{"id":12459,"date":"2013-05-09T17:53:50","date_gmt":"2013-05-09T17:53:50","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-05-09T17:53:50","modified_gmt":"2013-05-09T17:53:50","slug":"as_libs_dismiss_the_whisteblower_s_yarn_on_benghazi_we_ask_where_was_obama","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2013\/05\/09\/as_libs_dismiss_the_whisteblower_s_yarn_on_benghazi_we_ask_where_was_obama\/","title":{"rendered":"As Libs Dismiss the “Whisteblower\u2019s Yarn” on Benghazi, We Ask… Where was Obama?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: Many of you in the e-mail said, “Rush! Rush! Rush! What about Benghazi?” We spent a lot of time on Benghazi yesterday, and we told you practically every powerful detail. We had the sound bites of every powerful detail. Those of you who listened to this program know exactly what happened in Benghazi, and you know exactly why the White House didn\u2019t want anybody to know about it. There\u2019s just one remaining question that I have been asking for weeks.<\/p>\n

No, in fact, I\u2019ve been asking this question for months: “Where was Obama during all of it?” That\u2019s the one thing that nobody knows. Where was Obama when four Americans were under assault and ultimately being killed? And there doesn\u2019t seem to be any curiosity inside official Washington. But the reason that we\u2019re not spending a lot of time on it today is that we did yesterday, and you in this audience know everything about it that there is to know.<\/p>\n

The media today is treating it as a nonevent or as a Republican political effort to embarrass our delightful president and our future president, Hillary Clinton.<\/a> Look, Dana Milbank in the Washington Post headline: “Whistleblower\u2019s Yarn Fails to Tie Benghazi Lapses to Politics.” He claims that what happened yesterday was a bunch of storytelling, that the witnesses spun a “yarn.” They were great lines for a movie, maybe, but really nothing to see here.<\/line><\/p>\n

Now, to everybody who had their hopes up that this was gonna mean something, I warned you: If the media doesn\u2019t get behind this, if it only last night one day, it\u2019s gonna come and go and become a nonevent. The Republicans basically launched everything they had in one day, and that\u2019s it. So now the media is spinning it as a Republican political effort that failed. The whistleblowers, you heard them. You heard them choking up and crying. You heard their testimony. We played it yesterday.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m sure if you watched some cable news last night, you got snippets of it. You saw the pain, the tears, the choke-up, the suffering, the disbelief, the incredulity when they were told that this was the result of a video. Basically, in this audience, you know what the truth was or is. You also know that the administration\u2019s gotten away with it. Now it\u2019s old news. They have gotten away with the cover-up; they\u2019ve gotten away with mischaracterizing it.<\/p>\n

They\u2019ve gotten away with spinning it as another failed, inept Republican political effort.<\/p>\n

“Whistleblower\u2019s Yarn Fails to Tie Benghazi Lapses to Politics.” Milbank says, of course the State Department would try to block this testimony. Of course! It makes perfect sense that the State Department would try to block this testimony. Milbank is saying (summarized): “You think I\u2019m gonna join you people in trying to harm Obama? Who do you think I am? Do you think I\u2019m nuts? I\u2019m not gonna do that! I\u2019m here to protect Obama. That\u2019s what my piece is all about here.”<\/p>\n

Now, Milbank does concede that Greg Hicks “did have some damning things to say about the State Department trying to block him from cooperating with Issa\u00c2\u2019s committee. But that wasn\u2019t quite the evidence Issa had promised…” In fact, Milbank says here, “Hicks was of little use to Republicans in their efforts to connect the lapses in the Benghazi response to Clinton or to the Obama White House,” as though that\u2019s what they were trying to do.<\/p>\n

Yeah. Greg Hicks, he didn\u2019t help. He didn\u2019t help the Republicans.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I told you, the Democrats look at everything politically, everything. In this case they\u2019re judging this simply as, “Did anybody land a blow on Obama?” and their verdict is, “No. That didn\u2019t happen. All we got yesterday was basically bunch of great lines for a movie and a bunch of storytelling.” Now, the New York Times is a little different. The New York Times story: “Diplomat Says Questions Over Benghazi Led to Demotion.”<\/p>\n

They talk about Greg Hicks speaking to a congressman without a State Department lawyer being present. Hillary\u2019s chief of staff reamed him, and then he got demoted. The New York Times does say that this is not really cool, but that\u2019s about it. That\u2019s the only thing to see here. But essentially, folks, there\u2019s nothing new here. That\u2019s it. That\u2019s the New York Times. That\u2019s the Washington Post. I told you what Yahoo News reported on this.<\/p>\n

Yahoo News basically says it\u2019s a failed Republican political effort.<\/p>\n

They didn\u2019t land a blow on Obama.<\/p>\n

So that\u2019s it.<\/p>\n

(interruption) Yeah, I know. Remember in 1972 or \u201973, whenever the Watergate hearings were? Can you imagine that old Washington Post headline: “John Dean\u2019s Yarn Fails to Tie Watergate Lapses to Nixon”? Imagine that headline? Remember that headline? Remember the stories in the Washington Post, “Nothing to see here! The Democrats tried to attach this Watergate thing to Nixon, but they didn\u2019t land a blow. We maybe got some yarns here, maybe some good lines for a movie, but nothing happened here.”<\/p>\n

You remember all of that during Watergate?<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: David in Fort Worth, Texas. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.<\/p>\n

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Mega dittos.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Thank you very much, sir.<\/p>\n

CALLER: My comment is this: The statement that military assets were not going to be able to get to Benghazi in time could only have been made retrospectively. For those in Rio Linda, that means “after the fact.” There was absolutely no way to know how long that siege would last, whether it\u2019s two hours or 20 hours, to get military assets to that location. The statement that we just didn\u2019t have time to get things there could only be made retrospectively.<\/p>\n