{"id":9180,"date":"2014-06-12T16:20:39","date_gmt":"2014-06-12T16:20:39","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2014-06-12T16:20:39","modified_gmt":"2014-06-12T16:20:39","slug":"obama_happily_hands_iraq_and_afghanistan_to_al_qaeda_to_discredit_george_w_bush","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2014\/06\/12\/obama_happily_hands_iraq_and_afghanistan_to_al_qaeda_to_discredit_george_w_bush\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama Happily Hands Iraq and Afghanistan to Al-Qaeda to Discredit George W. Bush"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Listen<\/a><\/p>\n

RUSH: The New York Times has a story today<\/a> that the prime minister is refusing to send any military aid to help the Iraqis. They\u2019re being overrun there by Al-Qaeda terrorists, the Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq. And Nouri al-Maliki — do you know that he\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Nouri al-Maliki is not asking for any troops. He\u2019s not asking for any reentry boots on the ground. He just wants two or three fighter jets. He\u2019d accept even a couple of Warthogs to fly. He\u2019s not even asking for F-15s.<\/line><\/p>\n

Obama\u2019s 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\u2019s not the answer. That\u2019s not the reason why he\u2019s not. Let me go back to me on this program two and a half years ago, almost three years ago, October 24th, 2011<\/a>.<\/p>\n

RUSH ARCHIVE: Now all of a sudden we\u2019re 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 \u2019cause we\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n

Now, don\u2019t frown at me, Snerdley. I know you think it\u2019s over the top to say, but it\u2019s not at all. Obama\u2019s 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\u2019t make any difference.” Damn straight. Even after 4,500 American soldiers dead, damn straight.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re not dealing with a rational bunch of people on the left. We\u2019re 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\u2019t-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.<\/p>\n

RUSH: So, essentially, ladies and gentlemen, two and a half years ago I predicted this. I mean, I didn\u2019t predict the exact event. I didn\u2019t 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\u2019t 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.”<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.”<\/p>\n

Now, I would probably — no, not probably. I would understand if a whole significant swath of the United States didn\u2019t want to get anymore involved in Iraq. A lot of people think we shouldn\u2019t have gone in the first place. The mission didn\u2019t have a chance. We\u2019re never gonna democratize the place unless we stayed forever, and we don\u2019t want to relive this so don\u2019t go back. Probably a lot of Americans would fall into that camp. But that\u2019s not why the White House is rejecting these overtures. I think the reason is obvious, and I said it back in 2011.<\/p>\n

I think this administration wants both Iraq and Afghanistan to fail as stable democracies. And if you doubt that, would you give me — I\u2019m open to changing my mind about this — just give me any evidence to the contrary. And don\u2019t cite Afghanistan, because everything we\u2019re 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\u2019re restocking the Taliban. Obama thinks they\u2019re a legitimate entity, that they have a right to run that country and we should negotiate with them. They\u2019re not an enemy that needs to be defeated.<\/line><\/p>\n

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\u2019s not about human rights. It\u2019s not about saving the women and children. It\u2019s not about saving a war torn country. And, sadly, it\u2019s not about standing up for US policy.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s not about maintaining American consistency. It\u2019s not about showing allies we could be counted on. It\u2019s not about helping people in need. It\u2019s 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\u2019m doing right now.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019t pass up. It\u2019s too juicy.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The GOP has always been considered the party best at foreign policy, something the Democrats don\u2019t like. This is an opportunity to take a hit at that. In other words, it\u2019s a political opportunity. Iraq falling, Afghanistan falling, that is a political gold mine. That is a grand-slam home run. If you want to doubt me, go right ahead, but just ask yourself how often does Barack Obama blame George W. Bush for everything that is, has been, or will go wrong in this country? He does it still to this day. The effort to say or to illustrate: “We can\u2019t trust these Republicans with foreign policy. They go into these parts of the world and they do it for personal reasons and they fail and they get people killed, and it\u2019s horrible.”<\/p>\n

Now, also remember all the other countries that sent soldiers to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan who went along with us, because of, at the time, our power, if you will, and our moral authority. That is another thing here that can be chopped down. Our moral authority. The US can\u2019t be trusted. Abandons allies, goes places where it\u2019s hopeless. Republican presidents incompetent, get us involved in ill-conceived and poorly executed foreign wars. You fill in the blanks. This is a golden opportunity and I predicted it back 2011. So when I saw the New York Times story, “Iraq Said to Seek US Strikes on Militants” and the Regime, “Well, we\u2019d love to, but really not,” no surprise here.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s go back, in fact. December 14th, 2011<\/a>. This Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Obama addressing the troops there.<\/p>\n