Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Let’s go to the audio sound bites. Obama got questions about Benghazi at the press conference today.

Julie Pace, again, from the Administration Press, she had the first question and she threw the kitchen sink at Obama in this question. She asked about the IRS. She asked the British prime minister about Syria, and she asked Obama the following: “On Benghazi, newly public e-mail showed that the White House, State Department, appear to have been more closely involved with the crafting of the talking points on the attack than first acknowledged. Do you think the White House misled the public about its role in shaping the talking points, Mr. President? And do you stand by your assertion that the talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospects of terrorism?”

Now, you know what you know about Benghazi. You know that the administration knew that night it was an act of terrorism. You know that the administration knew in advance that this act was gonna happen, this terrorist act. In fact, I want to take you back to Cairo, before I play for you the president’s answer. I’m gonna take you back to September 11th last year. Do you remember the apology that the Cairo embassy released before anything had happened? The Cairo embassy, folks, I’m kicking myself for not figuring this out until over the weekend. I really am. There are days when I figure something out and I get really mad at myself for having had it take so long. And it’s about the video.

The US embassy in Cairo, before anything had happened, apologized, in advance, for any protests that might happen. And that apology cited that video, if you recall. And that’s the first we’d heard of it. What the hell is this? We were told that that apology — remember, the White House came out and condemned it, and we were told, again, a low-level worker in the embassy was overzealous and was just too caring and was trying to take preemptive action to stop a protest by apologizing for America in advance of it. Remember all that? And in that apology and that statement, which came from the US Embassy in Cairo before anything happened, they mention a video. This reprehensible video that’s upset people.

I went back and I found out that two days earlier the grand mufti of Egypt, in a speech in his little mosque, sermon in his mosque, had actually reference that video in passing. I mean, it was a casual, throwaway line. And I am convinced that the administration concocted this video excuse before anything happened ’cause they knew that Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi was planning an attack. This is what we’ve learned. We know that this regime knew something was gonna happen before it did. We know at least that they knew who it was when it was happening.

We know that Susan Rice was sent out with phony talking points. We know that those talking points were written and edited. We also know that siblings and spouses of mainstream media people work in the administration. Somebody, the news director at ABC’s sister is involved at the administration. And the brother of some guy at some network — I’ve got it here, I’ll find it in just a second, give you the names — is actually involved in the Benghazi summary. I mean, it’s worse than the resolving door of incest. An individual works at a congressman’s office, then goes to the media, then goes back to a senator’s office, then goes back to the media, then goes to the administration like Jay Carney did, then back to the media.

Now, it’s worse. Now we’ve got news directors’ family members working in the administration — and in one instance, working at national security on framing the Benghazi story. So, anyway, that apology that came from Cairo was not a rogue apology. It was not from a low-level staffer acting without supervision. It was not from some person in the lower levels of the embassy acting as a lone wolf, acting PC. We know that that the stated purpose of the apology was to stop and prevent any protests.

‘Cause we knew some were coming.

We did! We knew.

In Cairo, we knew some protests were coming, so this apology is issued before anything happens. The State Department said, in a way, “Maybe if we apologize in chance they’ll not attack. They’ll not protest.” I mean, that’s the polluted, converted, perverted thinking — and they did mention the video. Now, everything flows from that. They first tried to say that Benghazi was the result of a protest in Cairo. None of that was true.

My point is, you’re gonna hear the president deny everything you know in these next three sound bites. He’s going to deny everything you know to be factual — Stephen Hayes, the Weekly Standard; Jonathan Karl, ABC — the 12 edits of the talking points Susan Rice sent out there. We know what she says was not true. You’re gonna hear him deny it all. So the question is on both the IRS and the Benghazi.

The press has had their chance now to ask him about it — one question on both issues from one reporter — and let’s just see if that’s it. Let’s just see if both scandals are dropped like hot potatoes now that the president has addressed both. So her question, Julie Pace (singsong voice), “On Benghazi newly public e-mails show that the White House and the State Department appear to have been more closely involved with the crafting of the talking points on the attack than first acknowledged. Do you think the White House misled the public about its role in shaping the talking points? [snickering] Do you stand by your administration’s assertions that…?”

Note, not “your” assertions.

She says, “your administration’s assertions that the talking points were not purposely changed to downplay the prospects of terrorism?”

OBAMA: The whole issue of this — of — of — of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. Immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen, uh, attacks on US embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film. The e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees! They reviewed them several months ago; concluded that, in fact, there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, in three days, this gets spun up as if there’s something new to the story.

There’s no “there” there!

RUSH: See? “It was the video; it started in Cairo. We didn’t redo the talking points except after the Republicans in Congress demanded new talking points. The only reason we did the talking points again is because the Republicans were demanding it! But there’s no ‘there’ there. You know, we weren’t clear who exactly carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on embassies in Cairo as a consequence of the film.”

See, that’s the key to this.

The grand mufti of Egypt did mention a video two days before this.

Then the State Department says, “We’re gonna seize that!” They knew all this was coming. But none of this changes what they didn’t do in Benghazi when they knew what was happening and when four Americans died. The president’s reaction is still, “There’s no ‘there’ there. There no scandal. There weren’t any talking points that were rewritten except Republicans in Congress made us do new ones. They’re the ones that wanted new talking points. These e-mails that you allude to, they were provided to us by congressional committees!”

He wasn’t through. He kept answering the question.

OBAMA: If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack. Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? So the whole thing defies logic, frankly, [and] has a lot to do with political motivations. We’ve had folks who have challenged Hillary Clinton’s integrity, Susan Rice’s integrity, Mike Mullen and Tom Pickering’s integrity. It’s a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks.

RUSH: “This whole thing he defies logic.”

There’s no logic to what people are saying about this.


RUSH: Okay, I want you to listen to the sound bite again, number 25. We just played it. And the key here is Obama saying, “Hey, three days after the fact, we told everybody what this was! I don’t know, everybody says we tried to tamp it down. We told people three days later! We put out all the information that it was a terrorist attack here.” Here, listen to him say it again…

OBAMA: If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack. Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down —

RUSH: All right, stop the tape.

So he wants you to believe that three days later, he and his administration told everybody, “Hey, this is a terrorist attack.” Seven days later, Susan Rice is on five TV shows, not calling it a terrorist attack. She was denying it, blaming it on the video. Why did Obama go to the United Nations two weeks later and blame the video? In that audio clip that we just played, you just heard Obama say that he laid everything out three days later that it was a terrorist attack.

“We’re the ones that told you it was! My administration told you it was a terrorist attack, and we proved it was a terrorist attack.” So why, two weeks later, was he still blaming the video at the United Nations? Why did he and Hillary record a television commercial for jihadists in Pakistan telling them that it was a video? Obama and everybody in his administration — not just Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Obama, anybody that spoke about this, Biden — for two weeks or more after the event was still blaming the video!

They were not calling it a terrorist attack.

Obama said today that that next day he called it a terrorist attack. He did not! We’ve been through that the day after he said that. We’ve already put that sound bite through the mill. He did not call it a terrorist attack. He used the word “terror” in a general sense but not specifically tied to this event because they were blaming the video, and even in the first sound bite that we played for you just now, he once again blamed the film. So he wants it both ways. They blame the film and then three days after, they say they’re the ones that told us it was a terrorist attack.

No, they weren’t.

It had to be learned, it had to be deciphered, it had to be investigated.

They were in outright denial, and they still are.

It’s gonna be fascinating to me to see whether or not this today satisfied the media.


RUSH: Let me give you the bottom line here, folks. So far, the Obama administration has called the effort to understand what happened in causing the death of four Americans in Benghazi “a bump in the road” and now a “sideshow.” The effort to understand why four Americans unnecessarily died at a US consulate in Benghazi is called by this administration “a bump in the road” and a “sideshow.” Here’s the final thing the president said in answer to the question by Julie Pace today from the AP at his press conference.

OBAMA: We don’t have time to be playing these kinds of political games here in Washington. We’ve got a whole bunch of people in the State Department who consistently say, “You know what? I’m willing to step up! I’m willing to — to put myself in harm’s way because I think that this mission is important in terms of serving the United States and advancing our interests around the globe.” And — and — and so we — we dishonor them when, you know, we turn things like this into a political circus.

RUSH: Greg Hicks?

You’re a political circus.

Republicans bringing up these whistleblowers to testify?

You’re doing nothing more than creating a political circus!

So all this is “a bump in the road,” “a sideshow,” and “a political circus.” I wonder how the families of the four dead Americans react when they hear the president of the United States refer to this whole sordid affair as “a bump in the road,” “a sideshow,” and now “a political circus.” So the real question… Well, not the real question, but an interesting question to me is the media got their question.

Julie Pace asked about the IRS, asked about Benghazi; the president answered both, saying, ‘There’s no ‘there’ there! I don’t know what everybody’s talking about. This is political circus, a sideshow. The IRS? I condemn it.” Let’s see if that’s enough to satisfy ’em. “Well, the president said, Mr. Limbaugh, what he said! There’s nothing left to do. The president said what he said, and it’s over.” We’ll see.


RUSH: Coronado, California. Bob, thank you for waiting. Great to have you on the program. Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. A question that I think Hillary or Obama needs to answer regarding Benghazi, and that is there’s two things that happened. There’s the events of 9/11 during the attack, and the second event is the multiple revisions of the talking points. I would like to ask them which of those two events did they invest more man-hours in.

RUSH: Well, the president answered that today. And essentially your question is wrong. Everything that you’re asking about didn’t happen. There’s nothing to answer because everything posed by your question is some fictitious creation as a result of the political circus. They didn’t do anything to protect Hillary. Hillary’s integrity’s been attacked. That’s all that’s happened here. They didn’t rewrite the talking points except when the Republicans in Congress demanded it. They said it was a terror attack three days after the fact. And everything else is just a bunch of no “there” there BS.

That’s how your question would be answered. Your question’s premise is entirely flawed. None of what you’re asking about actually happened. We didn’t spend any man-hours defending Hillary. What’s happened is her integrity’s under attack, and so is Thomas Pickering. His integrity is under attack, and the whole State Department’s under attack and these people are willing to put their lives on the line for this country, and how dare this circus go on and make politics out of this. That’s the answer to your question. Next question, what is your next question? See, you don’t have another question. Your first question’s bogus, so you’re shut down. That’s how it works.


RUSH: Back to the phones we go.

Scott in Freehold, New Jersey. Welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you. Hi.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. It’s a pleasure.

RUSH: You’re more than welcome, sir.

CALLER: What I would really like to comment on is the fact that I believe all of you are correct trying to say they are trying to hide this Benghazi scandal for political reasons. But what I think you’re really neglecting is the fact that now four Americans are killed, mostly because they were denied all of those claims for more security. I think that should be the focus. There should be a lot more emphasis on the fact that that is the reason that now we have Americans dead. And not only that, but I believe that they didn’t want the security and extra security, and they denied all these requests for it because of Islamophobia. The administration just could only bare how it would look bad on them to add more security — and now, we have Americans dead because of that. I think there should be a lot more emphasis on this point as well as.

RUSH: Well, I’m not trying to behave as a child here, but if you listened for maybe an hour a week, you’d have heard all of that. Just last Friday, and last Thursday, and last Wednesday, and last Tuesday, and last Monday. We have spoken about the reasons they didn’t move any security in there in advance. We’ve spoken about why they didn’t do anything at the time. We’ve talked about why rescuers were told to stand down.

We have mentioned why there was no air support to go in and help the people on the ground who defied orders to go in there. And, you’re right. Islamophobia is one reason. Another reason is Obama had told everybody that there was no more Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was on the run. We’d killed bin Laden. Osama was dead. The world only hated us because of Bush. But now Obama was there, and the world loved us again.

So this kind of thing against America was not possible, and to go defend it would confirm that it was happening. Obama had to make a video the cause of this, some rogue filmmaker. Because he had told everybody in America and around the world that he had vanquished Al-Qaeda. Not just by virtue of killing Osama, but because he became president. The world loved us again! There wasn’t any more terrorism!

And yet here was some.

Well, we can’t have that.

So we gotta make it look like it’s a rogue protest, an ad hoc protest building off what happened in Cairo. I don’t mean to chide you, but we haven’t neglected any aspect of this in any way shape manner or form. What we’re dealing with today is what happened today, which is what we do each and every day. That’s why we’re on the cutting edge, and we’re dealing today with what Obama said about it, and how he’s trying to shut it down. He’s basically denying everything that’s happened. He’s saying there wasn’t any revision in talking points. He’s called this “a circus,” “a bump in the road,” a waste of time. Nothing to see here. He’s trying to shut this all down.

To me, it’s gonna be very interesting to see if he succeeds with his answer to the question.

Anyway, Scott, thanks for the call. I appreciate it.


RUSH: You know what the big news right now is about Benghazi? The big news right now is did the media make him cry when he was answering the question. Reuters has a photo of what they say is a tear streaming down Obama’s eye, as he’s answering questions about Benghazi. I thought he was angry. But they’re trying to make it sound like he was so upset he’s moved to tears.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This