RUSH: Have you seen the reports that we’re getting about all the possible scenarios for Obama’s strike on Syria? Apparently the plans have changed at least 50 times in just the last two weeks — not five, not 15, but 50 times — and they’re now even talking about using B-1 and B-2 bombers! Now we’re talking about that. There’s a story, John Kerry and some of the Obama regime people are vetting the “moderate” rebels. Vetting moderate rebels! Vetting moderate rebels.
There are no moderates in the Middle East, folks.
Once again, you have American liberals projecting — because of their vanity and arrogance — their thought processes on every group of people all over the world. Every country, every population. You can’t do that. There aren’t any “moderates” in the Middle East. Show me one. There certainly are no moderates in these rebels protesting Assad, and there are no moderates on Assad’s side.
But we’re gonna find “the moderates,” and we’re gonna vet ’em, and those are the ones that we’re gonna support. Now there is a story. The Republican leadership is saying that if they don’t have the votes to grant the use-of-force authorization in the House, there will not be a vote, because they will not allow the president to be humiliated on the international stage.
They will not allow the world to see that the elected representatives of the people oppose the president’s policy, even when he’s made this case for national security. Although he hasn’t. That’s the problem. Obama has not told us what this has to do with America’s vital national interests. He hasn’t told us what this has to do with American national security. And he can’t. He doesn’t have an answer for it.
So now the Republican Party leadership has a chance here to… Do you think the Democrats would withhold this so as not to offend Bush or so as not to humiliate Bush? Now, I can understand some of it. This like Dr. Kissinger said yesterday, that it would be precedent setting. It’s never happened that a Congress has refused a presidential request that is grounded in American national security. Well, this isn’t. At least not one that’s been persuasive.
But I can see the striped-pants crowd up at Foggy Bottom, in State Department parlance, being all atwitter. “Oh, my God! What does the world think? The Congress didn’t grant the use of force! What is the world going to think?” I think it’s about time the world knew the truth about what the people of this country think of this guy. Folks, the people of this country are lagging behind what the rest of the world thinks of Obama, I’m here to tell you.
The rest of the world, and I’m talking about particularly our enemies, have had Obama sized up for a long time. It’s not news to them. The American people are sort of a lagging indicator in coming to grips with Obama’s incompetence on things. We’ve got this press conference that Obama had today with Putin. We’ve got sound bites of it, and I’m reading some people who watched it describing it as Obama “unraveling.”
This continues to be embarrassing. We have ABC News claiming that the regime’s planning a much larger strike in Syria, even though Obama said originally the strike would be “limited and proportional,” a couple of missiles, 30 minutes. Get in, get it, get out, and so forth. I still can’t get over John Kerry bragging yesterday that some Middle Eastern countries have offered to pay for our attack on Syria.
I mean, it’s bad enough being the world’s policeman, but who wants to be the world’s rent-a-cop? What is so wonderful about that? And the rest of the world, Middle Eastern countries offered to pay for it? They’ve offered to pay us? What are we, a welfare case now? They’ve offered to pay for it? Kerry’s proud of that. He thinks that’s something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops as a great positive.
But maybe… I don’t know. Maybe if these countries throw in a nice benefits package — health care coverage and pension — along with paying for it? And then CNN has a banner: “Syrian Children Hit Hardest by Crisis.” They left out the women. Usually it’s “women and children hardest hit,” or “women and minorities hardest hit.” But apparently Obama has moved on now from just wanting to fire “a shot across the bow,” to wanting to degrade Syria’s military, which that’s something Obama knows how to do.
We’ll have to give him credit for that.
He knows how to degrade a military.
RUSH: Terry in Chicago. I’m glad you called. You’re next. Open Line Friday. Grate to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you, sir. Thanks for allowing me to represent the hardworking truck drivers of America.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.
CALLER: Hey, I’m just wondering what you thought about the reports that I’ve seen — and I’ve looked at a couple of different pieces — that Russia had given the UN a hundred-page report blaming the Syrian rebels for the Aleppo sarin attack on March 19th?
RUSH: I brought this up on Monday. There’s a really good guy, a credible scholar named Yossef Bodansky who has talked to numerous sources. He doesn’t identify them, but he said basically, “Look, it’s the rebels that fired off the nerve gas, the chemical weapon. The rebels in Syria did it with the knowledge of the United States government,” and Putin is saying the same thing. Putin is saying, “Wait a minute. We got a hundred-page report. We did our own investigation. It’s not Assad doing this. Assad’s being set up.”
There are multiple different sources for this now.
It is a dilemma, who to believe.
RUSH: By the way, Russia gave the UN that 100-page report back in July that the Syrian so-called rebels are the ones that have the chemical weapons, and they’re the ones that used them. This has been widely known and suspected for a long time, but our administration summarily rejects it. “It is not possible. The rebels, why they’re just ordinary, average, innocent little people that we’re now having to vet.”
John Kerry said we’re actually “vetting” moderate rebels. How do we do that? Will we have people on the ground interviewing these rebels to find out which ones are moderate? It’s embarrassingly absurd, what Kerry and the rest of them are telling us — and even some Republicans, too. But what else is insulting is the idea that there are “moderates” in the Middle East. In this fight, there aren’t any moderates. There are no moderate Muslims, and that’s not a put down.
I’m just giving you a realistic read. Moderate rebels? Does that even go together? Moderate rebels? You cannot be a rebel, you cannot be in a rebellion, you cannot be in a civil war and be a moderate! But the Democrats have come up with the terminology. “Moderate? Oh, they’re moderate? They’re open-minded, not bigots, not closed-minded, mean-spirited extremists! Open-minded means tolerant and understanding and compassionate, and those are the people that we’re aligned with.”
It’s all smoke and mirrors, as it always is.
Kurt in North Vernon, Indiana, I’m glad you waited, sir. You’re next on Open Line Friday. Hi.
CALLER: Hello. It’s good to finally get to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: My one concern I have that I haven’t heard anything on the media about is the risk that our naval ships are in. The Mediterranean Sea is not that big of a water to maneuver that number of battleships in the carrier group, and I think they’re kind of like fish in a barrel.
RUSH: Well, not quite. Fish in a barrel can’t shoot back. Those naval vessels are fairly well armed. Now, do we have the will to use them? What is your specific concern? Who’s got designs on ’em, on our deployment in the Mediterranean?
CALLER: Well, the question of what Syria or anyone else has that can get to the ships. You know, the Navy, one of their big advantages is they’ve got big oceans to move around in and make it hard to get to, and they’re bottled up in a pretty small body of water for that kind of a ship, I would think.
RUSH: Well, what would you have us do, withdraw?
CALLER: I would think real hard and long about using it for making a gesture. You know, if we’re gonna go in there, we need to either go in there and really do it or stay out.
RUSH: Well, that’s an interesting point because as I said at the top of the program, there are now… I’m exaggerating a little bit, but there are 50 different variations of what we might do. It started out as “a shot across the bow,” and this was Obama. “He’s gonna send a cruise missile in there, too! He’s gonna warn these people what could be if they really irritate him. He’s gonna show ’em who’s got what and so forth.”
Another said, “You can’t do that. That’s nothing. I mean, you may as not well not do anything if you do shot across the bow.” Rumsfeld made the point: “That’s not leadership, a shot across the bow. You commit to something and you do it,” and in this case Kurt has got a point. If we’re just gonna go over there and basically use a slingshot or a peashooter and not be prepared to really project power, then the sitting duck analogy, it may be accurate.
I don’t think that there’s anybody that can take our Navy out over there. “A shot across bow,” by definition, doesn’t hit anything except the 33rd floor of a skyscraper on a Saturday night with a custodian in there emptying garbage. That’s how Clinton did it, on a Saturday night in Baghdad, where he’s sending a message to Saddam that was supposed to put the fear of God into him.