Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


Obama Shuts Down Embassies as CIA Works Hard to Cover Up the True Story of Benghazi


RUSH:  What the heck is going on here?  Have you seen it?  "US to Temporarily Shut Down Embassies Around the World Sunday Amid Security Concerns."  I was gonna say, have they shut down YouTube or something?  Did that guy get outta jail that made the YouTube video?  Did he make another one?

JOHNNY DONOVAN:  And now, from sunny south Florida, it's Open Line Friday!

RUSH:  Somebody must have made another video that has enraged the Arab street because we're shutting down our embassies.  CNN, a random act of journalism, Jake Tapper breaking big news.  The CIA involved in an unprecedented attempt to keep Benghazi secrets secret, to keep facts -- there were 12 or 15 CIA people on the ground at Benghazi.  It turns out it may have been about gun running to Syria.  It turns out that may have been what was going on. 

RUSH:  Now, remember, President Obama said that Benghazi is a "phony scandal." It's something the Republicans just made up. It's just something the Republicans made up to try to criticize him and to go after the Democrats, but it's a phony scandal.  Meanwhile, CNN's Jake Tapper has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA in the wake of the terror attack in Benghazi. 

Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11th in eastern Libya.  Sources are now telling CNN that dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night. Dozens.  The agency has gone to great lengths to make sure that whatever it was doing remains a secret.  Here is Drew Griffin from CNN...

GRIFFIN:  CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls "an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out." Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s working. The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress. It’s being described as "pure intimidation," with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

RUSH:  What's the big deal?  Why bother?  It's just a phony scandal.  The president said so, and so did Jay Carney. It's just a phony scandal.  These polygraphs, monthly polygraph exams?  Intimidation?  They're probably phony polygraphs, probably phony lie-detector tests.  Incredible.  We have a interesting setup for this.  


RUSH: I want to stick with the Benghazi thing because early on, one of the rumors out there was that what was actually going on, one of the reasons Obama was so secretive about this was that the ambassador's real reason for being there was to spearhead a gunrunning operation to Syrian rebels.  And people who had heard that and then mentioned it were called kooks. The usual names were thrown at them, conspiracy kooks or tinfoil hat people or what have you, but it's come back up again.  Here's Trey Gowdy last night on Greta on the Fox News Channel.  She said, "I'd love to interview these survivors," the phony survivors, 'cause it's a phony scandal.  She said, "I'd love to interview the survivors, but the administration is doing everything it can to hide them. They're dispersing them around the country. And of course, you know, the CNN report shows that even CIA operatives who were there are getting intimidated from above," monthly lie detector tests. 

Folks, those are a pain in the rear.  I mean, a polygraph is tough enough once, but to do one every month to see if you're lying or leaking.  I mean, this is major intimidation taking place.  Whatever was going on there, the regime does not want anybody knowing.  I mean, people's careers and worse are being threatened if they talk, if they leak.  The polygraphs, these phony lie detectors in the phony scandal are designed to intimidate people.  So Greta is asking Trey Gowdy about all this.  He's a congressman from South Carolina, Republican.  Said this.

GOWDY:  Including changing names, creating aliases.  So you stop and think what things are most calculated to get at the truth:  Talk to people with firsthand knowledge.  What creates the appearance or perhaps the reality of a cover-up?  Not letting us talk to people who have the most amount of information, dispersing them throughout the country, and changing their names.

RUSH:  It's almost like the witness protection program for people who were involved in this phony scandal, Benghazi.  Fox News Channel, America's Newsroom this morning, Rick Folbaum interviewing Darrell Issa, said, "You've heard these reports about CIA employees being intimidated, trying to get them to keep quiet about what they knew about the Benghazi attack.  Have your phony investigators been able to uncover anything phony on that front?"

ISSA:  We are aware that there's a pattern of saying you must coordinate with their bosses before talking to Congress.  Of course that's not consistent with the law, and it leads to a general belief that you shouldn't talk to Congress, and that happens to be instruction.  It's illegal under the statutes.

RUSH:  There's no such thing as illegal for Barack Obama.  Under the statutes?  That's not consistent with the law?  You know, our buddy Daniel Henninger -- I didn't get to this yesterday.  Things were just popping all over the place.  Dan Henninger in the Wall Street Journal wrote a piece singing my song, things that we've discussed on this program for years.  He was crossing the T's and dotting the I's.  And basically what he was saying was that this administration doesn't care about the law, and Obama's out there admitting it. Obama's telling everybody, all you gotta do is listen to him, this week in speeches, last week in speeches, when he's out there talking about jobs, he's saying things like, "and if Congress won't do it, I'm just gonna have to take care of it myself."  I'm paraphrasing, but those are the kinds of things he's saying.  "If Congress won't cooperate, I'll just do it myself."  And people are applauding this, by the way. 

This is a robust violation of the separation of powers.  The Constitution was written and the branches of government had various checks and balances on each other so this kind of thing would not evolve.  But in order for it to work, you have to have law-abiding people.  You have to have people willing to obey the Constitution, willing to follow the law.  Obama doesn't care.  He is the law.  And this, to me, ought to be readily apparent to anybody, particularly members of Congress.  I like Darrell Issa, don't misunderstand anything here.  I join a lot of you in getting a little frustrated when I hear members of Congress say, "Well, that's not consistent with the law."  Of course it's not consistent.  That's the problem. 

The law does not constrain Barack Obama.  The law is something to be avoided, overrun, gotten around.  And it has happened. One of the things that Henninger did in his piece yesterday, Wall Street Journal, is chronicle instances of it.  It's like anything else, if there's no push-back on it be -- I mean, we've got laws against murder, but if nobody attempts to apprehend the murderer, then what good's the law, right?  You have to have enforcement.  Illegal immigration.  What good are the laws if you're not gonna enforce them?  Well, we have constitutional laws, statutory law, that this administration just doesn't like and is not going to be bound by it, and this Benghazi phony scandal is one instance of it.

We can't just sit here and rely on this regime to follow the Constitution.  They don't like it in the first place.  They've said that, too, for years, folks.  Very open about their -- what's the word?  Anger or frustration, disagreement.  Very open about the fact they don't like the Constitution, that they think it is deeply flawed because it is too limiting on the government.  That's its express purpose is to limit the government.  This is the guy, Barack Obama, January 2009, said, "Transparency and the rule of law will be touchstones of my regime."  And, like most liberals, they do the exact opposite of what they say.  What they say is designed to create the illusion that that's what they're doing, and they get away with it with a slavish and compliant media who don't call 'em on it. 

I want to go back to January 23rd of 2013.  Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Hillary Clinton was still the secretary of state.  She was testifying.  Rand Paul, Kentucky, asked her a question:  "Is the US involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow, transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?"

HILLARY:  To Turkey?  I will have to take that question for the record.  Nobody's ever raised that with me.  I don't --

PAUL:  It's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I'd like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?

HILLARY:  Well, Senator, you'll have to direct -- direct that question to the agency that ran the annex.

PAUL:  You're saying you don't know?

HILLARY:  I did not know.

RUSH:  "I do not know."  And now this whole thing has surfaced again, and running guns, weapons to Syrian rebels appears to be one of the things that might have been going on.  There's something the regime's trying to keep quiet.  There's something the regime doesn't want anybody to know.  There's something Obama is intimidating people for.  There's something he doesn't want said.  There's something he doesn't want known.  And they're going to extreme measures to do so.  Do you remember a guy named Peter Fenn from the Monica Lewinsky era?  Peter Fenn was a Democrat consultant, he was on television every night defending Clinton.  It was either he or Lanny Davis.  They were out there.  He hasn't gone away.  He's still a consultant on the Democrat side.  He has a piece that's run in US News.  He's a Democrat political strategerist.  He's head of Fenn Communications, one of the nation's leading political and public affairs media firms.  And his piece goes back to May the 9th. 

Benghazi is a tragedy. It's not a grand conspiracy.  It's not like Iran-Contra was.  That's a conspiracy, that's a violation, that was evil.  Iran-Contra.  He goes on to point out that there wasn't any violation of the Constitution. There wasn't any effort to get around Congress, meaning the Boland Amendment.  There wasn't any secret funding going to people that Congress said shouldn't be funded. 

He said, "Unlike the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal, there are no questions of illegal acts, no secret funds, no shredding of documents and no efforts to directly circumvent a law passed by Congress."  It appears there's all of that and maybe more.  If the Republicans would come to their senses here and perform oversight and really push back on this, the Benghazi mystery, the phony Benghazi mystery might be unraveled.  Waiting for CNN to do this isn't gonna cut it.  People need to be put under oath. Waiting for CNN to go further unravel this, it's time to get to the truth on this, and this has the attention of the Democrats. 

Democrats are scared to death what Benghazi could mean to their party, because they remember Iran-Contra, they remember what they were able to do with that, and if the Benghazi cover-up reveals a CIA role in a weapons program that wasn't authorized by Congress -- and that's where everybody's looking now -- then the Republicans might want to remind their friends across the aisle how they've looked at Iran-Contra all these years.  They wanted Reagan, and they were gonna use anything to get Reagan, and the Iran-Contra was their last best chance.  They wanted to impeach Reagan.  And now we've got a situation where Obama is directly involved in a phony story about a video being responsible for a protest that got out of hand.  There's a lot of smoke here.  We know there's a fire.  Will we find out?



Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show



Most Popular

EIB Features