Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

As Muslim Brotherhood Takes Over Egypt, the New York Times Laments the World's Impact on Obama

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: There is an article in the New York Times today that essentially makes the same point. It's the world's fault that Obama's having problems. Europe and economics. Syria and other places in the Middle East.

Oh, speaking of which! I wasn't gonna do this but I changed my mind. Grab audio sound bite number one. Go back to this. I was not gonna do this, but now it's reared its head. January 31st of 2011. When the Muslim Brotherhood... You know when the Arab Spring was going on and the Muslim Brotherhood was wreaking havoc and trying to get Mubarak out of there? Old buddy Nic Robertson from CNN was over there on the ground in Tahrir Square (which is not a square), and he was talking to all these Egyptians.

"So, tell us, Egyptians..." One was Mustafa and the other one was Achmed. (Nic Robertson impression) "Tell us, Mustafa, how do you feel about President Obama and his magnificent role in gaining freedom for you?"

"President Obama? He's not here. President Obama is not helping us. What are you talking about Obama for?"

"Okay, let me move on. Achmed, can you please tell us: What do you think about President Obama being concerned about Egyptians having jobs?"

"Obama? He's not here. Why the hell are you talking? What are you asking me about Obama for? We're trying to get rid of Mubarak. What's Obama got to do with it?"

"And, as you can see," said Nic Robertson, "President Obama is much on the minds of Egyptians here, who greatly and gratifyingly approve of President Obama."

All while this is going on, our great moderate Republicans said, "Oh, man, the Arab Spring is great! Freedom is breaking out."

And I said, "I don't think so."

January 31st, 2011, last year...

RUSH ARCHIVE: It is the Muslim Brotherhood, but what's really known about 'em? They claim they're for democracy and all that, but that could all be a smokescreen. On the other hand, we have said from the get-go that if you wanted the second term of Jimmy Carter, elect Barack Obama. Well, here we are. And what happened in the first term of Jimmy Carter? We lost Iran to a bunch of radical Islamist extremists. Are we looking at the second term of Jimmy Carter here, losing Egypt to a bunch of radicalized Islamist extremists?

RUSH: Looks like that's exactly what happened. That was January 31st of 2011, a year and a half ago, folks. Back then, it was popular to say, "The Muslim Brotherhood, that's a different bunch of guys! These are guys we can work with. They're moderates. That's exactly right." Well, it turns out they're not. They're just as radical as any other Islamic jihad group is, and the military is running the country. The Brotherhood took over for the military. It was a planned handoff.

I think back to all of our moderate Republican foreign policy establishment types, celebrating. "Oh, it's such a wonderful thing, the outbreak of freedom in the Middle East." Now the New York Times has this story, and here's the headline: "In a World of Complications, Obama Faces a Reelection Test." So Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post says (summarized), "Poor Obama! It's so partisan out there, he can't get anything done. He has to answer for everything. There's just too much disagreement.

"The job may be too big for one man. It's just not possible! You know, it used to be that we'd all be able to get things done, but now all this Twitter and Facebook make me irrelevant." Now the New York Times with a companion story: "In a World of Complications, Obama Faces a Reelection Test." Yeees, my friends, it's Greece and Spain and those stupid Europeans who can't handle money. And in the Middle East we've got the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egypt situation and all that. That's crashing around. And they've got the Iranians and their nukes.

Then you got the foreign policy leaks from the regime. You know, back in January of 2011, we were told that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't behind the Arab Spring or the Egyptian uprising and that they wouldn't start a political party, that they wouldn't run for parliament. They wouldn't put up a candidate for president. Everything they did, we were told they wouldn't do. Everything they stand for, we were told they didn't stand for. Everything they were going to do, they haven't done. Everything that we predicted they would do, they've done.

So now, events are cascading out of President Kardashian's control! Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is worried about it, and the New York Times writes: "In a World of Complications, Obama Faces a Reelection Test." That New York Times story, want to hear how that starts? All right. "For Obama, a president who set out to restore good relations with the world in his first term, the world doesn't seem to be cooperating all that much with his bid to win a second term."

And what the hell is the world thinking?

Doesn't the world know that its only reason for existence is Obama's second term?

Well, that's how this thing is written.

"Europe seemed unable to contain its economic crisis to just Greece. The Syrian conflict has intensified. Egypt's popular revolution's at risk of being reversed by the military." (chuckling) It was never anything other than that. There really is brazen, blatant stupidity and arrogance at the highest levels of journalism today. I can't... "Egypt's popular revolution is at risk of being reversed by the military"? (laughing) And then the Russians "are cracking down at home and rattling sabers abroad." The Russians are giving defense missiles to Bashar al-Assad. Yep, the Russians are giving defense missiles to Syria. How petty! (That's right, helicopters, too.)

How petty and selfish these other countries are. They got their priorities mixed up.

Their job is to make Obama look good, not their own self-interests.

Don't they get it?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, the New York Times story I was just talking about, they have an alternative headline. Yep. They have two headlines with the story, and the second one is: "Is Obama's Reelection Complicated by World Events?" Both headlines basically say the same thing. But it's all about how the world is not cooperating with Obama. Europe, not cooperating with Obama (as far as his reelection's concerned). Middle East, not cooperating with Obame. Russia, not cooperating. And don't forget, this is really a slap from Putin.

Because you remember what Obama said to Medvedev a couple months ago. He said (paraphrased), "Hey, tell Vlad to chill out. I'll have a lot more flexibility after I'm reelected." He was talking about us getting rid of nuclear weapons, nuclear missiles. "You just tell Vlad, chill. I'll have a lot of flexibility, a lot more flexibility after I win." So what does Putin do? (Hey, no one ever leaves the KGB.) Putin is sending defense missiles to Syria! And of course that's viewed as "unhelpful" to Obama's reelection.

I want to know: What president did the world cooperate with for reelection? I would venture to say that the world helped get Obama elected. If you recall back in the 2008 campaign, Ahmadinejad would say something about America and it sounded just like any other Democrat and what he was saying. I remember saying, "My gosh, if the leader of Iran is criticizing my country the same way I do, I'd be embarrassed." But not these guys, not these Democrats. But it was clear that the world wanted Obama elected.

Now the world apparently doesn't want him reelected, and they don't have their priorities straight it. The New York Times is trying to embarrass the world here into shaping up and getting into the right frame of mind. You know, this is not the first time that Obama has had to bypass Congress by ignoring its laws. You gotta remember that Obama decided to no longer enforce or defend the Defense of Marriage Act. He just decreed that one day. He's decided not to prosecute medical marijuana cases. He's issued countless waivers to Obamacare for his friends and he's allowed states to opt out of the "No Child Left Behind" requirements.

So this immigration thing is not the first time that he's gone (raspberry) to the Constitution. It's a habit for the guy. If you look at the shenanigans they had to employ to get Obamacare passed in the first place, you see it. But I'll tell you, if you read this New York Times piece through and through (you don't have to because I've done it for you), in a nutshell the New York Times piece says that Obama's failures aren't just Bush's fault. The world is to blame, too. Not Obama! None of this is his fault. It's Bush's fault and Europe's and the Middle East's and North Korea's and Russia's.

And probably Hugo Chavez's. (I'll throw him in just for the sake of it.)

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: