RUSH: So, "Rush! Rush! Rush! What are we gonna do about Syria?" Folks, you're missing the point if you think this is about Syria. This is not about Syria. The issue is, "What do we do about Obama's red line gaffe?" Obama said that if the Syrians did X, it would be crossing a red line. Well, they've done X. According to John Kerry (Lurch), they've done X. So now the real issue as far as Washington (that would be "Warshington" for Newt and everybody else in the media) and the Democrat Party is:
How do we deal with --- and what do we do about -- Obama's red line gaffe?
Now, don't misunderstand. I mean, as serious as a chemical attack (if it's real) might be, the real focus is on how do we cover for what Obama said.
RUSH: Now, this Syria business. If you listen to John Kerry, is it true that we're going to war over the claim that there are weapons of mass destruction in Syria? That's what chemical weapons are. Haven't we already seen this movie? Haven't we all seen it? The very people now thinking of taking us into war in Syria, aren't they the ones who steadfastly opposed this in Iraq? And then aren't these the same people that threw a party, practically, when there were no WMDs found?
Now, Obama's secretary of state, John Kerry, claims there is "undeniable evidence" that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its civilians. Undeniable. Now, is that as undeniable as they say global warming evidence is? How about is it as undeniable as the threat to all of our embassies a couple of weeks ago? Speaking of that, do you remember when we shut down 21 embassies on a Sunday? Al-Qaeda has piped up and said, "We didn't do it!"
Now, that's never done. Normally, Al-Qaeda would be out claiming credit for having the power to make us shut down 21 embassies. Al-Qaeda is saying, "We didn't do anything here," which is so out of character. You almost have to believe 'em. I mean, this is really tough. On the one hand, the regime says that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on oil installations in Yemen, and for that reason we had to close 21 embassies on a Sunday, and then for the following week.
Now Al-Qaeda -- which could just let that sit there and claim credit and let everybody assume they've got that kind of power over the United States -- have popped up and said they didn't do it. That's why you almost have to believe 'em, because the normal thing for them to do would be to sit back and say nothing and let the assumption be that we are that afraid of them. But now they're throwing a little monkey wrench in the works here by saying they didn't do it.
They had nothing to do with it, they weren't involved, and our regime has told us the whole reason we shut down those embassies was Al-Qaeda. So it's kind of a balancing act, like who do we believe now? Al-Qaeda or the regime? I mean, folks, that is a toughie. And then we're supposed to believe... Let's give a little timeline histoire here. We're supposed to believe that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Now, fine and dandy.
But didn't Nancy Pelosi and her Botox travel to Syria in 2007 in spite of objections from the Bush administration and assure us that the road to Damascus is the road to peace? She did do that. I mean, all of these leftists, all these Democrats have told us what a great "reformer" Bashar al-Assad is. The Smartest Woman in the World, Hillary Clinton, assured us just two years ago that Bashar al-Assad is a reformer.
The current secretary of state, the haughty John Kerry (who, by the way, once served in Vietnam) referred to Bashar al-Assad -- in the past, anyway -- as his "dear friend." So Pelosi, Hillary, Kerry have all sung Bashar al-Assad's praises within the past two years. He's a reformer, great guy, the road to the peace goes through Damascus. So why should we think now that such a fine guy is lying? (interruption) Ah, are you realizing on the UN weapons inspectors, after all...? (laughs)
I know they do. That's another comical aspect of this. "Well, we don't really know, Rush, because the UN weapons inspectors haven't been allowed in and when they are allowed in they probably won't be allowed out." (interruption) Well, I know. It is a dilemma, because leftists admire dictators. They do, folks. I mean, I know it sounds extreme. It's the kind of like that scares 24-year-old women to say that. But take a look.
Name your favorite Hollywood actor or actress, and they love going to Cuba to see Castro. They love going to Venezuela to see Hugo Chavez. People always wonder, "Why? What in the world do they see in these dictators?" It's power. They have a jealousy or lust, admiration for the all-encompassing power. Bashar al-Assad's a dictator, his dad, Hafez al-Assad was a dictator. He's the guy who had a really weird shaped head.
Do you remember that? He sat there on those chairs really oddly. He was just strange looking guy. But he was a dictator, and therefore very, very fearsome. His son, you know, has got this glamour wife. She shows up in Vanity Fair now and then, or on E! Entertainment Online. But nevertheless, he's a dictator. I'm not kidding. In the last two or three years everybody here who's claimed he used chemical weapons have sung his praises. What are we to believe?
Al-Qaeda says they didn't do it.
The regime says they did.
We shut down 21 embassies because of the Al-Qaeda threat. Al-Qaeda, not us. Now, Bashar al-Assad might have used chemical weapons; our guys said he was a great guy two years ago! It still boils down to the real problem here -- and I'm only being the slightest bit cynical, just the slightest bit. The real problem is not what Bashar al-Assad's doing; it's how are the media and the Democrats going to handle Obama's red line gaffe? 'Cause if we do do anything...
You know, folks, in all seriousness, do you think the Iranians aren't watching this?
Here Obama says, "If they do chemical weapons -- if they do X, Y, Z, whatever -- that's a red line. They cross that red line, and they're not gonna do it." Well, they've crossed it. You think the mullahs in Iran are watching this? Do you think the Muslim Brotherhood's watching this? You know damn well they are. We sit here and laugh about it. That's a powder keg over there. It's a powder keg. The reporting on it is utterly irresponsible. It's all about whether it's gonna have a pro or con impact on Obama!
RUSH: China and Russia have joined forces and are warning us against any kind of an attack on Syria. Now, this is rapidly -- potentially rapidly -- escalating out of hand. There's a lot of panic-related news coverage associated with this, and it's for two reasons. A, we may have a guy using chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. But we have the leader of the free world who drew a red line. As most conflict resolution experts do, they draw the red line -- and then if the enemy crosses it, they draw a new one.
"Okay. All right. You didn't believe that one? Okay, well, here's a new line -- and if you cross that, we're gonna be really upset!" So then the enemy crosses that red line, and then the conflict resolution experts say, "Now you're really, really challenging this, huh? You're really, really making this bad!" Then they draw a third red line, and I'm only half joking. I'm telling you. When I tell you that the jockeying is on, there is a lot on the line.
You draw a red line, the president of the United States draws a red line, and says, "You cross that red line, and ill will comes your way." Well, his own secretary of state says they crossed the red line -- and I'm telling you, what the real focus is. Especially on the eve of the Martin Luther King anniversary, which all about Obama, they've got to figure out a way to cover up for the red line gaffe, at least until Thursday, or maybe right before the Martin Luther King festivities kick off. At least, the Obama festivities as part of the Martin Luther King 50th anniversary celebration.
RUSH: Now, let me give you an idea what I'm talking about here with this red line and the media and Obama's allies doing everything they can to cover up for that gaffe. ABC is hilarious in their efforts here. In the middle of the their reports on this they say, "But what Obama said was a little less clear." This is how they're trying to water it down and make it sound like Obama did not commit to anything.
So what Obama said was a little less clear, and then they quote Obama, who starts off by saying that he means to be "clear," and as he always does. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." That's a red line. He said it.
That's the exact quote: "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation." Now, the gray area there is translating what "a whole bunch" means. That's where they're gonna play games here. "Well, we said if we saw 'a whole bunch' of these weapons."
So he could fire two or three chemical weapons and Obama would say, "That's not a whole bunch of. That's a few!" So after Obama says this... Let me read this to you again. It's the Obama quote. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime," and what that means is they got on the phone. They had somebody tell him, probably Kerry and maybe Hillary -- and granted, if you're Assad you're quaking in your boots when you hear from either of them.
"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." ABC then says, "It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that red line would be." This is what I mean when I tell you they're trying to get Obama out of this jam, because he drew the red line. He defined what it was.
He didn't say what would happen but if you draw a red line, and you cross the red line, it means that's unacceptable, right? At least it means it's unacceptable. But here's ABC, it was unclear what the consequences of crossing that red line would be. So even if Obama says he's being "very clear," he's being too nuanced for us mere mortals. We just don't have the brain power to keep up with this man, who's so many steps on the chessboard ahead of us.
It was "unclear what the consequences of crossing that red line would be." Now, how can we be sure that Obama isn't trying to get us into yet another war? I mean, we're in two. We're in Afghanistan; we've got the tail end of Iraq going on. And, remember, Obama needs to distract people from his domestic agenda falling apart -- well, falling apart from our perspective. From his perspective, it's right on schedule.
But he still needs people distracted from it. People don't like what's happening. They don't yet associate Obama with it. You know that drill. But even, so Obama doesn't want to run the risk that at some point people are going to associate what's happening with him, so just keep people distracted. It's exactly what he accused Bush of doing. You know, he made a speech in 2002 when he was a state senator, Obama did.
He accused Bush of using Iraq as a way of distracting from the horrors of the recession that Bush had provided. Okay. So who's to say that's not what Obama is doing now? ABC News headline is: "Obama's Red Line: What He actually Said About Syria and Chemical Weapons." So the race is on to walk Obama back from that red line. Now, ABC and the media can do all they want to try to protect Barack Obama domestically.
But you know that the mullahs are in Iran watching this, and you know that the prime minister of Turkey, Obama's buddy, is watching. You know that they're watching this in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood. You know the Saudis are watching. You know Al-Qaeda is watching this -- and they are learning, and they are making assessments. Meanwhile, the domestic media and the Democrat Party is simply trying to protect Obama domestically from the red line gaffe.
I mean, if you're gonna say, "There's a line you cross that we won't accept," and you don't do anything about it when that line's crossed? That's what they're trying to erase. They're trying to say, "Well, he was never really clear. Obama never really said what he would do. Obama, he never said what the consequences would be, what crossing the line really constitutes." They're doing everything they can to spin it. But around the world, real bad guys are not interested in whether or not Obama has a good day or not.
They are paying very close attention because they obviously think that they can get a line on how far they can go. No matter what, nobody wants to be attacked by us. Nobody wants to run a foul of us. They really don't. But if they think that they can engage in certain levels of activity with impunity, they will. So that's what they're looking at. So I think this is just another clear example of outright incompetence and irresponsibility when it comes to foreign policy and the projection of American power.
ABC seems to be carrying the water on this, and they say in their story, "President Obama's red line on Syria isn't quite as straightforward as it's made out to be." No, of course it isn't! Of course not. Nobody knows what "the red line means." Nobody knows what "crossing it" means. Nobody knows what you have to do to it. Nobody knows what's gonna be done if you cross it. That's what they're saying.
Again, ABC is aiming their coverage at the people that watch the MTV awards on Sunday night, people who go to movies, that low-information crowd. That's Obama's base, and they're doing everything they can to protect him from this -- and get this. The use of chemical weapons itself was not exactly Obama's original red line, as he laid out during a news conference at the White House on August 20.
Here's Obama: "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." He was very clear, that's what the red line is. ABC says, "Well, the use of chemical weapons itself is not exactly Obama's original red line as he laid out." Yes, it was. It most certainly was his original red line. But here comes ABC dutifully protecting him, rewriting it, saying what he said was "unclear," and he really wasn't talking about chemical weapons so much.
It's just shocking.
Well, no, it's not shocking. It's not shocking where the media is concerned.
But it sure as heck is illustrative.
RUSH: Let me grab sound bite 11. I want to make sure I'm not... Yep. This is Bill Plante this morning on CBS This Morning, and here it's a part of a his report on Obama and the pending decision to strike Syria over chemical weapons use.
PLANTE: There is no longer any debate inside the administration about a military response to Syria. The only question now is when it will happen. President Obama has ordered preparation of a legal brief supporting military action without United Nations sanction.
RUSH: Ooh! So they're getting ready to light it up, getting ready to light it up, just exactly what Bush was reamed for by Obama himself back in 2002. Here is our esteemed secretary of state, John Kerry, yesterday afternoon at the State Department. He's just off the Chesapeake Bay and some windsurfing, and he's speaking about Syria using chemical weapons in its civil war against the rebels. Here's just a little portion of what he said.
KERRY: What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear. The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.
RUSH: That's right. And we're gonna go in there, and we're gonna deal with it 'cause this is immoral. It's unacceptable, and to hell with the UN. You know, when you have a Democrat in office, the UN disappears. When you have a Democrat in office, the UN doesn't matter. To hell with Congress, too! You have a Democrat in office? To hell with Congress and top hell with the UN! We don't have to send in Hans Blix. You remember this guy, the weapons inspector?
He was one of the many who went into Iraq and said, "I have looked everywhere. I have overturned every rock, every stone -- I have inspected every cave -- and I have concluded that there are no chemical weapons whatsoever anywhere in Iraq. I, Hans Blix of the UN blue helmet peacekeeper force, hereby declare George Bush to be a lying piece of scum. Besides, everyone knows the Iraqis got the chemical weapons into Syria long before the invasion, but I can't say that publicly."
So that was our buddy, Hans Blix. Remember him? And there were a couple other weapons inspectors. We're not gonna go through any of that; we're just gonna accept John Kerry's word for it that they've used chemical weapons over there. We've got Obama's red line. Let's go back, by the way. This is John Kerry, September 6, 2014, Senator Kerry in Racine, Wisconsin, as presidential candidate at a campaign event speaking to labor union members.
KERRY: It all comes down to one letter: W. George W. Bush -- and the W stands for "wrong." It was wrong to rush to war without a plan to win the peace, and it was wrong not to build an international coalition of our allies so that Americans aren't carrying 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs.
RUSH: And there is no coalition, there is no United Nations, there is no Hans Blix, there is no nothing. There's just Kerry saying that whatever's going on over is an indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children. They're innocent bystanders is a moral obscenity. Chemical weapons are being used! Well, Saddam Hussein did all of this. But because George W. Bush sought to correct it, we had to have lies, distortions.
You know what? When Bush went into Iraq... I don't even know what good this is gonna do to remind you. It isn't gonna change anybody's mind. There was a congressional resolution of force passed. And if you remember, the Democrats opposed the first one. This is leading into the 2002 midterms. The Wellstone memorial. The Democrats, they thought they had everybody convinced that Bush was illegitimate because of the Florida recount and the aftermath; the Supreme Court decision, which gave the victory to Bush.
It didn't give the victory to him, though. It stopped the recount because it was fraud. So, when the Democrats figured out that everybody was lining up behind Bush, they demanded a revote of the resolution of force authorization so that they could vote "yes" on it. It was one of the most shameless things. They voted "no" the first time, and then they said, "Things have changed so dramatically, and the situation on the ground in Iraq is such that we need to revote on the authorization of force resolution," and they got it.
Bush said, "Okay, fine. You want to vote again, go ahead," and they all voted for it. And that's what made every ensuing attack on this Iraqi operation ring hollow to me because these guys, these Democrats had all voted for it. Well, there is no use-of-force authorization here. There is no UN. There is no coalition. There's no nothing that they demanded of Bush. There's no Congress involved. There's no UN. They're just heading in. A least that's the indication, because they alone have the moral authority.
Let's go Scott in Chicago. Scott, I wanted to grab you here quickly. How are you, sir? Welcome to EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Quick question, and you actually answered part of it. You had mentioned that we had intelligence that said that the weapons of mass destruction had gone to Syria during the Iraq war, and that's why we couldn't find any WMDs in Iraq. Well, could it be (bad cell phone) that the weapons being used on the Syrian people now may be the same ones?
RUSH: My memory is that I don't know that that was anything that was ever really established. It wasn't, was it? I mean, that was speculation, and people said they had satellite photos of semitrailer trucks driving into Syria, but I don't think it was ever proven. My memory is it wasn't ever officially confirmed. That's why I put the words in Hans Blix's mouth. It's a natural assumption to make, based on the earlier speculation. But I think that's really all that it was.
RUSH: Now, folks, I realize that I'm probably being hopelessly narrow-minded here, even bring this up. But what exactly is our strategic national interest in getting involved in Syria's civil war (and that's what it is). Let's ask secretary of state's question: "What is the plan to win the peace afterwards?" It's a bunch of gobbledygook. But what is our strategic national interest in getting involved in this on either side of this? I wonder if Kerry or Obama could answer that. Is it just that chemical weapons are being used and the red line and credibility and all? What is it?