All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:52
May 1, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, now look, folks, we're gonna get into Benghazi today, and we're gonna turn it upside down and inside out.
When I finish, you're not gonna have any questions remaining.
Everything is gonna be explained to you.
And it's pretty much going to confirm our original instincts and suspicions.
There's massive lying at the White House.
Jay Carney is continuing to lie, and he's not very good at it, which distinguishes him from other White House press secretaries.
They're normally good at lying for liars.
He's not.
But it's gonna it's gonna confirm most everything we've always thought.
It's gonna confirm Cheryl Atkison, and it is gonna the regime is really wide open and exposed on this.
And the drive-bys are starting to pay some attention, but they're still in cover-up mode, uh for the most part.
And what impact all this is going to have on low information voters, who knows?
I think the best thing we could do is find a way to link Benghazi to Donald Stewart Sterling.
If we can find a way to link Sterling to everything involving Obama, we might be able to actually make some headway, but I'm gonna tell you there's there's one way, I think, to know that there was an early plan for a cover-up involving this Benghazi thing.
I'm gonna tell you what it all hinges on.
It all hinges on Cairo, folks.
The regime put this silly story out that this video caused all this unrest in the Middle East.
And if you'll recall, some loony-toon in our embassy in Cairo, which is not near Benghazi.
Well, it's it's close on the map, but it's it's not Benghazi Benghazi's in Libya.
Somebody in our embassy in Cairo in Egypt apologized for something that hadn't happened yet.
You remember?
We sent out an apology for offending people.
It was the anniversary of 9-11, and we knew that there was going to be some sort of protest, or we suspected, so we sent out an apology in advance of anything happening, trying the theory when it was later learned this is what we had done.
The regime's explanation for this was, well, we're trying to eliminate any protests.
We'll just apologize in advance and hope that'll quell the mood.
This whole thing has been a cover-up from the I mean, even Ron Fournier, who used to be and maybe still is, uh, one of the biggest promoters of Obama and the regime, made it clear on TV today that as far as he's concerned, now everything the regime has done in the aftermath of Benghazi has been political.
It has not had anything to do with foreign policy, and that's exactly right.
And one way to know what I was gonna say is I did not lose my place.
One way to know that there was an early plan for a cover-up, is that Obama never sent in a rescue team.
Obama didn't send in a rescue team.
That's unprecedented, and he he left people under his command, exposed, and behind.
And in addition to that, Obama never went to the situation room.
At five o'clock, he talks to Hillary and and uh Panetta and says, You guys uh you have the ball, and I'm out of here.
And he ends up off the grid.
There's a plan from the beginning to pretend the attack was a protest, not worthy of the president's time.
This silly video.
And by the way, what may it may be there may be evidence that the whole video story, that that whole concoction can be traced back to Hillary.
It may well be that that was her idea.
That's unconfirmed as of uh as of yet.
But you see, a coordinated attack would contradict Obama's claim that Al-Qaeda was dead and gone.
Remember what Obama was saying at the time.
GM is alive and Al-Qaeda's dead.
And they had to protect that was their slogan at the convention just weeks earlier.
So we'll get into this with the uh with the uh assistants of my good buddy Andy McCarthy, who's this, of course, is Andy's bread and butter is uh terrorism, foreign policy, al-Qaeda, jihad, militant Islam.
He's done yeoman's work here, with my assistance, of course, uh, in trying to piece things together.
But before we do, before we get any further into this, I just I just wanted to set the table there.
I want to start off with a giant C I told you so.
A two-minute soundbite of me.
On this program, back on February 19th, that was when NBC said they're going to replace Jay Leno with uh Jimmy Fallon.
And I made the point that I was talking to a friend the night before, then February 19th, February 18th, talking to a friend, and we were uh chatting about the landscape changes in television.
And I'd made the point to him, he'd said something to me about all these replacements, are they gonna maintain ratings?
And I said, It's not about ratings anymore.
I said, ratings don't matter to TV executives anymore.
And he thought, after a while, as many people do uh in conversation with me, that that was brilliant.
It is true.
And it stuns me, but in a lot of television ratings don't matter.
I want to go back because this sets up a giant C I told you so.
This is me, February 19th, right here behind the golden EIB microphone.
I had an instant message flash going back and forth about ratings late night and I offered the following opinion to the person I was talking with.
I said, it's obvious that ratings don't matter anywhere near as much as they used to.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be a CNN.
There would not be an MSNBC.
If ratings mattered, they wouldn't exist.
Nobody's watching.
In the universe they are competing, when you've got 75 to 100,000 people and you are a national cable news network, nobody's watching.
You barely get an asterisk, but there they are.
And MSNBC's even fewer.
And I proffered this opinion.
I think we've gotten to the point in uh not just media, but our culture.
I think television executives, management types, programmers, are more influenced by what the media says about a talent or a show than what the ratings are.
I find this fascinating because as a culture now, it seems more and more everybody's obsessed with what is said about them and what's thought about them.
You go to social media and everybody's vomiting everything about themselves.
That's why I laugh at people worried about the NSA.
What do you mean?
We don't even need the NSA.
You're telling us everything there is to know about you, and then some.
You care more about us knowing who you are than the NSA cares about finding out about you.
So you're gonna see as a result in the media, you're going to see more PR campaigns, and you you're gonna see more people hiring image-making PR firms to craft a public image, and somebody's longevity is gonna be based more on what the media says about them and their show than what their ratings are.
Because if, for example, if you're Lauren Michaels, if the media loves Fallon, who cares who's watching?
The media loves him, that means you love Lauren Michaels, because Lauren Michaels picked the guy.
It means Lauren Michael's a brilliant guy.
Regardless of what the numbers are.
Amen.
Who can dispute that?
Nobody can.
Okay, so let's go to Les Moonvest now.
The CEO of the CBS, Tiffany Network Empire.
This was yesterday in Los Angeles at the Milken Institute Global Conference.
I have appeared.
This Michael Milkins thing.
I've been there one time.
It was appeared with Willie Brown and Harold Ford.
Anyway, the Milken Institute Global Conference, it's at the Beverly Beverly Hilton.
It's an ugly white hotel.
As you're heading into Beverly Hills, it's where Whit Beverly uh it's either the Beverly Welsh or the Beverly Hilton.
I can't remember, it's where it's where Whitney Houston passed away.
Merv Griffin used to own the thing.
Nay still, for all I know.
And anyway, that's where it is.
The ballroom's okay.
Once you're in the ballrooms, you don't know that you're in a white elephant.
Anyway, uh.
So Moonvests on a panel entitled Entertainment, the Big Picture.
The co-president of Billboard and Hollywood reporter, Janice Minn speaking with Les Moonvis about late night TV.
And she said, Can you talk about the economics of late night and why they matter still?
Remember what you just heard me say.
Late night is not what it used to be.
During the days of Johnny Carson, even the early days of David Letterman, it was much more of a profit center for all of us.
The last few years it's been more about bragging rights, and clearly we're at a point where there's a real generational change.
Late night is a very important part of our culture.
It is not as economically profitable as it used to be.
So they make a lot about the ratings, you know, and that really doesn't affect the bottom line, so I'd rather have the best guy, maybe that doesn't quite have the ratings of the other guy.
Well, folks, I mean, there you have it.
This is the guy that hired Colbert.
The ratings don't matter.
It's not nearly the profit center for us at US.
This is about bragging rights.
This is about who appears the smartest executive picking the best guy.
Do I know these people?
Do I know this business or do I know?
Snerdley's continues to marvel at my instincts on this stuff.
Even after 25 years, they're still dazzled in there on the other side of the glass.
He just admitted it.
He said here it's not as economically profitable, make a lot about the ratings.
The ratings don't really affect the bottom line.
If the ratings don't affect the bottom line, then what does?
Media buzz and PR.
If the ratings are not how you're going to pitch advertising, I mean you still need advertisers, but if the ratings are not how you're going to pitch advertisers, what are you going to pitch?
You're going to pitch cool.
You're going to pitch hip.
And how are you going to do that?
You're going to go to other media and you're going to massage them, and you're going to have PR campaigns, and there are going to be countless endless stories about your talent, your host, and what a cool hip in-demand guy he is.
And then you're going to make your make sure your host is as visible as possible in cool hip things and places.
Letterman, of course, doesn't fit that bill anymore because he's a recluse.
He doesn't go to hip places and do hip things.
He never did.
Ravings used to make it ratings, Letterman hadn't had any in I don't know how long.
Leno owned late night, and they still got rid of him.
Leno owned it and they still got rid of it.
This is the point, because he wasn't received as cool and hip and young and all that anymore.
Well, Johnny Carson, he was a little bit of a reckless too, but he did, he did, he was seen in Vegas now and then.
And Carson was seen in a couple bars in Malibu now, and he went to Wimbledon all the time.
He was, he was uh, he was out there.
Uh but but back then, back then it was not fragment.
Ratings were everything back then.
And he owned it.
Carson had 25 and 30 shares.
There were only three networks back then.
Remember, you go based 1988.
There was only one significant cable network with CNN.
You had TNT or TBS, the superstations that were doing Braves baseball, and uh and WGN and Chicago doing the Cubs.
By the way, you want to know how that all happened.
Do you ever ask yourself, you probably didn't, but I did.
I'm working for the Kansas City Royals, and I'm wondering how it is that the Atlanta Braves are on television in every market.
There's a major league baseball team.
If you can sit and watch baseball on TV, why would you go see the Dodgers if you live in LA?
Or why would you anywhere else?
Now that that's not a good example.
The Dodgers are gonna draw their crowd anyway.
Well, the way Ted Turner did it, Ted Turner, and I I once I once mentioned this to a to a TBS executive when I worked for the Royals.
I said, you know what?
Seems to me that in all those years, the Braves stunk.
They never won anything.
So they're really never a threat.
He said, You are very shrewd.
It's the same way Sterling got away, would be in who he was for 33 years.
The Clippers never won anything.
They were always under the radar.
In the meantime, Ted Turner ends up taking over cable TV for a while until it grew and so forth by having a baseball team.
It wasn't very good on TV every night in the summertime.
It was pretty smart.
But now we've gotten to a point where it is so niche.
And it is so much on at 1130 that they're admitting ratings don't matter.
And it has to be, otherwise there wouldn't be a CNN.
And people have asked me, well, if nobody's watching, how's it stay on the air?
And the answer is CNN and the people that run it are considered heroes.
They're promoting the cause of liberalism, big government socialism, they're trashing Republicans every day.
They still get invited cocktail parties, those executives, they still are loyal to the cause.
They're protected.
And they still get advertising buys, even though they don't deserve them.
There is a loss leader aspect to it as well for other properties owned by Time Warner.
But MSNBC, how do you explain that?
Nobody watches, but it's still there.
Well, it's the way you buy off Al Sharpton, you give him a show, there's any number of things going on here, but ratings don't matter.
Now there's one more Moonvest.
Soundbite.
Janice Minn, Hollywood reporter, then said, Are you concerned about Stephen Colbert?
Because there's um there's been just the slightest hint, just the slightest hint of people expressing concern about the political views he has expressed on Comedy Central.
You know what?
Uh, you know, ironically, you know, Stephen Colbert is much more moderate than people think he is.
He's a great social commentator, and that's sort of what we want.
That's sort of what David Letterman has been.
If you're referring to remarks from Rush Limbaugh that we have attacked the heartland of America, I would uh respectfully disagree with that assessment of who Stephen Colbert is, and as one reporter said, so suddenly Rush is going soft on Letterman.
I don't get the connection there.
What does one have to do with the other?
Rush going soft on on Letterman, the Letterman's the same thing.
But anyway, uh you see, ratings don't matter.
He wanted to go out and fight.
He wanted bragging rights.
He hired a guy, he doesn't even know who he really is.
He hired a guy, a character, who makes fun of conservatives, Colbert, who then they promptly said he's dropping the character.
So now CBS has hired a guy that the question is, who is he?
It still doesn't matter, because Les got his bragging rights.
He got the hip guy.
Why does this matter?
I'll tell you why it matters.
It's because we're straying further and further from reality.
And we're being consumed by what isn't real.
We're being consumed by what we're told is important, what we're told is real.
And substance reality falling to the wayside each and every day.
Okay, so the staff eager to prove me wrong.
And yes, I still face that.
Even after 25 years of incontrovertible evidence, and my instincts are under Snerdley and my trusted aide de camp and chief of staff are trying to prove me wrong here in the commercial break.
And one of the ways they're doing it, oh, wait a minute now.
Even despite hearing Les Moonvest say ratings don't matter.
That's not how we sell anymore.
These late night shows, it doesn't matter.
They are asked, well, then these advertisers that do advertise on these places, how do they, I mean, why they throw their money away?
They've got to know their advertising is work, working.
How do they know if it's ratings don't matter?
A Moonvest just said they're not selling ratings, which means that people buying are not buying ratings.
A. Does that not stand to make sense?
If they're not selling ratings, then the advertisers are not buying ratings.
So what are they buying?
Okay, well, let's say, let's say you advertise, you're you're the CEO of some widget company, and you want to be hip.
And you want to be cool.
So you call CBS, you say, I want by some time.
You have your advertising team, your agency call them up, and they'll buy some time in uh in Letterman or Colbert, whatever it is, and they sell it to you.
And because the image that's been built around these late-night hosts is that they're everything.
They're more important now than real journalists, for example.
In fact, late-night comics are today's real journalists if you listen to the latest PR, then all it takes is for one person to tell that CEO, hey man, I saw your widget commercial.
And the CEO says, okay, mission accomplished, I'm hip and cool too.
And he'll go sell his product elsewhere.
He'll buy the impression of his product on a place not selling ratings.
That's called cost per thousand.
There's all kinds of different advertisers, results-oriented advertising, and there's impression.
And the impression advertising is where just you're trying to get the best rate for the most number of people are going to see the commercial, but it's not a way to prove whether or not the commercial's working in terms of sales.
Because that's not even why you're buying it.
You're just trying to get the commercial in front of eyeballs.
And if the network can promise you that so many eyeballs are going to see it, but CBS, no, no, we're not doing that anymore.
We're not selling ratings, so they're not even buying ratings.
They're buying hip, they're buying cool.
Now, we, on the other hand, we can't we can't do any of that.
We're not allowed to be hip and cool here.
We have to exist in the real world.
We have to have ratings, and we have to sell advertising, it has to work.
If we don't, then nobody's gonna keep us on with no audience here.
It isn't gonna happen.
Folks, I'm making a point about all this because media isn't what you think it is anymore.
Be it news media, be it entertainment media, be it pop culture media, it isn't what you think.
The supposed hippist and most popular likely isn't the most watched or the most listened to.
By and in fact, it's it's not even close anymore.
And more and more of media is becoming state controlled, or at least more and more media is aligning itself with the state, with the government.
Let me see if I can find it.
Now, I did not intend to spend this much time on this.
I want you to know, but I'm being peppered with questions by my staff who are dying to know even more about this, because none of it makes any sense to them.
And the reason it doesn't is because we can't operate the way everybody else does.
We have to work in the real world here, where real success is real success, and where real audience is real audience, and real ratings are real ratings.
We can't live in some artificially created universe here of buzz and hipness.
We couldn't survive.
We are, for what it's worth, mired in reality here.
And I frankly, that's why I call I'm a the mayor of Realville.
But more and more our whole country, we hired a guy, by the way, based on hip and cool that we didn't know anything about.
Named Barack Hussein Obama.
We hired a guy, hip and cool, and whatever the buzz was, right?
Whatever the image they could make was.
The reality of the guy never was told to anybody, except here and other places.
Now, let me see if I can find this, because this is this is it'll illustrate the point.
And again, I've I I do think that this is really important stuff, folks.
You know me, I I am big on reality and substance and what matters.
But the the more people who are divorced from it, purposely steered away from it, lied about it, let's lied to about it.
Let's put it, let's call it what it really is.
The more people Who are lied to about what's real and what isn't is how you create more and more low information voters.
Now here's the story.
It's a media ice story.
John Stewart unloads over government incompetence, shouting obscenities into a giant screaming draw.
Why is this a news story?
John Stewart's got a million viewers.
Why is this a news story?
No, snardly jealousy's got nothing to do with it.
You're not hearing anything I am saying.
It has nothing to do with it.
My point.
Excuse me, folks, I had to hit the cough button there, because I'm still fighting the ravages of the common cold.
Whatever the hell this is.
It might be an allergy for all I know because it's lingering so long.
Whatever it is, it looks and sounds like cold.
So we have breaking news here.
Breaking news, a comedian finds fault with a regime.
But the news is that the comedian normally is a slave to the regime.
The comedian normally promotes the regime, but all of a sudden the comedian has found fault with a regime.
Oh, stop the presses.
This is news now.
And even though there are only one million people that watch, what's the image of the Daily?
The image of the Daily Show is that every college kid gets his news on this show.
Can't possibly be true.
There are over a million college students.
The image is that every young person finds out what the news is by Washington.
It can't possibly be true, but that's the image of the Daily Show lives off of it, promotes it, of course, who wouldn't, but it isn't real.
So a comedian finds fault with the regime, John Stewart blasts government before state controlled media.
And what this does is now give permission to other Obama stenographers to go out and get mad at the regime.
Why else is this news?
Have you ever heard of this?
When's the last time what Johnny Carson said was a news story?
Or letterments was a news story.
Might be water cooler chit chat the next day, but a news story.
So comedians are now, and of course, what are what are comedians?
They're jokes.
They don't deal with reality either by definition.
Now there has to be grain of it for comedy to be funny, but comedians are not a 21st century journalist for the far left.
For the left, comedians are source authorities.
Comedians are gradually replacing the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS NBC, PBS, ABC, CNN, as the arbiters of when Democrats can be held accountable and when they can't be.
So if you want to know when the drive bys are gonna harp on Obama, pay attention to the comedians.
When they do, it's a signal to the drive-bys that it's okay to.
It's very pathetic.
Thank you.
And it's how you end up with low information voters who don't know what the hell is going on.
It's how you end up with millennials down on the country, down on themselves rather than on the people responsible for the mess that we live in, and that's the Democrat Party.
Okay, a couple other little things.
Study finds this here.
Here you go.
Classic example.
I did not intend for this to be thrown in the mix with what I've previously discussed, but tell me if this doesn't fit.
From United Press International.
Researchers at Cornell University conducted a study about biting versus chewing habits in children.
And they found that kids who eat chicken on the bone are more likely to disobey adults and be aggressive.
Yet you heard me right.
The study was published in something called eating behaviors.
It found that children were twice as likely to disobey adults and twice as aggressive toward other kids if they eat food they have to hold and bite into.
So it's better, I guess, to go get chicken strips.
But the the the the it this is now here's the I don't know if these researchers are thinking about it, but if the if the th if the problem is eating food they have to hold and bite makes them more aggressive, then what are they pushing?
They're pushing civilized maybe knife and fork.
But that means these aggressive kids are gonna have a knife in their hands.
Oh no.
We can't win.
We either have kids eat chicken all the way to the bone, and it makes them twice as aggressive as other kids, or we give them a knife and fork, which means they've got a knife.
And could attack their parents at any moment.
If their parents don't let them watch the daily show.
No, it says there not everybody agrees with these findings.
You think how ridiculous is this?
But it's out there.
Study finds eating chicken on the bone makes children more aggressive.
There's no way this is real.
I mean, they may have studied it, they may have that.
This is absurd.
It's just patently ridiculously absurd.
It's worth an afternoon of laughing at the national.
Sorry, take it back.
The North Carolina Has Screwell Athletic Association Board of Directors has approved a mercy rule for football and basketball games.
The rule would go into effect for football games if the point differential reaches at least 42 points by halftime or afterward.
It would go into effect for basketball games in which the margin reaches 40 points by halftime or afterward.
In both cases, the game would use a running clock or could be ended early with the agreement of both teams.
The North Carolina Hascruel Athletic Association Board approved the mercy rule along with several other measures during its spring meeting yesterday, including a $500 fine per game for coaches who do not take a required concussion management course.
You know, NBC might want to look into that.
David Gregory, he may have had a concussion that they don't know about, and that's why he needs a psychiatrist to figure out how to relate to a lot of people, get their ratings up, because apparently they do care about ratings that meet the press.
And rather than get somebody in there that can attract an audience, they want to stick with Gregory, who they think has a psychological disorder and needs some help.
Maybe he's got a concussion.
So the, I guess we said the total humiliation of little children not allowed in North Carolina.
If your team's losing by 40 points, we're gonna save the day, we're gonna shut down the game so that you're not humiliated the next day in school.
Well, you thought this stuff was going away?
You you thought this stuff, ha-ho, you thought it was going away.
You thought, whoa, we've been there, done that on this.
No, no, no.
No, no, no, it's sanctioned.
It's 42 points by halftime or afterward a football game, 40 points by halftime or afterward a basketball game, they shut down.
The mercy rule.
We don't want to humiliate the little losers in these sports contests.
Okay, gonna take a break here.
We'll make a stab.
Bill Clinton, by the way, gets up every day, says he thanks God, he pays New York taxes.
It's another instance of Clinton.
You know, I got Hillary and I have more money, we have no one to do with it.
And I really am proud.
I'm honored to pay tax here in New York.
I don't care.
In fact, the fact I have enough money to pay taxes in New York, and some people don't makes me feel really good about myself.
So we've got that.
We got there's more sterling fallout.
There's more, yeah, that's still percolating out there.
More Fallout, the MAA L C P L A chapter.
Oh, yeah.
Uh, but we'll we'll get to Benghazi would take a break here, so don't go away.
You're guiding light and the mayor of Realville.
Rush Limbaugh, also known as the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned, all everything, maha rushy here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced conservative studies.
Now, yesterday, the economic growth rate of the country reported at one-tenth of one percent.
And I made the point that if it weren't for Obamacare, our growth rate would have been negative.
And I got some emails last night.
Rush, there's nothing good about Obamacare.
What were you praising Obamacare's rate of economic growth?
I wasn't.
I'm I'm glad actually I got the questions because I made the assumption that people would know what I was talking about.
It's not it's not good when government spending becomes more and more of the total economy, that isn't good.
And that's what this means.
The real economy, the actual real economy does not involve government spending is sinking.
If it hadn't been the gross domestic product is simply a total of economic activity, the government has always had a percentage of that.
Usually around 18%, with Obama and then Bush before him.
We're up over 20%, and I think approaching off the top of my head, it's it's it may be getting it 21 or 22 percent of the economy is government.
That's horrible.
That's bad.
Because government doesn't have any money until they take it from somebody first or print it out of whole cloth.
So then my point was that the real economy is in the toilet.
And if it weren't been for increased government spending as a share of gross domestic product, the growth rate would have been negative.
Now here's the problem with that, though.
From Reuters, Obamacare puts a floor under U.S. economy in the first time.
They're reporting it as a great thing.
You see, as the U.S. economy teetered on the brink of contraction in the first quarter, one thing stood out.
Health care spending increased at its fastest pace in more than three decades.
That surge is attributed to the implementation of Obama's health care law.
And they go on to praise how wonderful all this is.
And again, that's what's wrong.
This is total BS.
It's not good, just like the emails I got last night from it's not good.
All of this government spending, all of this growing government spending, all this Obama, it's not good.
But here you have Reuters say, see how wonderful Obamacare is?
Why, it's even helping grow the economy.
No, it's not.
It's destroying the economy.
It's putting a ceiling on the economy.
Obamacare and other government spending is putting a ceiling on the economy and limiting how much it can grow.
But Reuters headline says Obamacare puts a floor under U.S. economy.
Treating this as a totally wonderful great thing.
It's an abomination.
And this is how low information voters get good news about Obamacare.
When it's nothing good.
For people who want to improve their standard of living, for people who want to make more money, for people who want to get better jobs.
This is horrible news.
That the real economy where people work, where people improve their standard of living, is shrinking.
And that gets reported as good news in the drive-by media.
It's an outrage, actually, and it's uh insulting.
Hillary Clinton could be the source of the Benghazi video lie.
What do we know about Benghazi?
Let me tell you what the main point is, and then we're going to work backwards from this.
The main point is the rioting at the American embassy in Cairo.
And the fact that that rioting on 9-11 on the day of the Benghazi event occurred earlier in the day, the rioting at the American Embassy in Cairo was not about an anti-Muslim video.
For Obama and Jay Carney and the rest of the regime to pull off this series of lies, that Susan Rice didn't lie, that the Benghazi attack was oh, it's a horrible thing, and it was all because of that video.
The only way that works is if they can make people believe that the rioting earlier in the day at the American Embassy in Cairo was because of the video.
the main point, what I want to try to convince you of here today, is that the rioting at the American embassy in Cairo on 9-11 was not about that anti-Muslim video.
The regime's blame the video story has been a fraudulent explanation for the rioting in Cairo, every bit as much as it was a fraudulent explanation for what happened in Benghazi.
But the regime says Benghazi happened because of what happened in Cairo, and what happened in Cairo happened because of the video.
And it isn't true, and that is what they are lying about.
And we will come back to this point as I steer you through this intricately woven web of regime deceit.
But now, another obscene profit timeout.
Do not go away.
Okay, we got to take our standard top of the hour break here.
Remember, the main point...
It's easy.
The main point about Benghazi is that the rioting in Cairo earlier in the day, before Benghazi, had nothing to do with the video.
▲
Export Selection