RUSH: Now, if you are in the regime, if you are Samantha Power, Susan Rice, or Hillary Clinton, and you’re part of the group taking this seriously. If I can find out that the rebels are linked to Al-Qaeda, certainly they can. What do you think the challenge would be for them in the White House? Remember, now, everything’s focused through the prism of reelection. All of this is about 2012, make no mistake. Everything they’re doing is about 2012. That’s why it’s on the fly. That’s why there isn’t a contingency. Everything is through that prism. And the way liberals see things, okay, here’s a madman, Moammar Khadafy, wiping out his own people. We have pictures on television about it. The American people are saying, “It’s horrible, it’s horrible, it’s enough, enough. We don’t want to see it. We don’t support leaders who are running around killing their own people,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, that’s one thing. Then here comes the human rights, Meals on Wheels aspect of the Obama foreign policy, but we find out that the people trying to overthrow Khadafy happen to be friends with Osama Bin Laden.
So what do we do now? And the question becomes, is there anybody in this regime, anything other than a faculty lounge theoretician who could answer that question? And where’s the Muslim Brotherhood in all this? You know they’re lurking around and they’re lurking around in Egypt, and we know that is the objective of militant jihadists, to have Sharia throughout the Middle East. Now we learn, as I pointed out, there’s a good possibility that the rebels are Al-Qaeda, either Al-Qaeda sponsored, paid for, whatever. Now what do we do? We’ve made this case Khadafy’s a rotten SOB, he’s gotta go but, oh, no, he doesn’t. Why the change? Why the change? What can Robert Gates say? “Well, we just figured out here the people we’re supporting are Al-Qaeda.” We can’t say that. We can’t say that the people we’re launching Tomahawk missiles for and do this no-fly zone are Al-Qaeda. We can’t say that, so what do we do? Meanwhile, it’s left to the theoreticians inside the White House, placing themselves back in the faculty lounge at Harvard, what would they do if this came up when somebody else was in the White House, and now they’re there trying to devise a strategy.
Meanwhile, Obama’s off in Rio dancing the jig or whatever it is, and deigning to allow himself to be interrupted for updates while at a state dinner. Great example of Obama multitasking. The women of the regime seem to be the impetus behind it, so much so that there are people saying, “Ah, we’re offended by that.” Washington Post: “President Obama’s Muddled Libya Policy.” They say that it lacks a coherent strategy, the Obama Libyan policy. But that just means that the Washington Post is too stupid to understand Obama as well. So how does it feel, Washington Post editorial writers? You’re in the same boat we are. You’re just not smart enough to see the nuance. You just don’t have what it takes to see what’s going on here. And then another story Politico: “Reform Versus Regime Change. Obama says Khadafy Could Stay.”
And here in the Atlantic, by Garance Franke-Ruta: “On the Idiocy of Framing the Libya Intervention as a Battle of the Sexes.” As I said earlier this writer is really miffed at the idea that only women in Obamaville have any gonads. “It’s really amazing how a factual sociological observation can quickly devolve into the most ridiculous story imaginable as it moves down the media food chain. I speak, of course, of the absurd idea that there was some sort of geopolitically important gender gap within the administration on the question of backing a no-fly zone over Libya, and the bombing campaign needed to implement one, because a handful of the president’s more senior female aides argued in private meetings, according to reports, on behalf of an interventionist posture. Note to anyone still playing with this idea: You might as well title your story, ‘Hello, I am an idiot who has not been paying attention to politics in the past 15 years.’ And yet away we go, as the story trickles down from a totally fair and balanced observation — ‘an unlikely alliance’ between ‘a handful of top administration aides’ — into a kind of shorthand — ‘Obama agenda: The women vs. the men?'”
This woman does not like the way this has been shaped. But nobody shaped it. This is what happened. She doesn’t like that the template for the story is that it was the women who nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in, or only the women of Obamaland have any gonads. “Um, hello: Hillary Clinton pushed for intervention in Libya not because she’s female, but because, cautious as she may be, she also is among the more historically hawkish members of the administration.” It had nothing to do with the fact that she’s female. It’s just that she’s a hawk. How about the fact that her president wasn’t doing anything? How about the fact that there was dithering going on here? Again, as somebody here who’s disengaged. This isn’t what he signed up for. He signed up for getting even with the United States. He signed up with reordering and transforming the US. He signed up take us down. He didn’t sign up to make us act like a superpower. He didn’t sign up for this. He didn’t sign up for this kind of distraction. So the babes had to get in gear. Somebody had to act like somebody knew who was going on. That’s the impression. That’s why she’s ticked off. That’s why she’s ticked off because every one of these people bought into this notion that we had a messiah; that we had somebody unlike anyone we had ever, ever seen. The bottom line is somebody has to wear the pantsuit in this White House.
RUSH: Mrs. Clinton, by the way, is not happy. She’s not happy with the notion that it’s the babes running the show. Last night on ABC’s World News Tonight, anchor Diane Sawyer talked to Hillary Clinton. By the way, have you…? (Damn it, here I go.)
You’ve seen (I’m sure you’ve seen) recent photographs of our courageous Secretary of State. You’ve seen them. You know damn well looking at those that she’s making the decisions; she’s the one answering the phone at three in the morning. You just know it. Did Diane Sawyer…? I don’t know if she saw Hillary recycling anything when she interviewed her. You know Diane Sawyer went over to Japan, “Looooook! Recycling!” I don’t know if she saw the recycling bin in Hillary’s office. I don’t know if Hillary, despite what’s going on in Libya, is still recycling. In fact, I don’t know that Diane Sawyer talked to her in her office. Well, here’s the question: “We have read repeated that you were decisive in this. Did you persuade President Obama? Was yours the voice that turned around his opponents?”
HILLARY: That is, uh (stammering) absolutely, umm —
HILLARY: — you know, I think, part of, uhh, a story line that needs to be, uh, corrected, umm, soon and decisively. There was a — a broad debate and discussion within the administration, and that’s one of the —
SAWYER: Secretary Gates opposed, we were told.
HILLARY: Well, I’m not gonna characterize anybody’s opinion. You know, I think it was a very thoughtful process.
RUSH: Yeah, right. That answer: “Was yours the voice that turned it around?” You know she wanted to say yes. She’s wanting to say, “Yes! That’s absolutely correct!” but, you know, “Jeez… Damn right it was me! Uh, uh, it’s all — it’s part of a story line that needs… Yes, damn it, we need to correct, but there was…” She said it was “a broad debate” here; “a broad debate and discussion within the administration.” We know what that means. A broad debate. One thing where you remember one more. Will you stay until the election?
HILLARY: Oh! I will stay until the beginning of the next term because I know it takes a while for people to get, you know, appointed and confirmed. I mean, obviously there needs to be a seamless transition with whomever, uhhhh, President Obama decides to appoint, uh, after he is reelected! Which, uhhh, I am confident he will be.
RUSH: Whew! Broads are calling the shots. “Broad debate,” broads call the shots. Mrs. Clinton is hanging in there ’til the next confirmation. (chuckling) You can tell, folks: She’s calling the shots. She really is.
RUSH: You know, I had a thought here during the top of the hour break: What’s so wrong about the NAGs advising Obama or making the decisions on Libya? I mean, the author of the story in the Atlantic who is all bummed out about it is a woman. Why? Shouldn’t the NOW gang and the NAGs be celebrating this latest accomplishment? I mean, what is their advice? What did Mrs. Clinton do? You know, people have forgotten this. We’ve been doing this 22 years. I sometimes read transcripts of past shows, and I marvel! (laughs) I wish we can go back and find a way to compress some of these previous shows’ past content and bring ’em back because, my gosh, was it rich content-wise.
So much wisdom. So many accurate predictions. So many things that have happened exactly as I called them. But in this case, what’s the point of feminism? You take over! What did Mrs. Clinton do? She ends up at an Ivy League school. She finds a guy about whom it is said, “He’s going places.” I mean, if you talk to Robert Rubin and some of these other guys that hung around with Clinton at Yale, they said, “This guy’s gonna be president.” He was gonna be there. So Mrs. Clinton, I’m sure, heard this — and, so, what did she do? She latched onto the guy, she followed him everywhere — and I remember I was reading some of these old stories about the real respect that people had for Hillary was that she even went to Arkansas.
She deigned to go to Arkansas!
Folks, that’s like going to Gulfport. For some of these libs to go south of the Mason-Dixon Line, that’s like volunteering to go to Vietnam! But she did it. She follows this guy, and then when he got where he was going, she took over. Well, that’s what has happened here. This is something that I would think the NAGs and the NOW gang would be proud of. The new frontier, the final frontier, the last glass ceiling is being blown sky-high. Someone in the White House must wear the pantsuit, and yet there’s all this anger about it. There’s all this anger, and I’m guessing that the anger is the result of a huge conflict, and that is the presentation of Obama as a messiah.
Because in order for the “broad debate” to result in the women finally asserting power, it means that Obama’s not who he was presented as — and that’s got to be a terrible conflict for these people on the left: “What’s more important to us?” In fact, the NAGs had to come out examine defend Sarah Palin over some typically juvenile comments that Bill Maher made Friday night on his program. He used a crude term about female genitalia to describe her, and finally the NAGs had no choice. The NOW gang had to come out with a statement decrying what Maher said. But at the same time, they told the right-wingers: Don’t think we’re on your side on this! (laughing)
They made it very clear that they were dragged kicking and screaming into defending Sarah Palin on this. Obama is being the perfect metrosexual as president, but… (sigh) I maintain there’s a terrific conflict on the left over all this — and that’s why half of them, you know, are probably celebrating the fact that three women are actually responsible for the Libyan policy. On the other hand, they realize how it makes Obama look. ‘Cause he’s the guy at the top of the ticket who gets the votes. I mean, he’s guy that determines whether the women are in power or not and have any power to exercise.
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.