Dittos, 

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

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

New Regime Spin: It's About Iran

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Samantha Power made a speech at the Center for American Progress this past Friday.  Listen to this.  This is a quote: 

"We thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran -- itself a victim of Saddam's monstrous chemical weapons -- to cast loose a regime that was gassing its people."  This is an example of how liberals project their own arrogance and conceit on bad guys, their own arrogance, their own conceit, and their own, "We're good people," and they assume that every thug in the world is just like them. If they're treated properly, you can convert a thug to a nice guy, and they're always shocked when the thug stays a thug!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And then there's Samantha Power.  This is our UN ambassador now, and she gave a speech Friday night at The Center for American Progress, which is a bunch of libs. I mean, it's John Podesta's group.  This is as far left as you can get this bunch, and she said, "We thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran ... to cast loose a regime that was gassing its people." Yeah, "We thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran -- itself a victim of Saddam Hussein’s monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 -- to cast loose a regime that was gassing it's people."

What she's saying here is she's being totally honest. She's talking to a bunch of like-minded leftists and she's saying, "We thought that we could actually convince Iran to cut Assad loose, because he was using chemical weapons, and that's so bad."  She's telling this to the mullahs of Iran!  She actually thinks the mullahs of Iran sponsor Syria, and she's telling these liberals, "Well, we thought once we presented the evidence that he's using chemical weapons, that they would have cast him aside." 

This is the arrogance and conceit of these people and the cluelessness, too, the absolute cluelessness. This is just... This is dumb.  This is the way they think the world works.  Be nice to bad guys, and they'll turn around and be nice -- and if you're really a good liberal, really a good social liberal, very concerned and compassionate for people, you'll turn the bad guys into good guys.  That's what Obama was gonna do.

The power of Obama's existence was gonna turn these enemies into friends, remember?  He had the messianic complex.  They really believed it! Every damn time a bad guy does bad stuff, they are shocked. After they've tried to engage the bad guy, after they have tried to talk to him. Obama says, "I'll sit down and I'll talk to the mullahs with no preconceived conditions because I'm the guy that can persuade them to give up their ill-ward ways," and after they do this they're always shocked.

Neville Chamberlain could not believe that Hitler lied to him. He just couldn't do it.  These people on the left just cannot understand the concept of bad guys because they project on these bad guys what they think is their own goodness, and that's another thing that's happening here that would fall under the rubric or category of cluelessness, incompetence, or what have you.  Now they've thrown Iran into this mix, which I'll detail and explain in moments, but I want to get to some phone calls because of people who have been patiently waiting. 

We're gonna start Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  This is Joe.  Thank you for waiting.  I really appreciate it.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey.  I got a question.  What if the UN or whoever is investigating this determines that Assad did not use the chemical weapons but in fact it was the rebel forces that perpetrated the attack?

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  Will Obama stand by his red line and use a limited missile strike on the free Syrian Army or will he be forced to back Assad?

RUSH:  If it's the rebels that have been shown to be using chemical weapons?  That's a good question.  Would he be forced to back Assad? No, he wouldn't. No.  There's a running commentary that is rooted in the belief that Obama's actually looking for a way out of launching anything now.

CALLER:  Yeah, I agree.  I agree.

RUSH:  But it's an interesting question.  If there was conclusive evidence that it's the rebels, would Obama then have to become an ally of Assad?  If Assad's people are the victims of these horrible weapons, which is what the Russians say is happening -- and don't forget, we've had our scholar source I mentioned a week ago, Yossef Bodansky writing in Defense and Foreign Affairs mounting evidence the White House knew and possibly helped plan the Syrian chemical weapon attack by the opposition. 

This is a week ago tomorrow, Tuesday, we had the details of that story.  This man is a highly reputed scholar, Mr. Bodansky, and he said the same tactic that was used in Sarajevo in 1995 is being used here. The so-called gentle, harmless women and children were actually launching the bad weapons to lure us in because they want Assad gone.  This is Al-Qaeda, by the way, and related groups that want Assad gone, and that's whose side we're on when we line up against Assad. 

So the question is, "Well, if there is conclusive evidence like Mr. Bodansky cites...?" Well, he doesn't name the evidence, that's the one thing, which leads people to believe it might be Israeli intelligence that he doesn't want to out. Then you got Putin saying, "No, no, no. It's the rebels that are doing this!" There is a growing (I don't how large) body of thought that it is the rebels that launched the chemical weapons. 

Does that automatically make Obama an ally of Assad since Obama and Kerry so despise these weapons?  I mean, every civilized person does.  Does that mean we have to back Assad? I guarantee, if it ends up that we do nothing, that's probably what has transpired.  If we end up doing nothing, which is a likelihood here... Remember, you think, "No that can't happen. We would be the laughingstock of the world!"  What do you think the objective is?  That's the point Mr. Podhoretz's piece today. 

What do you think Obama's objective is here?  A nation in decline.  Knock us off that lofty perch of number one in the world. Laughingstock?  That's exactly what the doctor ordered.  It's Obama's second term.  He not gonna get elected again. It doesn't matter. He can do whatever he wants to do now. Especially if he wins the 2014 midterms, all the restraints are gone -- and whatever he wants to do for those last two years, there's no stopping him.  He may be acting that way now. 

But if we end up doing nothing, it may well mean that the evidence has been shown conclusively it was the rebels. So after all that, Obama can't turn around and become an ally of Assad. No matter what, he can't do that, not after sending Kerry and everybody else out there saying the guy's gotta go, "red line," and we're giving him a week now.  You know, what people forget is that Obama made that red line comment in the middle of the presidential campaign in August of 2012.

That was at the height of his tough-on-terrorism macho period, and now that he's been reelected -- now that he's in his second term and now that he's not ever going to have to undergo reelection again -- he's a little "testeronally" challenged, if you will.  Seriously.  He was flexing his muscles and drawing that red line during the campaign last summer.  It was August of 2012 when he drew the red line.  That's when he was trying to tell everybody he was Mr. Macho.  I just don't see how they can admit to being wrong now. 

They'll never be able to maintain the sanctions on Iran and North Korea if they did that. 

This is a mess. 

It's an absolute mess, by design. 

We still haven't discussed the way they're trying to bring Iran into this. 

Eric in Boise, Idaho, great to have you on the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hello, Rush.  First of all, congratulations on your book.  I can't wait to buy it and have my 13-year-old granddaughter read it.

RUSH:  Well, thank you very much.

CALLER:  I keep it's a great idea, and I look forward to her reading it.

RUSH:  Thank you.  I appreciate that.

CALLER:  My question is this.  I mean, not only have we foolishly told the Syrians that it's gonna be a limited strike and it's gonna be of short duration, we've actually telegraphed the targets that we may hit, like the command-and-control centers in the missile launch sites and things like that.  So what happens when the Assad regime removes all their people from that and puts in women and children and we go over there and bomb those places and all of a sudden it's all over the news that the American military has killed a bunch of women and children? Are John Kerry and Jane Fonda going to have to bash our military for doing that and maybe throw his secretary of state badge over the White House fence?

RUSH:  (laughing)  You know, that is an interesting question.  What happens when Assad removes all the people, puts women and children in there is.  Let me take this a different direction.  So Kerry, you heard him. He said, "We're not going to war. We're not gonna send ground troops in.  We can get Bashar to do the right thing with a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort."  Who telegraphs what they're gonna do when and how?

Who does that if they're serious about it?  What people have got to understand is that when Kerry says that, he's aiming at more for a domestic liberal audience that is unraveling behind the administration than he is at Assad.  But is he saying the truth?  Which is another question.  Is it gonna be limited? Is it no troops on the ground?  Remember who these people are.  They're incompetent. 

They start these things. Who do you think started Vietnam?  It's JFK.  Who expanded?  It was LBJ.  When these people start these wars, their ideological worldview precludes them from making proper decisions in these kinds of military matter.  I'm just telling you, it does.  You don't telegraph what you're gonna do, or how small it's gonna be.  They really think that they can convert bad guys to good guys with their words. 

They really believe this stuff, folks. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Ay yi yi yi yi! You won't believe what the spokeskid, Jay Carney just said, at the White House.  Hi, folks, and welcome back.  Rush Limbaugh, EIB Network.  The only place you need to be.  Don't ever doubt me.  I will never lie to you for any reason.  So Jay Carney, White House spokeskid, just told a reporter, "You know exactly what Secretary Kerry was referring to when he said 'unbelievably small.'"  So Kerry -- we played the sound bite and I'm not gonna bother you with it again -- said (summarized exchange), "We're not gonna go to war.

"We'll be able to hold Bashar accountable without putting troops in there.  We won't have to do anything but a limited strike.  He'll get the message."  Bashar said, by the way, "You attack us and you should expect everything."  So Bashar said, "We'll empty the kitchen sink with you," and we're saying, "Don't worry, Bashar! It isn't gonna be much, just a limited strike, no troops. It isn't gonna be war."  Jay Carney after assuring a reporter, "Yeah, you heard when Secretary Kerry said -- 'unbelievably small.'"

And then he said that what Kerry means is that a strike on Syria would be "small compared to what we did over the last 12 years."  They are trying to distinguish themselves from Bush.  They have got Bush on the brain.  They believe every American hated the Iraq war.  They are paralyzed by the idea that they're doing the same thing in the minds of a lot of people, which they are, by the way.  They're beating the same drums, they're saying the same things, they're making the same allegations.

"Weapons of mass destruction," the whole thing, and so (snorts), this makes these people even more incoherent and dangerous.  They want the world to know, "We're not George Bush!  No.  If we go into Syria, it'll be done responsibly, the way we liberals know it should be done.  Very limited, hardly anything.  Most people won't even notice that we've been there! That's how good we are. That's how much we care and love people.  We won't do much, not like Bush. 

"We're not like Bush! We're not gonna do things the way they were the last 12 years."  It's unbelievable.  In the first place, the American people are not as obsessed with that as they are -- and the Democrats hate Bush because of Florida 2000.  They are just irrational about this because of the presidential race in 2000.  They're still brimming with resentment and hatred, which is their daily existence anyway.  So the message Jay Carney is really trying to send is, "Hey, we're good people. 

"We'll only send in a missile or two in a half hour, and it won't hurt anybody, and it'll just show Assad that we're serious and he'll stand down, 'cause we're good people, and we'll convince him.  We're not leak Bush, and we're not like Rumsfeld, and we're not like Cheney!"  I mean, it's unbelievable, folks.  I don't know how to characterize it.  I really don't.  It's beyond childish, but it's dangerous because we really have a bunch of children here.  We have a bunch of children who sit around.

They have not been in the real world done anything of consequence. They've been in the faculty lounge. They've been in classroom. They've been sitting around at cocktail parties at four in the afternoon with Claus von Bulow theorizing about stuff.  They've not done diddly-squat.  They don't know how the world works.  They think they know how it should work if only they're in charge.  A bunch of arrogant, conceded know-it-alls. 

"We're not like Bush. We're not like Cheney. We're not like Rumsfeld. It won't be much, don't worry about it. Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah."  They're telling that to their own supporters and telegraphing that to Assad -- and of course, the Iranian mullahs, they probably can't stop laughing, either.  Speaking of the Iranian mullahs, they've been brought into this. Let me ask you a question.  When it comes to Syria, have you ever heard Obama talk about regime change as an objective. 

You have not, have you?  You have not, and they're reinforcing that today.  No.  In fact, you know, this operation? Bush had Shock and Awe? We're looking at shuck and jive here.  That's what I'm gonna name this.  The Obama operation in Syria, Operation Shuck and Jive, because that's what this is.  "No, we don't do Shock and Awe. That's too big, that's too dangerous, that's too mean.  We're not. No, no, no."  But I've never heard Obama talk about regime change. 

In fact, when he's been asked about it, I think he's rejected it.  But I am even more confident. I don't think, up until this weekend, that I had heard anything about Iran in this whole Syrian mix, anywhere.  Obama, media, what have you.  Then last Friday I ran into show prep and then Saturday, the weekend, I'm reading about this stuff, and Iran is what it's all about now.  The leftists, in various journals of exalted opinion, are now pontificating on the role of Iran in this.  Here's The Nation. 

That's the magazine that Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel edits.  You know who is she.  She's an extreme radical leftist.  Her magazine is The Nation, and there's a guy that writes there named Bob Dreyfuss, and here's what he wrote recently.  "The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran -- and Israel. And it has been from the start." 

Now, you're not seeing this on TV, but this is what the liberal elites think.  Dreyfuss said, "By 'the start,' I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy." So now all of a sudden, out of the blue -- Obama's not said a word about this, up 'til this past weekend. 

Now all of a sudden, what this is really about is Iran.  Now, this comes as public support for this operation is lagging, and the regime wants public support for what they're doing, so they think they can do that by bringing Iran in. "Oh, yeah. We can take Iran out by doing this." It used to be for the children.  We were gonna go into Syria and we were gonna stop these weapons of mass destruction being used for the children and for the women and for the poor and for the Alzheimers and everything else.

We were gonna go in there and we were gonna make Assad stopped being mean to his own people.  Now, since public support for this doesn't exist... You've seen the polling data. Massively opposed to this war are the American people, or to this action are the American people.  So now they're bringing Iran into this. "Oh, it's been about Iran all along! Oh, yeah. This is the best way to take Iran down a peg. This is gonna be the best way to derail Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons is to take out Assad." 

That's why I ask you, "Have you heard Iran? Since last summer, when Obama draw the red line, have you ever had Iran being part of this equation?"  You have not.  But the left is attempting to establish that it's always been about that, that Obama's so smart he didn't tell you.  So now we're to believe that taking out Assad... But wait, we're not gonna do that, because Kerry said we're not gonna do that.  But on the other side, "Yeah, we're gonna go do that!

"We're gonna launch missiles in there and we're gonna do damage to Assad and that is gonna scare the mullahs all to hell and that is gonna make 'em stop doing a nuclear weapon."  That's what they're selling now, folks.  This is what I've been alluding to for two hours.  Here we have White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. This is the guy two Fridays ago taking that 45-minute walk with Obama on the White House grounds. Up until that moment, Obama was not gonna bring Congress in. 

He didn't need 'em. He was gonna use force against Assad and he didn't need Congress.  They had that 45-minute walk with his White House chief of staff who's an anti-Syria guy.  After that walk is when Obama changed his mind about bringing Congress in and demanding the use-of-force authorization. That's when people started saying, "Wait a minute. This is simply a way for Obama to avoid having to do anything and blame the Republicans for all the damage done to the women and children of Syria." 

This guy, McDonough, said Sunday, yesterday, that "an impending US attack on Syria would send a message to Iranian leaders that they should not feel free to develop nuclear weapons." He was on Meet the Press, and he said that "to communicate with them that we have to be very clear, very forthright, and this is an opportunity to be both with the Iranians."  Now, wait just a second.  So now the justification for doing this is Iran? 

So now if we go in and inflict damage on Assad, that somehow is gonna derail the Iranian nuclear program?  This is what the regime's guy said on TV yesterday.  Why haven't they said that before?  You know, these people... I have to tell you something. Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, you name it. They all accused Bush of lying to the American people about why he wanted to go into Iraq.  Do you remember?  They said, "Iraq's got nothing to do with 9/11.  Iraq's got nothing to do with the War on Terror. 

"He's going in there because Saddam tried to kill his dad!  It's a personal vendetta.  That's why Bush is doing this." This is after they no longer wanted their names on the use-of-force authorization.  Well, isn't Obama doing the same thing?  If all of a sudden they're gonna throw Iran in here, hasn't everything up 'til now been a deception?  "We gotta go in to Syria in order to save the women and children from Bashar and his mean, mean use of chemical weapons!"  Now, all of a sudden, it's about the Iranian nuclear program? 

So we've been lied to all this time up 'til now about why we had to do this?  I thought we had to go in there and stop the use of chemical weapons.  They're just bad, they're mean, they're horrible, and they're bad for women and children.  Now, all of a sudden, it's become a way to derail the Iranian nuclear program?  Folks, it's impossible to keep up with this bumbling.  I mean, I'm as good at it as anybody. 

But in addition to being incoherent and incompetent (and it is that), it also is being done by people who do intend for this country to lose its lofty perch as the number one and lone superpower.  From the Daily Caller: "Did Global Warming Cause the Syrian Civil War?"  This is the Daily Caller. They're chronicling here a bunch of leftists who are saying that the only reason there's civil war in Syria is because of drought, and drought has led to famine, and the rebels really just want food.

It wouldn't be happening at all and there would have been the use of chemical weapons if it weren't for global warming.  The only problem with that is that the Arctic Ice Sheet is at a record size for this time of year.  They told us the ice was melting in the Arctic Ice Sheet.  It's not.  There's a record amount of ice, in the modern era, for this time of year.  The North Pole, where Santa Claus is.  Well, Santa Claus Jr.  Santa Claus in Washington, but the Santa Claus Jr.'s at the North Pole. 

CNN has a story on a public poll opposing the strike in Syria, and Bloomberg has a hand wringer of a story.  "Syria Vote May Derail Obama's Agenda in Congress."  What a crock.  The Syria operation, if anything, is a distraction from amnesty.  It's a distraction from Obamacare, which is also not going well.  But all this attention on Syria is distracting everybody's attention from the rest of Obama's agenda, which he can sneak by with nobody noticing 'cause they're all focused on this, except he can't get it by us here. 

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: