Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Let me now go to the Thomas “Loopy” Friedman column and to set this up I want to go back to yesterday’s sound bite that we played from Thomas Friedman. He’s a New York Times foreign policy columnist/expert, and this is from Wednesday night’s CNN Erin Burnett OutFront. She said to Tom Friedman — and it’s embarrassing, this guy is a Bible, he is the gospel in foreign policy to everybody that reads the New York Times. And it’s just absurd, it’s dangerous, ’cause the guy’s so wrong. I don’t know, folks. These are the kind of things that, if you think about it too much, it actually makes you question your faith in people to get things right.

But, anyway, a question from Burnett: “You wrote that Benjamin Netanyahu went for the gutter with the comment to supporters that Arab voters were coming out to vote in huge numbers.” Talk about that, oh brilliant Friedman, tell us about that.

FRIEDMAN: Netanyahu, to save himself, took votes from even farther-right parties. And now he is saddled with the way he did that, this kind of race-baiting, and at the same time with throwing out the window of his election bus the whole notion of a two-state solution. The people who are happiest tonight, who are high-fiving and toasting themselves with endless Allahu Akbars is the Iranian Regime in Tehran. Iran wants a one-state solution so there is a constant grinding between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. Nothing makes Iran happier than Israel opting for a one-state solution.

RUSH: Right. So Netanyahu has clarified that a number of times, most recently last night with Megyn Kelly. We have audio sound bites of that coming up. Stand by for that, but he’s being misrepresented purposely, willfully, on what he had said about the two state, one-state solution. But this is all academic, too, because there’s no two-state solution. The Palestinians do not want an Israeli state, a Jewish state. There is no two-state solution. And I know I’m being repetitive.

But, anyway, so you heard Loopy Thomas Friedman say this yesterday. I went back, I got a column of his, New York Times on March the 7th of 2012. So this is coming up on three years ago, three years ago. And it’s stunning, just three years ago Friedman said the exact opposite of what you just heard him say in that sound bite. He quotes Obama from before the election. The title of the peace is, “Israel’s Best Friend.” Do you know who that is? That’s Obama’s in Friedman’s eyes.

Let me read you excerpts. “The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most.

Why? Because the question of whether Israel has the need and the right to pre-emptively attack Iran as it develops a nuclear potential is one of the most hotly contested issues on the world stage today. It is also an issue fraught with danger for Israel and American Jews, neither of whom want to be accused of dragging America into a war, especially one that could weaken an already frail world economy.”

Remember now, it’s three years ago.

“In that context, President Obama, in his interview with The AtlanticÂ’s Jeffrey Goldberg and in his address to Aipac, the pro-Israel lobby, offered the greatest support for Israel that any president could at this time: He redefined the Iran issue. He said — rightly — that it was not simply about IsraelÂ’s security, but about U.S. national security and global security.”

Now, listen to this.

“Obama did this –” three years ago “– by making clear that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and then ‘containing’ it — the way the US contained the Soviet Union — was not a viable option, because if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, all the states around it would seek to acquire one as well.”

May I translate this for you? Three years ago, Thomas Friedman quoted Obama as saying that what he’s now trying to do with Iran would be a mistake. Our current deal with Iran is precisely to give them a nuclear weapon after ten years. And then all the while use the power of our speeches and the power of our words and the power of our personality to convince them never to use that weapon.

But the theory is, we have no right to tell them they can’t have one. I mean, they’re there, if they have the ability to make one, who are we to tell ’em they can’t? So the best we can do is negotiate with them that they can have one and that they can’t develop it fully for weapon use for ten years, and during that time will convince them never to use it. Okay, that is the current plan. Let me read this to you again from three years ago.

Obama, in a column about how he’s Israel’s best friend, according to Friedman, Obama made clear that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and then containing it, was not a viable option. So three years ago Obama said that the very thing he’s trying to do now is not viable. What’s changed? And of course three years ago Thomas Friedman is writing about all this as though Obama, what a brilliant guy, oh, my God, can we even hope to exist in his countenance? This guy’s so smart, he’s the best friend Israel ever had. Three years ago, because three years ago Obama was totally opposed to Iran getting a nuclear weapon because if they did, then every other state in the region would say, “Hey, they have one, we want one,” and we couldn’t variably say, “No, you can’t.”

So we can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon three years ago. Today, it’s exactly what our plan is. Let them have the nuclear weapon and then contain them, convince them never to use it like we did the Soviet Union. So is now Obama not Israel’s best friend? Because three years ago he was Israel’s best friend by asserting that Iran would never get the nuke. Three years later, I don’t think anybody in their right mind would consider Obama a good — there’s no way he’s a friend of Israel in any way, shape, manner, or form right now.


RUSH: Now, one more thing from the Thomas Friedman column three years ago, which is the direct opposite of what he’s saying today, the direct opposite of what Obama’s saying today. Thomas Friedman. This is March the 7th of 2012. “‘Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States,’ the president told The Atlantic.

“‘If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, this would run completely contrary to my policies of nonproliferation. The risks of an Iranian nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorist organizations are profound.'” Three years ago! This is Obama, three years ago, assuring everybody there isn’t gonna be a nuclear Iran, not on his watch, and Thomas “Loopy” Friedman writing a piece about this is the best friend Israel’s ever had. You hear that? He’s really tough. He’s not gonna let the Iranians have a nuke!

And now? We are gonna let Iranians have a nuke, and we claim that the ayatollah has a fatwa against them that nobody can find. We know that the nuclear deal permits Iran to have a nuclear weapon in 10 years. Obama doesn’t have to face voters anymore, so he can do a 180 here. It was a lie three years ago; Thomas Friedman bought it. Now the Iranians are on the road to getting a nuclear weapon, in direct contravention of everything these leftists three years ago, two years ago, last year — and, as always, it’s American hardliners and Israel who are the problem.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This