'Breathtaking' lies and dishonesty by Obama and White House spark anger at Benghazi hearing

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," November 15, 2012. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tempers boiling over on Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers blasting the Obama administration over Benghazi, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher telling the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "This administration has lied to the American people about this tragedy. The arrogance and dishonesty in all of this is breathtaking."

Congressman Rohrabacher joins us. Good evening, sir.


VAN SUSTEREN: OK, you say they lied. So be specific. What do you think they lied about?

ROHRABACHER: Well, we know that for six days after the attack -- and we just heard from a member of the Intelligence Committee who saw the film -- they knew within a matter of hours, if not right away, that this was an organized, armed hit job by al Qaeda, probably, but an organized, commanded effort to murder our people.

Yet for six days after that, they were telling the American people that this was movie rage, this was a crowd getting out of control in order -- and then they murdered our ambassador, rather than al Qaeda.

And what does that do? That means we are not worrying about radical Islamic terrorism. Instead we're worried about a crowd getting out of control.

That was a lie! They knew it was a lie when they said it! When they sent out ambassador Rice to all the talk shows, they knew that was not the truth. When you tell something that's not the truth to the American people, especially in the middle of a crisis, they shouldn't expect to get away with it and be forgiven.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, there's something peculiar (INAUDIBLE) and there are just bits and pieces leaking out of these closed hearings, which is why I wish they'd be more out in the open. I think that Washington, there a tendency to over-classify things so that people get excluded when we -- we really -- you know, there aren't -- things don't have to all be classified -- maybe some, but not all.

And apparently, what I'm hearing is that the CIA claims that they had al Qaeda in the sort of talking points that went to the White House that were then fed to Ambassador Rice, and then she went to the talk shows, and somehow, she didn't get the al Qaeda talking points, that there's -- somewhere along the road between...

ROHRABACHER: That's baloney! That's -- The president himself was at the United Nations talking about movie rage. People throughout the administration were talking about movie rage when they knew damn well, or at least the White House and the CIA knew damn well, that this was an al Qaeda attack...

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, when I say...

ROHRABACHER: ... a terrorist attack! In fact, "60 Minutes" sat on their interview with the president where they tried to say was this an Islamic terrorist attack, and he couldn't get the words out of his mouth! There's something going on there...

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, what I -- what I...

ROHRABACHER: ... when the president can't utter the words "Muslim terrorist attack"!

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, what I was suggesting is -- I was suggesting that someone at the White House set up Ambassador Rice, perhaps. I don't know for sure.


VAN SUSTEREN: But I think that she -- I mean, I can't believe that Ambassador Rice would make the decision to exclude al Qaeda and go on those shows...

ROHRABACHER: Oh, I don't...

VAN SUSTEREN: ... and make herself look foolish.


VAN SUSTEREN: I think, in some ways, that she was...


VAN SUSTEREN: I think she got hung out to dry!

ROHRABACHER: No, I agree. This is not -- Ambassador Rice was set up by the White House for whatever reason. And the president himself is right when he says, Don't blame her, blame the president of the United States. But for him then to utilize her to lie to the American people and then to nominate her or to float her name as a possible secretary of state -- it's worse than insulting.

VAN SUSTEREN: I tell you -- I tell you where I do fault her, though, and that's not asking more questions...


VAN SUSTEREN: ... because it -- you know -- you know, even within a day or two, everyone -- everyone pretty much suspected, you know, the terrorists. I mean, it had all the earmarks of it and people suspected it. So I would have expected that she would follow through and ask questions.

Remember, Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the United Nations, and he didn't ask very many questions and he talked about weapons of mass destruction that didn't turn up in Iraq. So -- you know, so -- you know, I'm a little bit suspicious of these government employees being sent out to talk essentially and give a message to the American people that, frankly, isn't so!

ROHRABACHER: I think there's every reason to worry about that. Just because Secretary Powell had been put in the same spot doesn't...

VAN SUSTEREN: But should have asked questions!

ROHRABACHER: Right -- and doesn't excuse this president from sending out someone to lie in the middle of a crisis. If we cannot trust the president of the United States to not go out and intentionally mislead the American people -- and what were his motives? He just can't get people upset about radical Islamic terrorism. What's this -- he does not want people to believe in that!

VAN SUSTEREN: You see, I go back to the whole thing (INAUDIBLE) is I keep thinking there are four murdered Americans and injured Americans. And I can tell you that if there were four murdered Americans in this city that was unsolved, it'd be on the front page of The Washington Post every single day!

ROHRABACHER: And what did the president call it? Bumps in the road. The president referred to these -- these -- these dead Americans as a bump in the road to better relations with Islam.

The fact is that there are -- there's an element among Muslims of the world -- not even a majority anywhere close to a majority of Muslims, but there is a group of Muslims in the world who want to do us harm. And we have to be aware of that if we are to defend against it! This president is trying to minimize it, make it go away.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I want to know what -- I would also like to know what the CIA was doing there. I mean, you know, there was a huge contingency of the CIA. And I recognize the CIA is an important function to keep us safe.

But there are so many bizarre aspects to this, even the fact that the security seems not to have been provided by the State Department, but rather by the CIA. I can't help but be suspicious. What in the world are we doing there? Are we supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels? Are we collecting weapons from the Libyan rebels? I know that we're trying to do that. But you know, there's a lot -- there's a lot that's not told that's -- and I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of so much of this!

ROHRABACHER: Well, we need to be suspicious that we don't know what the things are. But we do know that there was a screw-up in terms of how we were going to defend our diplomats, obviously, because they're dead. And we -- we have to -- what was -- and the Democrats tried to politicize this by claiming it was budget cuts by the Republicans, until, of course, the State Department official who actually made the decision went on and under testimony, sworn testimony, said, budget considerations played none of that.

But then we got to know also, what was the attack? What happened during the attack? And we just heard Mr. Ruppersberger describe that. But then we have to know why it is the president felt -- and I'm -- when I said he lied, he intentionally misled the American people that it was an Arab -- a Muslim terrorist who had done this!

VAN SUSTEREN: Simple question is, why didn't the -- why didn't the Obama administration call Tunisia and say, Let us talk to the person the CIA caught on tape that day? And I'm going to take the last word on that one.

Nice to talk to you, Congressman.