Author Topic: The Obama Doctrine: 2012 or Bust  (Read 450 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 28,975
The Obama Doctrine: 2012 or Bust
« on: March 29, 2011, 05:51:07 PM »
The Obama Doctrine: 2012 or Bust
March 29, 2011


RUSH: No, you can't look at it that way. That is the entirely wrong perspective to look at it that way. Ah, Snerdley is sitting here telling me about the speech last night. Let me put it this way. I think I can finally explain the Obama Doctrine in three words: "2012 or Bust" That's what the Obama Doctrine is. Folks, greetings, great to have you here. Music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, Rush Limbaugh with unique insight and analysis here on the cutting edge. Telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address,
First, the speech did not come from the Oval Office.  Second, it happened at 7:30 Eastern time, 4:30 on the Left Coast, meaning it was not a priority for this speech to be seen.  It was not a priority for this speech to be heard.  Normally something of this supposed great import you do it at nine o'clock.  However, there was a very important television program on last night and ABC told the White House, "We're not moving this.  If you do this at nine o'clock, we're not gonna cover it. We'll let the other networks have it."  They did not want to move nor did they want to interrupt Dancing with the Stars.  No, no, no.  Laugh if you want.  It's the truth.  And that was fine with Obama. 

My friends, I have an entirely different take on this speech last night.  I don't know how entirely different it is, now that I think about it.  I look at some of the stuff I have in one of my stacks here, various media analyses. I think it's an incorrect thing to look at Obama's speech last night as a foreign policy speech.  I think it's a mistake to look at it as a speech on Libya and the war or "kinetic military activity."  He didn't say "war."  I think the only proper way to look at this speech last night was as a campaign speech for 2012.  This was a speech designed exclusively for domestic political consumption.  This was not a speech about military policy.  It was not a speech about foreign policy.  It was a speech that Obama waited to give until he had a pretty good idea in his mind of the lay of the land.  It was a speech that was given just like pretty much all of Obama's speeches, a speech in which he's jockeying for position.  It's all about making him look good.  The key to this speech last night was the president of the United States told a known coward, Moammar Khadafy, that the world would be better off if he weren't part of it. 

Now, Obama made a great point about, we're not gonna do this militarily, but we want him gone.  And the rest of the world wants him gone.  I knew that I was right when I saw and heard Obama rip into both Bush 43 and Clinton.  When he starts talking about how long it took in Iraq, eight years, which it actually didn't.  This is where he's wrong.  Regime change in Iraq took, what, a couple days?  We got rid of Saddam Hussein within two days of moving in there, much faster than Obama has gotten rid of Khadafy.  Obama wants to make it look like Khadafy's gonna go.  It all hinges on Khadafy quitting.  All of this, this speech last night totally hinges on Khadafy quitting.  And, folks, if he does, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but if Khadafy decides in the next two weeks, month, whatever, to go into exile, you're gonna have the biggest victory speech that Washington's ever thrown, and it's all gonna be about how great Obama's diplomacy, power of persuasion, how great his words are.  Why, all it took was one speech, nine days late, but when Obama finally rolled up his sleeves and got involved, Khadafy finally heard the message and he's gone.  It won't matter who replaces Khadafy.  It could be the Muslim Brotherhood; could be Osama Bin Laden.  It won't matter because it's gonna take a while.  And by the time that happens it will all be forgotten. 

By that time whoever takes over Libya can be back to being blamed on Bush.  No, no.  I'm very serious.  I got sick to my stomach watching this last night.  I got sick to my stomach thinking about this last night.  Because I, like you, got caught up. We could analyze it as a foreign policy military whatever speech.  It was a disaster in that regard.  It was pathetic.  It was incompetent.  It lacked energy.  Obama said a bunch of things that he doesn't believe.  I almost thought he was about ready to start making the case for American exceptionalism.  He said things for the first time last night he doesn't believe.  He got really close to articulating the Bush Doctrine, which everybody wants to be free and wherever anybody wants to be free, we're gonna go there and make it happen.  He doesn't believe that.  But when you look at what he knows vis-a-vis 2012, his reelection campaign, where the independents are today, he knows that the vast majority of the American people do believe in American exceptionalism. He knows the vast majority of voters want an exceptional America.  So he's pliable, very comfortable with making people think that he sees the world and the country the same way.
If Khadafy doesn't leave, two weeks, two months, if Khadafy doesn't leave, well, no big deal, no real change.  Obama can't look any worse than he does.  But if Khadafy decides to scram, and look at this story from the UK Independent: "West Willing to Strike Immunity Deal with Khadafy to End Conflict."  West?  That would be us.  "Britain and other coalition countries would be prepared to allow Muammar Khadafy to escape prosecution and be granted safe haven as part of a deal to end the conflict in Libya.  Publicly, David Cameron has called for Colonel Khadafy to face an investigation by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. But privately, government officials suggest there is growing support for a deal which would allow him immunity from prosecution and the chance to live out his life in another country," with some of his wealth.  If that happens, folks, I want to warn you, you are going to see media orgasms like you haven't seen, not even in Grant Park on election night in 2008.  Because you have no idea how desirous the American media is to be able to portray Obama as a kick-butt military leader.  You have no idea. 

You can't understand the desire the media has to portray Obama as one of the most powerful and decisive foreign policy presidents in the history of the country.  You have no idea.  So he makes this speech last night, but if Libya turns out good, meaning if Khadafy quits, Obama's gonna say he won a war, and he'll take credit for it.  If it fails, if Khadafy does not leave, Obama's still on the good side of everything 'cause he's involved in a humanitarian effort to save countless lives.  And it won't matter that Khadafy retained power if he stays in power because Obama's still on the side of decency and goodness and humanitarian things.  So that's the way to look at this, through the prism of the 2012 reelection.  Not as a foreign policy speech.  Not as a military speech.  It's a domestic speech.  And he set himself up -- I'm even wondering if perhaps -- I mean he's got this incredible ego.  One of the things that maybe made him go on that vacation to Rio, he might have thought that simply with the threat that we would go in there that Khadafy would quit then. 

But I'm convinced -- you can't talk me out of it -- I'm convinced that this whole speech was nothing more than a campaign speech for 2012 to buck up Obama's 2012 foreign policy credentials and to set up a scenario where if it happens, the word "great," "unique," "special," "forceful," whatever, could be applied to Obama.  And look at the contrast that would be in practically every program here for the past week, what's the subject been?  Incompetence, disinterest, lack of knowledge.  I mean he's been taking hits from everybody.  What's the mission?  How do we define victory?  Why didn't he go to Congress?  I mean Obama's been taking hit after hit after hit from his own side, from the media, from us.  And last night he makes it clear, the whole thing here, "Khadafy goes."  And if you're Khadafy, by the way, let's take a look at this now, you're a well-known coward.  Well, the guy shut up for 15 years after Reagan bombed him.  Didn't he?  Not a word.  We went into Iraq and Khadafy gave up his nukes and a number of other things. 

So now you're Khadafy and here's somebody you think is one of you -- you know, from Africa, a Muslim, that's what Khadafy thinks of Obama, he's said so -- telling the world that it would be better off if Khadafy were dead, or at least not in Libya.  So Khadafy's sitting there thinking, "My gosh, the whole world thinks that everybody would be better off if I weren't here."  Now, a guy like that might believe that Obama's lying when he says we're not gonna use our military to get him. In fact, I would bet you that Khadafy thinks that Obama was lying and that the US military and who knows who else is coming for him.  And if Khadafy thinks that, and if he likes money and if he wants to stay alive, and if somebody will promise him exile, don't be surprised if he takes it.  I'm just telling you, if he does, it's gonna be a horror show.  The most incompetent, the most unqualified, least qualified guy in whatever room he walks into is going to be heralded as the greatest statesman of the twentieth century.  No, I mean 20th.  They'll launch him into FDR area.  Snerdley, you forget what I said.  The media, you do not know the desire they have to put this guy in that crowd.  FDR, Churchill.  I'm telling you. 

I'm just warning all of you here. (interruption)  What if Khadafy's forces rout these guys and there's a humanitarian -- well, there is a potential for the downside here for Obama, if Khadafy's guys rout the rebels and humanitarian disasters continue to happen.  That will just ratchet up demand for a more strident, forceful military policy.  And in which case Obama's laid it out, we're a great country.  We alone protect and stand for freedom.  He's built himself an excuse for ratcheting it up, Mr. Snerdley.  He's built himself an excuse for moving in a more forceful way if he has to.  He didn't use the word "war."  He didn't talk about the rebels.  He didn't talk about Congress.  He did talk about NATO and the UN.  But he didn't answer a lot of questions that a lot of people were hoping he would answer.  What he did was wait to give this speech nine or ten days to have some sort of lay of the land.


Most presidents who have guts and fortitude give this speech on day one, folks, and explain why and tell the American people the who, what, where, why, what are we doing here, why are we doing it, what's the objective.  You take the country into war, you tell the people that's what you're doing.  We haven't even done that.  This is kinetic military action.  He waits nine days.  That's to get the lay of the land, to figure out where he is, figure out what he can say, what he should say that's gonna end up making him look good.  It's all about him, and in this case last night was about the 2012 presidential election.  Last night was a domestic campaign speech.



photo with the Presidential Seal.  What?  Are they going to make a stamp out of that?
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"If you want to change the world, go home and love your family".    ...Mother Teresa

"It's not the mountain before you, but the pebble in your shoe"      ....or something like that

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo