RUSH: Seth in Castleford, Idaho, I'm glad you called. Thank you for waiting, too. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Calling from God's country where we're harvesting the amber waves of grain.
RUSH: I like that. Harvesting the amber waves of grain. I like that. Thank you for the call.
CALLER: Hey, it's a pleasure to talk to you, to talk to somebody like you who's created so much logical critical thought in our society. You know, it's really a pleasure.
RUSH: You know, I don't get to talk to people like me, like you do, unless I talk to myself, and I don't do that. So I appreciate and understand how important that is to you.
CALLER: All right, well, my point is to the embassy closings. My interpretation of what the Democrats and many of our lawmakers are doing is, they're more concerned about job security rather than national security. I think that this embassy closing is a way for them to reestablish the narrative that they lost during Benghazi, by taking credit for nothing happening, and ignoring when something actually happens.
RUSH: Wait a minute. I'm not sure I follow you. I think you're on the cusp here of a good point, but I'm not sure I follow. How is it they're taking credit for nothing happening in Benghazi? Something clearly did happen in Benghazi, and it's not good.
CALLER: No, I think that what they're gonna end up doing with this embassy closing if nothing happens, is they will take credit for nothing happening like they protected us from this problem that they've created --
RUSH: Oh. Oh. I've got you.
CALLER: -- rather than, at the same time, calling Benghazi a "phony scandal" that something actually did happen and they're trying to completely ignore it. I think that they were losing the narrative between, you know, people hammering it like you and some of these people were hammering the narrative that it actually was a tragedy in our society, and by them creating this problem and taking credibility for nothing happening --
RUSH: Okay, so here we have, folks... Seth, thanks. I really appreciate the call. Here we have more cynicism. Here's a guy who thinks this shutdown of 21 embassies is simply so when nothing happens, they can all claim credit for shutting down a major threat 'cause they've told us, "This is a bigger threat -- certainly as big, the chatter is as big as what we got before 9/11." Well, that was the worst one, 9/11. We haven't had anything like that in this country, 48 states ever before. Right. Right.
So here we have this massive possibility, and we close the embassies, and the Obama regime rolls up its sleeves and gets busy working on it. And then if nothing happens, they say, "See how good we were? We are competent! You can rely on us." You remember how the Drive-By Media used to claim that George W. Bush used terrorist threats to distract us from other problems?
Do you remember how the mainstream media, the Drive-Bys used to accuse Bush of among terror events in order to make himself look tough, in order to make himself look smart, in order to make himself and his administration look competent? Remember how the media used to accuse Bush of fabricating terror events as a distraction? It's basically what Seth is saying here Obama is doing.
He's saying that what they're really aiming at is being able to say when this all ends up, if nothing happens, they prevented another Benghazi. Except that Benghazi was a "phony scandal." I have another view about this. If that's true, if this is all just political and propaganda and optics -- which, if I were to learn that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised. I think this bunch politicizes everything. I think everything's a photo-op.
I think everything's part of an agenda to strengthen Obama and his hold, his reputation, everything. I don't think -- and this is, by the way, intelligence guided by experience. I don't think Obama takes all this stuff seriously anyway, or Benghazi wouldn't happen the way it did. By the way, do you remember...? I haven't talked about it yet but there's a story that hit yesterday that the first criminal charges have been filed against a terrorist or two responsible for Benghazi?
So the regime is treating this as a criminal act, not an act of war. They file charges, criminal charges against the Benghazi terrorist leader? Crime? This is always the way the left has preferred to look at terrorism. It's a criminal act. It isn't an act of war. I just don't think they take it that seriously, and I say that only because of the way they dealt with Benghazi and attempted to describe Benghazi as a... I mean, four Americans died.
This is a reprehensible thing that happened, because it was unnecessary. It could have, A, been prevented, or we could have at least engaged and limited some of the damage. We didn't do anything, for whatever reasons. We've gone through all those possibilities. The bottom line is, I just get the sense that this bunch really doesn't take it all that seriously. Terrorism is really not a big deal.
It's something they don't think they're ever gonna be able to defeat. It's random pockets of lunatics here and lunatics there, and they'll just treat 'em as criminals and so forth. In the meantime, we'll use it to spy on Americans, ramp up whatever we need to with the NSA and whatever. They'll use it to expand their powers, but treating it seriously in a way to actually deal with it? I just don't get that sense. So I understand the cynicism that a caller like Seth has about this.