We Are Reliving 1938

Is the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran a good or bad deal? Would it be harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it make Iran and its terror proxies stronger or weaker? Should the U.S. Congress support or defeat the deal? Dennis Prager answers these questions and more.

Rush reports:

Now Obama, he’s still speaking.  He is still giving this speech about his Iranian nuke deal.  But he characterized this in a very interesting way.  He said, “We have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”  Now, forget the misdirection here about “permanently prohibiting Iran from obtaining,” ’cause we haven’t. The deal doesn’t even do that, but, hell, who’s gonna call him on it?  He can lie. He can make up everything he wants.

He can say this deal is whatever it is, and who’s gonna call him on it, other than us?  “We have achieved a detailed arrangement…”  Now, I’m a words guy.  You know I’m the mayor the Realville, and words mean things.   I have devotion to words and their meanings.  I think it’s one of the ways in which, by the way, our culture is being debased.

And one of the ways in which the left is debasing the culture to advance their cause is by obliterating words, the language, and how they’re used and interpreted.  But point here is, he didn’t say, “We’ve achieved a detailed agreement.”  He said, “We have achieved a detailed arrangement.”  To me, an arrangement is not an agreement.  Two people don’t go to the church and get arranged.  And we don’t have Senate ratification of treaties for “arrangements.”

And the arrangement is that Iran… This is what we’ve arranged.  Iran is going to be the dominant player in the Middle East now.  Iran will remain the leading exporter of terrorism.  Iran will be flush with cash because we’re dropping the sanctions, and they will be given a clear path to a nuclear arsenal to go along with their standard, ordinary, everyday weapons, because we have an “arrangement.”  I’m telling you, it matters.

He did not say “agreement.” He said, “We have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from…” But it doesn’t do that.  I know he’s lying about the permanence, the prohibition of a nuke. It’s unforgivable but it is what it is. It’s who Obama is.  But here’s the thing.  He then said, “The sanctions would unravel if we walk away from our arrangement.”  Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Just a second, now.

The sanctions are lifted as part of the arrangement.  What is this “sanctions would unravel if we walk away”?  The sanctions are going away with the arrangement!  So if we walk away, and there is no arrangement, are we also gonna take the sanctions with us?  Why would the sanctions automatically unravel if there’s no arrangement?  Why wouldn’t they stay on?  But then there’s another question about the sanctions that popped into my head as well.

‘Cause Obama’s out there — and this is not the first day that he said this.  You know, a lot of people are zeroing in on the sanctions being lifted because that gives Iran anywhere from a hundred to $130 billion of cash that they can spend however they want.  John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) has admitted that they could kill Americans with it.  They will continue to fund their operations and policies in the Middle East.

That’s Hezbollah, Hamas, whatever they’re in bed with.  We’ve acknowledged that’s gonna happen.  But Obama is saying that sanctions will not stop Iran from building its nuclear program.  Not just today, either.  I mean, this has been part of the argument from the beginning of this arrangement to drop the sanctions because the sanctions, they’re not gonna stop ’em from doing anything anyway.

Well, okay, then, isn’t it a rather obvious question? If you’re going to claim that sanctions, economic sanctions would not prevent the Iranians from going all-nuke, then why would the threat of them unraveling prevent the Iranians from cheating?  Obama’s out trying to make the claim that we can prevent Iran from cheating with this deal and so forth, but the sanctions are the key to it.

But at the same time, he says that sanctions are not gonna stop the Iranian nuclear program, and that’s his excuse for getting rid of them, because they’re not gonna stop anything.  So why would the threat of re-imposing them bother the Iranians? If the existence of sanctions is no big deal, then why would “snapping” them back on be a big deal?  And yet that’s what he’s out there saying would happen here.  If they cheat.

(impression) “That’s right.  We catch the Iranians cheating, we could put those sanctions right back on.”

But wait a minute!  You just said the sanctions are not gonna stop ’em.

“Well, that’s right.  You’re asking a question you’re not supposed to ask.  You’re just supposed to let me say it and applaud.”

Oh.  Well, I’m sorry, ’cause it doesn’t make any sense.  You can’t sit there and tell us that sanctions are not gonna stop them from going all-nuke, and then in the next breath tell us that the Iranians would be scared to death to cheat because the sanctions would be put back on ’em.  If they don’t count, they don’t count.  If they don’t work, they don’t work.  This is what we’re dealing with here.

I have some audio sound bites of President Obama, and his speech just concluded short while ago on the Iranian nuclear arrangement.  It is now an “arrangement” that we have with the Iranians, and we have four sound bites here in which the president bashes conservative media, bashes George W. Bush, and says that if Congress does not approve the deal, the Iranians will have a nuke in six months. (laughing)  If we don’t approve the deal…

I thought we didn’t have to approve it.  I thought it was already approved at the UN.  All of a sudden now, the US Congress matters?  And it really doesn’t.  Here’s why it matters: For Obama’s legacy.  Which is what this is all about.  Obama wants the history books to read that while there was opposition on everything he did, he overwhelmed them, he defeated them, and in some cases he even persuaded them to join him. And that’s what he wants in this Iranian deal.

I cannot emphasize enough what these things are really about.  We’re dealing here, folks, with an interesting psychological study.  Obama is genuinely a leftist, and he has these radically extreme leftist ideals that he is implementing, and my previously made comments over the years about his desire to transform the country because he’s mad, unhappy, angry at the way the country was founded and it’s time that a bunch of people had to pay the price for all the pain and suffering of others.

Yeah, all that’s true, too.  But there’s more than that.  It’s not just that.  He’s building a legacy. First president ever to get national health care in the US! After all the great presidents before him who tried, he’s the one who did it.  Saving the country from a ravaging recession and maybe depression. (Even though it hasn’t happened, that’s the story line.)  The only president who ever got a deal with an enemy, limiting their usage of nuclear weapons.

A lot of presidents have come before Obama, a lot of them have tried to deal with Iran, but Barack Hussein O was the only president in American history to ever be good enough, talented enough, smart enough to actually do it.  That’s the legacy he’s shooting for.  When it comes to the Iranian deal, the reason now all of a sudden Congress matters is because as far as the legacy is concerned, he wants it to look like he was able to get unanimity or at least majority agreement, even among his enemies.

Because that will make it an even bigger deal in the history books.  He is somebody that is acutely devoted to what will be said and written about him hundreds of years from now.  I can’t relate to that. (chuckles) I don’t care what’s said about me today, much less tomorrow.  He cares about it a hundred years from now.  Well, when I say it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t govern what I do is my point.  I mean, everybody cares what they say about them, but it’s not gonna make me change who I am in order to get them to say good things.

OBAMA:  When I ran for president eight years ago as a candidate, who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war.  We had to end the mind-set that got us there in the first place.  It was a mind-set characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mind-set that put a premium on unilateral US action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mind-set that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.  More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq.

RUSH:  The disinformation, misinformation, the history revisionism now continues.  Why, you would think that before Obama all we did was go to war and that’s all we wanted to do, and that’s the only way we ever thought we could solve problems.  We didn’t have any diplomats before Obama came along. We didn’t have any good ones! We didn’t have any real smart diplomacy.

No, we just had a bunch of cowboys characterized by the last president before Obama, and that’s Bush. Who once again here gets raked over the coals being ultimately responsible for all of this that Obama had to fix, from the economy, to health care, to immigration, to now Iranian nuclear weapons.  Why, everybody had tried to fix it, but Bush made the biggest mess of anybody, and it took the unique intelligence and skills of Barack Hussein Obama to supposedly fix all of this.

“Oh, yeah, the American mind-set before Obama got here? Yeah, we don’t like somebody? Go kill ’em! We don’t like somebody? Go to war with them!” Build a consensus?  What did Bush do before we get into Iraq?  He spent almost two years building a consensus.  It’s so frustrating to have to sit here and constantly defend against these lies, and it feels like spitting against the wind anyway.  Here’s the next bite…

OBAMA:  Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism, evaluated by headline-grabbing sound bites.  And so, before the ink was even dry on this deal (snickers) — before Congress even read it — a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition.

RUSH: (chuckles) This from a man who gives us a health care bill that nobody was allowed to see until it was passed.  This is the guy who gave us a Transpacific Trade Deal that nobody was allowed to see before they voted on it, unless they went to a secret room in the basement of the Capitol. They were not allowed to take any notes out of the room, they were not allowed to talk about it, they were not allowed to share any information about it.

This is a guy talking about making “virulent opposition” decisions before they’ve even seen it?  That’s how 90% of what Obama’s done has gotten done.  Nobody’s been able to see it before it became ratified, passed, or had his signature on it.  You talk about the pot calling the kettle black, with this comment that everything in this country is “viewed through a prison of partnership” and he is an angel of nonpartisanship and total objectivity?

There’s no ideology driving Obama?

He’s not a partisan in any way?

“He’s just trying to do the best for everybody! He’s trying to save the climate. He’s trying to save lions. He’s trying to save innocent women. There’s no ideology!”  It’s just insulting.  But again, it’s spitting against the wind, because one thing we’ve learned over 6-1/2, seven years, that you can’t square people with this.  I mean, if they have fallen into Obama idolatry, that’s it. No matter what facts you have, no matter what emotion you have — if you’re even able to reach ’em emotionally — you’re not gonna be able to persuade them that Obama is who he is. 

Here’s the next bite, second-to-last…

OBAMA:  Without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now!  By killing this deal, Congress would not merely pave Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it!

RUSH:  See how that works?  See, with the deal, they don’t ever get a nuclear weapon.  If we get this thing signed, Congress approves it, they never get a nuclear weapon.  But if we don’t sign it, they’re gonna have one in six months?  Wait, now, just a minute.  What’s all this talk about they’re a year or two away?  They’re gonna have one in six months if we don’t do this?  If they’re only six months away, there’s nothing that’s gonna stop them from getting one, deal or not.

This is… Just to show you how mindless this is, here he is praising his diplomacy and criticizing all these previous presidents who’ve gone to war.  What are we doing in Syria? What are we doing with ISIS?  Is his diplomacy solving a great problem there or we at war?  Who is it that ramped up troop levels in Afghanistan?  Who extended the war in Afghanistan?  Who is it that hasn’t closed Club Gitmo, despite promises?  This is the Limbaugh Theorem on display.

This is how Obama runs around and forever shields himself from accountability for everything that he’s done.  Just go out, A, and lie about what he’s done — lie about what his opponents have said — and then the things that he’s made happen, the things that he has caused always end up being blamed on others because Obama promises he’s gonna continue “fighting” to try to fix the things that he’s actually made happen.  And here’s the final sound bite in the mix…

OBAMA:  Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America!” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe.  In fact, it’s those — (applause) — in fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo.  It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America!” who’ve been most opposed to the deal.  They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus.  (laughter).

RUSH:  Well.  Now, wait a second. You know what, folks, that’s more outrageous than anything Donald Trump’s ever said.  You know, I have a theory about this, because what did he just say?  He’s saying these “Death to America!” hardliners in Iran are making common cause with the Republican caucus because the hardliners “Death to America!” who happen to include the Ayatollah Khamenei.  Who is it that’s leading those chants, standing next to his Kalashnikov?  It’s the Ayatollah Khamenei.

Who is it that’s just written a book about how to outwit the US and destroy Israel?  It’s the Ayatollah Khamenei, the guy Obama made the deal with.  Who is the guy leading the chants “Death to America! Death to America!”?  It’s the Ayatollah Khamenei, the guy Obama made the deal with.  But Obama says no, it’s just a bunch of hardliners, and they don’t want the deal, just like the Republicans. They’re making common cause with the Republicans.

You know what?  I’m gonna raise my hand and say I may be responsible for him saying that.  And when I tell you why, Mr. Snerdley, you may agree with me.  Who is it, I ask, who has a continually pointed out that you can’t tell the difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticizing America and the Democrat Party?  Me.  Who is it that routinely during the 2012 campaign made the observation that whenever I hear an enemy of America criticize this country, it sounds just like your average day Democrat.  Me, your beloved host El Rushbo.  It’s now I think established that has really ticked them off.  I think it has really, really ticked ’em off, and this is payback.  The hardliners in Iran who don’t want the deal, “Death to America!” are making Common Cause with the Republican caucus.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s