Dittos, 

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

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Dems Won't Really Sit Out Benghazi Hearings

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Well, the Benghazi select committee in the House is going to proceed with no Democrats, at least as we stand now.  "Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House, has rejected the terms of the Republican-created select committee on Benghazi." Well, the Republicans are moving ahead without them.  I, frankly, think that would be better.  We don't need Democrats. 

If the Democrats want to abandon this thing or boycott it, that's just fine with me.  They can't turn it into a circus and distract it and basically destroy it.  That's why I think they eventually will show up so that they can do that.  Pelosi says they're not gonna show up, but there is some guy out there, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat -- I think he's from Illinois -- and he's saying they still might show up. 

Now, there are two articles. "Becerra: Democrats Will Participate If the Benghazi Panel Is Fair and Open and Balanced."  So you see, they're telling the media (summarized), "Well, we're not gonna show up! This is unfair; it's unbalanced. It's a bunch of right-wing extremists trying to get to the bottom of this.  We're not gonna play any role in that. 

"But if they change their minds -- if they make it fair and if they make it equal and if they are interested in eq-ual-it-y -- then we might show up."  That's from TheHill.com.  The Washington Examiner says that Pelosi's rejected the Republican terms, or "the terms of the GOP-created select committee."  So the Republicans are moving ahead without them. 

Now, according to this first article in the Washington Examiner, the Democrats say they want veto power on the subpoenaing of witnesses.  That is exactly how we got to the situation where we are today.  If they had veto power over the subpoenaing of witnesses, that means they could veto any witness that might have anything to contribute.  It's exactly why we're where we are now.

Most of the top people involved with Benghazi were not interviewed by the so-called Accountability Review Board because they were not produced. The Democrats vetoed their presence.  Now, Xavier Becerra says they've not demanded that veto power, but my guess is that what the Democrats are doing is focus-grouping. They're testing this right now.  They're out polling it with people.

They're asking for results in the poll -- What if we demand veto power; what if we don't? -- just to get people's reaction before they make a demand on this.  But I can't believe that when push comes to shove, they will sit this out.  This is too crucial, and they know with Trey Gowdy as the chairman of this select committee that this isn't going to be something that's just for show. 

This is not gonna be something designed to turn out Republican voters or whatever. Trey Gowdy is gonna get to the bottom of this by hook or by crook, and I don't mean he'll be unfair or unequal. But he's a prosecutor who's never lost a case, and he will get to the bottom of this because he cares deeply about what happened and how. 

The Democrats just can't allow that. They can't permit this, just like they can't permit the truth of this IRS scandal with Lois Lerner and all that to be revealed in its entirety. So eventually, I think, they probably will be part of this, once they get their polling back that tells them the most effective way they can behave and proceed.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) claimed Friday.  "'Two of their families have called us and said, "Please don’t take us down this path again,"' Pelosi said during her weekly press conference. 'It's really hard for them. It's very sad.'" This is like when Harry Reid's "friend" told him that Mitt Romney hadn't paid his taxes. Pelosi's not identifying the people.  She saying two of the families.  Now, ask yourself a question.

Why would families of the Benghazi victims call the Democrats and ask them not to hold the hearings, given it's the Republicans who control the House, and given that it's the Republicans are the ones starting the committee?  Why would they call the Democrats and ask them not to do it?  And why would these families not say it publicly? 

Maybe because they're distant relations who are Democrat shills? 

Maybe they don't even exist? 

Who knows? 

But why wouldn't they say this publicly?  Why would just come out say, "We're tired of it! We don't want to go down this road anymore. This is really hard for us, it's very sad, and this isn't gonna bring our loved ones back to life"?  Why call Democrats on the down low and ask them not to do it when it's not within their power -- and if it's so bad, why can't they just ignore the hearings? 

They don't have to watch 'em.

If it's so painful, don't watch 'em.  There are plenty of other things to watch out there.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Lindsey, Studio City, California, hi.  You're next. 

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  How are you?  Hello?

RUSH:  Yeah.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hi.  You know, I'm only stunned by the selective hashtag causes these two have, because Benghazi personally haunts me, and I think sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.  And when I'm talking to people, and they know nothing about Benghazi, I'm always stunned. I send them to the Internet and I tell them to look at this picture, look at this picture.  When I saw a picture of Ambassador Stevens on the Internet, I can't tell you how that picture just haunted me that this man died alone, surrounded by these monstrous people who flung him over their shoulder like he was baggage and reading the things that happened --

RUSH:  No, they were taking him to the hospital.  You've got the story all wrong.  The terrorists were shocked, and they were being good people, and they were trying to take him to the hospital for us.  That was the story.  You know, after they had been moved to outrage by a video, they then attacked the consulate in Benghazi and they were trying to save the ambassador.  That's what the Regime said.  That was the original story that went out.  And, by the way, folks, there's a new twist on what actually killed Ambassador Stevens. 

Did you know that The McLaughlin Group is still on?  It is.  Did you know that Eleanor Clift was still on TV offering her opinion on things?  She is.  And so on The McLaughlin Group on Sunday morning in a discussion about this new congressional select committee, Eleanor Clift, who writes for Newsweek -- is Newsweek is still around?  Just digitally?  Man, I didn't know The McLaughlin Group was still on and I didn't know that Eleanor Clift was still on.  Well, I don't watch Sunday morning stuff, folks. Geithner, he was sent out there to lie, Susan Rice, none of it, it's all just PR buzz pap.  Anyway, Eleanor Clift has advanced a new theory to explain what happened to Ambassador Stevens.

CLIFT:  Every media organization has investigated this to death.  This animates the right wing of the Republican Party, and I would like to point out that Ambassador Stevens was not murdered.  He died of smoke inhalation.

RUSH:  So that is apparently what no one else knew.  Ambassador Stevens wasn't murdered by the terrorists who were attempting to rescue him and take him to the hospital for us.  He died of smoke inhalation because the terrorists launched a bunch of bombs and started a fire, and therefore he wasn't killed. He was done in by smoke inhalation.  That was on The McLaughlin Group yesterday morning.  It's an edited bite, so I don't know if there was raucous laughter or stunned silence following it.

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Watch Live Listen Live

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: