Posted on 09/11/2014 11:14:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, I have a plethora of observations about last night's speech. Kathryn and I watched the speech together, and I took copious notes -- well, I left verbal audio notes to myself and was pausing the playback. We watched it live, but I would hit pause on my DVR and we'd look at each other and make comments. Let me tell you the first observation I had. It was borne out, I mean, within 30 seconds of the speech ending. I paused this, and I looked at Kathryn and I said, "There are a lot of people that are gonna think this was a great speech." And theatrically it was.
We have to be honest about something here, folks. Presentation, forget the content for a second, watch this as low-information people would. The low-information people are not gonna pick up on the nuance. They're not gonna pick up the contradiction 'til they're told about it. 
I mean, the content of the speech was embarrassing, but forget that. The way it looked, Obama's countenance as he was giving it, for the first time, I'm just gonna tell you, for the first time he gave a speech and made me think he actually wants America to win something. For the first time he gave a speech that actually made me think that he holds this country out to be something special.
Now, if I picked up on that, and I'm just using my powers of observation, and I'm not listening to the content per se, I mean, I know the conflicts. But he also said enough things that sounded like any other president that we've always trusted in situations like this. It was a first. And you will hear in the audio sound bite roster today Sandy Berger said the same thing. Sandy Berger said it was the first time we've actually had a presidential speech out of this guy. I'm paraphrasing his words, but Sandy Berger had this observation.
I said, "Theoretically and performance-wise, this is so markedly different that you're gonna have a lot of people really think this is a great speech." And not 30 seconds after it ended I get a flash from somebody telling me that Newt Gingrich is on CNN just praising this speech to the hilt, the best thing he's ever heard, best speech Obama's ever given. And I knew it, folks, I knew that would be the reaction. Now, Newt saying so, obvious reasons why. It was not, however. When you get to the content, it was embarrassing.
It was incompetence on parade. It was dangerously unaware on parade. But theatrically, the way low-information people, if they were even bothering to watch, it's clear why he did this. The speech was purely political. Two weeks ago Obama didn't care about this. Two weeks ago he had no strategy. Two weeks ago it didn't matter. But there are polls out there left and right that are disastrous for Obama.
This whole thing last night was political. But to a casual observer, and more importantly to an American citizen who thinks that every president is out to defend and protect this country and is engaged in seeing to its that this country triumphs, that speech last night sounded Eisenhower, Reagan. Not content, now, folks. Snerdley is looking at me like he can't believe me. You didn't watch it. I'm telling you, don't doubt me.
Now, having said all this, I'm not by any stretch the only person who is ripping this speech to shreds content-wise. Most everybody is. I'm just talking about the theatrics. If you're a casual viewer to this thing, it was so markedly different.
He didn't even get close to making you think he was gonna apologize for America, for example. He didn't get close to making you think that he thinks we're responsible for this. He didn't get anywhere close to blaming America last night. But he got practically every important point dead wrong. For example, "ISIS is not Islamic. ISIS is not Muslim." Oh, really? He said there isn't a religion in the world that targets innocents for death. Oh, yes, there is. Dead wrong magnanimously, proudly, loudly wrong.
The strategy that he unveiled is a joke. Can I basically tell you what the strategy is? We're gonna fly some drones and some jets supporting the Iraqi army. That's it. We are going to train the Iraqi army. See, we're gonna train the Iraqi army. Now, two weeks ago the army didn't need to be trained. The point is, if we had not extricated ourselves from Iraq the way Obama did, he had perfectly good status-of-forces agreement. The main thing you want in a status-of-forces agreement when you're pulling out of a country like we were out of Iraq, you're gonna leave a residual force to protect what you have won. We've done it everywhere. Germany, Japan, you name it.
But we didn't in Iraq, and Obama says it's because he couldn't get a status-of-forces agreement. And what he claimed he couldn't get was immunity for US soldiers who would engage in postwar combat events. If you Iraqis are not gonna immunize American soldiers, we're not hanging around here. We're not gonna have our guys appearing before war crimes tribunals and stuff. But the point is, he did have a status-of-forces agreement. He did. He got out of because of his kook-fringe base. He got out of because of his campaign of 2000. He got out because that was what he built his campaign on.
The entire the Democrat Party of the left tried to say that Iraq was ill-timed, unjust, unnecessary, should never have been there. And I find it just ironic as it can be that here we are now about to start the final two years of this guy's presidency, and it rests on what he does in Iraq. I think this is some of the juiciest irony I could have come up with, that his presidency -- and by the way, this is not me. It's some harebrained leftist media analyst that I have here in the audio sound bite roster, saying that Obama's presidency is going to be judged entirely by what happens here in Iraq. Isn't that juicy?
The party, the Democrat Party -- this still ticks me off -- the Democrat Party which sought defeat the whole time we were in Iraq just so they could win an election, just so they could saddle the defeat on George W. Bush. They did everything they could to undermine the troops. They did everything they could do undermine the leadership. They did everything they could to undermine morale. They and their willing accomplices in the media, they did everything they could to secure defeat.
But they couldn't pull that off before Obama was elected, so Iraq was still going on after he wins. And what is his campaign and what's his whole identity as a Democrat Senator? Iraq stinks. We never should have gone. I'm gonna get us out. It was an absolute terrible mistake. Got nothing for it. And so he had to get everybody out, and leaving everybody out, Obama gave us ISIS. Obama gave us ISIL. Obama and the Democrat Party. And it's kind of sweet irony now that he's gotta go, as the reluctant warrior, that he has to go back in now and try to defeat an uprising Islamic jihadist ISIS or ISIL, same thing, just depends on what acronym you want to use. That he has to go in and wipe this all out.
Michael Moore has abandoned him. A bunch of far-left-wing previous Obama supporters are fit to be tied we're going back in there. Their hatred of the Iraqi war was irrational to begin with. Their devotion to our defeat in Iraq was irrational to begin with, but it was defining for them. And here is their guy, their savior, he's the one, the smartest, he was able to pull us out, like a Mafia guy tries to leave, "And they just keep sucking me back in. I try to get out. I try to leave, but they just keep grabbing me back." And that's Obama, the reluctant warrior.
The strategy does not look good. The plan does not look good because it depends way too much on people that probably are not good enough to accomplish this particular mission.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: One of the first observations that I had last night about the speech was that the president's announcing it detail by detail, strategy. Here's what we're gonna do. Here's who's gonna do it. This is where we're gonna do it, and this is hopefully how we're gonna do it. Why in the world would you announce your strategy? Why would you telegraph what you're gonna do? And then I reminded myself again the purpose of this speech.
The purpose of this speech was political. This was not a speech designed to explain the strategy of victory. It was it was for political consumption by voters in this country. It was a speech designed to counter what people obviously think and feel as represented in polling data.
FOXNews Poll: "10 Pieces of Bad News for the White House." This is why the speech was scheduled last night.
"American voters feel: Barack Obama is weak and indecisive. The US is less respected since Obama became president. The US should do more to stop the Islamic extremist group ISIS. Obama isn’t willing to do what it takes to defeat ISIS. ISIS will try to attack the US soon. Embarrassed about Obama not having a strategy for dealing with ISIS. Obama will try to 'manage' ISIS rather than 'defeat' it."
These are all results from polls all over the place.
"The poll also finds: For the first time, more voters than not feel the US is less safe today than before 9/11." Folks, it's a disaster. The polling data, not just from Fox News, the polling data all over the place about US national security, about Obama's role as commander in chief, about Obama's role in dealing with ISIS, is a disaster.
"For the first time, more voters than not feel the US is less safe today than before 9/11. Obama’s job approval is at record lows on Syria, Iraq and terrorism. (Obama’s overall job approval matches his all-time low.) Most would tell Obama to kill extremists beheading Americans now, rather than caution him against overreacting."
He's seen as indecisive. He's seen as weak. He's seen as not engaged. He's seen as not caring very much. That's why the speech happened last night, and that is why every detail of the strategy was revealed, so that voters could see this is a tough commander-in-chief, and this is a guy who understands the military. He knows how to deploy it and he's willing to do it.
END TRANSCRIPT
BAck to them...
What doofus decided that a lot of REVERB in the audio would enhance the content?
Did the camera fail to show the large barrel the speech MUST have been given in?
OTRANTO - MASSACRE OF CHRISTIANS BY MUSLIMS
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana
800 ItalianThose who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Men Beheaded in Otranto in 1480 for Refusing Islam,by the Turks, with the Approval of Sultan Mehmet II
On August 14, 1480, a massacre happened on a hill outside the city of Otranto, in southern Italy, here 800 of the town’s men were taken to a place called the Hill of the Minerva, and, one by one, beheaded in full view of their fellow prisoners. It became known as the Hill of the Martyrs. They died because they refused to convert to Islam. The 800 men of Otranto were martyrs. But due to their sacrifice, however, the Ottoman invasion was slowed and Rome was spared the same fate that had befallen Constantinople only 27 years before.
The city of Constantinople had been taken in 1453 and for 3 days its people were made slaves or killed or raped and the city was looted, all with the permission of the Sultan, Mehmet (Muhammad) II,who was then 21.Mehmet is the Turkish way of saying Muhammad.
The people of Otranto knew of the siege of Constantinople and that when that city fell the Muslims pillaged the city, but the key moment came when they reached Hagia Sophia.
After breaking down the church’s bronze gates, they found inside a huge throng of Byzantines who had taken refuge and who were praying that the city might be delivered by some miracle. The Christians were seized and separated according to age and gender. The infants and elderly were brutally murdered; the men, including some of the city’s most prominent senators, were carted off to the slave markets; and the women and girls were taken by soldiers to be raped or sent into a life of slavery.
At Otranto, the terms of the Muslims were ostensibly generous. If the town surrendered, the defenders would be permitted to live. They said no, it was repeated and again it was no. It was the city against 18,000 Muslims and it lasted 2 weeks.
Slaughter, Sacrilege, and Slavery
Turkish troops entered and killed anyone in their path. They made their way to the cathedral. As in the Hagia Sophia, the invaders found the church filled with people praying with Archbishop Stefano Agricoli, Bishop Stephen Pendinelli, and Count Largo, the commander of the soldiers. The Ottomans commanded:
1.The archbishop to throw away his crucifix, abjure the Christian faith, and embrace Islam. When he refused, his head was cut off before the weeping congregation.
2.Bishop Pendinelli and Count Largo likewise would not convert and were also put to death, reportedly by being slowly sawed in half.
3.As was the custom, the priests were murdered and the cathedral was stripped of all Christian symbols and turned into a stable for the horses. The Ottomans then gathered up the surviving people of Otranto and took them as captives.
The people of Otranto faced the same end as the Christians of Constantinople. All of the men over the age of 50 were slaughtered; the women and children under the age of 15 were either slain or sent away to Albania to be slaves. According to some contemporary sources, the total number of dead was as high as 12,000, with another 5,000 pressed into slavery.
800 Men who Survived told to Convert to Islam or Die
The Muslim commander ordered the men of Otranto, 800 survivors of the battle, those who were not over 50 and had not been already killed in battle or later, or were not children and had not be killed or enslaved, to be brought before him. He gave them one chance to convert to Islam or die. To convince them, he instructed an Italian apostate priest named Giovanni to preach. The former priest called on the men of Otranto to abandon the Christian faith, and they would get many benefits.
One of the men of Otranto, a tailor named Antonio Primaldi (he is also named Antonio Pezzulla in some sources), came forward to speak to the survivors. He called out that he was ready to die for Christ a thousand times. He then added, according to the chronicler Giovanni Laggetto in the Historia della guerra di Otranto del 1480:
“My brothers, till today we have fought in defense of our country, to save our lives, and for our lords; now it is time that we fight to save our souls for our Lord, so that having died on the cross for us, it is good that we should die for him, standing firm and constant in the faith, and with this earthly death we will win eternal life and the glory of martyrs.”
At this, the men of Otranto cried out with one voice that they too were willing to die a thousand times for Christ.
The Execution
The next morning, August 14, the 800 prisoners were bound together with ropes. The victims repeated their pledge to be faithful to Christ, and the Ottomans chose the courageous Antonio Primaldi as the first to be executed.
The old tailor gave one final exhortation to his fellow prisoners and knelt before the executioner. The blade fell and decapitated him, but then, as the chronicler Saverio de Marco claimed in the Compendiosa istoria degli ottocento martiri otrantini (“The Brief History of the 800 Martyrs of Otranto”), the headless corpse stood back upright. The body supposedly proved unmovable, so it remained standing for the entire duration of the gruesome executions.
Stunned by this apparent miracle, one of the executioners converted on the spot and was immediately killed. The executioners then returned to their horrendous business. The bodies were placed into a mass grave, and the Turks prepared to begin their march to Rome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.