All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:45
August 11, 2014, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, Rushlin Boy, and the EIB network.
And meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
It is a thrill and a delight to be with you.
Telephone number if you want to join us, 800 282-2882.
And the email address, Lrushbow at EIBNED.com.
No disrespect meant to Tom in Oklahoma City who just called and predicted that he disagrees with the Washington Post.
The Washington Post has an editorial claiming that Obama's Iraq strategy is incoherent.
It's slapstick that it has no foundation.
He disagreed.
He thinks that Obama's biding time, trying to keep ISIS in check until after the midterms.
He says Obama's base and the people of Democrats need to turn out in November will not do that if there is a full-fledged Iraq operation now.
That may be true.
But then he said what's going to happen is after the midterms, then Obama's going to go in there and commit boots on the ground to wipe ISIS out.
And that's I just don't see it.
I must respectfully disagree, and I will turn to Syria in part as evidence.
But before getting there, let me ask a question.
What does Obama care about Iraq?
Look, folks, I have I've really tried to rein myself in today.
As frantic and as fast-paced as this program has been today, it hasn't even scratched the surface about the anger I really feel about all this.
And I don't need to recount it.
You've been here all the program began.
I mean, I first two hours I've given you every detail why this whole ticks me off.
The fraud that was the five years, 2003 to 2008 leading into the Obama campaign.
In all that time, and since Obama became president, can anybody find for me one sample, one example, one bit of evidence that says Obama even cares about the place.
Intelligence guided by experience.
Barack Obama cut his bones on thinking Iraq is worthless, meaningless, and has no value whatsoever to the United States.
The Iraq war was unjust and it was immoral.
It was uncalled for.
We had no business, and he was gonna get us out.
And after he got us out, the world was gonna love us, and our enemies would become our friends, and respect for the U.S. would be restored, and there would be a kumbaya utopia all over the world, brought to us by Obama.
He he cut his bones delivering a speech in 2002, suggesting that paying any attention to Iraq after 9-11 was a waste of time and a waste of money, it was irrelevant, it didn't matter.
There's no evidence in the public record that Obama cares a whit about Iraq.
I don't think he would care if it went under.
The last thing, in fact, don't forget, everything these people do is political.
The last thing Obama wants is a stable Iraq.
That would make the Bush policy look like it made some sense.
And the Bush policy cannot allow to be seen as making any sense.
And Obama now cannot claim that his policies have led to a stable Iraq because it isn't stable.
Today he's blaming Bush.
Saturday he blamed Bush.
He's gonna continue to blame Bush for the deteriorating situation in Iraq.
So there is no Iraqi success story.
And that's exactly the way he wants it.
Not just Obama, the Democrat Party.
Folks, you don't spend five years with your buddies in the media trashing every day, everything about Iraq If you care about the place.
You just don't do that.
They don't care about it.
Iraq's value to them is a constant reminder of Republican failure.
That is the value of Iraq to the Democrat Party, to the American media, and to Barack Obama.
A stable functioning Iraq, not in the Democrat Party's best interests.
And they're not doing anything to bring about a stable functioning Iraq.
Now I mentioned this, I think, in the first hour previously on the program.
Obama has been refusing to help Iraq for at least a year.
A year ago, it would have been easy, comparatively, to wipe out ISIS.
They were still gathering tightly together in their staging zones.
Had you heard of ISA or ISIS a year ago?
I'd venture to say that most people heard of ISIS for the first time in the past couple months.
So Obama were plenty of, in fact, ladies and gentlemen, if Obama had wanted to take out ISIS, he would not have formed a supportive relationship with them in Syria.
ISIS is who is the rebels in Syria, opposing Basher Al Assad.
Now before I get to Syria, I just want to put the exclamation point on this thought.
Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the media, their willing accomplices, needraq to be always seen as a Bush miserable failure.
A Bush war, a Bush failure.
Just as Vietnam was supposed to be seen as a failure for Nixon.
Now you may be learning for the first time that the rebels in Syria were ISIS.
Over the weekend, it was reported that Hillary Clinton ripped into Obama for his failure to help the Syrian rebels, and that this failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS.
It's in the Atlantic in a story by Jeffrey Goldberg.
It's a long interview, but there is this knife-in-the-back criticism that Hillary directs at Obama.
A comment that he made while Hillary was his Secretary of State.
Do you remember he praised her?
Best Secretary of State ever.
She might be, he said, on the day she resigned or the day they announced her resignation.
There was a joint presser.
And Obama is praising Hillary to the nines and talking about she may be one of the best secretaries of state ever.
And now here comes Hillary backstabbing Obama by claiming that his failure to help the Syrian rebels led to the rise of ISIS.
And right here it is, Jeffrey Goldberg, the former Secretary of State, probable candidate for president, outlines her foreign policy doctrine.
She says this about Obama and his foreign policy.
Great nations need organizing principles, and don't do stupid stuff is not an organizing principle.
It's a slam, but I wonder are reset buttons organizing principles?
Because let's not forget that Mrs. Clinton actually showed up with a Soviet leader.
Slap myself.
Russian leader with a plastic And red toy that said in crudely drawn words, reset button.
I kid you the Secretary of State went over to Russia and presented him a toy that was a reset button, which was designed to reset our relationship after the disaster that was Bush.
Now, how's that worked out?
This is just going to make me angrier.
Everything these people have done has led to an absolute disaster.
Everything the economy, health care, foreign policy, the border immigration, everything they've done, and they campaigned on being the smartest people in the world and the only ones capable of fixing all this.
So she slams Obama.
Great nations need organizing principles, and don't do stupid stuff, is not an organizing principle.
Is reset button and organizing principle, Mrs. Clinton.
The former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is out there saying that Obama's failure to aid Syrian rebels led to ISIS.
Now she's doing two things.
She's distancing herself from Obama.
But at the same time, she's trying to head off criticism of her own recommendations because she didn't speak up for these rebels at the time.
She may want the convinced people that she did.
But nobody in this regime did.
President Obama has long ridiculed the idea that the U.S. early in the Syrian civil war could have shaped the forces fighting the Assad regime, thereby stopping Al Qaeda-inspired groups, like the one rampaging across Syria and Iraq today, ISIS, from seizing control of the rebellion.
Well, his former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham, Clinton isn't buying it.
In an interview earlier this week, she used her sharpest language yet to describe the failure that resulted from the decision to keep the U.S. on the sidelines during the first phase of the Syrian uprising.
She said, the failure to help build a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad.
There were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle.
The failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled, Hillary said.
Which is funny because that's the same exact thing that Hillary and Obama said about the protesters in Egypt, whom we aided, and they turned out to be the Muslim Brotherhood.
As she writes in her memoir of her State Department years, hard choices, she was an inside the regime advocate of doing more to help the Syrian rebellion.
Now her supporters argue her position has been vindicated by recent events.
Let's I'm telling you, these people, it's it's well, yeah, of course it's convenient, but it also turns out not to be true.
And by the way, by the way, Hillary, it is reported that the Hillary camp gave the White House a heads up on this, that this was coming.
It's kind of like, hey, you know, I've got to do this.
I'm running for president.
Please bite the bullet for me on this.
And the White House, screw you, babe, and they have responded saying that they don't agree with this description of events.
Oh, yeah.
Long knives are out.
You do not sabotage Obama.
You do not even give him a heads up that you're gonna sabotage him and have him go along with it.
You just don't do that.
Ask his white grandmother how that goes.
You just don't do it.
But let's go back and let's revisit this Syrian business because I want to play you a soundbite of me.
This is September 11th, 2013.
This is about a year ago.
And I said this about U.S. policy toward the Syrian civil war, and at the time, I was, and I don't mean it to sound braggadocious, but I think I was a lone voice or one of very few, because the conventional wisdom was that Assad was gassing his own people.
Remember Obama in the previous summer of 2013 had issued this red line and dared Assad not to cross it.
You cross that red line, pal, you're gonna have me to deal with it.
And we never did anything.
But the word was out that Assad was gassing and and and harming his own people.
And I remember saying on this program, I have to go out.
I'm gonna coco go back to that era and and just for the website today, go find what I said on those days and relink it.
Because I made the point, I asked the question, what if it isn't Assad?
What if the people creating mayhem in Syria are actually Assad's enemies, disguising themselves as protesters of Assad and trying to make him or make it appear as though he's doing this when in fact he's not.
And after I had mentioned that, I got an email from uh uh a friend who is somewhat aware of the circumstances in Iraq and I was told that I was more right than I knew.
And Hillary is now coming along and essentially saying the same thing.
She's not suggesting that that uh ISIS was there.
She is suggesting that our lack of doing anything about it led to ISIS taking over the anti-Assad movement, when in fact it was ISIS all along, and ISIS was making it look like they were committing the atrocities on the Syrian people.
ISIS was doing it, and it was look it they were making it look like Assad did it.
And just like the media was uh is is biased toward Hamas, so was the media biased toward the same type people in Syria who were trying to make it look like Assad was doing this.
And and the reason I had never seen any evidence that uh Basher Assad, his father was a different uh uh Hafez al-Assad was a brutal guy and did commit atrocities to keep people in line.
But there's no evidence that Basher had really done it.
And I knew that that Al Qaeda's on the march and they're trying to gain control, Muslim Brotherhoods on the trying to gain control that whole area.
And uh it was a lot of Christians in Syria that were being beaten up, killed, assaulted, what have you.
And it was made to look like it was Assad, and now we've learned that it wasn't.
The point is that I called it, it was right, and that's what Hillary is now claiming that Obama missed and that she was right about she never said it.
I gotta take a break.
We'll get to the audio we get back.
Okay, here's me, folks, from this program, September 11th, uh, 2013.
By the way, Coco, if you want to find the uh website history to link to what I originally said about this, find September 2nd, 3rd, 4th, somewhere in there, my memory is.
But this was September 11th of last year.
Here we are 12 years later, after 9-11.
And think about it.
Twelve years later, we are supporting Muslim terrorists in Syria.
Muslim terrorists who are threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam.
That's who our allies are.
Those are the rebels that Basher Assad is supposedly gassing.
So we're aligned with them.
Because we're aligned against Assad.
They're threatening to kill Syrian Christians if they don't convert to Islam.
This was ISIS, folks, and we were anti-Assad.
Assad, it was made to look like Assad was doing the gassing.
He wasn't, as it turns out.
And here this morning on Fox and Friends, Brian Kilmead spoke to retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McEnerny about Clinton's remarks criticizing Obama's handling of ISIS.
And here's what the General said about Hillary's remarks.
I happen to agree with her.
I'm not sure why it's just coming out now.
I was pushing the for the free Syrian army.
They were a huge ally.
We ended up arming the wrong people over there.
And remember, ISIS was formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq.
And so look at what we have now created.
We didn't create it.
By doing nothing, we let it create itself.
And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.
Well, that's General McInerney.
And, well, I've got 15 seconds before the break, and that, it is.
And it turns out that my sources on this way back a year ago were absolutely right that Assad was not the bad guy.
I got more on this.
Sit tight.
Back we are, folks.
Happy to have you, El Rushbo, with Talent on Loan from God.
And You know, I'd say what's funny about this is Hillary Clinton, it's it's clear to me that Hillary Clinton obviously thinks that foreign policy is still going to be her strong pantsuit as she heads into the campaign.
She really does.
That's why she's doing all of this.
But I want to play this audio sound about again from General McInerney because there's there's a there's a gem in this that is another example of how Obama and the left, the Democrats, the media lied for five years.
2004 to 2009.
Actually, 2003 to 2008 would be the specific time period, just bashing Iraq every day, every night, every day of the year.
But oh, and and one other thing.
Uh Coco has found exactly what I was talking about.
There was a post at Rush Limbaugh.com on September 3rd.
What if Assad didn't do it?
And my memory has now been refreshed.
I had a couple of sources and an email from a friend confirmed said three different confirmations here from people that what we were getting in the news every day that Assad was gassing his people, probably wasn't true that it was turns out ISIS, at the time known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, that was doing it and making it look like it was Assad.
And that's who our allies were.
We were anti-Assad, and we were actually an alliance, loose though it was, formed with the very people we're now bombing in Iraq.
And I remember I I took my fair share of heat when I'm and I do always when I'm not part of the conventional wisdom.
Assad's easy to hate.
He's got a typical bad image.
And when somebody says he's gassing his own people, it's automatically believed.
And here I came.
All of Washington supports the idea that Assad was doing it.
I said, Well, I'm not so sure.
What if?
And I said, Rush, you didn't have to say anything.
Why are you going out of a limb?
Why do you want to sound like you're defending Assad?
I said, I'm not defending Assad.
As always, I'm interested in the truth.
And I just don't believe.
I have had to get to work hard to get to a point where I automatically reject everything I hear coming out of the news media in Washington when the Democrats are in power.
Because by and large, when it comes to foreign policy, every story is made to cover up for their inadequacies, their incompetence, and the fact that they're wrong about everything.
But here's McInerney again, because there's a little hidden gem in this soundbite that I want to see if by some chance some of you picked up.
I happen to agree with her.
I'm not sure why it's just coming out now.
I was pushing the for the free Syrian army.
They were a huge ally.
We ended up arming the wrong people over there.
And remember, ISIS was formerly Al Qaeda in Iraq.
And so look at what we have now created.
We didn't create it by doing nothing, we let it create itself.
And if we don't stop it now and stop it and protect the Kurds, we have a huge problem not only in the Middle East, but globally.
In the early days of 2003, when George well, actually 2002, when Bush was traveling the country, making the case for invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
I remember a couple of instances pointing out that Al Qaeda, prior to 9-11, had done some training in Iraq.
And one of the things that had been found was a hollowed-out shell of an airliner fuselage.
Now the conventional wisdom was that Al Qaeda had never been in Iraq.
Bush was making this up, or that the intel was all wrong.
But likely it was just Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld lying to make their case.
Because Al Qaeda was clearly the enemy.
After 9-11, Al Qaeda had hijacked the planes, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Al Qaeda was the evil, Osama bin Laden, and Bush was going after them in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq.
And the Democrats and the media led by Obama starting in 2002.
And other Democrats, Teddy Kennedy, there were all I mean, John Kerry, I mean, they were all making fun and mocking the idea that Al Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq.
Al Qaeda was never in Iraq, and nobody can prove it, they said.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
Now, the Bush people at the time were saying we can't afford 9-11 just happened.
What happened here is real.
And any time there is anybody in the world vowing to do that or more, we are going to take it seriously.
They were making the case for preemptive military strikes.
That's what all this was called.
Because the left and the Democrats were arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
Therefore, it was not moral or uh strategically wise to hit Iraq.
They had nothing to do with it.
And the Bush people were saying, whether they did or didn't, it doesn't matter.
They're threatening to do the same thing.
And after it's happened once, we are in charge of protecting this country and defending the people.
And we can't sit here and take these threats lightly.
So Saddam at the time was lying to the U.N. inspectors about his weapons of mass destruction.
It turned out that he was big timing it.
He was trying to look like the most powerful Arab in the region by by being the most feared.
So he was lying about at least the uh the size of his weapons of mass destruction stock.
And if and in part of the lie, part of the uh illusion was to not let the inspectors in.
So he was clearly, he wanted everybody to conclude that he had a boatload of the stuff.
And the Bush administration was trying to tell everybody we can't afford to wait to be hit again to take action.
We've got to hit preemptively.
I'll I'll never forget any of this, folks, because I'll never forget the Democrats arguing about it.
Because the Democrats, even after 9-11, after a week of solidarity went by, the Democrats conceived a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure any long-lasting credit for any policy he instituted following 9-11.
Also remember this.
Along those same lines, Bill Clinton, it was reported.
He later denied it.
But Clinton, according to some famous well-known Democrats, was lamenting that 9-11 didn't happen on his watch, because it prevented him an opportunity to show greatness and leadership.
And he was upset that it had happened with Bush.
If it was going to happen, why couldn't it have happened during his time?
We reported that, all hell broke loose on that.
String of denials were forthcoming.
But the point is they politiciz everything.
And week after there was unity for a week.
And after that, the Democrats devised a political strategy, the purpose of which was to make sure Bush did not secure one positive achievement in the aftermath of 9-11.
And so these guys began opposing everything Bush wanted to do when it came to Iraq.
At first, they even opposed the use of force in Afghanistan.
That's when they asked for the vote a second time.
Remember there was a memo uncovered.
A memo that was written by Jay Rockefeller, Democrat Senator, West Virginia, in which it was stated that as a strategy, and this had come from James Carvel and Stan Greenberg in a memo,
and it was then written up by by uh Rockefeller, who was the Intelligence Committee ranking Democrat in the Senate, he said that they had to make Bush out to be a liar, that if they were to succeed with this,
that their strategy depended on convincing people that Bush was lying about all of this in order to depress and lower his high approval numbers.
So as I say, this is this is but here's but here's here's the gem that was in McIntyre's piece, because I'm running out of time here.
Throughout all of this, when in the run up to invading Iraq, whenever the possibility that Al Qaeda might have been in Iraq, the Democrats, no way, Al Qaeda's never found its way to Iraq.
They wouldn't know how to get to Iraq if it gave them a map.
They haven't been to Iraq, they don't have anything to do with Saddam.
They were helping.
Now listen to what we just heard here.
ISIS was originally known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Now, some of you might be saying, well, maybe so rush, but Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before we attacked.
It did.
We were able to confirm that elements of Al Qaeda did connect with Saddam, training exercises and so forth.
But the point is, in hindsight, look at what we're learning here.
ISIS, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, all over the Middle East, just like the Muslim Brotherhood.
And in Syria, we were actually stupidly and maybe unknowingly, given this bunch I could believe it was unknowingly supporting them.
Because we had concluded that Basher Assad was the one gassing his own people.
The reason I had never seen any evidence that Assad treated his own people that way.
I knew he treated political enemies that way, which is why, you know, it was a not a very long leap to making people believe that he might gas his own people if he's gassed others, dido Saddam and the Kurds.
But there hadn't been any evidence that Basher Assad had cast his own people.
So anyway, that's that.
And it's just it's some of it's ancient history, but some of it's just last year, some of it's just yesterday.
And so much of it is lies.
And so much of these lies, so many of these lies are why we're even here today.
So all of these lies about all of this stuff is one of the very large reasons why Obama was elected in the first place.
It's dispiriting in a way.
And in another way, it's just surely frustrating.
And that's why I've been so ticked off all day.
I checked the email.
Rush, I just I just turned on.
What are you so ticked about?
Look it.
Barack Obama And his administration were elected to end terrorism, to make the world love us.
Well, end terrorism against the United States, because they were going to apologize and they were going to make sure that the world understood that reasonable and very good, intelligent, kind people.
Really smart people.
And all of this Bush stuff was going to end in rotten days of indiscriminate use of the military and stupid military involvement.
Always gonna over.
It's gonna be over.
And the world was gonna love us.
And we're gonna have this utopia.
And terrorism is worse today than when Obama took office.
And even David Gregory in NBC said so yesterday that terrorism has expanded all over the world much faster in the last seven years than it did prior to Obama.
And it's true.
And this Iraq business, it's worse now than the first day Bush went in there in 2003.
This is an absolute mess.
Brought to us by the people that were going to fix it.
Brought to us by the media, who told us these were the people who were going to fix it.
Because they were so much smarter than everybody else.
And they were just better people.
And they were they were more I don't know what.
And everybody bought it.
Five years of lies about Bush and Cheney and all that.
Anyway, here's here's Daryl in uh in Leesport, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Daryl.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Great to talk to you.
Uh real quick before I say that I think we need to pull out that uh picture of McCain over there in uh Syria and figure out who those guys were that he was standing with.
Uh but uh my point is that uh in Iraq, uh no boots on the ground, but somebody uh the administration told us they're dropping laser guided bombs, so somebody's lazy these targets, so guess there already are boots on the ground.
Well, but see, they're not really boots on the ground.
Those are forces defending the embassy.
Uh those are forces defending the green zone.
Those are not combat troops.
And don't anybody think they are.
They're not combat troops.
Obama said so.
We're not gonna have any boots on the ground.
This isn't really a war.
Although he did say this might take longer than we thought on Saturday.
Uh Sherry Winston, Salem, North Carolina.
I have one minute, but I wanted to get to you, nevertheless.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Good to talk to you again.
Thank you.
I see I I heard Obama's comments, uh, the way he couched the bombing in Iraq was to protect American personnel in the consulate there.
That was his primary driver.
That's why it's temporary.
And I think that that's a backhanded way of his acknowledging and taking responsibility for what happened in Benghazi.
No.
We can't afford another Benghazi.
Well, that Obama it look, there are regime people saying that to the media.
Obama hasn't.
The uh there's a story, I get I forget now which, I think it's the Washington Post, but it might be something else.
And that's reported that the reason they're doing this is to make sure there's not another Benghazi.
But Sherry, the the proper reaction there is Benghazi, what happened in Benghazi?
Nothing in Benghazi.
That was a that was just a a Republican scandal.
Nothing happened in Benghazi.
New York Times said so.
That's where it was.
It was the New York Times reported that they're trying to prevent another Benghazi.
But the New York Times said Benghazi wouldn't anything.
The Republicans just made that up.
It's exaggerated that for a scandal and for some hearings.
Nothing happened in Benghazi worth anything.
That's that this is sadly, folks, out of time.
And I thought that I'd have a chance to get to some of that other stuff today, but I didn't get a chance to get to that other stuff today.
So I'll keep that other stuff, and I'll have it standing by for tomorrow.
And I promise I'll get some of it in.
▲
Export Selection