RUSH: This is this morning in Stockholm, Sweden, President Obama and Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt -- who I have to credit. This guy speaks English better than most Americans do, certainly better than most low information Americans do. It was a joint press conference. During the Q&A a reporter said (impression), Mr. President! "Mr. President, have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria, whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved?
"Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sorts of red lines? And were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in Syria?" What a joke question! "Mr. President, have you made up your mind whether to take action against Syria, whether or not you have a congressional [authority]? Is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility...?" What the about the people of Syria? Isn't that what this is about?
No, it isn't! It's about Obama's credibility now. "And, uh, you know, you set these sorts of red lines, and did you get the support of the prime minister." Obama: "Uh, no. The prime minister of Sweden has withheld his support and as a result we're cancelling the operation." What does it matter if he's got the support of the prime minister of Sweden? Anyway, here was Obama's answer...
OBAMA: I didn't set a red line! The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are ab'orrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. When I said, in a press conference, that "my calculus" about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons -- which, the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong -- that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air.
RUSH: So, it doesn't matter. He didn't set the red line. (interruption) It is. It's hilarious, it's absurd, and it typifies exactly what we know. It's a Limbaugh theorem. It is the Limbaugh theorem. (Obama impression) "Well, I didn't do that! You didn't build it! I didn't set the red line; the world did." Believe me, if he could have blamed Bush for it, he would have. But I think even he knew that that might not fly. So blame it on the world.
Because you can say that they went to the UN for resolution. You can say The UN was involved. Of course, the UN can't do anything. The UN doesn't have authority. You may know this or not, but the investigative authority that's been granted to the UN does not grant them the authority to investigate whether or not these weapons have been used. Not in this case. It's not that they don't have blanket authority. It's the specifics of this case.
So he didn't do it. He didn't set the red line. He isn't governing. He's out fighting for the people. He didn't set that red line. "The world did that, and now because the world is a bunch of idiots, I, Barack Obama, have to come in and try to make sense out of what the stupid world did -- and okay, I'll do it. I'll try to clean up this mess." I mean, that's what he's saying: "I didn't do this. I had nothing to do with it! The world did. So, you know, I've got to go in and back up the world."
And he wasn't through.
OBAMA: My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility's on the line, and America and Congress' credibility's on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. How credible is the international community when it says, "This is an international norm that has to be observed." The question is, how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.
RUSH: This is... (laughing) It's just... It's Clinton esque is what this is. He didn't do it! His credibility isn't on the line. "Congress, the Republicans, they are the villains. They are the ones who did this. They are the ones who set up this original resolution in the first place years ago. They are the ones who gave me the impossible standard." Here is Obama August 20th, 2012...
OBAMA 2012: We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people. Uh, 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 movin' around or being utilized. Uh, that would change my calculus.
RUSH: "My calculus." If he sees a bunch of chemical weapons being moved around. That was August of last year when he drew the red line, which today he said didn't. And his credibility isn't on the line. The world did it!
RUSH: Hey, folks, I have a question: Last August Obama drew the red line. He said if he saw movement of chemical weapons, movement or usage, that would constitute crossing the red line. He wouldn't put up with that. And he said that would change his calculus. So chemical weapons have been used in Syria, and Obama today in Sweden said he didn't draw the red line. The international community drew the red line. The world drew the red line.
I have a simple question: We didn't do it. If we didn't draw the red line, what the hell are we doing voting on the use of force? Why isn't that happening at the UN? And don't give me this "We are the UN" business. This is a serious question because everything Obama is doing is for domestic consumption aimed at low information voters and low information media suppliers. That's who all of this is aimed at. He didn't do it. The media will report that he didn't do it. They will back him up. They will go twisting and turning and pretzel themselves in all kinds of weird contorted positions to say he's got a point. It's just what they do.
So he's positioning himself here as in a no win because of what the Republicans did, because of what the world did. The world has sort of hamstrung him. The world has sort of pinned him in here. He doesn't have a whole lot of room to move because they drew that stupid line. He didn't do it. His credibility isn't on the line. All right. If all that's true, then what the hell does the US Congress have anything to do with this for? If the world drew the red line and if the world's credibility is on the line, then why isn't the UN voting on whether or not to use force? Why is it a matter for the United States?
Where is the antiwar left, by the way? Where is Cindy Sheehan and all the others like her? Where are all of these people who stand up and object every time the US even talks about military involvement around the world? We have a president to whom everything is a political opportunity. Everything that happens represents an opportunity to advance the political agenda, his political agenda as such. Obama blames all of his domestic problems on conservatives or the Tea Party. He actually said last week that the reason he can't get anything done is me. He said last week again that the gridlock in Washington and the partisanship is because of me.
Meanwhile, he's getting everything he wants. That's the irony here, but forget that for a moment. He's blaming the fact that he's not getting what he wants. By the way, that's part of the Limbaugh Theorem too: For Obama to continue to complain that he's being stopped is another way he insulates or distances himself from the stuff that is actually happening, that he has made to happen. For Obama to run around constantly day in and day out and complain that he can't get anything done is just another way of establishing in a subconscious way in the minds of the American people that his policies have not been implemented and therefore he has nothing to do with the economy. He has nothing to do with the problems of Obamacare. He has nothing to do with whatever is going wrong, because the Republicans are stopping him.
Limbaugh and the Republicans are stopping him at every turn. He blames all of his domestic problems on conservative villains, the Tea Party. Nothing is his fault. And if you listen to him and if you listen to it be amplified by the Drive By Media, all of his plans, all of his ideas, his entire agenda is rejected by Congress. His entire agenda rejected by conservatives, his entire agenda rejected by the Tea Party. And why? Because they're racists. They don't like black people and therefore they're denying Obama his presidency. This is what he says. Well, he doesn't use the racial aspect, but he doesn't have to. Speaks for itself.
Well, I'd kind of like to turn that around because if he wants to maintain that, it seems to me that the world has turned conservative. The United Nations is saying "no" to Obama in Syria, acting just like the conservatives. NATO is saying "no" to Obama in Syria, just like the conservatives. The British are saying "no" to Obama, just like the conservatives. Germany, nein, just like the conservatives. Australia and Canada, they have said no to Obama, making them conservative. The world is the Tea Party. Everyone is against Obama's ideas. Everyone is against Obama's strategies, except our media, and maybe France. And he set that up.
Now, nobody's going to conclude that. I just point it out for the fun of it. But while he's getting everything that he wants, he's doubling down on the Limbaugh Theorem and making it appear that he's not getting anything. The Republicans are stopping what he wants to do, therefore he has no relationship to what has happened policy wise in the country. None. Because everything he's wanted to do has been stopped. Those racist, extremist, villain Republicans. And that's what changing his mind on the red line's all about. (imitation) "I didn't draw the red line. My credibility's not on the line." You heard him. He blamed Congress. Grab sound bite two. He blames Congress for this. You just heard the sound bite from August of 2012. He drew the red line. He defined it. He explained what would happen if somebody crossed it. Then this morning, after saying that he didn't set a red line; the world did that...
OBAMA: My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility's on the line. And America and Congress' credibility's on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. How credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.
RUSH: How old is that treaty? That treaty's as old as the Geneva Convention. What the hell is he talking about? I mean, this is absurd. He's not even part of America in this equation. He says America and Congress' credibility is on the line. His isn't. He's not America. He's not Congress. He's Obama, with a brother who still lives in a hut in Kenya. He didn't draw the red line, his credibility isn't on the line; international community did this. He doesn't know even what he's talking about here. The Republicans, they came up with that resolution forbidding the use of chemical weapons just to embarrass him, just to stop him, just to hamstring him, just to make him look bad. Those villains.
That was the purpose of this BS today and that's why to me this is the theater of the absurd. I'm just going to tell you, the people that have designs on us, and we have enemies, they're watching this and they're not dazzled and awestruck by Obama. They're watching somebody bumbling and stumbling through this and they're seeing opportunities present themselves for them to advance their ideas. And don't forget what his policy in the Middle East is, which of course isn't his, in his mind. We talked about this yesterday, and this is fundamentally important to understand, folks.
I don't want to have to repeat all this because I don't like repeating. I like to always move forward. But there are parts of the world where we support dictators because that's the best thing for American vital interests. A dictatorship in a certain part of the world could be stabilizing as far as our interests are concerned.
And, of course, the left, when they hear something like that, they just go banshee on you and they try to distort it; misrepresent it. But it's always been US policy. But Obama is getting rid of these quote/unquote "stabilizing" dictators. Mubarak is the most recent example. The Shah of Iran was another. He's getting rid of these people because they violate human rights and so forth -- and what he is witnessing is the installation of radical Muslim extremists as leaders of these countries.
To Obama, that is much preferable than a stabilizing dictator who holds US interests close to his heart. Now, there are arguments on both sides of that. We don't support dictatorship, don't misunderstand here, but we support vital US national interests. The example I gave yesterday was "the free flow of oil at market prices." Now, again, saying that to a Democrat or to an environmentalist is like showing Obama -- I'm sorry, Dracula -- the cross. They just flip. "No blood for oil!" That crowd.
But the free flow of oil at market prices is key. As long as we're going to not develop our own resources and as long as Obama's going to keep us dependent on foreign oil, then the free flow of oil at market prices is a vital US security and national interest. And if the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is to our benefit in that regard, fine. If Mubarak is beneficial in that regard, fine. We do not want a radical Muslim extremist in charge of oil production -- and that's who Obama is installing by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, you name it.
And to get rid of Bashar? In all of yesterday, I want to stress again that Bashar Assad's not a good guy, by any stretch. You know, at one time Saddam Hussein was an ally. When Iran was at war with Iraq for eight years, Iran was the bigger enemy; we allied with Saddam. That made the most sense for our vital national interest in that region. Then Saddam went rogue and got full of himself actually and thought that meant that he had impunity and could never run afoul of us.
He got grand designs on taking over the Saudi oil fields, and the first step was Kuwait. And we said, "Uh, uh, uh, uh! Not gonna happen." So after the eight years of the Iraq/Iran war, we finally decided Saddam is not one of these stabilizing dictators; he's a problem. We took him out. It's how the world works, but Obama doesn't view it that way. "These guys are all rotten to the core because they violate human rights and so forth."
So he's going to put in radical Islamists. Those are the guys that are being elected, which they aren't, and that's what's playing out in Syria. If he does get rid of Bashar, who's waiting in the wings? Al-Qaeda's waiting in the wings, militant Islamists. Al Zawahiri, Bin Laden's number two guy. This is serious stuff, guys. This is why the way these people are handling things is a joke. They are making this a joke, a laughing stock, and it really is troubling.