RUSH: At Obama's little press gaggle today at the White House, an unidentified reporter stood up, said, "There are a couple of books out with interesting details about national security issues. There are reports of terrorist Kill Lists that you've supervised. There are reports of cyberattacks on Iranian nuclear programs that you've ordered." That would be Stuxnet. "First of all, what's your reaction to this information getting out in public, and, secondly, what is your reaction to lawmakers that accuse your team of leaking these details in order to promote your election?"
OBAMA: The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. It's wrong, and, you know, people, I think, need to have a better sense of how I approach this office and how the people around me here approach this office. And we're dealing with issues that can touch on the safety and security of the American people, our families, or our military personnel, or our allies. And so we don't play with that.
RUSH: Somebody is. Somebody is. I remember leading into the Iraq war, battle plans, war plans would show up in detail, specific war plans for Iraq and later Afghanistan, would show up on the front page of either the New York Times or the Washington Post. When those leaks took place we all speculated that those leaks were coming from career appointees or political appointees from the Clinton years. Remember, Bush did not purge. As a show of good faith, trying to heal the wounds of America, put everybody back together, all of the political appointees over at the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, Bush left them there. He did not replace them with his own people, as a show of faith.
And it wasn't long before efforts to sabotage Bush military plans started showing up on the front page of the big newspapers and on the networks. And it was easy to speculate that the leakers were holdover Democrats, Clinton appointees trying to undermine Bush. And of course the Republican establishment didn't want to hear that. They thought when it came to foreign policy and national security, that members of the establishment took off their partisan hats and everybody worked together. We would loudly shout at 'em, "Get real. Get modern. You've got Democrats who are trying to undermine." We were shouting at Bush, "Why don't you understand they're trying to undermine you?" He probably did.
Anyway, those leaks were good. The press approved of every leak that might undermine a Republican president's strategy and plans. But now we've got some really detailed leaks, that some of the stuff on the Kill List, Obama is personally picking the targets. This stuff is being leaked with detail that people have rarely seen in leaked information. And then you have the Stuxnet, the computer virus that confounded the Iranian nuclear plan. People admit, "Yep, we did it." Huge national security breach. I mean, even Democrat senators are outraged over it. Dianne Feinstein, California, is beside herself that this is happening. So Obama gets the question: "Are you doing this on purpose to help facilitate your election?" (Obama impression) "I'm offended by that, the notion that my White House purposely released."
I've never seen this before. The Politico has a story: "The New York Times denies receiving leaks from Barack Obama." I have never seen anything like this before. The New York Times is getting the leaked information. The New York Times has a story: It ain't Obama feeding us. The story at The Politico is by Dylan Byers. "Caught in the crosshairs of a contentious dispute between the White House and Congress, The New York Times is vowing to charge ahead with its coverage of developments in US national security -- and denying that the paper is on the receiving end of silver-platter leaks from the Obama administration. 'These are some of the most significant developments in national security in a generation,' Times managing editor Dean Baquet told Politico on Thursday, referring to his paper’s recent reports on the Obama administration’s use of drone strikes and cyberattacks. 'We’re going to keep doing these stories.'" But they are not coming from Obama.
When's the last time a newspaper said anything about a source? So despite complaints from both Republican and Democrat senators, the New York Times is courageously vowing to continue to publish these secrets. And the reason this stuff is being leaked, like the Stuxnet and the Kill List, this stuff is being leaked to make Obama look like a tough guy. It's to burnish his reputation. After all, he's a thin, wiry, can't even throw a baseball looking like a guy, president. There's not a whole lot of masculinity there in appearance. Plus, he's a liberal Democrat. That means he's a dove. Liberal Democrat, progressive, socialist, whatever, means that in his mind the US military is the focus of evil in the modern world. But it's election time. Gotta make Obama look tough.
The United States is a great nation at risk in a dangerous world, and Obama's got to be made to look like he's up to the task. And so this stuff is being leaked to show how tough Obama is and how engaged he is and how willing he is to pull the trigger on the bad guys. That's what the Kill List is all about. And the New York Times is doing its duty, "We're gonna keep publishing this stuff. By the way, Obama is not the guy sending us the stuff." You have to admit the New York Times is consistent. They always publish national security secrets if they will hurt a Republican president, or if they will help a Democrat president. They don't play favorites. But the most preposterous thing in this Politico story relating to the New York Times is that the Times is denying that they're being given these leaks by the White House.
The managing editor is saying that his reporters "came by the stories strenuously." Whatever that means. He's trying to say, "Our reporters are out there, they're turning over every rock. They've got their ears to the pulse, fingers to the grindstone. Our reporters are out there, they're doing good old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting. Our reporters are digging deep. Our reporters are uncovering all of these secrets." That's what strenuously means. But also, it's laughable. They're being fed this stuff, obviously. That's why it's leaks. Everybody knows it's leaks. They're answering the phone. The Times article on the Obama Kill List, I mean that was positively lousy with references to their inside sources. It was clear the Times reporters were simply taking dictation.
And in this story, even The Politico, which is a White House stenographer unit, even The Politico is forced to admit that it's pretty obvious what's going on, since even the White House isn't complaining about the leaks. Have you noticed that? The only people complaining about it are on Capitol Hill and the general public. Democrat senators along with Republican senators are complaining about it. They're very unhappy about it, but the White House isn't complaining. Here's a takeout from The Politico story: "But the fact that the White House has not raised complaints about the Times’ reports further stokes congressional concern that the administration was somehow involved in leaking the stories. Baquet rebutted those accusations, saying his reporters came by the stories 'strenuously.' 'I can’t believe anybody who says these are leaks,' he said. 'Read those stories. They are so clearly the product of tons and tons of reporting.'"
They took dictation. Now, Feinstein, she is the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and she told Wolf Blitzer, "What we are seeing is an avalanche of leaks." She used an incorrect word, but I know what she meant. Anyway, a lot of people are concerned about it. But the White House is leaking and it's all being done to make Obama look good. And the New York Times saying, "There aren't any leaks. Obama's not giving us anything. Our reporters are really digging deep and working hard for this stuff." Meanwhile, it's being reported as a political game. Everybody knows Obama's leaking. The question is, will he get away with it? Will the press not give up the ghost? Will the American people buy this? Will all this redound to Obama's benefit?
Can we end up making him look like the tough guy that everybody knows that he's not?
What I mean is, these leaks are so detailed they had to have either been dictated or the detail provided. There's too much information in these leaks. Normally, a leaker will give out enough to blow the whistle but not to identify him- or herself.
RUSH: You know, Lindsey Grahamnesty actually got it right. He was on Greta the other night on Fox. He said, "I don't think it's an accident that you have three stories within about 45 days that paint the Obama administration as being effective in the War on Terror -- at our national security detriment." Now, that's what McCain thinks, too, since Lindsey Grahamnesty said it. So McCain thinks it. He said, "You don't need Sherlock Holmes to figure this out," and you don't.
So, US national security... You know, the Kill List is one thing, but owning up to it? It's one thing for everybody to think it. It's another thing to own up that you're the author of the computer virus that confounded the Iranian nuclear program. To own up and admit that, publicly the way it was done, was all to make Obama look like a tough guy.
RUSH: Nashua New Hampshire, Open Line Friday. Steve, I'm glad you called. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Oh, yeah, hi, Rush. I happened to be listening to NPR last night. I don't make a regular habit of doing it, but I just had it on the car radio. And they had the author --
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait. Why couldn't you change the channel in the car?
CALLER: I could, but the reason I left it on is because they were talking about the Obama administration being tough on national security, and I was curious to what their position was on it.
RUSH: See, okay, okay. What did you hear?
CALLER: All right. So they had the author on, and he wrote this new book about how tough the Obama administration is, surprisingly, on national security, including discussion or a chapter on the cyberattacks, like in Iran. And the program host precisely was concerned about leaking national security secrets, and the hostette, the author, "Aren't you concerned about that?" And the author said, "Oh, well, that was okay." They specifically went to the Obama administration official, and they gave it the okay for the information that he put in the book, that he released. So, therefore, regardless even if the information didn't come from the Obama administration and they somehow got it on their own, they went to the Obama administration, and the Obama administration okayed, according to this author, the specific release of that information or else he would never have released it.
RUSH: What did the NPR host have to say to this?
CALLER: Didn't go into that, but somehow that kind of absolved the author. In other words, that was like okay 'cause the author didn't release anything. The Obama administration knew about it, and didn't say who in the Obama administration, but of course he would go to the Obama administration, made the request, they said that information was okay, that's already out there.
RUSH: Not surprised.
CALLER: So I thought it was interesting. The reason I raised the point is because you don't even have to get to the question of did the information come from the Obama administration initially. Let's say that the author got it on their own through mistakes or whatever. Then they go to the Obama administration, and according to this author, the Obama administration, "Okay, you can release that information." So it doesn't even matter where it came from, the Obama administration went along with releasing the information.
RUSH: Was the guy's name Klaidman, Daniel Klaidman?
CALLER: It may have been. It's a new book and apparently there's only one chapter on cybersecurity, and the other chapters are on drones and that kind of stuff, basically the premise being that, surprisingly, the Obama administration's pretty tough on national security.
RUSH: Yeah, interesting coincidental timing, isn't it?
RUSH: All right, Steve, I appreciate it. I just got an e-mail from my good friend Professor Hazlett. He's a good friend of mine that I met back in Sacramento when I was there in 1985, I think -- no, might have met Professor Hazlett later in the year, 1984. But certainly 1985. He said, "Rush, I just listened to the Obama clip that you played where he said that it's offensive to suggest that his administration's leaking. Now, how can he know that the suggestion is offensive unless he knows who's leaking?" I mean if you were president, and you didn't know where the leaks were coming from, wouldn't you want to ferret out the leaker right now? But how do you know to be offended? Unless you know who's leaked. You can't possibly be offended by this unless you know who the leaker is.
And then he makes these points. Here's what the public knows. One, there are abundant national security leaks. Two, the regime has the ability to create such leaks. Number three, the regime has motive to create such leaks, make Obama look macho and all that. And number four, the regime is not doing anything to stop these leaks, like appoint a special prosecutor. Instead they're trashing people who are making a reasonable inference after reviewing the evidence. Now, the New York Times, how can they know that the original source for their secret classified documents is not Obama? How can they know that? In fact, the source for the leak has to be either the Obama administration or the Pentagon. It has to be one of the two. If it's the Pentagon, somebody over there needs to be fired. If it's the Obama regime, then Obama has to come clean with the American people, and somebody, or maybe a lot of people, deserve to be fired.
How can this not be an issue? How can they not appoint a special prosecutor? That's the question Professor Hazlett asks. Now, he's asking it rhetorically, but I have an answer to that. This is all 100% political. In Obama's mind, this is nothing more than a political tactic. It is the playing of a political card. It just happens to be stuff that people think is classified. But Obama doesn't care. Obviously he doesn't care. They're not trying to find out who leaked it. He doesn't want a special prosecutor. It's not a big deal. Okay, so I'm looking at the Kill List, big whoop. Okay, so I'm telling everybody that we're the ones that did the Stuxnet virus to undermine the Iranians. No big deal. It's not a big deal to 'em. It's a political opportunity. And I don't think there will be a special prosecutor. This issue has achieved its purpose.
RUSH: Look, folks, somebody has leaked -- three times -- very detailed and very damaging stuff. Do you see any sense of urgency at the White House to find out who? All we got today was Obama saying he's offended that anybody would think it's him. But how can he be offended if he doesn't know who's leaking? No, that's not deep. Being offended is being offended. If you're offended somebody thinks you're leaking, then you have to know something about it. I think this is a great, great example of how inside-the-Beltway Washington does not understand what we're dealing with here.
In the old world of Washington where on things like this the two parties genuinely did come together, special prosecutors get to the bottom of it, and then in that fight the partisanship erupts and people try to protect turf and so forth. But to get to the bottom of it, at least put on the show of caring to get to the bottom of it, would happen. So they're all lining up and only experts are predicting a special prosecutor. "Oh, yeah, gotta be one, no question about it." There isn't gonna be a special prosecutor. This is the regime that defies federal judges. A federal judge said this moratorium on drilling is illegal. And Ken Salazar, the interior secretary, said, "(raspberry) you. We're gonna enforce our moratorium." They didn't care about the Constitution when they wrote Obamacare. And they argued to maintain a piece of legislation that is unconstitutional.
This issue has served its purpose. There's a book out there now about how courageous and macho Obama is. There are news stories about how he's Mr. Tough Guy. He's looking to Kill Lists and he's personally picking the bad-guy targets. Well, that's important because up 'til now people have questioned just how much Obama really is interested in the War on Terror. Don't think it's a big deal. If you go back and listen to him talk, the things he said about the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan and Club Gitmo and everything else, he didn't take it seriously, wasn't a problem. The problem was Obama looked like a wuss. Problem solved now.
This is just how Obama does things. National security? Everything is nothing more than its value as a political item. That's all. I think to try to attach the traditional conventional ways of Washington to Obama is to misunderstand what we're dealing with here. I mean in the real world, where people care about national security, if you don't think America's exceptional, if you don't think America's a justified superpower, why would you care about national security? If you believe, as many of us think Obama believes, if you believe that the United States is an unjust superpower and an illegitimate superpower, if you think we have only acquired that status by virtue of stealing from other people and nations of the world, if you think that we don't deserve this greatness and superpower status, then what value is attached to our national security anyway?
If you think the country is basically guilty, which necessitates you bowing or apologizing, what is there to protect here? "Mr. Limbaugh, do you realize how offensive this sounds?" Yeah, I do, probably to you because if you look at Obama in the standard traditional political ways, the standard traditional, political prism, you're gonna say, "Why no special prosecutor?" and you're gonna assume that, well, because he doesn't want to indict himself. That's not why. This has served its purpose. If Obama has his way, there won't be another word said about this. Not by him. He dealt with it today. "I'm offended anybody would think that I'm the leaker." And the New York Times is right there, "He didn't leak to us. Obama didn't leak." How do they know?
I'm just saying you can't look at this guy -- it's like when I read liberal journalists talk about how Obama is obviously struggling with policies to reduce America's indebtedness, I laugh. Do they think he cares? Where's the evidence that he cares about reducing the deficit, or the national debt? He doesn't care. But they are convinced 'cause they look at the traditional politics. We got a deficit problem, a spending problem, an economic problem. In the old ways of Washington, what you would do is announce policies, try to have legislation that's designed to, quote, unquote, reduce the deficit. Whether you intended to or not, that's what you would make people think you're trying to do. Fiscal responsibility. He doesn't care. Where's the evidence he cares about fiscal responsibility? How can you say that he cares about it, given what he's done in three-and-a-half years, racking up all this spending?
National security, to me, is the same thing. I just don't think we're looking at this guy -- well, I am, and you are -- I just don't think that the wizards of smart see this guy the right way. They look at him in the traditional prism of American politics and we're dealing with somebody that's totally outside that prism, in ways they don't want to admit. They're scratching their heads, why no special prosecutor? We gotta get to the bottom of these leaks. No, we don't. The leaks were no big deal. As far as Obama's concerned, "Okay, Kill List, big deal. Stuxnet, everybody thought we did it anyway. All I did was confirm it, big whoop. In the meantime, I've shown that I'm tough on the Iranians and I'm trying to sabotage their nuclear plan. That's all I care about. People think I'm a wuss. I've now made 'em look like I'm trying to undermine their nuclear plan, and I'm a big, tough macho guy 'cause I'm personally wiping out terrorists, mission accomplished. Special prosecutor, huh. Don't make me laugh. Are you kidding?"
RUSH: Back to the phones. To St. Louis. Jim, thank you for the call. You're next. Hello, sir.
CALLER: (bad cell connection) Hey, Rush. Just want to say if I sound a little nervous, it's 'cause I'm so excited to talk to you. I had the chance last week of visiting your portrait on the floodwall down at Cape Girardeau, and I'm gonna report that it's well.
RUSH: Is that right? You went down to the river wall?
CALLER: Yeah. And I tried to hug your portrait, and a train almost ran me over. I think it was time for tour groups.
RUSH: How many rotten eggs and tomatoes were on my portrait that day?
RUSH: None, really? They must clean it off every day.
CALLER: Well, the only issue I had was whether you were approvingly looking at what's her name, Josephine Baker, who was dancing next to you. But I thought it was a very appropriate glare for a stare, and I just love the shrine. The reason I called was the New York Times. I love to read it but we can't afford because it's $2.50 a copy, but they had an editorial.
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait Jim. Jim, when you say you love the New York Times, you mean for the entertainment value, right?
CALLER: Oh, absolutely.
RUSH: You're not in love with the New York Times. It's not your bible. That's not what you mean.
CALLER: It is the funniest bible I have ever read.
RUSH: All right. Okay. All right. I just wanted to stipulate for the audience.
CALLER: Oh, absolutely. But I want to tell you that it may be too funny for people -- you know, conservatives -- to read, but let me just give you a little sample. On June the 4th, the lead editorial is called, "Whose Welfare?" -- question mark. It talks about the fact that the IRS ought to go after certain conservative groups and focus on what they're doing. And I looked at the article, and I'm reading this lead editorial and I'm trying to figure out: What do they want to do to these groups or what are there are trying to do to them? And what it says is that they're going to, quote, "return full control of Congress to Republican Party." Well, I'm thinking to myself: Since 1960 when I was first publicly aware of politics, how many times -- how many years -- have Republicans controlled Congress?
RUSH: Yeah. When they won the House in 1992, it was the first time in 40 years.
CALLER: I'm talking about... Yeah, that was -- and (unintelligible) years, I believe. So what they're saying is that's a threat, when the Democrats have controlled both houses every year since then. I mean (garbled) since 1960.
RUSH: What is...? Jim, what is your point?
CALLER: That's the problem? They've got a problem with the Republicans taking control of the House?
RUSH: Yeah, to the New York Times it is.
CALLER: Well, I just think that it's incredible when you realize that what they're saying simply is: Here's what we're worried about: That Congress may, sometime in the history of the United States, have Republican control. And I'm thinking, what better example of their showing where they're coming from. And you know who they're really busily investigating these days? The Karzai family in Afghanistan. Now, why would they worry about them so much?
RUSH: The Karzai family?
CALLER: Yeah, the president. And they're talking about it. If you take, well, the lead articles --
RUSH: To protect Obama! They gotta protect Obama somehow. Remember, it's macho time in Washington. We got Afghanistan cookin'. We got Obama pulling out. We gotta make sure Karzai maintains some level of control over there so the place doesn't blow up, making Obama look bad or his decision look bad. So the New York Times threatens to investigate Karzai. Karzai reads the New York Times and, you know, Karzai is supposed to be intimidated by what the New York Times might report. This is trying to keep him in line. All so Obama is not embarrassed. The New York Times is all funny pages. But the fact... You don't need any evidence that they're liberal other than they print every day. That's it. Jim, thanks. I appreciate it.
RUSH: Folks, I pulled together during the break here some relevant pages from the first New York Times article on these leaks. Now, remember, the New York Times has a story (and the managing editor talked to The Politico) and they're openly saying that Obama did not leak to them. Honest. I've never seen this before, but they're doing it. 'Cause everybody says, "Special prosecutor! We've got to get to the bottom of these leaks. This is huge stuff. This is really detailed. It's damaging things."
Obama doesn't care about that. Trust me. But traditionally in Washington, this is a bad thing. This is unacceptable. And all of this is to make Obama look macho. It's to make him look big and tough, to make him look like he really cares about the country and so forth. And mission accomplished in that sense. And now people are calling for a special prosecutor. Obama didn't count on that. There's not gonna be any special prosecutor. So the New York Times is out protecting him.
Uh, uh, we didn't get our information from Obama!
Do you believe that? Normally they'd say, "We're not gonna tell you diddly-squat about our sources!" So I went back to this New York Times story on the assassination list, on the Kill List. The New York Times article itself says in many places they got their information from current and former regime officials. The article quotes Bill Daley. He's just Obama's former chief of staff. And General Jim Jones, the former national security adviser. The New York Times article quotes those guys!
It also quotes Tom Donilon, the current national security adviser. He happened to tell the New York Times that Obama, quote, "is quite comfortable with the use of force on behalf of the United States," unquote. The current national security guy is quoted in this story as saying (paraphrased): "Oh, yeah, our guy loves to pull the trigger. Our guy, we may as well call him Rambo Kardashian. Not Barack Kardashian. Rambo Kardashian!"
It is totally obvious that the administration and people it controls on the outside, former administration people, are the ones feeding info to the New York Times. Here, let me read you a relevant passage. "In interviews with the New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda." Okay. Yet the New York Times says: Obama didn't leak us any of this stuff.
They're owning up to it. I'm reading from the story. "In interviews with the New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda. They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing."
All right. I feel like I need to translate this to make sure you get it. What they're saying here is, "Boy, that Obama guy, he's a paradox. He didn't want to work with Congress to come up with a deal to close Gitmo, but when it comes to pullin' the trigger and wipin' out these terrorists -- lethal action -- he does it without even thinking about it! He's Mr. Tough Guy. I'm telling you." That's what they're saying here. He doesn't flinch. This guy, he's got ice water running through his veins!
His nickname is Cold Blue Steel.
He doesn't need Viagra!
He's Cold Blue Steel.
"While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands." Yeah, he wanted to make nice with the Islamists. He wanted to make nice with the jihadists, but they rejected that. And so he has followed them wherever they go! He put America first, damn right. "When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda..."
I am reading to you from the New York Times, who claims that Obama was not the source for any of the leaking. "[E]ven when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was 'an easy one.'" The level of detail... This is what people in traditional Washington are reading, and they're shocked! This is unprecedented. This is the White House writing public relations releases. This is not strenuous reporting. This is the phone rang, and it's Obama on the phone or Bill Daley on the phone.
"Here's what we want you to write. This is what we're doing."
This is laughably shameless.
Here's another outtake (or relevant passage, if you will) from the New York Times story: "Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence until he was fired in May 2010, said that discussions inside the White House of long-term strategy against Al Qaeda were sidelined by the intense focus on strikes. 'The steady refrain in the White House was, "This is the only game in town" -- reminded me of body counts in Vietnam,' said Mr. Blair, a retired admiral who began his Navy service during that war."
You know what that means? What that means is, "To hell with this long-term strategy! Obama rolled up his sleeves -- he put on the camo gear, he put on the Kevlar -- and this was it! He said, 'Getting Al-Qaeda, that's the only game in town. To hell with Obamacare, to hell with the economy, to heck with everything else. I am protecting America!'" That's that paragraph translated. And, again, the source is a former director of national intelligence for Obama. But, the Times tells us: We didn't get this stuff from Obama or the White House.
And Obama says (impression), "I'm offended anyone would think we leaked. Not my White House!" That's what he said: "My White House." Here's another one, same story, a relevant passage: "William M. Daley, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff in 2011, said the president and his advisers understood that they could not keep adding new names to a kill list, from ever lower on the Qaeda totem pole. What remains unanswered is how much killing will be enough." Oh, man! If we want somebody to protect this country, we've got the guy! Barack Kardashian is on the case.
The only question is: "[H]ow much killing will be enough?"
What do you think they thought at the Daily Kos when they read this?
What do you think Barbra Streisand thought when she read this? She probably didn't. They all claim they do, though. Another passage: "The president’s directive reinforced the need for caution, counterterrorism officials said, but did not significantly change the program. In part, that is because 'the protection of innocent life was always a critical consideration,' said Michael V. Hayden, the last CIA director under President George W. Bush." But, writes the Times (listen to this): "It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." My buddy Andy McCarthy, this is one of his many areas of expertise. He writes about this. He says Obama is profiling Muslim men. This is profiling Muslim men. Obama has simply granted to himself here, folks, the right to wipe out all Al-Qaeda Muslim men.
If they're military age, 18 or over -- if they're male, and they're 18, and they're Muslim -- he can wipe 'em out. If they're in a strike zone -- he don't care how they're dressed, doesn't care anything about them -- they are subject to death. He doesn't allow our soldiers this. He doesn't allow combat troops this latitude, but for him, for the Kill List? It's a piece of cake. So Obama's profiling Muslim men. Now, A, to go to these lengths -- and, B, we assume he went to these lengths. This could just be a bunch of mishmash.
We don't really know how much of this happened. We know that a couple of sheiks get blown away by a drone, but that's not the point. Again, the point is, "Oh, you think he's a Muslim, huh? Oh, you think so? You think he doesn't really care about America, huh? You think he's a soft wuss liberal, huh?" This New York Times story is supposed to counter all that. And the detail is what everybody's looking at here and saying, "My God, where did they get this? It has to be somebody inside."
As I say, this is all coming from either the circle or former members of the circle, and this is not leaks. Folks, this is not leaks. This is public relations. This is PR. And there's much more. I mean, I've just scratched the surface. Then also there's the story on the other aspect of this: Stuxnet. The New York Times has a story on that, relevant passages from that. Let me give you one of those before we go to the break. "At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm's 'escape'..." That's the hack, Stuxnet, the computer virus known as "the worm."
"At a tense meeting in the White House Situation Room within days of the worm's 'escape,' Mr. Obama, Vice President [Joe Bite Me] and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time, Leon E. Panetta, considered whether America’s most ambitious attempt to slow the progress of Iran’s nuclear efforts had been fatally compromised. 'Should we shut this thing down?' Mr. Obama asked..."
That quote from Obama, "Should we shut this thing down?" in the New York Times, is attributed to "members of the president's national security team who were in the room." So the Times is quoting Obama from members of his national security team who were in the room. Leaking. The Times is telling us their source is the "president's national security team ... in the room," and they're giving the Times quotes. While the Times is denying it! (laughing) I guess they lied to their own story.
And Obama says he's "offended" that anybody would say these leaks came out of his the White House.
RUSH: Quickly, Roseville, Minnesota, and Jeff. Great to have you on the program, sir. Open Line Friday. Hello.
CALLER: Mega dittos, Mr. Limbaugh. Hey, it is an interesting contrast between the way the Obama administration is handling these leaks as opposed to how the Bush administration handled the outing of Valerie Plame.
RUSH: That is interesting, isn't it? Valerie Plame, which was not a leak, everybody knew where it came from. It was Richard Armitage over at Colin Powell's office, titular head of the Republican Party. Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Novak, and somehow Scooter Libby went to prison for it. They demanded a special prosecutor get to the bottom of this, oh, this was a profound security leak. Poor Valerie Plame, yes, she was a CIA agent and an operative, and it was horrible, and they leaked her name. It was Armitage. He never paid a price. They wanted Bush for this. They wanted Karl Rove. I'm glad you reminded me of that. Valerie Plame. And there wasn't even a leak. Everybody knew who had done it and yet we needed a special prosecutor.
And on this, ah. We actually don't need a special prosecutor on this. The New York Times has told us everything. The New York Times has done the job of special prosecutor. The New York Times is quoting people. There are names, dates. Obama's inner circle. The New York Times is the special prosecutor, in a sense. I mean, you get my drift.
RUSH: Even Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco is saying that these leaks have jeopardized American lives. Nobody's life was jeopardized by the non-leak of Valerie Plame's name.