http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/08/marie_harf_corrects_obamaMarie Harf Corrects Obama
April 08, 2015
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I think everybody's got this Marie Harf thing wrong. Have you heard about this? Obama goes out there, and I forget where, it was an interview, NPR, somewhere -- and, by the way, he's making the rounds on global warming. He's blaming asthma, every health malady your kid has is because of climate change now. And more scientists than ever, ever agree that it is happening, that it is almost irreversible and the government is the only outlet that can do anything about it to save everybody. He's making the rounds all over TV, and the meteorology people are dutifully just sucking it all up. We have audio sound bites to prove it.
Anyway, Obama's out there, and he let the cat out of the bag, that everything Netanyahu has said about the Iran deal is true, that the Iranians are gonna get a nuke courtesy of Barack Obama and the United States. Obama went out there and admitted it himself. And that's the story about in 10 to 13 years they're gonna be able to nuke up. Essentially they have promised to stay one year away from weaponizing their uranium for ten years. So they're one year away now, five years from now they're supposed to stay one year away.
In other words, they're not supposed to advance their capabilities beyond where they are now, not much. And then 10, 13 years from now they can go ahead and close the deal and get a weapon. Obama essentially went out and said that. So they went to the State Department, and Marie Harf, who we have referenced on this program -- you know, it's really tough for me. Marie Harf, you've heard the old line, if you want to see X in the dictionary, whatever, go look at such-and-such. Marie Harf is that.
She is the textbook dictionary definition of valley girl, Northeastern Ivy League liberal, trained the government's the end all to everything, feminist. Everything in the ideal liberal female package, including appearance, she's it. She's second in command at it State Department as spokeswoman. Jen Psaki was her boss -- Psaki is leaving and I think heading to the White House, but she may still be at the State Department.
Anyway, Marie Harf went out and said that Obama was a little mixed up there in describing what he had said about the nuclear deal. Here's the headline of the story, and they're all over the place. "'Open Confusion' at State Department as Marie Harf Tries to Walk Back Obama’s Zero Breakout Time Admission -- 'Open confusion' reigned today at the State Department after spokeswoman Marie Harf tried to withdraw a quote from President Barack Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear breakout time."
Now, let me check the audio. I want to see if we've got her here. If we do, I will let you hear it. Marie Harf. Marie Harf. I don't think -- No. No Marie Harf here. At any rate, everybody is now demanding she be fired. Everybody's demanding that this is an act of insolence. That this is an act of wanton public embarrassment of Obama. It was indeed in an interview with NPR. Obama acknowledged that "after year 13, the current deal being worked out with Iran would not provide the international community with the promised 1-year warning should Iran decide to violate the deal and go for a nuclear weapon." (laughing) He admitted this!
He admitted that Iran can violate it, don't have to tell anybody, but not until year 13. If anybody thinks they're gonna wait for year 13 they're crazy anyway, but this is what Obama went out and said. Obama said in the NPR interview: "'In year 13, 14, 15' of the deal, 'they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,' and that the assurances of a 1-year warning time would be available to the international community for 'at least well over a decade. And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter.'"
To translate this it's exactly what I told you.
Iran is claiming/promising to stay a year away from "breaking out" (i.e., weaponizing their nukes) for the next 10 years. When they get to year 13 or 14, they're gonna be much closer than a year out and they're not gonna have to warn anybody. They can just do it. This is what Obama went out and said. So the reaction to this has been quite common-sensical.
"
nder that scenario" Obama just described here, "there will be no way to physically prevent them from building a nuclear weapon, and they would be able to go nuclear at will," and Obama essentially laid out how that will happen. "In the State Department's attempted response to queries about the president's statement on Tuesday, Spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters that the President was talking about a hypothetical sscneario [sic] in which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) had not been enacted.
"Harf asserted that while the president's words 'were a little mixed up there,' he was in fact 'referring to a scenario in which there was no deal,' adding that the president's scenario was 'more of a hypothetical, "well look, without a deal, this is what could possibly happen." He was not indicating what would happen under an agreement in those years.'" He was not indicating that this is what the deal is now.
A lot of people, among them the website here, the Israel Project, "outright rejected Harf's explanation noting that the president wasn't muddled, as Harf asserted, but was responding to a question about whether the deal with Iran was worthwhile given the concessions on Iran's stockpile, 'he dismissed the stockpile concern, then said the "more relevant fear" had to do with the sunset provisions that would allow Iran to have a zero breakout time after year 13. There's no room for reinterpretation there.'"
He said what he said. He meant to say what he said. He said exactly what the deal is, and he wasn't supposed to, apparently. Or at least, Marie Harf, acting on her own instincts, believed that Obama had screwed up and had admitted something that nobody at the Regime wants admitted. That's how I interpret this. So she felt it her duty to the cause, which supersedes her duty to Obama. Remember, liberals are liberals first.
Her duty to the cause was to, at all costs, make sure and try her best to make sure that people did not think Obama was actually spelling out terms of the deal. So she said his "words 'were a little mixed up there,' he was in fact 'referring to a scenario in which there was no deal.'" But that's not what Obama was doing. So now they're gonna need a new spin on Obama's comments, otherwise they're gonna be accused of blatantly trying to obfuscate with reporters and to confuse them.
Marie Harf... I mean, there's one outtake here that says that that... Let's see. This is Charles... No, it's Mario Loyola, National Review. He says, "Needless to say, I am not President Obama's biggest fan, but this affront to the president's authority on the part of the State Department's spokesman Marie Harf was shockingly incompetent. She should be fired, along with whoever it was at the White House that she cleared her statement with."
Well, that's the key. "At issue is Obama's statement in an NPR interview yesterday, to the effect that after the Iran nuclear deal has run its course, Iran's breakout time to nukes would be reduced to zero." Everybody's known this! Obama said this many, many days ago, many weeks ago. Everybody has known. Netanyahu was right on the money with this.
When I say, "Everybody has known," it was it reported. Everybody could have known. The way this thing was originally reported (this is almost verbatim Obama) was that for ten years Iran has to stay a year away, and during the 10 years to 13 years they are able to continue improving, researching, developing their nuclear program. But they are promising to stay away from activating the weaponized portion for a number of years.
And then after 10 years, the original report was they have a green light; they can go ahead and weaponize. After 10 years of getting close but holding back. Part of the original report was that Obama was not worried about this, because, again... Now, this is unstated, but everybody ought to realize that Obama's worldview on this is that we don't have the right to tell them they don't get a nuclear weapon. In fact, everybody ought to realize: He wants them to have a nuclear weapon!
You know, this little excerpt that I read from the Obama interview with Thomas "Loopy" Friedman in the New York Times yesterday? Let me go back to that for a second here. Obama said, "We are powerful enough to be able to test these propositions without putting ourselves at risk. And that's the thing ... people don't seem to understand. You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren't that many risks for us.
"It's a tiny little country. It's not one that threatens our core security interests, and so (there's no reason not) to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn't lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies." Now here's the money portion: "The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of US citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran's defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us."
Iran's a small country, a tiny country?
Well, so is Israel.
My first reaction is, "So is Israel!" Why is he so afraid of Israel? Israel's a smaller country than Iran. I don't know about defense budget, I don't know about GDP, but in terms of population and geographical size, Israel's much smaller. Obama doesn't seem to say of Israel, "Eh, it's a small country. We don't have anything to worry about! Israel's a small country. The Middle East doesn't have anything to fear from Israel. We can try some new forms of engagement.
"If it doesn't work out, we'll try something else." Why doesn't he extend the same benefit of thought to Israel that he extends to Iran? The bottom line is, he wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I don't think there's any doubt about it. I have gone back. I went back and I researched. I have two things I want to share with you on this at this stage, one a brilliant column today by a man I really admire, Norman Podhoretz at Commentary.
But before I get to that, I went back to Obama's remarks at the Brandenburg Gate June 19, 2013. Barack Obama. There he was, Citizen of the World, standing at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. He wanted to do that in 2008, but they wouldn't let him. He did a big speech in Berlin. He wanted to go to the Brandenburg Gate, but they wouldn't let him because he wasn't anything at that point.
So he made sure to go back to the Brandenburg Gate when he was somebody, and he said on June 19, 2013, "We reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking." That's a quote. "We reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking." This is in '13, which means it's pre-election, which means Obama is guaranteed to be prevaricating.
So I guess today be safe to say that Obama rejects his rejection. In 2013, Obama said he was working to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, cited North Korea, cited Iran. Today, Obama is working, if not to guarantee the spread of nuclear weapons, he certainly isn't working to stop it in Iran. In context, this is kind of blockbuster to me. And Netanyahu spoke to Congress in support of Obama's declarations in 2013.
So it's Obama who's flipped.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here's another way of putting this, folks. For ten years Iran can build up its enriched uranium supply to the brink of it being almost usable for nuclear weapons. It currently has enough enriched uranium for seven bombs, and then after ten years, who knows how many bombs they'll be able to make. The Iranians' currently enriched uranium only needs to be boosted from 20% to 80% to be used as nuclear material.
And they now have new centrifuges, which can do that very quickly because the sanctions have been lifted and they can get even more centrifuges. They're not gonna have to get rid of the centrifuges that they got, the new ones. They get to keep them. In fact, they're claiming they're gonna be allowed to start using them under this deal.
Now, here's Marie Harf. This was at the State Department yesterday. An AP reporter, Matt Lee, said, "I'd like to go to Iran and the president's rather unusual sales job in this most recent interview, in which he said after 13 years that Iran would have the capability -- or could have -- to produce a nuclear weapon."
HARF: I think that his words were a little mixed up there, but what he was referring to is a scenario in which they -- there was no deal, and if you go back and look at the transcript, I know it's a little confusing. I spoke to the folks at the White House and read it a few times. It's my understanding that he was referring to -- even though it was a little muddled in the words, to -- a scenario in which there was no deal.
RUSH: Now, how does that make Obama look?
It means this woman had to get together with people in the White House and ask them, "What did he just say? My God, did he just tell the truth about this deal? Oh, my God, what are we gonna do?" So they sent Harf out there on damage control. (impression) "Well, he was a little mixed up in his words out there. You know, he was confused. I talked to people the White House, and he was he was talking about if there's no deal. Everybody knew that. Look at the context."
END TRANSCRIPT
