All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:16
July 16, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limboy here doing what I was born to do.
Right here behind the golden EIB microphone.
I am America's real anchor man and America's truth detector and quite naturally the doctor of democracy.
All here in one package behind the golden EIB microphone, of which there are only two.
This one here and one for travel.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program or the email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
Did somebody, seriously now, did 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 it?
Well, that's the most confident a 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?
And 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.
Oh, 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's assured us that with this deal, Iran is now going to be a bunch of nice guys.
That we can essentially trust them.
Well, let's look.
Now, Snerdley just shouted out me, Cuba.
Seriously, 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'd be, or 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 is a, 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.
Oh, 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 Chikoms or the Russians.
He traded five high-value terrorists, gave away five high-value terrorists for a traitor and deserter, Bo Bergdahl.
And you talk about the Cuban deal, he has legitimized the Castros.
Think of that.
The Castros, Raul and Fidel, and 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 hominy and his buddy of Mullah's with this piece of paper.
Granting them the right in a certain number of years to develop a nuclear weapon is going to make them nice guys, and it's going to show them we don't intend them any ill or harm.
What's what?
Well, I know his response.
Well, what's your alternative?
What would you do?
I mean, what would you do with Iran?
Did you go to war?
Would you put boots on the ground?
No, if you're going to enter into negotiations with them, and if what they desperately want is a nuclear weapon, then they're going to have to pay for that an incredible price.
And one of the incredible prices they're going to have to pay is ongoing, never-ending monitoring.
If they claim they don't want a nuclear weapon, we're going to 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 going to 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.
That's my alternative.
The Democrats, when they say, well, what's your alternative?
They always think, what are you going to do?
Just going to turn loose the Israelis to bomb Iran?
Are we going to bomb?
No, no, not to do that.
They really want this.
The Iranians really want.
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.
Will then exact a huge price for it.
But that's not what we have done here in any stretch, 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 is even playing this straight?
Based on past performance, if Obama says Iran will not get the bomb, they will.
You could 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 going to get so mad that who knows what they might do.
Well, 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 click, 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 is 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, which is a new one on me, I mean, that is a great insult to everybody's intelligence anyway, that 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 going to 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 soundbites 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, that means they're going to demand other concessions.
What other concessions do we make?
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 going to give them $150 billion.
We are going to release sanctions.
And do you know what else?
Obama admitted yesterday that a lot of this money is going to end up with Hezbollah.
Obama admitted 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, the smartest president.
Why then are we giving them $140 billion and why is he admitting that he knows they're going to 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 is dangerous and he knows that they're going to take some of this money that they're getting from the sanctions being lifted and they're going to fund their terror networks.
And on the same hand, he tells, no, we can't demand the release of those four Americans because 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?
And when you have a sycophant media that's slobbering all over itself, bottom line, I think by this, I just say, I think they know how weak the guy is.
I think they know how basically incompetent the guy is.
And at 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, and 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 the Iranians.
They're holding the four hostages.
But Major Garrett's the problem.
He had the audacity to bring that up.
And the audacity is: here everybody's basking in the glow of this wonderful, great, oh my God, no president could have ever, ever done this kind of deal.
And Major Garrett stands up.
What about the four hostages?
Why the hell didn't you get them released?
Well, there went the glow of the day.
There went, that just blew up this entire manufactured good vibe of a press conference.
And so Major Garrett had to be taken out.
Now, I did not watch the Espies last night.
I've heard about what happened.
And if anybody wants to talk about it, have at it.
800.
Well, Caitlin Jenner got the Courage Award and came out looking like Marilyn Monroe with brunette hair.
According to Pictures, yeah, 10-minute speech asking for people to be kind.
Some other stuff.
I don't know.
I just, I didn't see it.
I didn't.
It's a big pop culture event.
You know, I'm trying.
Well, the ESPs, the purpose of the Espies is to it's the sports version of the Oscars.
And it originally started, the Espes honored and noted various sports performances like best quarterback of the year, best team of the year, best highlight.
There was also the Espes originally included some of the best highlights that ESPN had run, video highlights, stuff like that.
And it's now there's very little, you will not find an ESPN personality anywhere on the telecast.
I mean, even from the beginning, it didn't.
I mean, they came out, maybe they introduced an award or gave one, but they were never stars of the show.
But now it's just think the sports version of a very, very left-wing version of the Oscars with the new awards category.
It's a red carpet affair, black tie affair.
And it's, I don't know, it's in L.A., I think, sometimes Las Vegas.
I'm not sure.
Anyway, I didn't watch it.
And I'm seeing, you know, all of the pop culture outlets are reporting on it as to what happened.
And I've been trying to do better, you know, staying in touch with the pop culture evolution.
But I just didn't, I didn't watch the Espys.
If anybody wants to, have at it.
Here's the Major Garrett question and the Obama response as we go to the bottom of the hour break, and then the media response will be following that.
But here again, Major Garrett, yesterday afternoon, this is the question that has everybody else in the drive-bys outraged.
Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around the steel to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?
Well, I'll tell you, the question is that Sam Donaldson used to ask stuff like that of Reagan all the time.
This used to be the exact kind of question that happened in every presidential press conference.
Here's Obama's answer.
I got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions.
The notion that I'm content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails, Major, that's nonsense.
And you should know better.
I've met with the families of some of those folks.
Nobody's content.
And our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.
Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates.
Suddenly, Iran realizes, you know what?
Maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals.
Folks, do you realize what he just said here?
You know, the idea that the drive-by media thinks this is brilliance, that profoundly offends me.
This was not brilliance.
This is obstinance.
It's defensiveness.
It's passive aggression.
It's all kinds of things, but it is not brilliance.
Nobody is content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them.
Where is the evidence for this?
We just concluded a deal that grants them the right to get nuclear weapons, and we couldn't include the release of four Americans.
And Obama says, now think of the logic of that, you idiot reporters.
If the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic.
Suddenly, Iran realizes maybe they can get additional concessions out of Americans by holding the.
I've got a break here, but I've got to explain to you what that really means.
This is outrageous.
Okay, to the phones we go to Cairo, New York.
This is Edo.
Edo, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Original 15 people dittos, Rush.
This is an honor.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Not to mention also that I was there the first day that you signed on that 50,000 water out of New York City.
Ah, that was, yes, yes, yes, yes.
Well, those are fond, fond days gone by.
Fun days.
I haven't had such fun days in the last five weeks or so.
I've broken a leg.
I've been laying on the couch, but the only good thing about that is that my wife and I have been able to listen to your program virtually every day.
Yeah, see, that's the way to look at it.
There's always a positive in everything if you just look hard enough.
I believe that.
I firmly believe that.
I appreciate that you do as well.
I write a blog.
It's called Edo Blago for obvious reasons.
And this morning, just before you came on, I was putting together a piece about Major Garrett.
I knew you would be speaking about him.
And one of the elements of what Obama did to him, and I say that in the actual terminology of how he tried to unspin it, spin it, or just be nasty to him in a politically correct way, he continuously uses the word notion only for people who have opposite views to his own.
So just before you break, you played the sound bite of what Major Garrett actually asked him about the four Americans left behind in Iran.
And his answer, after being flummoxed for an extended period of time, was that Major Garrett was floating the notion that he was content to celebrate American citizens languishing in Iranian jails.
And my piece, the content of my piece, has to do with his long-term use of that particular term.
Well, he does.
He does construct strawdogs, but in this case, Major Garrett did accuse him of it.
It's right there in the question.
Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content?
With all the fanfare around this deal, why are you content to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?
Now, I'm not sure Obama understood the question.
And let me review the question with you here.
Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four Americans?
What do you think that really means?
He's not referring to the four Americans as the conscience of this nation, although many might assume that.
What Major Garrett's actually saying here, the point that he's making is, can you tell the country why you did not use the vast power,
moral authority of this nation to gain the release of these four Americans while you were putting the rest of this deal together?
The question really is, why didn't you use everything in your arsenal to get these guys out?
That's what this question means.
With all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the conscience of this nation is our moral authority, is our power.
We're the good guys.
We're the ones that are granting concessions in this deal.
That means we are coming at it from the strength of power, from the position of power.
And he's simply asking, why did you not utilize the power you have to get these four Americans released while you're in the midst of getting Iran to tow your line in other things?
That's the question.
If I could ask it in a different way, why did you not care about these four guys?
If you really want the basic question, Mr. President, can you tell me why don't you care about these four?
Now, that question to Obama, I guarantee you, he's in a celebratory mood.
He knows the press.
I mean, they're looking at him the way women looked at Bill Clinton.
They just love him.
They just think he's the greatest thing.
My God, the love in that room and the, it's not love.
It's idolatry and groupyism.
And he knows it and he's capitalizing.
Here comes some interloper.
Here comes some guy who used to work at Fox News.
That's who Major Garrett is to him.
Major Garrett may be at CBS News now, but that doesn't say he's used to be at Fox.
So here comes this Fox News traitor, and he dares reign on my parade.
And he's asking me, why didn't I use my power to get these four guys out?
He's essentially saying, Mr. President, did you not care that they're holding four Americans?
So Obama comes out and he hems and haws.
Well, I got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft the questions.
And he means that he knows that Major Garrett's got him here.
So he's got to think fast and act fast and do some quick dancing.
So the notion that I'm content is nonsense and you should know better.
But that's not what Major Garrett asked him.
Major Garrett, why are you content with the fanfare around this?
In other words, why are you doing a happy dance?
Why are you taking all these accolades?
Why are you celebrating?
There are four Americans they're still holding.
That's what he asked him.
He didn't ask him, why are you content with the fact four Americans are still being held?
He asked him, how the hell can you have a celebration when there are four Americans being held hostage by the very people you're up here praising?
That's the question.
And that's why everybody's mad at Major Garrett, and that's why the drive-bys are mad because this is just not done to this president.
This kind of calling out this kind of accurate portrayal of a president's mindset and activity is just not done anymore.
Not with this president.
Not with the first African American.
No, we do not embarrass this president.
We do not go there and, Major, you're going to pay the price.
So Obama says, nobody's content.
Our diplomats, our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.
When do we try to get them out?
The whole point here, why should we have to try?
It should be a demand.
And if they're not released, nothing else happens.
Why wasn't that part of this?
Well, Obama answers it.
If the question is why we did not tie the negotiations on nuclear weapons to their release, think about the logic there, you idiot Fox reporter.
Suddenly, if we demand the release of these prisoners at the same time we're getting a nuke deal with them, Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these.
They did.
Actually, they didn't even have to do anything regarding these prisoners to get the concessions.
The Iranians got every concession they wanted.
They got the sanctions lifted.
They've got nukes in 10 years or sooner.
They've got no inspections, no verification anywhere, anytime.
They got everything they wanted.
There was no reason for them to release these four.
But for Obama, the real giveaway to me in his answer here, suddenly Iran says to themselves, we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these.
So Obama thinks he's pulled a fast one on him.
Obama thinks by not caring about these four, that the Iranians didn't get as much as they otherwise would have.
And in the process, he has admitted that we made concessions.
We, we are the lone superpower in the world.
We are the ones that hold the cards in the talks or should have.
We can prevent Iran from getting nukes if we want to.
It's a question of how far we want to go, but we can if we want to.
This bunch doesn't think we have the right to is the bottom line.
The reason we're not doing it is because they don't think we have the right to.
Just like this guy on Eyeball 8 News in Washington said, well, what right do we have demanding to inspect them?
We wouldn't let them inspect us.
It's the same manner of thinking.
We don't have the right to tell them they can't have a nuke.
And so all of this is taking place under a false perception premise anyway.
This was never about preventing them from getting nukes.
I don't care what Obama says because he doesn't think he can stop them.
And furthermore, I don't know that he really wants to stop them.
This was all done for legacy.
Like I said yesterday and the day before, all of this is for legacy.
Major Garrett had the audacity to ask about an honest goodness detail that nobody is supposed to be paying any attention to.
And again, his question is, I don't understand, Mr. President, you guys are throwing this giant party.
You're having a big celebration of it.
There's four Americans still being held hostage even after this deal.
How in the hell can that happen?
That is Brian in Gainesville, Florida, as we get back to the phones.
Audio soundbites of the media trying to kill Major Garrett coming up.
Hello, Brian.
Great to have you here, sir.
Hi, Rush.
First time caller.
I'm a 33-year-old Rush baby.
I have much respect for what you do.
I just wanted to call in and quickly remind you: it's funny that so many people seem to forget history.
And I don't know if anybody seems to remember what happened during the Clinton administration.
I believe it was 1994, when he was heralded as creating this great nuclear deal between North Korea.
And we have such great hopes for it.
And the media just had a field day with it, giving him so much credit.
And yet, we saw what happened with that.
It was a terrible idea to begin with.
And our relations quickly dropped as they obviously didn't meet their areas.
Yeah, you know what?
I forgot.
It was Madeline Albright that engineered that debacle.
I mean, it was Clinton's.
But Madeline Albright was the face of that deal.
She was the spokesperson.
That reminds me, you know, the Clinton administration also enabled the CHICOMs to successfully orbit a particular missile they were unable to put in orbit.
They used Laurel Space, a big Clinton donor, for gyro guidance or this kind of thing.
That's good memory you have.
You're exactly right about the North Korean nuclear deal.
It fell apart almost immediately.
And our relations with Iran are even, I would feel, much more tense than they are with North Korea.
I mean, especially in light of the hostages that they have, the fact that they still are celebrating the Imam burning flags and very anti-American rants.
And yet, here we are going to harbor in a new nuclear deal, and the media is going to do the same thing they did and give him a big applause for this amazing groundbreaking deal.
And, you know, it just amazes me that we're taught history in order to learn from our mistakes as well as learn what went well.
Throw all that out.
This is for legacy.
This is purely for legacy.
It's all it's for.
It really is.
I thought it was funny yesterday, Ayatollah Hominy.
What is this?
The Ayatollah hominy goes to Twitter.
Right.
The Ayatollah hominy, the supreme leader of Iran, goes to Twitter to basically, after Obama's celebratory press conference yesterday, the Ayatollah hominy basically threw cold water on it by telling Obama, hey, you know, you're screwing up here.
You can't guarantee the behavior of your side in this deal.
Here we are.
We're all concerned that the Iranians are going to break this deal as soon as they can.
And the Ayatollah hominy comes out, goes on offense, and tells Obama, Look, everybody knows you can't keep the Chinese in line, and everybody knows you can't keep the Russians in line.
The untrustworthiness, sir, is on your side of this deal, not us.
The Ayatollah hominy.
And there was a, his official letter was released as a photo or a PDF file or some such thing.
It was hilarious.
And then after that, some egghead living in Norway started talking about, man, if I've ever seen a reason for a second Nobile Peace Prize, this is it.
Obama should already just be given the prize and we should dispense with the voting.
Yeah, so this is all about legacy.
Let's go to Charlie Rose this morning on CBS.
CBS this morning, Charlie Rose speaking with Major Garrett.
And this is all about CBS asking Major Garrett, are you sure you meant to do that?
You maybe want to apologize?
Do you want to take any of it back?
And as you listen to this, I want to see any of you old-timers, if you can imagine Dan Rather or Walter Cronkite or Sam Donaldson going on one of their network shows and being called on the carpet for a question they asked.
It would have never happened.
Sam Donaldson was celebrated for his questions that many thought were disrespectful of President Nixon, for example, and of President Reagan.
But anyway, here's how it went, Charlie Rose and Major Garrett.
Major, a good reporter, and all of us have asked questions that we wish we had perhaps asked differently.
Second thoughts?
No.
Look, the position I'm in, I asked the question, I asked it.
I can't take it back.
What I wanted to drive at aggressively was why, in a context where the president conceded many times in that press conference that choices had to be made and priorities had to be established, these four Americans were not prioritized in the context of the Iran deal.
Personally, Charlie, I've done some soul-searching about whether I've been aggressive enough as a reporter on behalf of hostages.
Yeah, Charlie Rose, did you hear this?
You know, Major, you're a good reporter, and all of us have asked questions we wish we had perhaps asked differently.
You have any second thoughts?
And that was the cue Major was supposed to grovel and apologize.
He was given a chance to say he'd rethought it, and he wants to, yeah, Charlie, I may have been too.
Instead, he doubled down.
He said, no, Charlie, yeah, I have been thinking about it.
You're right.
You know what I realized?
I haven't been working hard enough to get these four guys out as a journalist.
So, Charlie, a little taken aback, Just, when you listen to Charlie interrogating his own reporter, imagine if Charlie Rose had ever interrogated Obama this way, say back in 2008.
Do you believe that the president is content to leave the conscience of the nation unaccounted for?
I don't.
And the whole point of the question, Charlie, was why were these four Americans not accounted for in the context of negotiating a wide range of issues with the Iranians?
Remember, in the final hours of this deal, the Iranians put other things on the table that hadn't been previously discussed.
The arms embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles.
If those could be introduced, it seems to me it's reasonable to ask the commander-in-chief if other issues on the American side could have been introduced.
I suggested there might have been one, the fate of four Americans.
I stand by that.
Right, Ed.
And Obama says, you know, Major, think about the logic.
If I'd have brought up those four Americans, can you imagine the other concessions the Iranians would have demanded when what they were doing, they had put a bunch of brand new things on the table that they wanted concessions for, and we hadn't even brought up the four prisoners.
So the Iranians were doing what Obama told Major Garrett they would do if he had brought up the four hostages.
Folks, it's incompetent and it's irresponsible.
And for this to be celebrated and a bunch of people being taken credit for this is another example of how out of whack everything in our culture and country is right now.
Okay, folks, we got two hours down and one to go, one busy broadcast hour remaining here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and Mrs. Clinton's poll numbers plunging, plummeting among Democrats.
▲
Export Selection