All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 27, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
August 27, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
No, I've just I've had about 15 things to do here in the last 20 minutes, and none of them have had anything to do with a radio show.
So, you know, it could go either way here.
I figure like I'm flying blind here.
I got everything coming in here at me in the last 15 minutes.
It's like nobody's alive.
It's at 1145 every day.
Anyway, I'm not complaining.
I'm just yes I am.
I was gonna say BI itching.
I don't know how many times I've told people, but it doesn't matter.
Anyway, doesn't matter to you.
It's uh it's just what it is.
We're great to be here, folks.
Glad to be here, happy to have you along.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-288-2, the email address El Rushbo at EIB net.com.
So rush, rush, rush, what are we gonna do about Syria?
Folks, you're missing the point if you think this is about Syria.
This is not about Syria.
The issue is what do we do about Obama's red line gaffe.
Obama said that if the Syrians did X, it would be crossing a red line.
Well, they've done X. According to John Kerry, Lurch, they've done X. And so now the real issue, as far as Washington, and be Washington for uh Newt, uh and and everybody else uh in the media, the Democrat Party is how do we deal and what do we do about Obama's red line gaffe.
Now don't misunderstand.
I mean, as serious as a chemical attack, if it's real, might be the real focus is on how do we cover for what Obama said.
I mean, that's it's all about Obama.
I told you yesterday.
Tomorrow we've got the uh the 50th anniversary of the Martin Luther King march on Washington.
And a bunch of people, what do you think Obama's gonna say?
I said he's not down for the struggle.
I said, I told you yesterday, but a bunch of Democrats have been telling me privately a lot of things.
I shared a lot of it with you yesterday.
I've had some um some Democrat African American leaders tell me they're really not all that comfortable with Obama as the lead at the MLK festivities because he's not down for the struggle.
He does not have that in his in his roots.
And they think he's gonna do what he always does, and that's turn the occasion into something about him.
And uh and his presidency.
And I agree.
And lo and behold, here we have the Los Angeles Times today.
King Anniversary put spotlight on Obama.
That's the headliner right here it is.
You don't even need to read the newspapers anymore, folks, because I will tell you what's going to be in them the day before they are published.
It's by um Christy Parsons and Kathleen Hennesley.
King Anniversary puts spotlight on Obama, and the subhead is and civil rights.
Right there it is.
And then it in the second page of the story, it says he will be joined by Clinton, Carter.
Uh no, it doesn't say this.
It doesn't point out that no, he doesn't, he d he doesn't say it doesn't say that that that uh Clinton and Carter and the Oprah are gonna speak.
Uh and here's the here's the political Obama race and class.
That's their headline the day before Obama headlines, the Martin Luther King 50th anniversary shindig at the Lincoln Memorial.
And uh they say in in their story, Obama's speech is to refocus the conversation on the budget battle for 2012.
What did I I mean it's credible?
The 50th anniversary of I hope my kids are not judged by the color of their skin, but rather by the content of their character.
Obama the headliner is gonna turn the event into a conversation on the budget battle.
A la 2012.
Uh he's also, according to the politico, going to tell the assembled teeming throng that he's got their back, and he's going to attack the wealthy.
Okay, now wait a minute.
And the politico then says that economics is a safe way to talk about race.
So the president's got clear sailing.
He can use the Martin Luther King 50th anniversary event to refocus the conversation on the budget battle that's coming up at the end of September.
He's going to tell the crowd that he uh he's got their back and he's going to attack the wealthy, and then they say at the political that economics, that's a safe way to talk race.
Meaning you can engage in racism if you do it in the context of class envy and class warfare.
Economic justice, social justice.
He's going to attack the wealthy.
Well, he better attack the attendees, because I have a list of people.
The Oprah, multi millionaire black woman, billionaire, we should say.
Jamie Fox, millionaire, black male actor.
Forrest Whitaker.
I'd have to assume this guy's made a million.
Yeah, Forrest Whitaker.
Soledad O'Brien.
Uh Hill Harper.
Uh let's see.
Bill Clinton, millionaire, he tells us every week.
Jimmy Carter, millionaire.
Uh John Lewis, still poor, only makes 174 grand.
John, I don't think I we don't know.
Uh John Lewis's job has been representing Georgia.
I think it's safe to say John Lewis, not a millionaire.
Um Leanne Rhymes, B.B. Wynans.
I mean, it looks to me like that everybody gonna be up there is a millionaire.
An African American millionaire.
And that crowd is going to claim that they have everything in common with the audience that will be there.
I mean, what a what a what a this is why I have been told privately that people are not happy with what this thing is going to be tomorrow.
In the on the Democrat side and the African American side.
Really, you know, Martin Luther King, for those of you that weren't around 50 years ago, I mean, you talk about somebody that was um that was transformational to take the 50th anniversary of that event and and to convert it, hijack it into something to advance your political agenda.
That's as bad as wedding crashing.
Funeral crashing that the Clintons are famous for.
This is really unseemly, if you ask me.
I mean, this is close to these guys doing their Miley Cyrus impersonation.
It's it's not, this is not cool.
King anniversary puts a spotlight on Obama.
Economics is a safe way to talk about race, meaning economics grants one permission via class warfare and class envy to spout racism, which is what we're gonna hear.
So there's that.
I had a friend of mine sent me some excerpts, Martin Luther King's speech 50 years ago, and uh there there are there are four of them there.
He says, you know, Rush.
When I read what King said, I am reminded more of things you say than things Obama says.
Which I I took as a um as a great compliment.
So we'll get into that in some detail as the uh as the program unfolds today.
The clown, the Missouri State Fair has spoken, and right here on CNN, they've even got a report on it in which they say that I have spoken about it, but the president hasn't.
I have spoken about the episode involving the clown at the Missouri State Fair, but the president hasn't.
Rush Limbaugh has.
Rush Limbaugh's commented and they play a little soundbite, and then but the president hasn't.
I mean, it's just it's it's it's like he has to keep up with me.
And it's unclowns out of jail, but he's banned from being a clown forever.
He's banned from the Missouri State Fair forever.
It's over.
He can't be a clown at all.
Now, this Syria business.
If you listen to John Kerry, is it is it true?
We're going to war over the claim that there are weapons of mass destruction in Syria, but that's what chemical weapons are.
Haven't we already seen this movie?
Haven't we all the very people now thinking of taking us into war in Syria, aren't they the ones who steadfastly opposed this in Iraq?
And then aren't these the same people that threw a party practically when there were no WMDs found?
Now Obama's Secretary of State, John Kerry claims there is undeniable evidence that the Syrian government has issued chemical or use chemical weapons on its civilians.
Undeniable.
Now, is is that as undeniable as they say global warming evidence is?
How about is it as undeniable as the threat to all of our embassies a couple of weeks ago?
Speaking of that, you remember when we shut down 21, 23 embassies on a Sunday?
Al Qaeda has piped up and said we didn't do it.
Now that's never done.
Normally, Al Qaeda would be out claiming credit for having the power to make us shut down 23 embassies.
Al Qaeda is saying we didn't do anything here, which is so out of character.
You almost have to believe them.
I mean, this is really tough.
On the one hand, the regime says that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on uh oil installations in Yemen.
And for that reason, we had to close 20, I think it was 23, maybe 21 embassies on a Sunday, and then for the following week.
And now Al Qaeda, which could just let that sit there and claim credit and let everybody assume they've got that kind of power over the United States.
They have popped up and said they didn't do it.
And that's why you almost have to believe them.
Because the normal thing for them to do would be to sit back and say nothing and let the assumption be that we are that afraid of them.
But now they're throwing a little monkey wrench here in the works by saying they didn't do it.
They had nothing to do with it, they weren't involved.
And our regime has told us the whole reason we shut down those embassies was Al Qaeda.
So it's kind of a balancing act.
Like who do we believe now?
Al-Qaeda or the regime?
I mean, folks, that's that is a that is a toughie.
And then we're supposed to believe a little timeline histoire here.
We're supposed to believe that Basher Al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.
Now, fine and dandy, but didn't Nancy Pelosi and her Botox travel to Syria in 2007 in spite of objections from the Bush administration and assure us that the road to Damascus is the road to peace.
She did do that.
I mean, all of these leftists, all these Democrats have told us what a great reformer Basher Al-Assad is.
The smartest woman in the world, Hillary Clinton assured us just two years ago that Bashur al-Assad is a reformer.
And the current Secretary of State, the haughty John Kerry, who, by the way, once served in Vietnam.
He referred to Basher al-Assad as in the past, anyway, it's his dear friend.
So Pelosi, Hillary, Kerry have all sung Bashur al Assad's praises within the past two years.
Reformer, great guy, road to the peace goes through Damascus.
So why should we think now that such a fine guy is lying?
Well, are you relying on the UN weapons inspectors after all?
I know they do.
That's another comical aspect of this.
Well, we don't really know, Rush, because the UN weapons inspectors haven't been allowed in, and when they are allowed in, they probably won't be allowed out.
Well, I know it is a dilemma because leftists admire dictators.
They do, folks.
I mean, I know it sounds extreme.
It's a kind of thing that scares 24-year-old women to say that.
But take a look.
Name your favorite Hollywood actor or actress.
And they they love going to Cuba to see Castro.
They love going to Venezuela to see Hilgo Chavez.
And people always, why?
What in the world do they see?
It's power.
They have a they have a uh jealousy or a lust, admiration for the all-encompassing power.
Bashir al-Assad's a dictator.
His dad Hafez Al-Assad.
He's a guy has a really weird-shaped head.
Did you remember that?
Really?
And he sat there on those chairs, really just strange-looking guy.
But he was a dictator, therefore very, very fearsome.
And his son uh is you know, his son's got this glamour wife.
She shows up in Vanity Fair now and then, eentertainment online network.
But nevertheless, he's a dictator.
And we've in the I'm not kidding, in the last two to three years, everybody here who's claiming he has used chemical weapons has sung his praises.
What are we to believe?
Al Qaeda says they didn't do it.
The regime says they did.
We shut down 23 embassies because of the Al-Qaeda threat.
Al Qaeda says, well, not us.
Now, Basher Al-Assad might have used chemical weapons.
Our guys say he's a great guy two years ago.
It still boils down to the real problem here.
And I'm only being the slightest bit cynical.
Just the slightest bit.
The real problem is not what Bashir al-Assad's doing.
It's how are the media and the Democrats going to handle Obama's red line gaff?
Because that's what, because if we don't do anything, you know, folks, in all seriousness, you think the Iranians aren't watching this?
Here, Obama says if they do chemical weapons, if they do XY and Z, whatever, that's a red line.
They crossed that red line.
They're not going to be permitted.
Well, they've crossed it.
You think the mullahs in Iran are watching this?
You think the Muslim Brotherhood's watching this?
You know damn well they are.
This is, you know, we sit here and laugh about it.
That's a powder keg over there.
It's a powder keg, and the and the reporting on it is utterly irresponsible.
It's all about whether or not it's going to have a pro or con impact on Obama.
I got to take a break here because of the programming format clock sit tight.
Your phone calls lots of other stuff when we continue.
Don't go away.
China and Russia have joined forces and are warning us against any kind of an attack on Syria.
Now, this is rapidly, potentially rapidly escalating out of hand.
Now there's a lot of uh panic-related news coverage associated with this.
And it's it's for two reasons.
A, we may have a guy using chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, but we have the leader of the free world who drew a red line.
And as most conflict resolution experts do.
They draw the red line, and then if the enemy crosses it, they draw a new one.
Okay, all right.
You didn't believe that one.
Okay, well, here's a new line.
And if you cross that, we're gonna really be upset, and the enemy crosses that red line.
And then the conflict resolution experts thought, now you're really, really challenging us, huh?
you're really, really making this.
And they draw a third red line.
And I'm only half joking, I'm telling you, when I tell you that the jockeying is on, I mean, this is a lot on the line.
You draw a red line.
The President of the United States draws a red line and says you cross that line and ill will comes your way.
Well, his own Secretary of State says they cross the red line.
And I'm telling you, that the real focus, especially on the eve of the Martin Luther King anniversary, which is all about Obama.
They've got to figure out a way to cover up for the red line gaffe.
At least until Thursday.
Or maybe right before the Martin Luther King festivities tomorrow, at least the Obama festivities as part of the Martin Luther King 50th anniversary celebration.
Okay, sit tight, coming back with much more.
Don't go anywhere.
Now let me give you an idea what I'm talking about here with this red line and the media and Obama's allies doing everything they can to cover up for that gaff.
ABC is hilarious in their efforts here.
In the middle of their report on this, they say, but what Obama said was a little less clear.
And this is how they are trying to water it down and make it sound to everybody like Obama did not commit to anything.
So what Obama said was a little less clear, and then they quote Obama, who starts off by saying that he means to be clear.
And as he always does.
Now, let me be clear.
He said we have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.
That's a red line.
He said it.
That's the exact quote.
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to the other players on the ground.
That a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.
Now the the gray area there is translating what a whole bunch means.
And that's where they're going to play games here.
Well, we said if we saw a whole bunch, he could fire two or three chemical weapons, and Obama says that's not a whole bunch, it's a few.
So after Obama says this, let me read this to you again.
This is the Obama quote.
We've been very clear to the Assad regime.
And what that means is they got on the phone and had somebody tell him, probably Kerry, and maybe Hillary.
And granted, if you're Assad, you're quaking in your boots when you hear from either of them.
We've been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground.
A red line for us is when we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.
ABC then says it was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that red line would be.
And this is what I mean when I tell you they're trying to get Obama out of this jam.
Okay.
Because he drew the red line, he defined what it was.
He didn't say what would happen, but a red line, and you cross the red line means that's that's unacceptable, right?
At least it means it's unacceptable.
But here's ABC.
It was unclear what the consequences of crossing that red line would be.
So even when Obama says he's being very clear, he's being too nuanced for us mere mortals.
We just don't have the brain power to keep up with this man, who's so many steps on the chessboard ahead of us, was unclear what the consequences would be.
Now, how can we be sure that Obama isn't trying to get us into yet another war?
I mean, we're in two.
We're in Afghanistan, and we've got the tail end of uh of Iraq going on.
And remember, Obama needs to distract people from his falling apart domestic agenda.
Well, falling apart from our perspective, from his perspective, it's right on schedule.
But he still needs people to distracted from it.
People don't like what's happening.
They don't yet associate Obama with it.
You know that drill.
But even so, Obama doesn't want to run the risk that at some point people are going to associate what's happening with him.
So just keep people distracted.
It's exactly what he accused Bush of doing.
You know, he made a speech in 2002 when he was a state senator.
Obama didn't he accused Bush of using Iraq as a way of distracting from the horrors of the recession that Bush had provided.
Okay.
So who's to say that's not what Obama is doing now?
ABC News headline is Obama's red line, what he actually said about Syria and chemical weapons.
So the race is on to walk Obama back from that red line.
Now, ABC and the media can do all they want to try to protect Barack Obama domestically.
But you know that the Mullahs in Iran are watching this, and you know that the Prime Minister of Turkey, Obama's buddy, you know that they're watching this in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood.
You know the Saudis are watching.
You know Al Qaeda is watching this.
And they are learning and they are making assessments.
Meanwhile, the domestic media and the Democrat Party is simply trying to protect Obama domestically from a red line gaff, or gaffe that that was.
I mean, if you're gonna if you're gonna say there's a line you cross that we won't accept, and you've that you don't do anything about it when that line's crossed.
That's what they're trying to erase.
They're trying to say, well, it was never really clear.
When Obama never really said what he would do.
It uh Obama never said what the consequences would be, and what really crossing the line uh would constitute.
So they're doing everything they can.
But around the world, where real bad guys are not interested in whether or not Obama has a good day or not, are paying very close attention because they obviously think that they can get a line on how far they can go.
No matter what, nobody wants to be attacked by us.
Nobody wants to run afoul of us.
They really don't.
But if they think that they can engage in certain levels of activity with impunity, they will.
I think this is just uh another clear example of outright incompetence and irresponsibility when it comes to foreign policy and the projection of American power.
Um ABC seems to be carrying the water on this.
And uh, and they say in their in their story, President Obama's red line on Syria isn't quite as straightforward as it's made out to be.
No, of course it isn't.
Of course, and nobody knows what the red line means.
Nobody knows what crossing it means.
Nobody knows what you have to do to cross it.
Nobody knows what's going to be done if you cross it.
That's what they're trying to do.
Again, they're aiming this.
ABC aiming their coverage at the people that watch the MTV awards on Sunday night, and the people go to movies, the low information crowd.
That's Obama's base, and they're doing everything they can to protect him from this.
And get this, the use of chemical weapons itself was not exactly Obama's original red line, as he laid out during a news conference, the White House on August 20th.
Here's Obama.
We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being used.
He was very clear.
That's what the red line is.
ABC says, well, the use of chemical weapons itself, not exactly Obama's original red line as he laid out.
Yes, it was.
It most certainly was his original red line.
And here comes ABC, dutifully protecting him, rewriting it, saying it.
What he said was unclear, and he really wasn't talking about chemical weapons so much.
It's just it's shocking.
Well, no, it's not shocking.
Nothing shocking with the media is concerned, but it sure is heck is illustrative.
Okay, quick timeout, we must take it, but you sit tight, much more straight ahead when we get back.
By the way, folks, if we're if things work out here the way I want them to, at the top of the next hour, we're gonna have a fascinating.
I'll just call it a lesson, a fascinating lesson bouncing off the Miley Cyrus embarrassment of Sunday night at the MTV Awards.
It'll be eye-opening.
And it's somewhat explanatory.
It's about what your daughters are being taught when they go away to school.
And why what happened on that stage is not that strange or odd to a whole lot of people, depending on whether or not they've gone to college.
Women.
Anyway, before we get there, gonna stick with this Siri and the red line business.
Let's, and let me grab some by the leaven.
I want to make sure I'm not um.
Yep.
This is uh Bill Plant this morning on CBS this morning.
And here is a it's a part of his report on Obama and the pending decision to strike Syria over chemical weapons use.
There is no longer any debate inside the administration about a military response to Syria.
The only question now is when it will happen.
President Obama has ordered preparation of a legal brief supporting military action without United Nations sanction.
Ooh, so they're getting ready to light it up.
Getting ready to light it up, just exactly what Bush was reamed for by Obama himself back in 2002.
Here is our esteemed Secretary of State, John Kerry, yesterday afternoon at the State Department, just off the Chesapeake Bay in some windsurfing.
And he's speaking about Syria using chemical weapons in its civil war against the rebels, and it's just a little portion of what he said.
What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world.
It defies any code of morality.
Let me be clear.
The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children, and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity.
By any standard.
It is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.
That's right.
And we're going to go in there and we're going to deal with it because this is immoral.
It's unacceptable.
And the hell with the UN.
You know, it's a main.
When you have a Democrat in office, the UN disappears.
When you have a Democrat in office, the UN doesn't matter.
The hell with Congress, too.
You got a Democrat in office, hell with Congress, hell with the UN.
We don't have to send in Hans Blix.
Do you remember this guy?
The weapons inspector.
One of the many who went into Iraq and gave I have looked everywhere.
I have unturned every rock, every stone.
I have uh inspected every cave.
And I have concluded that there are no chemical weapons whatsoever anywhere in Iraq.
And I, Hans Bricks of the UN Blue Helmet Peacekeeper Force, hereby declared Judge Bush to be a lying piece of scum.
Besides, everyone knows the Iraqis got the chemical weapons in the Sivia long before the invasion.
But I can't say that publicly.
So that was our buddy Hans Blue.
You remember him?
And there were a couple other weapons, Inspector.
We're not going to go through any of that.
We're just going to accept John Kerry's word for it that they've used chemical weapons over there.
We got Obama's red line.
Let's go back, by the way.
This is uh this is John Kerry, September 6, 2004, Senator Kerry in Racine, Wisconsin during a presidential debate.
Uh no, not I'm sorry, not a debate.
Uh John Kerry as presidential candidate at a campaign event speaking to labor union members.
It all comes down to one letter.
W. George W. Bush.
And the W stands for wrong.
It was wrong to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.
It was wrong not to build an international coalition of our allies so that Americans aren't carrying 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs.
And there is no coalition, there is no United Nations, there is no Hans Blix.
There is no nothing.
They're just Carrie saying that whatever's going on over there is an indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, a killing of women and children, innocent bystanders, is a moral obscenity, chemical weapons of me.
Saddam Hussein did all of this.
But because George W. Bush sought to correct it.
You know what?
When Bush went into Iraq, for what I don't even know what good this is going to do to remind you, it's going to change anybody's mind.
There was a congressional resolution of force passed.
And if you remember, the Democrats opposed the first one.
This is leading into the 2002 midterms, the Wellstone Memorial.
And the Democrats, they thought they had everybody convinced that Bush was illegitimate because of the Florida recount, the aftermath Supreme Court decision, which gave the victory to Bush.
It didn't give the it just it stopped the count because it was fraudulent.
Anyway, the recount.
So when the Democrats learned, when they figured out that everybody was lining up behind Bush, they demanded a revote of the resolution of force authorization, so that they can vote yes on it.
He was one of the most shameless things.
They voted no the first time, and then they said things have changed so dramatically.
And the situation on the ground in Iraq is such that we need to re-vote on the authorization of force resolution.
And they got it.
Bush said, okay, fine, you want to vote again.
And they all voted for it.
And that's what made every ensuing attack on this Iraqi operation ring hollow to me because these guys, these Democrats had all voted for it.
Well, there is no use of force authorization here.
There is no UN.
There is no coalition.
There's no nothing that they demanded of Bush.
There's no Congress involved.
There's no UN.
They're just heading in.
That's at least that's the indication, because they alone have the moral authority.
Let's go to Scott in Chicago.
Scott, uh, I wanted to grab you here quickly.
How are you, sir?
Welcome to EIB Network.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
Uh quick question, uh, and I actually uh answered it uh part of it.
You uh had mentioned that uh we had intelligence that said that the weapons of mass destruction had gone to Syria during the uh during the Iraq war, and that's why we couldn't find any WMGs in Iraq.
Well, could it be considered being used on the Syrian people now?
Same Iraqi.
My memory is that I don't know that that was anything that was ever really established.
It wasn't, was it?
I mean, that that was just uh was speculation, and people said they had satellite photos of semi-trailer trucks driving into Syria.
But I don't think it was ever I'm uh my memory is it wasn't ever officially um confirmed.
But it's still that that's why I put the words in Hans Blix's mouth.
It's a natural uh assumption to to make Based on the earlier speculation, but I think that's really all that it was.
Now, folks, I realize that I'm probably being hopelessly narrow-minded here to even bring this up.
But what exactly is our strategic national interest in getting involved in Syria's civil war?
And it and that's what it is.
And let's ask the Secretary of State's question: what is the plan to win the peace afterwards?
Bunch of gobbledygook.
But what is our strategic national interest in getting involved in this on either side of this?
I wonder if Kerry or Obama could answer that.
Is it just that chemical weapons are being used in the red line and credibility and all?
▲
Export Selection