Rush and I often think along the same lines, but I would love if there was a single Democrat who could dispute his reasoning. President Obama is personally invested in the victory of Islamic Terrorism, whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, you name it. It doesn't matter how many hundreds of thousands of innocent people drown in their own blood, to him. It doesn't. Obama sees everything through a political prism, how does it benefit him. That's how he could release 5 senior Taliban commanders, how does it benefit him personally and politically? No other consideration with this man, with this leadership. Once you understand that, understanding our foreign and domestic policy becomes crystal clear. Look at Obama flooding our military bases with illegal immigrant minors. Who does it benefit? Him politically, and no one else. There is nothing else to the man's calculations and plans. He doesn't care a whit about anyone but himself, and the chaos we see around the world is a precise reflection of his Kenyan worldview.
Please let Rush be wrong. Is this truly how our Commander-in-Chief thinks?
Please let Rush be wrong. Is this truly how our Commander-in-Chief thinks?
Obama Happily Hands Iraq and Afghanistan to Al-Qaeda to Discredit George W. Bush
June 12, 2014
The Rush Limbaugh Show
RUSH: The New York Times has a story today that the prime minister is refusing to send any military aid to help the Iraqis. They're being overrun there by Al-Qaeda terrorists, the Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq. And Nouri al-Maliki -- do you know that he's still alive and still running things over there? Nouri al-Maliki has been begging us to send in some air support. You know, just fly some of our fighter jets over and drop some bombs on the Iraqi Al-Qaeda insurgents. But our president is refusing even that.
Nouri al-Maliki is not asking for any troops. He's not asking for any reentry boots on the ground. He just wants two or three fighter jets. He'd accept even a couple of Warthogs to fly. He's not even asking for F-15s.
Obama's refusing to do that. He says that he is not going to let the US get involved again in Iraq. Why do you think that is? Any flash-in-the-pan guesses? (interruption) The wars are over. All of the wars are over. There is no Al-Qaeda. We defeated terrorists once we killed bin Laden. But that's not the answer. That's not the reason why he's not. Let me go back to me on this program two and a half years ago, almost three years ago, October 24th, 2011.
RUSH ARCHIVE: Now all of a sudden we're gonna get out of Iraq at the end of the year. This is a campaign move, pure and simple, that runs the risk of saddling the Democrat Party with the ultimate loss of Iraq 'cause we're not gonna have any troops there. And I guarantee you, on a scale, seesaw, whatever they have balanced it out and Obama says, "If I have any chance of being reelected, I gotta get the base back in love with me," and that means pulling out of Iraq regardless what else what happens.
Now, don't frown at me, Snerdley. I know you think it's over the top to say, but it's not at all. Obama's base, the Michael Moore crowd would love it if we got shellacked. They would love it if we end up, quote, unquote, losing in Iraq. It would be a repudiation of Bush, they could say, "See, we never shoulda gone there in the first place, it didn't make any difference." Damn straight. Even after 4,500 American soldiers dead, damn straight.
We're not dealing with a rational bunch of people on the left. We're dealing with people who have an abject hatred for this country; who believe this country needs to be taken down a peg or two or three; who believe we shouldn't-a gone to Iraq in the first place and we need to pay a price for going in there. And what would that be? World-wide humiliation. And Obama would benefit from it, from the base.
RUSH: So, essentially, ladies and gentlemen, two and a half years ago I predicted this. I mean, I didn't predict the exact event. I didn't know that the Iraqis -- if I thought about it we could have all probably figured out that once we pulled out of there, this was going to happen. We just didn't know exactly when. And that once we pulled out of there we could probably predict that the Iraqis would ask us to do something to help them. But what was easily predictable was that Obama would say "no."
And the New York Times story today is: "Iraq Said to Seek US Strikes on Militants -- As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki --" how am I pronouncing all these names? "-- Nouri al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials. But Iraq's appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011."
Now, I would probably -- no, not probably. I would understand if a whole significant swath of the United States didn't want to get anymore involved in Iraq. A lot of people think we shouldn't have gone in the first place. The mission didn't have a chance. We're never gonna democratize the place unless we stayed forever, and we don't want to relive this so don't go back. Probably a lot of Americans would fall into that camp. But that's not why the White House is rejecting these overtures. I think the reason is obvious, and I said it back in 2011.
I think this administration wants both Iraq and Afghanistan to fail as stable democracies. And if you doubt that, would you give me -- I'm open to changing my mind about this -- just give me any evidence to the contrary. And don't cite Afghanistan, because everything we're doing in Afghanistan is designed to prop up the Taliban. We just gave them five of their apparently biggest and most important freedom fighters, just released them. We're restocking the Taliban. Obama thinks they're a legitimate entity, that they have a right to run that country and we should negotiate with them. They're not an enemy that needs to be defeated.
So, see, you have to understand liberals, folks, and it takes courage to understand liberals. Well, maybe not to understand, but it takes courage to admit that you understand liberals. And if you understand liberals, you understand that everything is viewed through the prism of politics. So Nouri al-Maliki asking for air support to beat back Al-Qaeda insurgents is immediately calculated as a political move by Obama and everybody on the left. It's not about human rights. It's not about saving the women and children. It's not about saving a war torn country. And, sadly, it's not about standing up for US policy.
Whether George Bush was your enemy or not politically, he was a former president and it was the policy of this country to save Iraq and potentially establish a democratic beachhead there. It was a long shot, but that was the policy of the country. And in no way does Obama share that at all. So it's not about maintaining American consistency. It's not about showing allies we could be counted on. It's not about helping people in need. It's about advancing the Democrat agenda. And this is where it takes courage to admit this, and particularly say so publicly on a microphone broadcasting to tens of millions of people, like I'm doing right now.
The simple fact of the matter is, the ultimate objective, Obama and the Democrats and the whole anti-war crowd -- Code Pink, MoveOn.org, you name it -- is to prove for the rest of time that everything Bush did was a mistake and was for nothing. It's to continue the public perception of Bush was rotten and horrible, incompetent, dangerous, inconsiderate, unfeeling, uncaring. Nouri al-Maliki asking for American air support in Iraq gives Obama another political opportunity to blame Bush. And that is an opportunity they just can't pass up. It's too juicy.
The opportunity here to secure defeat in Iraq, have it overrun by Al-Qaeda, buck up Taliban in Afghanistan, essentially get out of there and hand that country over to them. What have you done? You have proven in your mind, for the rest of time, that George W. Bush's wars were all for nothing. You have proven that George Bush was a dirty, rotten president. You have proven that Bush had no business going anywhere. You have proven that we lost lives unnecessarily. You have advanced your own political agenda, and at the same time you are hopefully, in their view, exciting your base. As I say, the Michael Moore crowd, which just loves to see the American military fail. Because they consider the American military an agent of evil in the world.