RUSH: The regime. And Egypt. First let's go to audio sound bite number three. We have a montage here of the regime's flip-flops and mixed messages on Egypt. This is an anatomy of a botched foreign policy. What you're gonna hear here is the illustration of the definition of incompetence.
JOE BIDEN: (January 27, 2011) Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a n-number of things. I would not refer to him as a dictator.
MRS. CLINTON: (January 30, 2011) It's not a question of who retains power. That should not be the issue. You cannot keep trying to put words in my mouth.
OBAMA: (February 1, 2011) (godlike echo) What I indicated tonight to President Mubarak is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.
ROBERT GIBBS: (February 2, 2011) "Now" means yesterday. 'Cause when we said "now" we meant yesterday.
FRANK WISNER: (February 5, 2011) The President must stay in office in order to steer those changes through. I, therefore, believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical.
MRS. CLINTON: (February 6, 2011) We respect the many years of service that Frank Wisner has given to our country but he does not speak for the American government. He does not reflect, uh, our polices.
OBAMA: (February 6, 2011) Egypt is not going t'go back to what it was.
ROBERT GIBBS: (February 8, 2011) Less important is what we think and more important is what the people of Egypt think.
RUSH: So that's a sound bite montage of everybody that you heard there is a member of the regime. And they're all over the board about what our policy is gonna be. Obama has recorded, exclusively for this audience, another message to the Egyptian people.
(playing of Obama spoof)
RUSH: And that was just the line outside the Porta-Potties. It was even worse as he got closer to the center of the movement. From the AP: "The White House is working aggressively to erase conflicting messages on Egypt that have frustrated even President Barack Obama." (laughing) The frustrating messages from the regime are frustrating even the leader of the regime! The White House is working aggressively? Who is "the White House," here? Who is it? Is it Gibbs? Is it Biden? Is it Obama? "The White House is working aggressively to erase conflicting messages on Egypt that have frustrated even" Obama. Well, who the hell is in charge, then?
"After comments by some State Department officials were widely interpreted as diverging from the White House stand, the White House sought to dispel any notion that it's either loosening pressure on President Hosni Mubarak or backing off from supporting the protesters flooding Cairo. Much of the White House ire centered on comments [you just heard here] made by Frank Wisner, the retired U.S. diplomat who was dispatched by Obama to help nudge Mubarak out of office. Wisner stunned Obama officials by saying Saturday that Mubarak's continued leadership was critical..."
Now, imagine this. The regime picks out this guy, they send him over there and his charge is, "Look, Frank, when you get over there you're supposed to just tell Mubarak he's gotta go. You're delivering a message from me, 'Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm,' and when you get there, you tell him scram. Get outta there." So Wisner gets over there and says just the exact opposite: "that Mubarak's continued leadership was critical as Egypt worked through reforms." Mrs. Clinton had to pipe up and say (paraphrased), "Well, he's a respected guy but he's a stupid idiot and he doesn't speak for us."
Well, you sent him! The regime sends the guy. He makes a statement and it's not what the regime wants stated. "Obama himself showed his frustration about what Wisner said ... Yet part of the confusion has stemmed from the government's own message. Comments by some State Department officials seemed to tack too far from the White House stance, particularly by raising doubts about whether it was wise for Mubarak to resign now, as protesters in his repressed nation demand. What's more, White House officials were frustrated about some of the news reporting on events.
"The overall concern was that the narrative was getting cloudy and certainly not focused on the events in Egypt." They've lost control of all of this, and they're admitting here they've lost control of the media! (laughing) Wisner is their own guy, folks! It's total amateur hour -- and in this country, we've got some of the best and the brightest, some of the most learned intellectuals analyzing this in some of the loftiest ways, and it's the Three Stooges. This is Abbott and Costello. This is Who's on First. Again, the regime picks a retired State Department guy, sends him over there with the purpose to tell Mubarak to get outta there, to nudge him away. Wisner gets over there and says, "Uh, uh, this place needs Mubarak for a long, long time." (laughing)
This frustrates Obama, and now they get frustrated with some of the reporting on the events. "[O]n Tuesday, when Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked about State Department comments on the risks if Mubarak leaves hastily, he bristled. 'I want to be clear,' Gibbs said. 'I speak for the president of the United States of America. We are not here to determine who leads Egypt and when they lead Egypt.'" Really? Gibbs just said last week: Get out of there now. Last week the regime's position was that Mubarak had to go, now! "Now" meant "yesterday." We had that in the sound bite montage: "Now" meant "yesterday."
Now Gibbs is saying: "We don't have anything to say about this!" They send a guy over there to get rid of Mubarak, the guy double-crosses 'em and says Mubarak is totally necessary, Gibbs comes back and says, "Screw the media! Screw all you people here! We're not here to determine who leads Egypt and when they lead Egypt." Well, what the hell has this all been about, then? Obama put himself in front of that mob. He owns that mob. He made speeches to that mob, he made promises to that mob (whoever they are) that Mubarak was gonna be gone and some brand-new day was gonna dawn over there (Muslim Brotherhood or whoever it was).
People are being killed in Egypt! This is rampant confusion. I know it's Obama and we laugh at him and we're having fun, but this is serious stuff. People listen to what the president of the United States say! The president of the United States goes on worldwide television with that godlike reverb and pronounces Mubarak essentially over. "We support reform, and we demand that it happen now," the crowd cheers, more people join the crowd, everybody gets all hot and bothered about it. That all breaks down, and now the White House is saying, "We're not in charge of this. Whoever runs Egypt and whenever they run Egypt, that's not what we're about," and, meanwhile, people are being killed in Egypt because of this confusion!
Here's Dianne Feinstein. Well, I gotta take a break. But Dianne Feinstein is ripping the regime -- not the Mubarak regime, ripping the Obama regime -- telling 'em they don't understand what's happening over there.
RUSH: Yesterday afternoon on television, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, talked to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California who also probably doesn't understand much of what's going on. More on that in just a moment. But Andrea Mitchell said, talking about the transfer of power in Egypt, "Do you think that that can be done; guarantees of something so that there isn't a total vacuum and that there are political organizations and a process for elections? Can that happen within weeks or at the most months, or do we have to wait until September as Mubarak says he prefers?"
Now, let me translate the question. Here's a journalist, who actually by virtue of the question thinks that she has a role in policy here. And notice the narrative. The narrative starts: we gotta get rid of Mubarak. He's rotten. He's a dirty skunk. This guy's horrible, go, now, get gone. That's the position of the regime last week. Now the regime's done a double-take, and they're backed off that. Andrea Mitchell either hasn't gotten the memo or she still thinks Mubarak needs to go. She's got Di-Fi up there on her show. (imitating Mitchell) "Is there anything we can do? Do we have to wait weeks? Do we have to wait months? Is there anything we can do to get rid of this slime?" That's the question. And here's Di-Fi's answer.
FEINSTEIN: Let me say one more thing, and that is concern that we have over fundamentalist Islamic sects taking over, and I think it's very real that we do not --
RUSH: Stop the tape, stop the tape, recue it here. I'm sorry. For you in Rio Linda, it's s-e-c-t-s. They're not worried about Islamic sex in Egypt. Groups, Islamic groups, sects, religious sects. Here's the answer.
FEINSTEIN: Let me say one more thing, and that is concern that we have over fundamentalist Islamic sects taking over. And I think it's very real that we do not understand the ebb and flow of the currents in the Middle East. I remember in 2006 when it was being discussed whether Hamas should be permitted to run in Gaza, I think perhaps we don't understand this, and one thing that needs to be looked at is that border with the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt and whether the military is still able to keep weapons from flowing both ways.
RUSH: Do you understand it, folks, Dianne Feinstein of the Intelligence Committee is saying we don't understand that this could be an Islamist takeover, and she's speaking not just of herself but of the regime. We don't understand what this could be. Why don't we understand? Because forces have formed here in this country, both in the media and outside, to reject that as so unlikely, "No, this is for good. This is all about democracy, and we must blanketly support. This could not be anything to do with an Islamic sect take over." Except Dianne Feinstein says, "We don't understand, Islamists could take over Egypt." She's right.
RUSH: I want to play this Andrea Mitchell/Dianne Feinstein sound bite again. Yesterday afternoon on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell Reports, Dianne Feinstein was asked, "What can we do about this Mubarak guy? Do we have to wait weeks? Do we have to wait 'til September? When can we get rid of this guy?"
FEINSTEIN: Let me say one more thing, and that is concern that we have over fundamentalist Islamic sects taking over. And I think it's very real that we do not understand the ebb and flow of the currents in the Middle East.
RUSH: Who's we?
FEINSTEIN: I remember in 2006 when it was being discussed whether Hamas should be permitted to run in Gaza, I think perhaps we don't understand this, and one thing that needs to be looked at is that border with the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt and whether the military is still able to keep weapons from flowing both ways.
RUSH: So is Dianne Feinstein saying, "I don't think we understand." I don't know who "we" is. I clearly, all of us see what's going on in Egypt and we clearly are open to the possibility that we have an attempted Islamist takeover there, just like Iran. In 1979, did we not understand that? Jimmy Carter? Who is this "we"? Did we not understand the ebb and flow of Islamist fundamentalism in Iran? Who is this "we" don't understand it? You know, those of us who have been raising flags about the possibility of an Islamist takeover have been ridiculed. Everybody out there in the learned elements of our culture are taking potshots at those of us who raise the possibility, "Hey, you know what? This might not be all that democracy oriented. This might be the latest Islamist takeover. There is evidence to suggest that this is who they are and what they want."
The Muslim Brotherhood members, they plotted, they failed, but they've tried to take over Egypt for 82 years, since 1928. And now we're told, "Well, they're just not like that anymore, you know, they're really a moderate bunch." I love hearing, "Oh, yeah, the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate bunch." And then they say that the Muslim Brotherhood represents only 20 to 30% of the population. "Really nothing to worry about, Rush, there's nothing going on here, nothing to see here. They're just 20 to 30% of the population." But the same people do not tell us that the other 70% of the population will not dare stand up to the Muslim Brotherhood. So what the hell is the difference?
I am holding here, ladies and gentlemen, in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a story that essentially is a translation of a book entitled Jihad is the Way, the book written by Mustafa Mashhur, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt from 1996 to 2002. The Muslim Brotherhood, in its own words, in a book here. In this book, which entitled Jihad is the Way (Jihad means holy war) the author, Mustafa Mashhur, "explains the fundamental concepts of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology." His teachings "encompass subjects such as the Muslim Brotherhood's goal of establishing an Islamic state, world domination under Islam, the public and personal religious duty of military Jihad, and the warning not to rush to Jihad until it is prepared and timed for maximum benefit."
The national goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is Islamic world domination, according to Mustafa Mashhur, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, 1996-2002. Okay, so there it is. I mean it's there. We've got Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying we're gonna take Israel out, there was no Holocaust, the 12th imam is gonna pop out of the well here and we're gonna own you. He's saying it. "Ah, he doesn't really mean it, Rush, doesn't really mean it." What are we supposed to believe, then? People who tell us he doesn't really mean it? What's the wisest course here? So here's the Muslim Brotherhood, "Hey, Rush, they've changed now, they're really a democracy. These are not really militant Islamists. You really can't categorize them. This is truly, truly a democracy movement and we as conservatives must all go out and support them." Fine, okay, well, here's their book.
Here's Dianne Feinstein, "We don't understand Islamists can take over Egypt." I don't know who she's a talking about, because I certainly do. All my friends know. A bunch of football coaches I know know. I mean the people I know in a cross-section of the population full well understand a militant Islamist takeover could be brewing there. Who is she speaking for, "we don't understand"? Herself and the regime. So liberals, folks, let me put this in perspective for you. Here in our own country liberals are only 30% of the population and look at the damage they cause every day. "But, Rush, but, Rush, the Muslim Brotherhood, barely 20 to 30% of the protesting group." Yeah, and the other 70% are afraid to stand up to 'em.
Moving on down the line, ladies and gentlemen. This is from USA Today, Richard Wolf, headline: "'White House More Satisfied with Progress in Egypt' -- After voicing a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction during the first week of Egypt's response to democracy protesters, the Obama administration is sounding much more positive these days. From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday, to President Obama on Monday, to Vice President Biden on Tuesday, the administration says the transition to a new government appears to be on track." Well, goody. And then we go to the AP, Associated Press: "Egypt's protesters were defiant Wednesday after a warning from Vice President Omar Suleiman, that if protesters don't enter negotiations a coup could take place, causing even greater chaos, raising the alarm of crackdown. Organizers of the mass demonstrations, now in their 16th day, sought to widen their uprising. Suleiman, a military man who was intelligence chief before being elevated to VP in the middle of the crisis, has reportedly said that Egypt is not ready for democracy." So one of the prime players here says Egypt isn't ready. He says, "The culture of democracy is still far away." He said that in a meeting last night with newspaper editors. Democracy, ha, don't make me laugh, he said, democracy, the culture of democracy, Egypt's not ready for that.
Meanwhile, in the Washington Post: "Free, Fair Elections Still Distant Prospect for Egypt." Remember, we've got stories today saying the regime's totally happy with the progress, the regime's totally happy with the direction things are taking here. "As Egypt comes under pressure to hold free and fair elections, democracy activists are expressing growing doubts about whether a ballot slated for September is feasible, and fearing that it could set the country's reform movement back even further. While millions of Egyptians have taken to the streets to clamor for freedom and the removal of President Hosni Mubarak --" Are they clamoring for freedom? I know they want to get rid of Mubarak. I haven't heard definitively that they're clamoring for freedom, not in the sense you and I mean freedom. "-- the country's pro-democracy forces have been so battered and marginalized by decades of repression that advocates say it would take many months -- if not years -- to lay the groundwork for open and credible elections." Now, how can this be? Because Obama said last week, (paraphrasing) "We want your transformation now. Your transformation starts now." And Gibbs said, "That means yesterday." Now this week they're saying, "Ah, ah, don't know we can get it done that fast." Now the news coming out of there is, "Hey, democracy, yeah, not ready for it, might take years to even prepare the ballot."
"Many of those urging a speedier exit for Mubarak acknowledge that the country is not prepared for quick elections. ... But there is no guarantee that such a process would go smoothly in a country without democratic institutions. ... The United States has advocated on behalf of Omar Suleiman, Egypt's longtime spy chief, whom Mubarak elevated to vice president last month." Okay, so now we have officially climbed into bed with Suleiman who says, "Ha, we're not ready for democracy." New York Times editorial: "'Mr. Suleiman's Empty Promises' -- We are a long way from knowing how Egypt will turn out. The government is using all of its power -- including a promised 15 percent raise for federal workers -- to try to hang on. The opposition is courageously pushing back, and, on Tuesday, it drew thousands of supporters to Liberation Square. The United States and the European Union may not have been able to wheedle or push President Hosni Mubarak from power. Still, they badly miscalculated when they endorsed Egypt's vice president, Omar Suleiman." Oh, so the Times doesn't like the fact that we got in bed with Suleiman. The Times is part of the State-Controlled Media apparatus.
"President Obama said the right things last week when he demanded that democratic change in Egypt start 'now.' Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent statements that change would 'take some time' have taken the pressure off. Mr. Obama needs to regain his voice and press Mr. Suleiman to either begin a serious process of reform or get out of the way." Next, San Francisco Chronicle, AP story: "US Tries to End Conflicting Messages on Egypt. ... After comments by some State Department officials were widely interpreted as diverging from the White House stand, Obama officials sought to dispel any notion that they're either loosening pressure on President Hosni Mubarak or backing off from supporting the protesters flooding Cairo."
This is a story about Wisner. He stunned everybody, go over there to get rid of Mubarak, said, (paraphrasing) "Hey, the guy can't go yet, he's too important." White House officials are frustrated with some of the news reporting on events. The overall concern was the narrative was getting cloudy, and certainly not focused on the events in Egypt. So it's a second story about how the regime has just lost control over every facet of this story. And don't forget Dianne Feinstein, "I don't think we understand. This could be an Islamic takeover. I don't think we understand."
RUSH: I thought Obama, in part, was elected to fix the Middle East. Didn't you? I distinctly remember that's what the Cairo speech was all about. In fact, his strong suit was that the world was going to love us. Because as you know the world hated us because of George W. Bush, because of the pictures from Abu Ghraib from Club Gitmo, from all the torture, all the cowboy stuff. Bush was running around the world pulling the trigger, firing bullets at anybody. "If you're not with us, you're against us," all that kinda talk. Obama was gonna restore our place in the world! Little did we know that meant "cutting America down to size." No, America was gonna be loved once again! America was going to be respected.
The Middle East was going to end terrorism against America because Obama was president. He bragged that his time living in Indonesia as a kid and his father's Muslim roots made him an expert in foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. We got the Cairo speech, and we were told Obama was the architect of "smart power" and pushing the proper "reset buttons." They were gonna have "smart" foreign policy. Obama was sold to us as an expert who knew best how to handle the Middle East (especially compared to that idiot, George W. Bush, and Darth Cheney). It doesn't appear, ladies and gentlemen, that that happens to be in the slightest way accurate. It seems we're in a bigger mess with a more confused message and policy than anyone can remember.
In fact, in the New York Times: "Allies Press America to Go Slow on Egypt." This story is all about how our allies don't like tossing Mubarak overboard, and so we're not going to do it now. Yesterday, last week, Gibbs says, "That transformation, that starts now," and "now" meant "yesterday." No, now we're gonna have an orderly transition out there, as our allies are not keen the idea. So Obama runs out there, makes a speech, takes ownership of that mob, believes what they say that they want to get rid of Mubarak. He goes out and demands the transformation start now and then all hell breaks loose.
"No, no, no! Mr. President, we don't want to get rid of this guy right now. He's too crucial here." One of Obama's own State Department guys goes over there with the charge to get rid of Mubarak, and when he gets over there... You know what? I'll bet you that this Wisner guy is probably one of the last few remaining adults, and what happened was this guy knows full well what's going on over there and probably, as an act of patriotism, went over there and under the guise of getting rid of Mubarak makes a public speech saying, "We can't afford to get rid of him right now." Somebody understanding that we've got a total novice running this show and that some adults gonna have to step in here at whatever cost and put the truth on the table.
RUSH: Montgomery, Alabama, Charles, I'm glad you waited, sir. You're up next on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Hello, Rush.
CALLER: There are a couple of other very serious implications in our president right off the bat asking the leader of Egypt to step down.
CALLER: One, does this mean he had no advisors in the White House to warn him against this? And if there are, did he not even consider their advice?
RUSH: Well, I'm told now, there have been some people reporting on the Obama inner circle, and I'm told that he has, the vast majority of people -- I'm not making this up, now -- I forget what book or what stories out there, but most of the people that are in his inner circle think he's God. They idolize the guy and they have a superhuman impression of him, and he does not get counter-advice, as you are suggesting. That's why it's interesting, the guy that they sent over there to tell Mubarak, to nudge Mubarak away goes public and says, "We can't afford for Mubarak to go away now."
CALLER: Exactly. Exactly. But imagine you or I being in that position and having no counter-opposing viewpoints to be expressed to us before we make a major decision like that. I wouldn't have it. I would have to have opposing viewpoints. I would have to have both sides of the story. Wouldn't you, if you were the president?
RUSH: See, I have a different take on that, frankly. I've never understood, like, I don't need advisors. On this radio program, things I want to talk about, things I want to say, I don't need a bunch of advisors. I don't need a Middle East advisor to tell me what I ought to say about whatever issue over there. I understand the presidency is a huge job and that no president can singularly know everything, so I understand having a council of experts for input and so forth. The way we construct these things, we make it look like presidents are just sponges and whoever has the ... like, whenever there's a new chief of staff, why, you would think that guy is the president. Bill Daley is the new chief of staff and the Washington establishment goes nuts, "How is this going to change the White House, and how is this going to change Washington?" Well, he's not the president. What do you mean how is it gonna change?
Is the president gonna hire somebody that's more powerful than he is and smarter than he is? Some of this stuff, in the way I live my own life I've never understood. I know what you're saying in this case, and I don't disagree with you because I don't think Obama has the slightest clue what's going on in Egypt. But apparently he doesn't want to hear from people who are gonna tell him that, so he doesn't hear from them. They have to leave the country to go express their viewpoint, which is what this Wisner actually did. I'll bet that you have a certain level of panic somewhat in the White House over things like that, under the guise, circumstances you just put forth.
RUSH: Back to Egypt. It just keeps getting better and better. This afternoon at the White House, Robert Gibbs, daily press briefing, a reporter said, "The Egyptian Foreign Minister is telling PBS that VP Biden's call for immediate lifting of the emergency law in Egypt was, he was amazed by that, and he felt that the Egyptian government could not make such a move until the unrest had been put down and calm had been restored. What's the response on that?"
GIBBS: I think as we said in the readout from Vice President Biden's call to Vice President Suleiman that an orderly transition must begin now, and it must produce without delay immediate and irreversible progress. I think it's obvious that they've yet to meet the threshold that will satisfy most of the people.
RUSH: Okay, as we said on the readout for Vice President's Biden's call to Vice President Suleiman, orderly transition, gotta begin now. I've had stories I've shared with you all day long, the White House is confused, the White House is sending out different stories, "Nah, don't have to do it now, gonna take awhile, might take months, might take weeks." Now here's Gibbs back to saying the vice president says it has to happen now and it has to happen soon and it has to be irreversible, without delay. So then a White House reporter said, "Well, does the White House feel that it has the full understanding of all those participants and what their motives are?"
GIBBS: Again, it's not for us to determine, Dan. we're not going to pick which seven people represent Egypt.
LOTHIAN: I'm not saying picking --
GIBBS: No, you are. As a matter of fact, you are.
LOTHIAN: No, no, what I said is do you think that you have a full understanding of all of these players and what their motives are? I'm not saying whether or not you're supporting them or picking them. Do you think you have a good understanding of them?
GIBBS: And again, this is something for the Egyptians to work out.
RUSH: Okay, so Gibbs is saying to the Egyptians: "You better change. We've called Vice President Suleiman. We want immediate, irreversible progress, we want an orderly transition to begin now." Lothian: "Well, who?" "Why, we're not pickin'. It's up to the Egyptians." So transition to what? What Lothian is doing without saying so, it's obvious he's bouncing off Dianne Feinstein. Dianne Feinstein said, "We don't understand what's going on. We don't understand. It could be a militant Islamist takeover." Well, Lothian didn't say that in his question, but he basically meant, "Hey, Gibbs, do you think you have a good understanding of who these people are over there, could this be a militant Islamist takeover?" Gibbs said, "That's something for the Egyptians to work out. We just want 'em to do it now." "Well, do what?" "Well, that's up to them. We're not telling them what to do, we just want it to happen now." This is not presidential. This is not mature. This is not intelligent. This is not reasonable. This is fly by the seat of your pants. That's what's happening with this.
RUSH: Some people are trying to tell me that the George Mason University professor is trying to mock the requirement. The reason I didn't think the George Mason professor was mocking the mandate requirement was because NPR is all in favor it, all the gold stars on the foreheads saying you don't deserve coverage. But it did conflict me because George Mason does not produce those kinds of wacko economists. So we'll get to the bottom of this. If NPR got scammed, I'll be happy to admit my error in judgment tomorrow.