Rush Limbaugh | 2 Aug 2016
There was no reason to have to have a State Department annex anywhere near an embassy in Benghazi. There was no reason for it diplomatically, particularly in the aftermath of having ousted Khadafy, which Hillary Clinton to this day claims was a major foreign policy achievement. Well, you may have heard over the course of the recent past — a few years or so — that there was actually a gunrunning operation going on out of Benghazi.
Have you heard that? I have. I have heard it I don’t know how many times in different ways, and the upshot of it is that we, the United States, were running weapons to the Syrian “rebels” — ISIS — that we were running weapons to Islamic jihadists in Syria, ostensibly supporting their position in the civil war. When you hear the rebels in Syria, the anti-Assadists and so forth, you’re not supposed to think terrorists or ISIS, and that the ambassador Stevens was there to ensure the free flow of military armaments from the United States to Syria.
Well, now, with the apparent imminent release of more emails from WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, — and he’s intimidating that the emails he has back this up. We won’t know until and after said email release actually happens. But a lot of people have put a lot of stock in these… I guess you call ’em “rumors” up to now about what we were doing in Benghazi, because of what did happen, because of the four Americans who died in Benghazi, because of the lackadaisical attitude of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton.
The depth of which we’re not supposed to talk about now, and we’re not supposed to have any sympathy for the parents of those people who died. Isn’t that interesting? We’re not supposed to even think about — we’re not supposed any sympathy whatsoever for — Patricia Smith or any of the others whose family members perished there, because of government incompetence.
RUSH: Yeah, yeah, I saw it. No, I haven’t mentioned it, ’cause if I get started analyzing the media every day, that would be all that I do here. But since you asked me, I’ll mention it. Today Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods — who was one of the four that was killed at Benghazi — has come forward and said (summarized), “Hey, Pat Smith is not alone. Hillary Clinton also told me — in private and in public — that a YouTube video was responsible for the attack that led to the death of my son.”
Charles Woods is saying Hillary’s still lying about Benghazi. He’s been all over cable news. He went on CNN; he’s been on Fox. He said, “There are two options. One, either Mrs. Clinton is lying or she’s had a bad memory because of her age or her head injury that she suffered.” She did have a concussion. She wore Coke bottle glasses for a while there, and plus, you know, having to avoid the sniper fire (which also didn’t happen), but she did.
She lied through her teeth about this, and so did Obama, and so did the media, and so did the Democrat Party for three weeks about this in the aftermath of Benghazi. The point is this: Mr. Woods was on CNN today, just as Pat Smith has been on CNN, and they get browbeat! They are harangued. They are parents who have lost children, their sons and daughters. They’ve lost their children in war, just like the Khans. But they get beat up!
They almost are accused of lying themselves by saying that Mrs. Clinton lied. And both of them have stood firm. Pat Smith went on CNN and said, “I’ve been treated like dirt by you people,” and she has been. Chris Matthews saying, “I don’t care what that woman feels.” You know, on the one hand, the Democrats are praised to the hilt for bringing the Khans on stage and being at one with them and their empathy and all that.
And at the same time, the same people in the media excoriate the Republicans for exploiting the emotions of parents who lost their sons at Benghazi. I mean, the same reporters credit the Democrats for exploiting the Khans. “It was a great, noteworthy thing to do.” Do the same thing on the Republican side? They’re excoriated for exploitation. Anyway, on CNN today, Charles Woods was being interviewed, and he’s obviously a quiet and very humble man, and Carol Costello kept demanding — even after getting his story, Mrs. Clinton lied…
She wasn’t interested, by the way, naturally. And she kept asking him, “But don’t you think, sir…? Wouldn’t you advise Mr. Trump to apologize to the Khans? Don’t you think he should?” Charles Wood was silent. You could see him not believing the tone (chuckles) and the nature of the question he’s being asked. He is trying to come up with a response and remain dignified, but he wants to explode! So got a CNN infobabe demanding, essentially, that he tell Trump or say that Trump ought to apologize to the Khans!
But nobody is demanding that Hillary apologize to him for lying to his face about why his son died at Benghazi. “Don’t you think Mr. Trump…? Wouldn’t you encourage…? Wouldn’t you think Mr. Trump should apologize? And finally Charles Woods said, and very quietly, “Well, wouldn’t you maybe think that Hillary Clinton should apologize to me, if we’re gonna go down that road?” And then silence. “Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here, Mr. Woods.”
I mean, folks, it’s so blatant. It’s so blatant. I wonder if a backlash is going on out there that we’re not seeing in all this polling data. You can’t… I don’t want to go down the road of saying the polling data is wrong. Been there, done that. No future in it. I don’t want to be a “data denier.” Wouldn’t be prudent. But I wonder how much of a backlash is going on. People are… If you and I are having these reactions here, what do you think millions of Americans are doing at the same time?
They have to be feeling the same things. It’s just the disparate, the unfairness, the unequal aspects of the treatment here standout. There’s not even a question of it. And speaking of Benghazi, why were we really there? Was it to facilitate a gunrunning operation to “rebels” in Syria? WikiLeaks claims they’ve got thousands more emails they’re gonna release.
And Julian Assange is alluding to the possibility that some of these emails are gonna confirm that what the annex in Benghazi was all about was to serve as a midpoint for a gunrunning operation and that’s what Ambassador Stevens’ job there really was. And that was one of the early rumors. Because nobody could figure it out. “Okay, we topple Khadafy, and Libya literally becomes an out-of-control hellhole with various terrorist groups battling for control over the whole country.”
Khadafy had essentially been an anti-terrorism ally. Once we got rid of Saddam Hussein, you wouldn’t believe how fast Khadafy came around. But Hillary came up with a strategy to kill him and assassinate him, which happened (clapping) and she applauded herself. She thought it was a great, great thing to do. But Libya descended into chaos, utter chaos. So why go there? What in the world…?
There was no diplomatic reason to have an annex there, much less an embassy. The embassy’s in Cairo, so what do you have an annex over in Benghazi for? It is a hellhole. It literally is a trash dump. A CIA annex. Why do this? Well, people have been putting two and two together for a long time. Andy McCarthy has a piece coming that… It may be up later this afternoon or tomorrow at National Review Online.
“Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya … and Syria.” An excerpt: It is incontestable,” for those of you in Rio Linda, it means it’s inarguable; it means it is totally true, “that the Obama administration has worked closely with the Islamist government of Turkey in efforts to arm and train ‘rebels’ in Syria.” It’s, for the most part, ISIS, folks. Ambassador “Stevens’s last meeting on the night of September 11, 2012, right before the State Department’s Benghazi compound was attacked, was with Turkey’s consul general, Ali Sait Akin.
In the months leading up to the attack on the State Department facility, and on the even more shadowy CIA outpost a little over a mile away, jihadists in eastern Libya conducted a series of attacks against Western targets — including, on June 6, 2012, a bomb detonated just outside the State Department compound. The British government and the International Red Cross pulled their personnel out; yet the Obama administration left US government personnel in,” this war zone, this terrorist zone, “despite grossly inadequate security precautions.”
There weren’t any security precautions! They were relying on local gangs for security at Benghazi. “Why?” Andy McCarthy writes, “I believe that one significant mission was the coordination of weapons transfers from Libya to Syrian jihadists.”
Now, if that’s true and if the next email dump from WikiLeaks backs this up, it’s not necessarily gonna prove Hillary was in on it, this was an Obama administration thing, but if there is forthcoming email documentation that that’s really what was going on in Benghazi and that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state while it was happening, and then you throw all these other lies in what happened there, four Americans dead to preserve a gunrunning operation, not a State Department diplomatic mission? It could change the tone of this campaign dramatically.
And remember what it was like in 2012 now right before this happened. Obama was locked in a tight reelection race with Romney. He was at the time falsely claiming that he had defeated Al-Qaeda. I forget the slogan but it was something like Al-Qaeda and bin Laden’s dead, GM’s living, some slogan to show what great accomplishments Obama had made. But Al-Qaeda was actually thriving. They had not been decimated.
Obama’s campaign rhetoric was full of things like he was ending American wars, which were actually intensifying, and that his pro-Islamist policies were helping forge democracy in places like Egypt, which was at the time under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. And Libya, which had disintegrated into a failed state under the domination of Islamist militias.
So prior to the November election, if Obama had openly announced that his administration was arming Syrian Islamists, it would have been highly controversial. It would have told an entirely different story than Obama was telling how he was bringing peace all over the world. It would have spotlighted how the same policy had failed in Libya. And, by the way, neither the media nor Republicans had called any public attention to what was going on in Libya.
That’s why Benghazi shocked everybody. Nobody had any run-up information, ’cause nobody was following it. And this is no doubt why reports that Obama was launching a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time. The Times of London had that story, by the way. It’s not a rumor. It’s actually been reported, Obama launching covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels. They’re Islamists.
So were they doing this? Were Obama and Hillary and others in the Regime steering arms to Syrian jihadist right around the time of the intense campaign for reelection? You’ll find out if this next email dump actually happens as Julian Assange is saying. But I wanted you to be aware of this on the front side of it in case it does happen.