All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 24, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
October 24, 2011, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 Podcast.
There were so many times, so many times over the course of the recent past, where I, El Rushball, openly asked questions, raised questions, just who are these Libyan rebels?
Who are they?
Everybody, not everybody, but a lot of people in America to be the regime signed, even some on our side.
Hey, it's wonderful.
It's like the Arab Spring.
It's more democracy.
It is it is it is flowering and so and it's not.
It is Sharia law.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you here.
Broadcast excellence for another full week here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There is so much audio where I warn everybody we don't know who these Libyan rebels are, slash were.
And at the beginning, just like in Egypt, Obama ran to the front of this mob like he did with the Egyptian mob.
And these liberals are cheering Obama and his mob cheering and his leading.
But most of America, thanks to 9-11, knows all too well what radical Islam is.
It's hostile to women, gays, Christians, and Jews, it's hostile as and dangerously hostile, as in human rights violations, ninth century, seventh century barbarism, and that's what we're dealing with now.
The Libyan official, the Libyan official embrace of radical Sharia law happens as Obama announces the U.S. is leaving Iraq with the speed of feverish intent.
By the way, this is George W. Bush timeline, by the way, to pull out at the end of uh of 2011.
So Iran is happy.
Iran Mahmud Ahmed and Izah dancing in the streets.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
I just want to remind you, this is March 17th on this program.
The situation in Libya.
Who are the rebels?
We naturally we see Qaddafi, we see bad guy.
See rebels, we see good guys.
Anybody wants to get rid of Kadapi's gonna be a good guy.
Well, in the context here of U.S. foreign policy, the Mid East on fire, what is it going to become?
The next day on this program.
We can topple the regime in Libya if we want to, but what would follow Qaddafi?
If it's the Muslim Brotherhood, then make no mistake, we are advancing Sharia law.
We are helping the advance of Sharia law.
We are empowering Iran.
We are handing an oil-rich country over to a theologically driven crime syndicate.
If if if all these other circumstances exist.
March 18th this year, I El Rushbo.
Predicting.
We don't know who these people are.
The odds are that they're not who we're being told they are.
Now this is not the outbreak of cue of the violins democracy.
That we were headed for Sharia law in Libya.
We're headed that way in Egypt as well.
March 22 of this year.
The rebels, quote unquote, in Libya may in fact be Al Qaeda.
And that the and there's two sets of them.
The others are Shiites that are that are uh sponsored by Iran.
So we don't we don't really know who these uprisings are being sponsored for for what purpose.
But we were doubtful here that this was anything good.
We were skeptical here that there was anything good going on here.
And now we're being told today that this is wonderful and marvelous, that once again Barry Obama has taken out another bad guy, and the world is safer, and the world will love America.
And a world is now uh more openly democratic and blah blah blah.
Here is March 23rd on this show.
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 jihadis to have Sharia throughout the Middle East.
Now we learn, as I've pointed out, the good possibility that the rebels are Al-Qaeda, either Al-Qaeda sponsored, paid for whatever.
Okay, so it's now Sharia law.
I was able to predict this.
I was able to predict it using intelligence guided by experience.
Why was our news media?
Why were our journalists and our professional diplomats and our intelligence agencies unable to predict this?
You think really?
Really?
Everybody wants a happy ending?
So you just tell yourself that this is going to end happily, and that's what's going to happen.
It's just like when Steve Jobs was first diagnosed with cancer, he said, you know what?
I'm just going to tell myself I don't have cancer.
And that's going to fix it.
Something magical is going to happen.
I'm just not, I'm just not going to accept this.
You're telling me that that's how our foreign policy and diplomatic corps dealt with this.
They want a happy ending.
So they were going to get happy ending vibes?
Thank you.
Well, yeah, denial and so forth, but regardless, we were able to predict it.
These people missed it in Egypt.
Our diplomats, our media, even some in our conservative media, missed it in Egypt, missed it in Libya.
Qaddafi had to go.
Why did Qaddafi have to go?
Qaddafi had to go just to show that we could get rid of him.
Pure and simple, Qadhafi had to go because Obama needed to show people he could get rid of somebody when he wanted to get rid of them.
We're mounting up a lot of these.
Bin Laden.
Mubarak.
Now Gaddafi.
None of this...
I know the mass graves are now being discovered.
We were we I think we mentioned that on Friday.
The mass graves were being discovered.
And the rebels are believed responsible for this.
Now none of this should have been news to anybody except perhaps the news media.
We've been predicting this.
That's why I went back and got the audio from the archives of the program.
We've been predicting this since March of 2011.
The rebels, by the way, they've been just like Mahmoud Ahmadine Zad has been very open about what his intentions are regarding Israel and the entire Middle East.
The rebels have been openly promising to implement Sharia law all along.
That's what the Muslim Brotherhood's been all about in Egypt.
In the news media, the Democrat Party have just chosen to ignore those details until their victory was assured.
But you notice now how the Washington Post rewrote, there's a story here.
I have it here, my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
The Washington Post rewrote this article to tone it down.
The article says that Qaddafi's government tolerated little dissent and often repressed Islamists.
But Libya's Islamist groups appear to have emerged as the best organized among post-revolution political groups.
Libya declares liberation with Islamic tone.
the headline here.
Libya's top leader declared the country officially liberated Sunday from the four-decade rule of Muammar Gaddafi pledging to replace his dictatorship with a more democratic but also a more strictly Islamic system.
Sharia law is what is being...
That's what this guy means.
Was in a speech to a cheering, a flag-waving crowd, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the International Brotherhood of Electrical.
Oh, sorry, um, head of the transitional National Council, promised to ban interest on housing loans and scrap other laws that didn't conform to Islamic jurisprudence.
But my friends, it's worse even that.
The UK telegraph.
Libya's liberation interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law.
And this again is another story on Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the chairman of the Teamsters of the National Transitional Council, and the de facto president had already declared that Libya in the future would have Sharia as its basic source.
So I think our side did know it.
If I could predict it, they could predict it.
They weren't hoping and praying for a happy ending.
I'm talking about from Obama on down.
They know what was going on there, but they know what was going on in Egypt.
Saying that they're hoping for a wonderful democratic outcome is the same thing as them trying to tell us their stimulus plan was going to create private sector jobs.
They knew neither was true.
I even, when I checked that the uh the NAGS website, the National Association of Gals.
And I don't see any condemnation of the new Libyan leaders' vow to put Libya under Sharia law.
That includes the reinstatement of polygamy.
Men will now be allowed multiple wives in Libya.
Up to four.
As an Islamic country, we adopted Sharia as the principal law, said Mustafa Abdul Jalil, head of the national international teachers, I'm sorry, uh the National Transition Council.
Any law that violates Sharia is null and void legally.
He then told thousands in Benghazi, the birthplace of the uprising at end of last week with Qaddafi's death, that all men will again be free to take up to four brides without restriction.
And of course, as I mentioned earlier, in accordance with Islamic law, bank interest will be capped at 3.5%.
So each guy can have four wives.
No condemnation from the nags.
So here we have the Arab Spring of Democracy bringing back polygamy.
Isn't Yeah, well, uh so we hear here's it basically this is it.
We have the new leaders of Libya promising to institute Sharia law and to do away with any laws that aren't based in Sharia, and we predicted it, warned you, that's what the audio sound bites were all about.
Libya is going the same way as Tunisia.
It's going the same way as Egypt.
The most organized forces are taking power.
And somehow they always turn out to be the so-called moderate Islamist parties.
They're still being described as the moderate Islamist parties in the U.S. media.
Gotta take a quick timeout, my friend.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and roll right on right after this.
Don't go away.
You know, since we're talking about uh foreign policy, I think I'm gonna stick with foreign policy before we um get to the latest plan Obama has to once again deal with the housing problem, this time outside Congress.
Finding ways to deal with the housing, to spend money without going through Congress.
The uh morning bell today at the Heritage Foundation, which is one of their morning blogs, describes Obama's Iraq failure, pulling out of there at the end of this year with no vestige, with no reminders that we were there.
And to hear Obama describe the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, you would think to hear the media talk about it, that it was a long-anticipated political victory, the fruition of a promise he made when campaigning for the White House, but his announcement last week that we're gonna return, troops will return by the end of the year is a result of a serious Obama regime failure that will undermine U.S. security interests in the Middle East.
He was in the uh uh West Wing on Friday.
Obama wasted no time reminding the American people, quote, as candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.
And he was making good on that promise in time for the holidays.
What the president didn't mention, though, was the story behind the headline.
That is that the regime tried and failed to negotiate with the Iraqi government to extend U.S. troop presence there in order to ensure the country's security and stability.
In other words, what you haven't heard is that Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year.
The end of the year 2011 deadline is from the Bush administration.
This is also something that was not mentioned last week.
On Friday, Obama gets all these rave reviews.
It's a campaign season, of course.
His base has frayed.
The independents want no part of him.
So it's time to revive this old promise that he's going to get everybody out of Iraq.
Yeah, by the Bush timeline.
But according to the Heritage Foundation Morning Bell, Obama was in negotiations with the Iraqis up until last week to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2011.
The sticking point for the negotiations was immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq.
James Phillips at Heritage explained it this way.
Up until Friday, the Obama administration had insisted that negotiations were on track for extending the presence of a small residual force that U.S. and Iraqi military leaders agreed were necessary to support Iraqi operations in key areas such as counterterrorism, air support, intelligence gathering, logistics, and training, so forth.
But Friday, in a hard-hitting article posted on the cable blog, Josh Rogan reported that the regime had bungled the negotiations.
The negotiation stalled because Iraqi political leaders did not want to risk the political consequences of extending immunity for U.S. troops.
Oops.
Which of course is a must.
Without immunity, there's no way we're going to keep them there.
Given the Obama regime's eagerness to withdraw from Iraq and its unwillingness to confront Iran at all, they didn't want to put their political necks on the line.
And so now, as a result, U.S. security interests will suffer.
Bilateral U.S. Iraqi cooperation fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and radical pro-Iranian Shia militias will be limited, and the ability to contain Iran will be weakened.
Even Senator McCain criticized the regime someday, calling the withdrawal decisions a serious mistake and fall to the White House for its failure to negotiate with the Iraqi government.
There never really was serious negotiations between the administration and the Iraqis, McCain said.
He said, I believe we could have negotiated an agreement, and I'm very, very concerned about concerned Iranian influence in Iraq.
Another guy at Heritage, James Carafano is a good guy.
I've met James Karafan.
I've never played golf with him.
But I've met James Carafano, and he explains that the White House decision.
When was it the 24 forum?
We had a forum at the Heritage Foundation on 24, the TV show on terrorism.
And Maureen Dowd showed up at the thing.
I mean, the media showed up to criticize a waste of Heritage Foundation time.
To do a show on the reason that the 24 guys did it is because the what was it, New Yorker had just done a long expose on how the TV show 24 was responsible for for torture.
That American interrogators were getting ideas from the writers of the TV show 24, so we decided to do a seminar.
I, of course, hosted the seminar.
Carafano from Heritage was on the panel.
So I know Karafano's a good guy.
And he said that with Syria in turmoil, Iran on the march, a more isolated Israel, and Turkey's ever more ambivalent policies.
Now is the worst time to see a diminished U.S. influence in ensuring continued progress in Iraq.
Total troop pull out will leave Iraq security forces much more vulnerable to terrorism.
Sectarian conflict and Iranian meddling, and it'll leave them much less capable of battling Al Qaeda In Iraq and pro-Iranian Shia militias.
Now, we gotta say, nobody wants to see U.S. troops stationed the Middle East in harm's way longer than they have to be, but sadly, premature withdrawal from Iraq could jeopardize the progress that's already been made.
Forty, five hundred American soldiers have died in Iraq to establish it as an outpost of democracy, something that, you know, a nation that stands apart from the rest of the Middle East.
And we're just going to pull out unilaterally.
Didn't even seriously negotiate with Iraq to maintain even a minimal troop presence beyond the end of 2011.
Foreign policy blunders just continue to pile up everywhere around the world, thanks to this administration.
No, seriously, the plan was to keep at least 3,000, maybe 4,000 troops in Iraq beyond the end of this year.
There's a uh uh let's see, was I guess it's a New York Times story back in September.
Defense Secretary Leon Panet is supporting a plan that would keep 3,000 to 4,000 American troops in Iraq after a deadline for their withdrawal at the year uh at the year's end, but only to continue training security forces there.
And that's not even going to happen.
The uh the Pentagon, American, senior American commanders in Iraq, Lloyd Austin III wanted to keep as many as 14 to 18,000 troops in Iraq after the pull out.
We've been saying I think since uh at least February 2009 that the well, since, yeah, there's no way that the Democrats are going to totally pull out of there and secure defeat for themselves.
They do not want to have to shoulder the blame when Iraq goes down the tubes.
As it probably will now without any U.S. presence there.
So that this is this is a huge failure.
And it's a failure in the negotiations with the Iraqi government to keep even a small force there.
Now, Iraq is not going to fall immediately, but it may not take long without us there.
And this does kind of surprise me.
I was of the opinion that the uh the Democrats would love to secure defeat there, but only with a Republican in the White House.
And who knows, that may yet well happen.
If a Republican's elected in 2012, inaugurated in 2013, and uh Iraq goes down the tubes shortly thereafter, it may well be that a sitting Republican president, if he does nothing to change Obama's plans here, could theoretically get blamed for, at least we know that the media in the White House, well, the the uh regime would try.
Still it's uh it's a triumph, folks.
This is this is a this if you had any doubt, you had any questions that Obama is in trouble with his base.
This is it.
He's willing to sacrifice saddling his own party with the notion of defeat in Iraq in order to secure his base because his base wants that.
His base would love for the U.S. to be defeated in Iraq.
The base of the Democrat Party is a fringe bunch of lunatics.
And one of the things they've been they've been outraged at Obama for not closing Club Gitmo, where we still have, by the way, thriving licensed merchandise business there.
Club Gitmo gear is available at Rush Limbaugh.com.
You can see it.
Club Gitmo not closed, not out of Iraq.
Base ticked as they can be.
Now all of a sudden, we're gonna get out of Iraq.
At the end of the year, this is a campaign move, pure and simple, that run the risks, runs the risk of saddling the Democrat Party with the ultimate loss of Iraq.
Because we're not gonna have any troops there.
And I guarantee you this on a scale, seesaw, whatever, they have balanced it out, and Obama says, I have to get my if I have any chance of being re-elected, I got to get the base back in love with me.
And that means pulling out of Iraq regardless what happens.
Now don't frown at me, Snerdley.
I know you think it's over the top to say, but it's not at all.
Obama's base.
The Michael Moore crowd would love it if we got shellacted.
They would love it.
If we end up quote unquote losing in Iraq, it'd be a repudiation of Bush.
They could say, see, we never should have gone there in the first place.
It didn't make any difference.
Damn straight, even after 4,500 American soldiers did.
Damn straight.
We're not dealing with a rational bunch of people on the left.
We're dealing with people who have an abject hatred for this country.
Who believe this country needs to be taken down a peg or two or three?
Who believe we shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place, and we need to pay a price for going in there.
And what would that be?
Worldwide humiliation.
And Obama would benefit from it, from the base.
It's not going to help him in the general.
Don't misunderstand.
It's not going to help him get reelected, but it will help him.
I'm In the base.
Yesterday on this week with the Christian Amman Poor.
George Will, this was during the roundtable discussion.
Grab audio soundbite number 15.
George Will discussing Mitt Romney.
It has a lot to do with Romney.
He is rising as more and more Republicans come to the conclusion that the Republican Party has found its Michael Dukakis.
A technocratic Massachusetts governor running on competence, not ideology.
Did you hear that?
George Will characterizing Mitt Romney as the Republican Party's Michael Dukakis.
Michael Dukakis, a Democrat loser running for office in 1988.
One of the most famous things that Dukakis did, because he had to prove that he wasn't a wimp when it came to military foreign policy defense issues.
So he shows up at a tank and puts a helmet on, looked exactly like Beatle Bailey.
I mean, looked hilarious.
If he had wanted to caricature himself, he couldn't have done it any better.
He became a standing joke.
And so George Will now says, well, Romney's rising as more and more Republicans come to the conclusion that the Republican Party's found it's Michael Dukakis, a technocrat, Massachusetts governor running on competence, not ideology.
Now I have just a small disagreement with George F. Will.
Michael Dukakis was ideological as any left-wing Democrat is.
He was the governor of Massachusetts.
Yeah, he was technocratic.
He was a statist.
I'll never forget Dukakis.
They were talking to him about why he wanted to be president.
And he said, you know how you'll say you love chocolate chip cookies.
You love whatever.
He was talking in those terms about how he loves policy.
I love public policy.
I love it.
I love rolling up my sleeves.
I love process.
I love public policy.
And he did.
He was a technocratic statist.
To say that he was non-ideological is a little curious.
But regardless, the retina comparis comparing Romney to Dukakis and saying the Democrat Party loved Dukakis, by the way.
And do you remember who ran Dukakis' campaign, Snerdley?
You remember who it was that ran Dukakis' campaign?
Susan Estrich ran Dukakis' campaign.
Exactly right.
They thought they had this in the bat.
They were up at 22 points, 22 points at one point.
They were way, way.
I mean, I think as recently, as close to the election as August of 1988 when this show debutted.
When we debuted this program, he was up around on August 1st nationally.
He was up 22 points.
And there we do.
We made it in the laughing stock of the nation.
We got some Pat Matheny music out there and said that this was the music that was being played at uh Dukakis rallies.
Because he had to go back to Massachusetts and he had to had losing ground.
22 up, I think it was that high, and he started falling off rapidly.
Did the tank business, the Willie Hortons ads uh all came back to uh to haunt him.
But he was to I'll tell you what, this is a profound insult to uh to equate Romney with Dukakis and to say that the Republican Party is happy with Romney just as Democrats were with Dukakis.
Whoa.
Now that may be true.
You know, the Republican establishment may in fact be looking at some.
We know that the Republican establishment, and we know that some of the so-called conservatives in the inside the beltway conservative media do believe in a big government and an active executive, as they refer to the president,
an active uh uh uh uh uh executive, and they also believe that we Republicans and conservatives must support big government because the people, the voters are signaling that's what they want.
We just must do it smarter.
And so they're looking at Romney as the steward.
This is Will's point.
This guy's a technocrat, this guy's a policy wonk, this guy can do it.
And when George uh George F. Will says that Romney's not ideological just like Dukakis wasn't, was he's essentially saying here is that Romney's not the conservative.
He's a technocrat.
A policy god, which he is.
But Dukakis, as I say, was uh an active statist.
When you think about uh think about a technocrat is a statist because his selling point is that he can make the big government apparatus run more efficiently, which is what the David Brookses and his buddies on our side in the conservative media claim to support.
And that's the new definition of a Republican moderate.
Somebody qualified, a technocrat, a statist, a policy wonk can make big government apparatus run more efficient.
But we don't want a technocrat.
We want somebody who's gonna take an axe to this monster.
We want somebody that's gonna go grab a chainsaw and start whittling this government down to size.
We don't want somebody who's adept at managing it.
But George F. Will is convinced the Republican Party does.
So there you have it.
Quick time out.
I wonder how Romney is going to react here to being compared by George Will to Dukakis.
you Okay, here's what happened.
Dukakis was plummeting in the polls.
He had a 28-point lead in 1988, and uh against George H.W. Bush.
This program debuted on August 1st, and it was not long after that that poll of 22 points the lead uh showed up.
Then for some reason, Dukakis's lead began to dwindle.
Some say it happened to be at the same time this program debuted.
Regardless, it precipitously dropped.
It dropped rapidly, creating a panic.
Dukakis returned to Boston from the campaign trail to rally the troops to have a big fundraising event.
And our cameras and microphones were there.
And we caught the band.
Every candidate has a rally and has a band at the rally.
And we caught the rally band tuning up and getting ready for the big appearance.
This sort of typified where the campaign was.
We're tuning up here.
I mean, the crowd's milling in here.
The stage curtains are down.
The band tuning up, getting ready for Dukakis to show up.
Dukakis to show up.
Okay, then Estrich and some others came out.
Preliminary remarks, welcoming everybody to the big event.
And then that uh built up and built up to the eventual reason everybody was there, the giant announcement of Dukakis.
And that this is what this is the music that was played when the when Dukakis was announced.
Here he is, the next president of the United States, the governor of Massachusetts, the big technocrat state.
This is the guy who loves policy, Michael Dukakis.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Great anticipation.
It's a carcass on stage now.
is at the front of the stage and he's shaking hands with people before he gets ready to make his remarks and the lull and the music.
Now he's on his way back to the podium.
That was it.
That was it, Michael Dukakis, the big rally didn't work, as we all know, but that's anyway.
That's uh a long roundabout way of saying that's who Mitt Romney reminds George Will of.
That's well, that's when when you when you said socialism to music, that's what you get.
Uh, anyway, we had a lot of fun with that, and all during that uh during that campaign.
As I mentioned, with his jobs plan stymied in Congress by Republican opposition.
This is the New York Times.
The truth is Jobs Plan stymied in Congress by his inability to get Democrats to vote in majority for it.
President Obama today will begin a series of executive branch actions to confront housing education and other economic problems over the coming months, heralded by a new mantra.
We can't wait for lawmakers to act.
We can't wait, according to a regime official.
Obama will kick off a new offensive in Las Vegas, where he told everybody not to go in 2009.
Las Vegas ground zero, the housing bust.
He's gonna promote new rules for federally guaranteed mortgages so that homeowners, those with little or no equity in their homes can refinance and avert foreclosure.
How many times now has this been tried?
This is the no, it's not that many, but it's got to be at least the third or fourth mortgage Assistance program.
And none of them have worked.
But we're doing it again in Vegas, where the president said, don't go.
We will get your phone calls into the mix, as always, early on in the next hour.
Sit tight and be patient as the Rush Limbaugh program rolls on.
First hour in the can, and soon to be at the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, which you can now see virtually at Rush Limbaugh.com.
▲
Export Selection