RUSH: Listen to this from the New York Times today: "President Obama woke up Monday facing a Congressional defeat that many in both parties believed could hobble his presidency. And, by the end of the day, he found himself in the odd position of relying on his Russian counterpart, Vladimir V. Putin, of all people, to bail him out. The surprise Russian proposal to defuse the American confrontation with Syria made a tenuous situation even more volatile for a president struggling to convince a deeply skeptical public of the need for the United States to respond militarily in yet another Middle Eastern country ...
"In effect, Mr. Obama is now caught between trying to work out a deal with Mr. Putin, with whom he has been feuding lately, or trying to win over Republicans in the House who have made it their mission to block his agenda." So the New York Times is claiming it was a Putin idea, because Putin accepted Kerry's gaffe. The New York Times is basically saying that Kerry makes a gaffe, Putin accepts it, and it becomes Putin's policy. If that's the case, folks, shouldn't it be Vladimir Putin addressing us tonight on TV instead of Obama? (interruption)
Well, no, Snowden's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize not Putin. Did you know that? Snowden! I'm not kidding you. Edward Snowden been nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. I kid you not. I have it right here in the Stack of Stuff. I've got so much today, folks, you don't want to go anywhere. Why isn't Putin addressing us on TV? Putin's policy to save the day. The New York Times says it right here. Obama was going to address us today to tell us to get ready for a cruise missile or two going into Syria. But now isn't gonna happen.
It's not gonna happen because, well, the New York Times is crediting Putin. That's not gonna sit well. The chemical weapons are gonna be taken out of Syria and there's no need for war. So Obama's speech tonight can be on how tough and great he is, but shouldn't it be Vladimir Putin? It's his policy! Vladimir Putin ought to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Vladimir Putin ought to be addressing the American people tonight on TV, not Obama.
RUSH: The New York Times in this story, is blaming the Republicans for forcing Obama to turn to Putin, whom he doesn't... I kid you not. If you read that Times story far enough, they're blaming the Republicans in Congress for not supporting Obama on the use of force. That forced Obama to turn to Putin. So this how this works.
Everything is the Republicans' fault -- and that is, my friends, the Limbaugh Theorem on display.
RUSH: The New York Times story that I quoted right before the break at the top of the hour claims that this is Putin's idea, not Kerry's. They don't even mention the John Kerry gaffe in this story. They don't even mention the John Kerry gaffe. They just say that Putin came up with this idea to take all the chemical weapons out of Syria and that the regime took it because, "Oh, that's a wonderful thing!
"No more chemical weapons will be used! No more chemical weapons will exist in Syria. It's a beautiful thing." In which case I said, "Well, shouldn't Putin be addressing us on TV tonight instead of Obama?" But the New York Times story makes it look like Putin saved the day, that Putin saved Obama., and he didn't. Putin, again, has beaten Obama. There's no two ways about that. Putin comes out the big winner. Putin gets credit for getting the weapons out of Syria if they're out.
Putin gets credit for holding the weapons, so Putin gets credit for being trustworthy in all this. Putin gets credit for there being no US military attack, and it's being portrayed here as Putin saves Obama. Lee Smith writing in the Weekly Standard today" "Maybe Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin really did discuss the idea of putting Syrian chemical weapons under international control last week ... Putin sure doesn't care that Obama’s taking credit for the proposal, or that the administration is posturing like a Mob enforcer.
"'The only reason why we are seeing this proposal,' said White House spokesman Jay Carney, 'is because of the US threat of military action.'" In truth, Putin is laughing to himself. Whatever. If Obama wants to sell it like a Christmas miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue, that's fine with Putin, because Putin won. These people -- Carney, Kerry -- talking about the threat of US military action sending chills up the spine of Assad? US liberals don't even believe in that.
You let a Republican president threaten military force, and who do they run to? You go back to Gorbachev and Reagan. The liberals were scared to death that Reagan's finger was on the nuke button, proverbially, and they ran to Gorbachev and asked him to save the world. They don't like the threat of US military force, and now they do. Now they're claiming that the world is respectful of them and scared of them, and this guy at the Weekly Standard has it exactly right.
Here's a pull quote: "The president's supporters and publicists in the press know how to package Obama's weakness. The fear that everyone else in the world smells emanating from him like a wounded animal is really just humility and modesty -- fitting attributes for the leader of a superpower that needs to make amends for having meddled so long in the affairs of others. And besides, this talk of strength and weakness is juvenile -- the world is not a schoolyard. And so Obama ignored Putin’s slights and held his head high.
"This revealed to Putin Obama's real liability, his vanity. Obama always needs to look good," and that's the key. That's how you own Obama. You engineer it so he can make it look like he's the good guy, that he looks like the smartest guy in the room so the press can position it. You can get whatever you want out of Obama if you allow him to look like the smartest guy in the room, and that's what Putin has done here and that's where Putin is the winner.
Obama "will embrace defeat so long as he can still imagine himself a handsome princeling. After pushing Obama around for five years, now Putin escorts him out of the Middle East. Here, friend, take my hand. Let me help you to the sidelines. ... Putin’s goal is to replace the United States as the regional power broker" in the Middle East, and he's just done it. That's why everybody is chuckling over this. This is US weakness on display. This John Kerry gaffe, all of a sudden, turned into a brilliant bit of foreign policy.
They're laughing themselves silly in Moscow. Folks, I'm not going to this because I oppose Obama politically. This isn't partisan. I don't know how many you wonder over the course of your lives wherever there's trouble in the world, "Why is it always incumbent on us to be involved and maybe be the solution?" There's always been a reason for that. We were the world's power, not just militarily, but morally, folks. We had the moral authority, because of who we were. We had the military might, but we had the moral authority to stand by it and use it.
That's what's gone now.
We have the military might, but we're reluctant to project it in real ways, and even Obama and Kerry said, "This isn't gonna be any big deal, just a couple of missiles, 25 minutes, no big deal." They bragged about how small the attack would be. "Unbelievably small," Kerry said. They would go overboard trying to assure everybody that it wasn't going to be really big or really bad. It was going to be unbelievably small.
Now, the Russians have always wanted to be us, and the Chinese want to be us. They want to be the power brokers in all of these hot-spot regions, particularly where there is oil. It's looking a lot to people like Putin now... I mean, who's getting the credit? Putin, got rid of the chemical weapons. It's Putin's idea. The New York Times credits Putin, not Kerry, folks. They don't even mention Kerry's gaffe.
In fact, let me ask you this: Where do you think Assad got his chemical weapons? Iran? Russia? Who would really be surprised if Assad got most of their chemical weapons from the Russians in the first place? So this is a Lend-Lease between Russia and Syria. The Russians take the poison gas that they gave, for now, and give it back if Assad needs it again, once we are effectively out of the picture.
If this was discussed between Putin and Obama at such a high level last week, why didn't Kerry know that? Because when Kerry proposed this idea that everybody's now claiming was Obama's genius, Kerry's idea that everybody's accepted now -- and Obama is running around saying, "Oh, yeah, yeah! Putin and I were talking about that last week in the G20." Why didn't Kerry know that? When Kerry proposed it, why did the State Department try to walk it back?
Why did they admit that it was a gaffe, a rhetorical exercise? Why were they embarrassed by it? Why were they frightened of it? Why did Kerry call the Russians and say, "Hey, I'm not serious! I'm just kidding here." He tried to walk it back. If Putin and Obama had been seriously discussing this last week, then why didn't the State Department know it? Why didn't Kerry know it? Kerry's out there saying the plan wouldn't be possible anyway because Assad would never get rid of his chemical weapons.
He wouldn't give 'em away.
So how come the State Department didn't know that?
They said the plan would be impossible, yet here's Obama saying, "Oh, yeah, Vladimir and I, we talked about this last week G20." Obama has been talking with members of Congress 'til he was blue in the face, too. How come none of them knew about this option? Just yesterday Obama was preparing to do a national address to the country tonight, preparing us for a strike on Syria.
Then Kerry makes his gaffe.
If Obama's been talking to Putin about this last week, serious, high-level discussions on this specific idea of Assad getting rid of his chemical weapons and Russia and international community police, why didn't anybody know this? The obvious answer to me is, I think they're all making this up. I think they're flying along as it goes and they're glomming on to it as it happens and trying to take credit for what they think is a good thing as it just happens.
There wasn't any high level discussion about this last week. But Putin is content to let Obama go ahead and talk about this, because Putin knows that all you have to do to get what you want out of Obama is structure it so he looks like the smartest guy in the world. Do that, and you can have anything you want, 'cause that's all Obama and his minions in the media care about.
RUSH: Audio sound bite time. I keep trying to stay away from this Syria business. But, you know, look at what's happened. I don't want to review everything. But Kerry makes this gaffe. Kerry says (paraphrased), "Well, you know what ought to happen is that Syria ought to just give up its weapons. Just get rid of its chemical weapons. Give them to the international community, and the Russians and police 'em," and so forth. Kerry immediately tried to walk it back. It was so idiotic, even Kerry himself said that Assad would never do it.
He claimed that he was just trying to make a point, but then Putin said, "You know what? It's a brilliant idea! We'll act like we're taking the weapons," and Assad says, "I'll be glad to give 'em up!" (chuckles) Those weapons aren't getting out of there, folks, those chemical weapons are not gonna leave Syria, but here we have Kerry and Obama are now proclaimed as geniuses, because of a gaffe! A gaffe that everybody is now characterize as Obama policy that he formatted with Putin last week.
(impression) "Oh, yeah! I was talking to Vladimir about this last week, and, uh. uh... uh..." Well, why didn't Kerry know that? How come Kerry is being touted here as a big idiot creating this great gaffe and everything? The State Department tried to walk it back. They said (summarized), "No, no! Secretary Kerry, he didn't mean this. He was just talking." Now it's the official policy, and the end result is, guess what?
Bashar Assad stays in power and is free to resume conventional bombing of the rebels whose side I thought we were on in all this. Yeah, "the rebels" -- really Al-Qaeda, but the rebels. The women and children, the victims of the brutal Assad, I thought that's whose side we were on. We were trying to defend and protect them. "The United States is not gonna sit around idly and watch innocent women and children get slaughtered like this! We're gonna get rid of the guy doing it, and we're gonna stop it from happening."
But the end result is the guy doing it stays in power. We're told here's gonna get rid of the his chemical weapons, but he claimed he never used them anyway. Now the guy's back to, with impunity, bombing the rebels -- and we're claiming victories and brilliance on the part of our own regime's leaders! This is unreal. The rebels are back to getting bombed with conventional weapons, and that's apparently fine. We've cast 'em aside.
Assad gets to stay in power, there will be no US strike against him, and Obama's out claiming credit -- and here's how he did it. Last night on The NewsHour on PBS, Gwen Ifill was interviewing Obama. She said, "John Kerry talked today about a limited, targeted, 'unbelievably small' effort, Mr. President, and now we're hearing news that Russia has a plan, a solution, perhaps what would allow Syria to take all of its weapons and put it under international control."
That was not what happened. You know, she's doing the same thing the New York Times did. It was a John Kerry gaffe that Putin glommed onto and is claiming it for his. The New York Times is letting him have it, too. It's so... This idea is so embarrassingly bad if it comes from us, that the US media happily is letting Putin claim the contract for it. This is unreal, folks. And then Obama is claiming credit because he talked to Putin about it last week.
IFILL: Is that something that you've had any conversations at all with President Putin about when you were in St. Petersburg last week?
OBAMA: I did have those conversations. This is a continuation of conversations I've had with President Putin for quite some time. As I said to you the last time we spoke, this Chemical Weapons Ban matters to us, to the United States. I have instructed John Kerry to talk directly to the Russians and run this to ground.
RUSH: And the Russians are laughing themselves silly, like we all are. It ought to be Vladimir Putin addressing the nation tonight, not Obama. It's Putin's idea. Gwen Ifill just said it; the New York Times just said it. But we have the Reuters stories, and you know it, too. It was Kerry's "idea," a gaffe, that Putin glommed onto and Assad glommed onto. So Gwen Ifill, New York Times, is happy to credit Putin with it 'cause if it's our idea, it's an idiotic move. If it's Putin, it's a great move.
Now Obama's claiming it's been a plan all along. You just heard him. "Oh, yeah! I talked to Vlad last week. We had many conversations about this. It's one of the things I proposed to him." But he didn't tell anybody? The State Department didn't know about it and Kerry didn't know about it, 'cause when Kerry mentioned what Obama says he's talked to Putin about, they tried to walk it back at State. This is a comedy of errors!
We really have the Keystone Cops. We're being dominated and governed by sheer incompetence here, and everybody involved knows it, and they're in a CYA mode -- except it's not theirs. It's Obama's and Kerry's and everybody else that's circling the wagons around here. David "Rodham" Gergen, the architect of conventional wisdom in Washington, was on CNN last night, Anderson Cooper 360. Question for David Gergen: "You worked in a lot of different [regimes] in the White House. What do you make of the selling of this that's been going on by the administration?"
GERGEN: Pretty awful. Pretty awful. I -- you know --
COOPER: "Awful" meaning mismanaged? Mishandled?
GERGEN: Yes. We don't know what the administration is trying to do. It's been zigzagging. And I think its chances of winning in the Senate and the House, especially in the House, have been badly damaged by the lack of consistency and a clear message. I think there's surprise in many quarters at how willing the administration is to delay things over this offer from Russia and Syria. Here we have an offer from two of the most unsavory leaders in the world. I'm surprised there has been sort of a clear, "Let's be very, very skeptical before we embrace a plan that comes from Assad and Putin."
RUSH: It doesn't come from Assad and Putin. It came from Albert Brooks, a comedian, last Friday on Twitter, and then Kerry picked it up. I don't know if he got it from Brooks or not, but it's a Kerry "idea" that Putin and Assad are getting credit for. Now we're getting stories, "Oh, yeah! Assad's gonna take us and show us where his stockpiles are, and the inspectors are gonna get in there and are gonna watch us remove the weapons." Can anybody say, "Saddam Hussein"?
David "Rodham" Gergen here is right on the money. What are we doing? We're gonna trust these guys? Yeah, we will because it makes Obama look smart, and that's all that matters here. It's all that matters: Protecting Obama, covering for Obama. Jonathan Karl committed a random act of journalism. Amid all this hyperventilating, Jonathan Karl came out this morning and reported some truth on Good Morning America. He was talking with Robin Roberts here.
KARL: The more the White House has made the case on this, the more it has lost support in Congress. I am told right now that the president would lose not only in the House but the Senate as well on this vote.
ROBERTS: You referred to the Russians being a lifeline. Is it possible that they can step in here?
KARL: It's possible. I gotta tell you, there is a lot of skepticism here. In another interview the president said that he was taking the Russian offer with a grain of salt. So, yes, a possibility, but not an overabundance of hope in this proposal right now.
RUSH: There wasn't a Russian offer! "Taking the Russian offer with a grain of salt"? They've taken the whole salt shaker now. They've bought it hook, line, and sinker. My old buddy is back, Vitaly Churkin. I told you about him last week from the Vladimir Posner era of Soviet officials -- Soviet, not Russian; Soviet officials -- that came to America and blended right in with us. Vitaly Churkin was back at home last night on PBS on The NewsHour, being interviewed by Judy Woodruff.
He's now the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, but he's done everything there. I mean, he was chief aide to Gorbachev; he was head honcho to Boris Yeltsin. No matter what has happened to the Soviet Union and Russia, Vitaly Churkin has been in the inner circle of all of it. The fact that Vitaly Churkin is still around means to me it's the still the Soviet Union for all intents and purposes. So Judy Woodruff said, "Why should Americans not see this, Mr. Churkin, as just a stalling tactic? Why would the American government, the US government see this as a serious move that could change invasion within a matter of days?"
CHURKIN: Because it is a serious move, and it is a response to what the secretary of state of the United States said, and of course it can be disregarded or it can be somehow interpreted in a negative way, and the United States can go ahead and do this military strike, which would eliminate any chances for a political settlement, which could have catastrophic consequences for Syria, and which would make that war another American war, like Vietnam and Iraq used to be. In such situations, the China shop rule applies. "You broke it; you bought it."
RUSH: He's invoking the worlds of Colin Powell, our former secretary of state, warning us about Iraq: "You break it; you own it." Ah, these guys are good. These guys are so Americanized. They are good. So Judy Woodruff then said to Vitaly Churkin, "Well, look, Secretary Kerry has said that any strike would be 'unbelievably small.'" So what's the big deal? Why don't you guys just let us do our little, 'unbelievably small' strike?
WOODRUFF: Secretary Kerry has said any strike would be in his words, quote, "unbelievably small."
CHURKIN: Well, if... (laughs) I don't believe it's possible. I mean, it's... The fact of it is going to be unbelievably big. The current initiative of the Russian Federation would allow the United States to avoid all the dramatic consequences which might be there.
RUSH: That's right. "You just let us go in and take out the chemical weapons that came from us in the first place. The only reason Assad has those weapons is because we gave them to him so we're going to take them back for a while and you can look and you won't find them and after you are gone. Assad is still there and we will take the weapons and put them back in there and will continue to assault the rebels, and you have been long gone and we have snookered you again."
RUSH: Frank in Washington Township, New Jersey. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Great. Great to talk to you, Rush. Let me get this straight. The Syria crisis has been solved -- the world's policy has been set and the United States foreign policy has been set -- because a reporter asked a question? That's the only reason we're here right now? The State Department didn't come out and make this statement. The White House didn't come out and make this statement. If a reporter didn't ask a question, John Kerry would not have said what he said. No one in the State Department, no one in the White House, no one in the Department of Defense, no one in the National Security Office was smart enough to ask a question and say, "Hey, is there another solution to this besides bombing Syria?" A reporter had to ask a question? Putin shouldn't get the Nobel Peace Prize. The woman that asked the question should get the Nobel Peace Prize.
CALLER: This is so scary. It's scary that these people are in charge of protecting us and our children's lives. It's to the point now where it's past incompetence. It's at the point now where this guy's gonna go on television tonight and talk about the red line that he drew that he then said he didn't draw that he now did draw, and that the pressure is why they took this deal. No one sits here and understands what's going on? The reporter should be heralded tonight. She should be talking to us tonight. I know you said Putin should be, but it should be a reporter. How are you so smart to ask that question of the secretary of state? That's what I want to know.
RUSH: Well, look, I can't dispute it because you're right, and the president is gonna go on TV tonight, and he's gonna claim miraculous powers with which he brought this all to a screeching halt, and it's all gonna be untrue. You're right. You know, Kerry got this question, and it was rhetorical -- "Well, you know, what they could do?" -- and that becomes the policy because Putin sees a way of winning this thing and beating Obama and the United States to the punch and takes it!
So we have no choice but than to glom on to it and go along with it. Because remember, Frank: The only objective here is protecting, saving, promoting, and making look good Obama. That's all this has ever been about. Ever since he drew that red line and ever since this chemical weapons stuff started being alleged and he started demanding that it be stopped, all that mattered was he look good when it was all over.
That's what the objective has been here.
So Obama's gonna claim that it was his show of force, his gutsy call that made Kerry make his gaffe. What do you think about it? Half the country's gonna know this. Half the country is gonna be watching this tonight in shock and disbelief, and they're gonna be beating their heads up against the wall because they cannot believe that this is happening. The other half of the country is gonna be dazzled and wowed and thinking they're in the presence of a messianic figure, and it's gonna just boggle all of our minds.
Meanwhile, Edward Snowden has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I was, too, of course. The year Algore got it, I was nominated for the Peace Prize, and I thought I had done more for peace and equal rights and freedom and liberty and so forth than Gore did, but he had that fake movie about global warming and so forth. "A Swedish sociology professor has nominated Edward Snowden for the Nobel Peace Prize, saying that awarding the former NSA employee would correct Nobel Committee’s mistake in giving the award" to Obama.
Obviously college professors in Sweden are different than American college professors. 'Cause everybody here supported Obama getting the award. I mean, he got the Nobel Peace Prize on the come. Can you imagine? It's now gonna be said that this justifies him winning it, when, as Frank said, the reporter who asked the question that inspired the brilliance forthcoming from John Kerry. Bridget in Fulton County, Pennsylvania. Welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. What an honor today.
RUSH: Great to have you. Thank you. I appreciate it.
CALLER: Whatever they're doing with their posturing, I think the American people have spoken. I'm just grateful that we're not gonna move forward unilaterally, and what we need to do now is pressure the international community to get involved. We need to go to the United Nations. We need to send people that know how to talk to the world. We can't afford this where our economy has 22 million people out of work.
RUSH: Well, now, this is an interesting take. You're obviously an eternal optimist and you're looking at this as, regardless how it happened it's a good thing because we now no longer have to be devoted to Syria, distracted by Syria, spending any money on Syria, spending any time or any American troops. We get back to solving the problems here domestically.
CALLER: Not necessarily. I think it's very serious over there. I just don't think we shouldn't do it alone. I think we should put pressure on the international community. I hope as a moral people, we still don't want chemical weapons to be killing families.
RUSH: Well, now. Wait, wait, wait. If you watch Obama tonight, we did do it alone.
CALLER: I don't believe for a second that he's been acting without support from people, and I think the American people came forward hugely. I'm actually very encouraged, and the representatives are listening to them. This is the biggest time since the 2010 elections.
RUSH: Wait. What, you're encouraged that our representatives are listening? What do you think is happening out there?
CALLER: That people came forward and spoke. I mean, if you were listening to C-SPAN all weekend, all of them are saying that the American people back home are not behind this, and now he's backpedaling whatever their political propaganda thing is. He can't go forward. He'd probably get impeached if he went forward.
RUSH: Well, are you talking about Syria?
RUSH: I don't think there's any question. I mean, even the Hollywood left was beside itself that they had been muzzled. The Congressional Black Caucasians, anti-war, had been muzzled. Everybody wanted to come out against it, but that's all irrelevant now. It's moot. There isn't gonna be an American strike, "unbelievably small" or otherwise. The problem's solved. Obama fixed it. It's done. Those mean weapons are gonna be removed from Syria, and the rebels are not going to be burned to death anymore. Instead, they're just gonna be bombed and shot to death, but they're not gonna have chemical weapons used against them.
So it's over and there's nothing to protest now.
There's only a reason to throw parties.