Mr. Dowherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives.
What conversations did did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?
We do not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton.
What difference does that make?
Especially now, what's the point?
What difference does that make?
Well, that's what Hillary said.
What difference does it make when she was asked about all this?
Four people dead.
What difference does it make now?
The four people are dead.
Don't you understand?
We are about protecting American lives.
American lives, that's what we do.
That's what I care about, Senator.
We protect America.
What difference did they make?
By night, they're dead.
What can anybody do?
That was the way she approached it.
So Ted Cruz, between 9.42 p.m.
Benghazi time when the first attack started, and 515 a.m.
That's eight hours essentially.
When Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what conversations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?
That's Secretary of State who runs consulates.
Who runs embassies?
Uh we didn't have any conversations with the Secretary.
Uh Clinton.
And General Dempsey, same true for you, Cruz asked, and Dempsey confirmed that it was.
So what was Hillary doing to save lives?
Now the Democrats did their best to change this hearing on Benghazi into a hearing about the impact of the sequester on the Pentagon.
They did.
They tried to shift the focus to the sequester.
Because this did not go well.
It could have been a lot worse for the regime, but it it still didn't go well.
There was there was uh you know, Obama said, well, do what you got to do and left.
And uh not a word spoken for eight hours during all of this with Obama, and they never talked to Hillary at all during this thing.
And General Dempsey, I I never got an order just to send troops.
You know, which raises a question.
One of the SEALs, I forget which one the name now forgive me for that too, but went over there.
They had violated orders.
They were they were told to stand down.
That that's another thing about this that consulate personnel were told to stand down.
Not only was there no military on site were told to stand up.
They went anyway to try to save lives.
And one of the SEALs, remember, lit up one of the terrorists with his laser, as though he was expecting a laser-guided bomb to follow.
And all he did was expose his position when he did this, and they were able to kill him as a result of that.
Now, this guy would not have lit up the terrorists, and he wouldn't have exposed himself if he hadn't thought there was something up there that was going to fire a bomb targeted by his laser.
That's what I've always been curious about that.
At some point, the question needs to be asked.
Did they think that there were reinforcements in the air?
Did they think they had air support at that point?
They went over to the consulate, these guys, and they lit up the target.
And in so doing, exposed themselves, by the way, to the terrorists, but they lit up the target, and that enables an American aircraft with laser-guided bombs above to fire the bombs guided to the target by virtue of the laser thing uh being focused on it by the Navy SEAL.
You don't there's no reason to laser the terrorist target if you're not gonna launch a laser-guided missile bomb, whatever weapon.
That's why I've never understood.
Why why did they think they had air support?
I would love to have the answer to that question.
I remember in the early days, the aftermath, the early days of the aftermath of the Benghazi attack.
I remember one of the focal points was one of the questions was why all this effort to blame the video?
Why why all this this effort to to to blame uh forces outside of Washington to blame protests and a video?
And somebody somebody said to me, Rush, when it gets down to brass tax, what's gonna be revealed is where was Obama?
That's what they're trying to massage here.
And the way it was explained to me was the question's gonna come, was not was Obama disengaged, meaning could he be found?
We just heard Panetta say that after five o'clock, that was it.
There were no more conversations with Obama.
After five, that was it.
Obama said, look, do what you have to do.
That's Panetta says, well, I informed the president, and he just said to do whatever.
Uh do whatever you needed to be able to do to protect our people there, and he left it up to us, and that's the last we heard of Obama.
And the the the question then, and the question now is where was Obama?
Why was he disengaged?
And we still don't have an answer to that.
What was he doing that night?
Where was he?
That's you you can say, well, didn't talk to Hillary, didn't hear from you.
Hillary's not commander in chief.
She can't order forces into place.
And I'm sorry to say here, folks, but the president telling Panetta, well, do whatever you have to do.
That's too vague and open-ended and wide open.
Do what you have to do to save lives, and it's like Obama, okay, I'm gonna wash my head, do what you have to do, I gotta go.
And he was then off the grid, folks, for the rest of the night.
And this is why they deflected all this focus.
This is why they tried to shift everybody's attention to the video or other distractions.
They were trying to keep any inquiries into Obama's whereabouts from being made.
And of course the media dutifully complied.
They didn't ask those questions.
They're not asking the question now.
Well, I informed the president, and he said, uh, me and General Dempsey, uh, just do everything you need to do to try to protect lives there.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't strike me as the way presidents talk to the joint chiefs of staff and the Secretary of Defense in the middle of a pretty intense terror attack.
Well, you guys go do what you have to do.
Whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people.
He just he left it up to us.
Do you have any further communications with him that night?
No.
Where was he?
Why wasn't he reachable?
I no, I'm not, I have no wild guess here.
But when the president isn't consulted for well, it's longer than eight hours, from 5 p.m. till the next day.
Where was he?
What was he doing?
Why was he disengaged?
That's I was told early on that's where the focus of this is gonna end up before it's all said and done, and it looks like with this hearing today that's being borne out at least in part.
Uh, Jim in Rapid City, South Dakota, I really appreciate your patience.
We get back to you now as we go back to the phones.
Hello, sir.
Well, I really appreciate talking to you, Rush.
It was over ten years ago that I called you from um East from Greenville, North Carolina, telling you I was resigning as a second year med student with some angst and concern, but I did it because I wasn't gonna go on another four years or so to get a become a primary care doctor.
Because I could see back then the structural problems of having a third party payer involved in your health care.
And this Obamacare is only gonna hasten more people from not going to primary care, which is the main reason what was going on back in two thousand three.
Oh, we had a well, this is even before two, this is two thousand.
This is two thousand we had the redness artillery care, which is the same problem we have today with Obamacare.
But Hillary care didn't pass.
Yes, it didn't.
But the structural problems are still there.
And the structural problem is this.
No one wants to go in to become a primary care doctor if they can't make the money.
Um now it only makes it worse because you've put a bigger third party payer in the problem, not just insurance companies, government, which is even worse.
And we're not saying sorry.
That's not entirely true.
It's not that nobody wants to go into it.
It's that is tough to say.
Um, it's that it's it maybe the best of the pool are not going into it.
And so I don't want to insult people who are doctors and nurses, and I don't mean to do that, but it could well be that the best and the most talented of just like you, punted.
I don't want any part of this.
I agree.
I'm always gonna fill the void.
I mean, you got enough people in a country to fill the void in anything.
But what is the talent level at that point?
Who knows?
From the Reuters news service, headline analysis, it's not even a news to admit this is analysis.
This is Reuters commentary opinion.
Even brief spending cuts could hit U.S. economy hard.
The U.S. economy could take a big hit from automatic government spending cuts, even if Congress only leaves them in place for a month or two.
This is the sequester.
You're supposed to oppose it.
You're supposed to make sure that this doesn't happen.
Sequester.
The sequester, to remind you again, for those of you that don't know.
Back year and a half ago, during a controversial debate on say uh raising the debt limit, part of the deal struck was the next time the debt limit comes up for discussion when we're about to blow through it the next time.
If we don't come to an agreement, then there are automatic five hundred billion dollar cuts in defense and five hundred billion dollar cuts in Medicare.
Or Medicaid, some such one of the two.
And this is supposed to be so onerous to both parties.
It would never let it happen.
They'll strike a deal first, they'll compromise.
Bipartisanship will rain.
It'll rule the day because Republicans who love the military, because they're a bunch of hawks and they love the military killing people.
And the Democrats love Medicare and Medicaid because they love people.
And they love helping people.
And they don't want to have to stop helping people.
And the Republicans don't want to stop the military killing people.
And so neither party wants that pain, they'll come to a deal.
It was Obama's idea, by the way.
The sequester was the idea of Barack Obama.
The president, it was his idea.
Now he's running around acting like the sequester was forced on him.
And the Democrats are running around acting like it's some dastardly Republican trick.
And furthermore, if it happens, it's not just $500 billion.
This is a whole budget is going to go up in flames.
This is every bit of social and benefit spending is going up in flames.
Like the story says here, big hit will happen from automatic spending cuts even if it's only for a month.
And this is all a pack of lies.
Over here's the number, the way to understand this.
Over the next ten years, the baseline, the current services baseline, guarantees federal spending of over forty four point seven trillion dollars.
Over the next ten years, that's the current services baseline guarantees that.
If the sequester happens, if the sequester happens, instead of 44.7 trillion, we'll spend 43.8 trillion.
A rounding error.
This is over 10 years, not in one year, over 10 years.
It's nothing.
It's like every other budget and cut and wash.
It's not a budget cut.
It's a reduction in the rate of growth.
How in the world can you call 43 trillion dollars in new spending over 10 years?
Big hits to the budget.
Big hits to spending.
But it always happens, no matter what the budget item is, no matter what the discussion or the debate is, this is what the Democrats say.
And they've even revived now school lunch.
You know what?
They have revived that.
Republicans will cut the school lunch program and other school benefits for kids.
School breakfast program will probably be cut in the sequester.
They're adding all these horror stories.
And it's all bogus.
We're not cutting anything.
This country wouldn't know the difference in spending 44.7 or 43.8 trillion over 10 years.
We wouldn't know the difference.
You wouldn't even be able to find the difference.
You wouldn't be able to find the people who did not get the $900 billion that we're talking about here in this sequester.
So given that, let's go to the audio sound soundbite, shall we?
We'll start here on Capitol Hill today, House Progressive Caucus.
Jan Zhaikowski, Democrat Illinois, with a press conference to talk about a plan to cancel the sequester.
It's time that we take off just the green eye shade and look at the people behind the cuts that have been made.
$600 million of cuts to community health centers.
$500 million in cuts to the women, infant and children nutrition program.
That's talking about taking food out of the mouths of babies.
See?
I would say Mitch McConnell is a bully.
See, there is no such cut in the sequester.
$600 million of cuts to community health centers, $500 million in cuts to the women, infant, and children.
Even if there are, do you realize it pales in comparison to the billions that's being spent?
Look, let me calm down.
I realize I'm my passion can be off-putting to some young women.
I know it sounds scary.
I know it sounds threatening, so let me dial it back.
We're spending multiple billions of dollars on WIC and uh nutrition programs and community health programs.
For God's sakes, how much money are we spending on health care?
As she comes here and says, you know, there'd be 600 million of cuts, 500 million a cut.
It's you know, I've got no reason to lie to you.
It really serves no purpose for me to lie.
I nobody gains anything by that, and I'm not liking this is these these cuts are inconsequential, and I'm not even sure that the cuts in these particular things are actually whatever happen in the sequester.
But even if they did, it'd be a good thing.
We're spending more than we need to be in all of these programs.
We don't have the money.
But that's beside the point.
The point is, if this is not spent, it's inconsequential.
But here we're back.
Republicans want to starve kids.
The Republicans are bullying children.
They're going to take food out of the mouths of babies.
That's not gonna happen.
The babies are gonna be obese like everybody else in this country is.
Okay, so that's Jan Tchaikowski.
On C-SPAN's Washington Journal on Tuesday, Baghdad Jim McDermott was the guest Democrat from Washington during viewer calls, caller from George and New Jersey said this system, it seems that it's working on bribery, you know, lobbyists bribing the people.
This system seems to be broken.
We have a lot of people who suddenly think it's all about me.
And it isn't about me.
It's about we.
If we don't take care of one another, and we say everybody's on their own, then it will simply fall apart as a society and become a mob scene as it was in Paris.
If you go see Le Miserab, you can see what the country can become if you don't have equity in the society.
Oh man, so now we face Le Miserab.
We face the suffering of the post-French Revolution.
I mean that.
With the sequester, with the sequest.
Barack Obama's idea was his idea.
The Democrats will never this my point, folks.
There is no common ground with these people.
There is no place to find bipartisanship.
There's no compromise.
They will never agree to a penny.
Less in anything.
So now the Republicans, what are we gonna do is take food out of the mouths of babies, deny health at community health centers?
And everybody's gonna end up in Lamez Arab.
If the sequester happens.
Up next with Barbara Lee, well-known communist socialists, sorry, from California.
She's uh she's still chairman of Congressional Black Caucasians.
You don't know?
Well, she recently was the chairman of congressional black Caucasian.
I mean somebody else may be now, but she uh was on the floor of the House yesterday, and this was her turn uh to try to scare buddy about the sequester.
This Congress has already made unconscionable budget cuts to critical programs that many families and communities rely on.
If budget sequestration were to take effect, communities of color would be disproportionately impacted, including more than sixty-five hundred individuals who immediately lose access to HIV treatment.
We must reject these cuts.
Well, uh, for twenty-five years I've been telling people that none of this is true, and that's clearly not the way to go about this.
But she's making all this up.
Uh there have not been any uncon have any budget cuts, period.
Uh are you aware of the federal deficit going down?
Are you ever getting smaller?
Are you aware of the budget getting smaller?
Are you aware of spending getting less?
Where are these unconscionable budget cuts to critical programs the Republicans made?
Where are they?
They don't happen.
And now sixty, five hundred individuals will lose access to HIV treatment because of the sequester.
I I don't know.
I mean for 25 years I've been telling you these people are lying to their teeth, and none of this is true, and that doesn't work.
So hell, I don't know what to do.
I want to take you back to 1995.
A montage of Democrats in an audio soundbite.
The budget fight in 1995.
You've heard all these Democrats talk about all the horrors gonna happen with sequestration.
I can't play all of this, but I can play enough of this for you to get an idea.
Republicans want to take apples and milk away from six-year-olds.
Starving children is not the solution to balancing our budget.
The Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of millions of needy and middle class children.
Stop declaring war on our kids.
War on their children.
War on their children.
How can they be so mean-spirited?
The mean-spirited Republicans, it is mean spirited.
It is vicious.
These draconian, mean-spirited, and immoral currency funding pressure.
That's enough.
That's the Democrats from 1995.
And the same lies and misstatements and misrepresentations.
Then as now.
This time it's about sequest sequestration.
In 95, it was about a government shutdown.
Gotta take a brief time out, folks.
Be right back and wrap it up.
I don't know where the time went today, but it's it's gone.
I Thursday feels like I just started.
We're just talking about health care reform and health savings accounts, and that was three hours ago.
But there's always tomorrow.
And open line Friday in 21 hours.
And I'm sure that'll seem like it doesn't take long to get here.
So sit tight, be patient, and we'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection