Can Somebody Show Me an Obama Foreign Policy Success?
Jul 16, 2015
RUSH: Can somebody — seriously, now — can somebody explain to me what foreign policy success President Obama has ever achieved? Look, I’m not trying to be provocative or predictably critical. But after this press conference yesterday, you would not believe the left-wing orgasms that are happening out there on the part of media people and others.
“My God, oh, my God, did you see that, why, it’s the most confident the president has ever appeared. Oh, my God, that is the smartest a president has ever appeared. Oh, my God, did you see that? My God, that was brilliant. Oh, my God, we’re not even worthy of being in the same room. Oh, my God, we’re barely worthy of being able to watch on TV.”
They just can’t say enough. They cannot come up with enough accolades. I’m telling you, it is multiple orgasms out there on the part of the Drive-By Media. It’s on Twitter, it’s everywhere. And reality check: Could somebody explain to me, give me an example of an Obama foreign policy success? Not only that, not only could you give me an example, just one example, of a foreign policy success that Obama has ever achieved that would indicate that his promises of Iran’s future behavior will pan out?
Yes, a little caveat there. The president’s telling us, and John Kerry told us, in case you have forgotten, do you remember what John Kerry said yesterday about why we did this deal? John Kerry said that one of the reasons why, one of the main reasons why we did this deal was to show the rest of the world the peaceful nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
So name for me a foreign policy success, a success that Obama has achieved that would indicate his promises of Iran’s future behavior will pan out. After all, the president has assured us that with this deal Iran is now gonna be a bunch of nice guys, that we can essentially trust them. Well, let’s look. Now, Snerdley just shouted at me “Cuba.” Seriously, are you… (interruption) They will tell you Cuba, that Cuba is an example of rousing Obama foreign policy success? Cuba? What is it in the new Cuba policy that is successful?
This is my point. But let’s go. What about Libya? Libya is an absolute mess. Libya is an absolute joke compared to what it was. Obama backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He destroyed Iraq and he destroyed Syria when he bugged out of Iraq and thus created ISIS. And that is so true that Obama and the Democrats are trying to blame Bush for ISIS, yeah, Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and all these other violations of dignity that our torture program involved, gave us ISIS. No. Obama gave us ISIS. The Democrat Party and their foreign policy gave us ISIS.
He’s done nothing to slow the aggressive behavior of the ChiComs or the Russians. He traded five high-value terrorists, gave away five high-value terrorists for a traitor and deserter, Bowe Bergdahl. You talk about the Cuban deal, he has legitimized the Castros. Think of that. The Castros, Raul and Fidel now have been essentially validated and legitimized. The only person on the world stage that Barack Obama has successfully undermined — let’s look at it that way. Name for me one enemy of the United States that has been undermined.
Name an enemy of the United States in foreign policy that Obama has dealt with effectively. You can’t. And yet there is an answer to the question. There is someone on the world stage Obama has undermined. Who is it? It’s Benjamin Netanyahu and our ally, Israel. Obama has undermined Israel. Obama has undermined Netanyahu. The prime minister of America’s great ally in the Middle East.
Now, we’re supposed to trust that Barack Obama has now tamed Iran and the Ayatollah Khamenei and his buddy of mullahs with this piece of paper granting them the right in a certain number of years to develop a nuclear weapon is going to be make them nice guys and it’s gonna show them we don’t intend them any ill or harm. (interruption) What’s what? (interruption) Well, I know, his response (imitating Obama), “Well, what’s the alternative, what would you do? I mean, what would you do with Iran? Would you go to war? Would you put boots on the ground?”
No, if you’re gonna enter into negotiations with them, and if what they desperately want is a nuclear weapon, then they’re gonna have to pay for that an incredible price, and one of the incredible prices they’re gonna have to pay is ongoing, never ending monitoring. If they claim they don’t want a nuclear weapon, we’re gonna be on site 24/7 to prove to ourselves that all they’re doing is developing nuclear power. If that’s what they really want, they’re gonna let us watch every step of the way. And if they don’t let us watch every step of the way, then we do not help them move forward. It’s that simple. We keep the sanctions on and maybe even clamp them down. That’s my alternative.
The Democrats when they say, “Well, what’s your alternative?” They always think, “What are you gonna do, just gonna turn loose the Israelis to bomb Iran? Are we gonna bomb?” No, no. We don’t have to do that. They really want this. The Iranians really want it. Why do they want a nuclear weapon? Who threatens them? Who do they threaten? Why in the world do they want one? Doesn’t matter, they do. They really want one. Well, then exact a huge price for it.
But that’s not what we have done here in any stretch of the imagination. We’re supposed to trust instead that Obama has tamed Iran with this deal. And John Kerry has told us, oh yeah, the Iranians, the purpose of this deal was to show what a trustworthy partner they are. But all I’m asking is for some evidence that Obama can deliver on any promise he makes in the area of foreign policy, and what evidence exists that Obama’s even playing this straight. Based on past performance, if Obama says Iran will not get the bomb, they will. You can take that bet to Las Vegas right now, if they would even give you odds.
Now, furthermore, if Obama and John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, if Obama and John Kerry are right about the peaceful nature of Iran, then why would rejecting the deal automatically mean war? Did you hear what Obama said about this? Obama has, and Kerry, too, they’ve made it clear that if we don’t do this, that the Iranians are gonna get so mad that who knows what they might do.
What do you mean? We’re told on the other side of their mouth that Iran is peaceful, that Iran is well-intentioned, that Iran just wants to join the community of nations, that Iran just wants to be in the big clique, that Iran just wants to be respected. Well, then, why would they be a clear and present danger to the world, should this deal be voted down? Have you heard the intensity with which Obama’s threatening Congress? Why?
I mean, if Iran is harmless, and if Iran is just well-intentioned and all that, and we can do a deal here to illustrate the good nature of the Iranian government, why threaten people with what Iran might do if this doesn’t happen? I mean, how do the two go together? How could Iran be this wonderfully peaceful — and, by the way, that is a new one on me. That is a great insult to everybody’s intelligence anyway. Everything’s upside down.
But still, the question remains: If they are this wonderful set of characteristics Obama and Kerry tell us about, then why are they gonna go bat nuts if they don’t get their deal? The two just don’t go together. And, by the way, as you’ll hear in the sound bites coming up here in a moment: If Iran would not sign this deal if we had included that they release American hostages, well, how can you trust these people? If that’s a deal-breaker?
They’re holding four Americans! Obama says, “No, no, no! We can’t insist on that, because if we insist on that it means they’re gonna demand other concessions.” What other concessions are we making? Why are we making concessions? But the point is, if we do not have the guts to require them to release four Americans as part of this deal, how can you trust them? Furthermore, we’re gonna give ’em $150 billion! We are going to release sanctions.
And do you know what else?
Obama admitted yesterday that a lot of this money is gonna end up with Hezbollah! Obama admitted it in this press conference where the left is having orgasms. “I’ve never seen a smarter president! Oh, my God, I’ve never seen a more confident president! Oh, my God, I’ve never seen a president so confident! Oh, my God! Oh, my God! It’s the best president we’ve ever had! Oh, my God, he’s the smartest president!” Why, then, are we giving them $140 billion and why is he admitting that he knows they’re gonna use this money to expand their terror networks?
Not to mention the leftovers will be spent widening and deepening their path to nuclear weapons. So Iran’s dangerous. They told us that: Iran’s dangerous. These things don’t go together, folks. On the one hand Obama tells us that Iran’s dangerous and he knows they’re gonna take some of this money they get from the sanctions being lifted and sue it to fund their terrorist networks. And on the same hand, he told ’em, “We can’t demand the release of those four Americans ’cause then they would demand other concessions, and we can’t provoke them in that way.”
On the other hand, they’re this peaceful, well-intentioned nation, and the purpose of the deal is to illustrate to the world the peaceful nature of the Iranian regime? How do any of these two things go together? When you have a sycophant media that’s slobbering all over itself… The bottom line, I think, is they know how weak the guy is. I think they know how basically incompetent the guy is, and any opportunity, when he sounds professorial and authoritative and intelligent, they go overboard emphasizing it.
To cover for the fact that they know the guy is somewhat inconsistent, intellectually weak, inexperienced, incompetent, and boobish. I mean, the world has gotten angrier with his presidency and his arrival. It has gotten more dangerous. It has become more deadly. And you know it’s insane when a reporter asks a question about American hostages and why they weren’t released in “a landmark deal,” and the reporter is seen as the primary threat, not the Iranians! Major Garrett is a primary threat to Obama. Major Garrett’s a primary threat to whatever.
Major Garrett’s the problem! A reporter for CBS News is the problem, not Iranians. They’re holding the four hostages, but Major Garrett’s the problem. He had the audacity to bring that up. The audacity! Here everybody’s basking in the glow of this wonderful, great deal. “Oh, my God, no president could have ever, ever done this kind of deal,” and Major Garrett stands and says what about the four hostages: Why the hell didn’t you get them released?
Well, there went the glow of the day.
That just blew up this entire manufactured good vibe of a press conference, and so Major Garrett had to be taken out.