Rush: Obama Lied on Lockerbie Bomber (transcript)


RUSH: There’s a big story out there today, the Lockerbie bomber story, and for those of you that don’t really know about this, the bomber did not blow up Lockerbie. The bomber blew up a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, and it happened to crash in Lockerbie. And that’s why it’s called the Lockerbie bomber, but he blew up a Boeing 747. We have the Obama administration last Tuesday afternoon, Obama talking with Prime Minister David Cameron, joint presser, and Mimi Hall from USA Today got up and read the following question. It was given to her by David Axelrod. “President Obama, how do you feel about a congressional investigation into the Lockerbie bomber stuff, would you like to see that happen or do you think that that confuses the two events?”

OBAMA: I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and my administration expressed very clearly our objections. Prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made.

RUSH: Well, that’s just not true because the White House privately backed the release of the Lockerbie bomber. That’s right. This is from The Australian, published today: “The US government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be ‘far preferable’ to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya. Correspondence obtained by The Sunday Times reveals the Obama administration considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in a Libyan prison. The intervention, which has angered US relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, a week before Megrahi was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer,” from which he’s apparently recovered. “The document, acquired by a well-placed US source, threatens to undermine US President Barack Obama’s claim last week that all Americans were ‘surprised, disappointed and angry’ to learn of Megrahi’s release. Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as ‘half-hearted’ and a sign it would be accepted.”

This is big, folks. It’s as big, if not bigger than the WikiLeaks thing. The WikiLeaks thing, can we now call this the Democrats’ war? They wanted it. From the first day we went into Iraq they wanted to focus on Afghanistan. This is Obama’s war. Can we now call it Obama’s war? Yes we can, and we will do so accurately. I still don’t know what to call these people. They’re not media. The flacks for the ruling class will of course not call it Obama’s war, but it clearly is. The White House backed release of Lockerbie, the bomber. Now, remember ClimateGate, let’s put all this in perspective. ClimateGate was a story because e-mails got out that were meant to remain hidden from public view, forever. Information about the White House backing the release of the Lockerbie bomber was never supposed to see the light of day, either. But it has. This is the same regime that desperately wants to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City; the same regime that wants NASA to help Muslims feel better about themselves in math and science; the same regime that has not said a word about a mosque at Ground Zero, which is opposed by I think even 71% of New Yorkers and throughout the country. A mosque at Ground Zero is meant as a monument to our defeat, and we have a bunch of politically correct cowards who are afraid to stand up to this and say, “No, no, no, no,” because we still feel somehow the need to reach out, to have understanding with militants in the Islamic world.
So we’ve got a mosque at Ground Zero, the regime has not spoken out against it. They want to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. They want NASA to reach out to Muslims; the same regime that has spent millions of American taxpayer dollars supporting a constitutional referendum in Kenya legalizing abortion there; the same regime that looked the other way when the Iranian people had an opportunity to get their freedom back; the same regime that has done nothing to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons; the same regime that has beat up on Israel like a rented mule; the same regime that lied about backing the release of the Muslim terrorist the world knows as the Lockerbie bomber. We now know that the administration backed the release of the bomber.

Now, for those of you new to the program, never forget these two simple words: liberals lie. That’s all you ever have to know to understand them. You must look at them ideologically. You must look at Obama and every Democrat ideologically because that’s what they are. Before the Lockerbie bombshell, some recent history to give the story context, this is The Politico. July 20th, play the sound bite again. We now know the administration backed, very privately and by not objecting at all to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, this is Obama last Tuesday.

OBAMA: I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber, and my administration expressed very clearly our objections. Prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made.

RUSH: It just isn’t true. Now, the Obama connection to the Lockerbie bomber release only came out accidentally. It wasn’t because of our so-called news media. They ignored it. It was US Democrats who were flailing around for something to attack BP over that uncovered this. The liberal Democrats in this country wanted to savage BP over the oil leak, discovered that the Obama regime supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber. And they were searching around for something to attack BP over after the leak had been capped. The leak got capped too soon to be useful for this election cycle, the American left. So they started digging for dirt and they found this. The US media didn’t find it and they wouldn’t have reported it if they had. This is reported in Australia. Their cries for an investigation into BP’s involvement has come back to bite ’em on the backside. Somebody leaking Obama’s memo, somebody in the UK has leaked Obama’s memo supporting the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The Democrats are Frank “The Lout” Lautenberg, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Charles Schumer of New York and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York who called for this investigation of BP that revealed the memo. But the Obama regime that supported the release. Now, I can imagine a lot of you say, “Rush, why? Why would the Obama administration, why would the regime want to support the early release of the Lockerbie bomber?”


RUSH: Remember, now, the Obama connection to the Lockerbie bomber release only came out accidentally. It was because the Democrats… It wasn’t because of the news media or whatever we’re going to call these people, the flacks for the ruling class. They ignored it. It was American Democrats looking for a new angle to rip into BP after they capped the well. They were demanding an investigation. So they were uncovering all kinds of things. They were looking for things. It was Lautenberg, Menendez, Gillibrand and Chuck-U Schumer. Here’s how CNN put it last week: “In the wake of turbulence of the rupture in April of a BP deep-water well — a rupture that is still releasing millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico — the U.S. senators grasped onto another reason to scrutinize the troubled oil company.”

That quote is from a July 14th CNN report. “Senators Question Whether BP Played Role in Pan Am Bomber’s Release,” and even CNN could not escape the obvious. They said, “[T]he U.S. senators grasped onto another reason to scrutinize the troubled oil company,” and when they started looking into it, guess what? They found a memo indicating the regime of Barack Obama had supported the early release of the Lockerbie bomber, and people said, “Why?” I’ll tell you why. It is because President Obama does not give a damn about what went on before he became president. He doesn’t care about the people of this country, but he wants to give the impression that he does. He wants to give the impression that he’s doing everything for them, for us.

Just remember the context of the time. He wanted to make nice with the Muslim world. He figured out the people on that airline, that airplane, Pan Am, were gone. Nothing he could do about that. Can’t bring ’em back anyway. So “turn the page,” “hit the reset button,” make nice with the enemy. Also show the Muslim world that you’re different, that you’re better, that you’re not an imperialist American, that we can all get along. Remember the Cairo speech. Remember the desire to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a trial in New York City, after the “sheik” had asked for the death penalty. This is the truth. A lot of people have trouble with the motivations because… Well, a lot of people have trouble with the actual fact. Why would Obama want to participate or okay the early release of the Lockerbie bomber? That’s the question people have. Then when you tell them as I just did, “No, Rush! Come on. You really think…?

Yes, I do, and all you have to go do is go back and look at the context of the time (“context” being a big word now), and the context at the time was to show the rest of the world that we’re new now, that we’re different, that the rest of the world can love us and respect us. We don’t have the hatreds that we had when Bush was running the show. We don’t hate the Muslims. We don’t hate the Islamofascists. We’re gonna reach out to them. “What happened before I got here,” Obama says, “is irrelevant. Now that I’m here, I’m the one you’ve all been waiting for! Now American is finally just. Now America has finally become truly moral. What happened before I got here doesn’t count anyway. It doesn’t matter. America was flawed then but America is perfect now because I’m perfect and because I’m here.” He can’t bring the people on that airplane back, so turn the page, hit the reset button, make nice with the enemy and then say, “You can’t even call it terrorism anymore.” There’s no question why he supported the release here.


RUSH: From the UK Guardian (by the way, one of the preferred publications on the receiving end of the Afghanistan war docs): “Barack Obama is under growing pressure to release a letter that reveals the US grudgingly supported freeing the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds. The letter was sent to Scottish ministers by a senior diplomat at the US embassy in London last August, eight days before [this is July 25th, this year] Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison because he was dying from inoperable prostate cancer. Obama’s [regime] has refused to allow publication of the letter, in which the US says allowing Megrahi to live at home in Scotland would be ‘far preferable’ to sending him back to Libya under the prisoner transfer deal brokered by former prime minister Tony Blair in 2007,” which makes perfect sense.

It would appear that Obama was all for letting the mass murderer out of prison, but he didn’t want to do anything to help Scotland BP to get more carbon-emitting oil from Libya. After all, he’s got his priorities here. So it’s very apparent now that the administration’s making all of this up, that they did indeed give support to the whole idea of the release of the Lockerbie bomber. I think that story has as much impact as this WikiLeaks story.

RUSH: Richie, Raleigh, North Carolina, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet, sir.

CALLER: I’ve been a listener since the days of the Rush Room.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, on your first segment today you played a clip of audio of the president saying about the Lockerbie bomber release, “All of us were surprised, disappointed, angry.” I’ve got to disagree with him. One person not surprised was Hillary, and no one in the media is bringing this up, but let’s go back to 1999 when the first lady was going into politics, the US Senate race against Republican Rick Lazio in New York state.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: The secretary of state’s husband, 11 years ago, in August 1999, commuted the sentence and released 16 healthy terrorists who set off 120 bombs in New York City and Chicago between 1974 and 1983.

RUSH: Yeah, that was the FALN bunch.

CALLER: Members of the FALN.

RUSH: Right. Well, that was so that Hillary could get the Puerto Rican vote.

CALLER: Absolutely.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: So releasing terrorists for political reasons or business reasons seems to be common in the Democrat Party.

RUSH: And especially if you can nail BP in the process.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: Yes. All right, thanks, Richie, I appreciate the call.


RUSH: This is Ken in Detroit. You’re next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Yeah, thanks for taking my call, Rush.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I just wanted to comment that when we take a look at the last great battle that our country fought, World War II, it’s a fact that, you know, if we try to fight that war then the way Obama wants to fight this war on terror now, we would have the swastika flying not only over Washington but over Europe and all around the rest of the world. I mean, there’s no doubt that Hitler and his allies, the Axis power would have definitely been the victor. And another thing, Rush, all those individuals that call themselves Democrats now, I don’t think they would even be alive today if Hitler had won the war. I think that a lot of people just have to understand, when there is a fight, the enemy is going to be bringing the machine gun. And Barack Obama, he wants to bring a feather, you know. Who’s going to win the fight?

RUSH: Well, true. Obama is part and parcel of the American left, which believes the United States military is the focus of evil, that the US has been the imperialist and colonialist nation in the world. This is one of the reasons I think that Obama clearly believes we need to have a lesson or two taught to us, we need to be shown the evils of our way, and we need to have happen to us the kind of things that we have perpetrated against others. That’s why he feels the need to go around and apologize, that’s why he’s punishing the private sector, the middle class, everybody who works in this country is being punished. That’s why it’s about time we found out the kind of misery that we have forced on people the world over. Now, I asked earlier, imagine if Lincoln had fought the Civil War with the rules of engagement that we have today. I got an e-mail from somebody who said: “We did. His name was McClellan. That’s why Lincoln got rid of him and found Ulysses Grant.”


Join Emptysuit On Twitter

Click On Links:
Rush Limbaugh Opinion On Michael Steele
Rush Limbaugh’s Wedding
Rush Limbaugh Interview About Obama
Obamas Attacks Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh’s Transcript: Donating To Red Cross For Haiti Relief
Rush Limbaugh Transcript: Rahm Emanuel Retards
Transcript: Rush Limbaugh “We Need To Defeat These Bastards”
Rush Limbaugh: Obama Is Destroying The Ecomomy
Rush Limbaugh Transcript: No, I’m Not Moving to Costa Rica

The House Negro And The Field Negro
Obama’s Mistress Vera Baker
Michelle Obama On Hawaii Beach For Christmas
Michelle Obama Chimp Image On Google
Ahmadinejad Tells Obama, Get Some Experience
Michelle Obama’s Short-Shorts
Obama Female Golfing Buddy
About Emptysuit
Your Opinion

[tweetmeme source=”emtsut”]

  1. Frances Yates writes:’The pabbrole interactions between the English Puritan movement, culminating in the Civil War and the Protectorate, and the contemporary Amsterdam Jewish community , with its intense religious and cultural life, and its earnest Lurianic Cabalism in expectation of the Messiah, is a phase of religious history that has not been examined. Both Jews and Puritans lived in excited expectation of a coming divine event. The Puritans expected the Second Coming and the Christian millennium. It has recently been argued that Puritan cultivation of science had as a motive the bringing-in millennium working to make the world worthy of it, which would hasten its advent. Jewish Lurianic Cabalists worked with intensive meditation and prayer towards making possible the advent of the Messiah. The two movements may have interacted upon one another in more ways than we know.”This was the foundation of the British-Dutch Empire [ a lot more focussed on the British] which was built on vision[s] of a one future world.The Jewish Messiah came in 1665 but promptly converted to Islam in 1666 , but , perhaps the ‘work’ had been done [ i.e getting certain people into positions of strategic, financial and military power].Nowadays they seem to be able to dump a ‘reality’ on us and there are always enough who will take it up and belittl;e those who dare question the wisdom of the mythmakers.The myth of the Land of Israel – well , u can even get other countries to defend that one .In the late 1800s there was a shift away from GB seeing FRance as an enemy to GB seeing Germany as an enemy – which got everyone into a copule of nice wars.cheers

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s