Skip to comments.Glenn Beck: 'Liberals, You Were Right' About Iraq War
Posted on 06/18/2014 8:30:12 AM PDT by woofie
There are many things you'd never expect Glenn Beck to say: "Barack Obama is a great president," "the Affordable Care Act was a huge success," "amnesty for all undocumented immigrants!"
But "liberals, you were right" tops them all. And yet:
"From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasnt.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldnt have."
Beck made this surprising declaration on his radio show on Tuesday while discussing the widening rift between Republicans and Democrats. He urged both parties to come together to oppose another war in Iraq.
"Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more," he said. "This must end now. Now can't we come together on that?"
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
Beck stays suspended above the shark
If a steep rise in gas prices threatens the Democrats in November, there will be such a war cry that it will rival the Rebel Yell during the Civil War.
Iraq was won by Bush.
That 0bambi chose to lose it is not to say that Liberals were right.
Well I agree no more dead Troops for nothing!
Did he mean this or was it sarcasm lost on the reporter? Now that Obama is sending troops back in to show the hypocrisy?
Have to agree w this one. Should never had gone in. I was for it but was wrong.
Beck and Medved have both lost me. Permanently. And for the same reason Bill O’Reilley did in 2004 with his comments about the Swift Boat Vets.
Anyone who thinks this was a good war for America needs his motives examined.
I was fine with going into Iraq. Still am. But we should have gotten out after Saddam was taken care of. Go in, and get out. No nation-building. Sure, a new bad-actor would take over the place, but that was always going to happen. Better to go in, go out, and leave the lingering imprint of fear and power that we can repeat this any time we want. Not trying to stick around, with the pipe-dream of turning the place into a Western-style democracy, all while our soldiers stick around being clay-pigeons.
Glenn Beck... eh.
Medved is a recovering liberal, I believe. He has some awful views, and nastiness is a streak, but he was really good on tis subject the other day, pointing out more succinctly for a viewer than anyone I’d heard, how this is not Bush’s fault.
Beck Is like Rand Paul
And BOR is a pain, but what did he say about the nation-saving Swift Boaters?
They were right, but for the wrong reasons. They believed everything the Bush administration was saying, hell, they supported Clinton taking military action in December of 1998 on the exact same pretext.
Their opposition was solely based upon the fact that Bush was president. That’s the only reason. Their opposition was 100% politically motivated.
This dipstick bought the liberal BS!
Prior history clearly demonstrates we should not have left Iraq!
Post-WWII Japan and Germany was the lesson. It does not take a rocket scientist to know what would have happened in those two countries if we had left.
The kids in Iraq loved us, the area was stable, we just needed to give it time to heal, to develop more naturally and consistent with modern day practices.
Truth of the matter is, and probably to our shame, we started the job and then left it half finished.
The sarcasm went over the heads of some didn’t it? After endlessly bashing President Bush, which Democrat will now dare advocate sending troops back to Iraq? Charlie Rangel? Maybe this would be a good time to bring up the idea again of drafting women.
I’d put a qualifier or two on that.
We should have never gone in if we weren’t willing to win and keep that victory by installing a pro-American, Muzzie strongman that could effectively keep order by being a tyrant to the people within the political borders of Iraq similar to Saddam since the only thing Muzzies respect is being on the business end of a sword or gun.
I can’t imagine how going into Iraq in 2003 was not the right thing to do. The problem was simple—we didn’t do the job right because we surrendered to whatever it was President Bush surrendered to.
Whether or not to go in now is an entirely different story.
Beck always has this fantasy that conservatives and liberals will walk hand and hand in harmony. He continues to offer olive branch after olive branch to the left.
I now think I would be tempted to join the jerks that began harassing him and bullying him at that park a couple years ago.
4,000+ American lives lost. Countless others injured, maimed & with severe brain injuries. Hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars spent. We'll be paying this war off, in more ways than one, long after I'm dead & buried.
For what exactly?
We should have aggressively swept in through Syria and Kuwait and destroyed as much military hardware as possible and then abruptly left with a promise to do the same every 10years, as necessary.
Yes and no to Beck. The goal was a free and terrorist free Iraq. And the capture of WMDs which, despite what we are told, did exist.
Admirable goal, temporarily achieved.
What wasn’t foreseen was that a Sunni Muslim would be elected as the President of the United States in 2008 and would proceed to destroy any hopes of a stable Middle East while doing everything he could to promote the formation of The Caliphate. Witness Egypt prior to Sisi, Syria and Libya for further evidence.
Had we the wisdom to see that as the likely future of the M.E. it would not be a difficult to say no to Bush re: an Iraqi invasion.
I actually met Medved at a KVI picnic about 15 years ago and we talked at length. Until the last 8 years or so he was my favorite radio talk show host. But it started with his early on support of Romney as the only “electable” candidate and I’ve noticed that he is disagreeing with me on a lot of “principled” issues. Like BOR, he seems to want to project himself as the “intelligent and thoughtful” guy.
I haven’t listened to him in months, but I tuned in a week or two ago and he utterly dismissed rancher Bundy for his clearly racist viewpoints and remarks. I’ve read those remarks and he was making an absolutely valid point that even Thomas Sowell chimed in on.
As far as I’m concerned he is disengenuous and I really no longer like even listening to him. Which is why it will probably be another few months before I listen.
FWIW, when I lived in Seattle I used to get on the air with his program quite a bit. Heck, I’ve been calling into talk radio since before Mike Siegal left “news talk 1090” for KVI when KVI moved from Oldies to conservative talk.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraqs weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Sadaam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Sadaam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is calculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Husseins with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
While I thought and continue to believe that “The Democracy Project” was idiocy, the Iraq War was long overdue. We should’ve brought Saddam to room temperature in 1991 when we had the chance. And, contrary to the claims of many in both parties, Iraq’s role in international terrorism was long and well documented as far back as the mid 1970s (search for Abu Ibrahim and the “15 May Organization”).
Whether we like it or not, the fall of Iraq and its oil fields to ISIS will increase the per barrel price of oil exponentially. Our failure to fully exploit our own resources - no matter the reason, will only exacerbate the situation.
As for Beck, I’m getting a little tired of his increasingly pacifist rants and preaching. I think he sees himself as the next Gandhi, whom he quotes and refers to frequently. But, as I told him in a recent email, “...have you been to India? It’s not exactly the bastion of liberty you seem to think.”
Liberals were only against the Iraq war because it was Bush. Had it been Emperor Obama, those exact same liberals would have supported the war 125%.
>> There are many things you’d never expect Glenn Beck to say
Nah. There’s absolutely NOTHING I would “never” expect GB to say.
Therefore since his speech (and his bawling) carries no real information, I stopped paying attention to what he says.
Look it was a leadership shaft job on our military and the nation. Our soldiers were valiant but there was not enough of them to defeat, disarm and occupy like WW II. The force was totally underwhelming. We needed a draft and one Eisenhower instead of constant redeployment.
There were no mushroom clouds, we were not greeted by flowers, oil did not pay for it, we should not be nation building, we don't know what side to be on.
To the Left, absence of war means no blood, no bodies, no breaking things, no winners/no losers, no expense, no competitiveness....and mandated perpetual peace in a world of equality, unicorns and rainbows.
And now, because we're not allowed to win wars anymore, the Left is winning the political battle, because more and more Americans don't want to sacrifice treasure and young warriors in one useless combat after another....and these Americans are actually now on the same side as the lefties and peaceniks for a different reason.
My head hurts......
Beck is an idiot. Iraq was won by the time the Obama took office. Just because Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory does not make the liberals right. If Beck is serious about this, then he’s an idiot. It’s not as if he has any experience in foreign affairs anyways...
The libs must rewrite history in order to argue our entry into Iraq was a mistake - all most all of our government and the bulk of the civilized world agreed with us at the time.
Of course, the libs are quite adept at rewriting history (or, for that matter, science) in order to suit their agenda.
In the classic movie The Best Years of Our Lives about three servicemen after WWII struggling to adapt to their civilian lives There is one scene that has always haunted me Homer Parrish, played by Harold Russell (who did lose his hands in the war),sits next to a guy at a soda fountain and the guy proceeds to tell Homer that its a shame the US Government went to war against the wrong people and that he had to lose his hands because of it. A fight ensues.
I grew up in the 50s believing the war was the most positive thing that had ever been done and that everyone accepted that as a fact. It was a shock when I saw this movie and realized not everyone thought that. However, the jerks that thought we fought the wrong guys in the war were overshadowed by history.
That does not happen about anything anymore. You have two equal voices at the bar or soda fountain or wherever. But to tell someone they sacrificed themselves for nothing is criminal in my view. Glen Beck is now the jerk at the soda fountain
Although I like his Blaze News, much of his radio show on Sirius Patriot is irrelevant banter. Yesterday, when he brought up the subject of body fluids, I switched to another station faster than you can say Steve Sarkesian.
I wish they would replace him with Laura Ingraham, who ruled morning talk radio in this area about a decade ago, or with Jed Babbin.
I seem to remember liberals voting for the war, then, and only then, did they start to say we shouldn't have gone to war using the "bush lied people died" BS meme.
Not really. Japan was a homogeneous nation, with the added advantage of having an Emperor. If the Emperor said quit fighting, then quit fighting it was.
Germany likewise was a homogeneous nation. The occupying forces didn't have to worry about the Bavarians trying to blow up the marketplaces of the Saxons.
The true lesson here was the lesson of Vietnam.
“If a steep rise in gas prices threatens the Democrats in November, there will be such a war cry that it will rival the Rebel Yell during the Civil War.”
Average gasoline price per gallon on Obama’s inauguration date was about $1.86 per gallon. The Dems have not paid a price for years of $3.00+ per gallon gas. The Dems are not paying a price for higher food prices, the Dems are not paying a price for higher electricity prices. The Dems are not paying a price for 90+ million working age Americans being unemployed.
When the price of a gallon of gas hit $5.00 during the Bush administration the Dems and the media were screaming. Today, with food prices skyrocketing and energy prices climbing again, what do we hear from the opposition party? Nothing.
The Republican Party is completely inept. Pocketbook issues are in their favor in this election cycle yet we hear nothing. Instead the Republicans seem set on allowing the Democrats to rerun the “war on women” campaign and “immigration”. The party leaders seem to like playing defense better than offense, and losing as a result.
Here in outside the state pubic interest groups are spending millions pounding the “war on women” theme in support of Kay Hagan. White female voters will be the swing vote in this campaign since Hagan has the minority vote and liberal white vote sewn up. It will be interesting to see how the GOP establishment candidate, a white male (Thom Tillis) performs. Hagan is vulnerable on Obamacare but seems to be running as though she is proud of her vote. Polls in NC say 42% of voters say Obamacare has had no effect on them and 16% say they’ve been helped by it, which may be the reason Hagan isn’t afraid Tillis can win on Obamacare as his wedge issue. 51% of NC voters approve of President Obama’s performance and 48% approve of Republican governor McCrory’s performance.
If the GOPe cannot win the NC race in 2014, the Republican Party should disband and voluntarily go into the dustbin of history. Current projection - too close to call.
While I so not all that enthused about W’s war in Iraq and was infuriated at how incompetently the “occupation” was handled prior to the surge. I will give Bush credit for FINALLY getting it right. The Iraq war much like the Vietnam war before it was won until the democrats came along a pulled defeat from the jaws of victory. It would have been nice to have a division or two in the Iranian border, just in case. Lesson, never start a war if there is any chance a democrat might have to finished it.
Beck is wrong that Democrats were against the war. They were all-in going back to the 90’s. You have to get to about 2005 before you start getting the real hard-core anti-War stuff from the Democrats.
However, I think that if you look at where we are today, right now: I think that he is right that when you take the entire adventure in full - including the Democrat’s forced failure since 2006 all of the way to current Obama policies - it has been a total, and utter, waste of money and men.
If time had stopped in 2008 then I would have a different opinion, but that is a mental luxury.
Our failure was thinking that Democrats care more for Party than Country. They do not. With the fortune of hind-sight; we never should have started in 2003.
But, hey - everyone is a genius in hind-sight and I never saw Obama coming in 2003. If I had known then what I know now.... oh, my....
(We did, however, get some Grade-A training and lessons on insurgent fighting and we got some great advancements in battle gear and weapons because of it, but that’s not enough.)
No more American blood or treasure!!
There are the Many Faces of Glenn Beck (like the Many Loves of Dobie Gillis):
First, there is Rollicking Glenn, cutting up with his pals Pat & Stu, dropping one liners, beating up on poor Jeffy. Usually worth a listen.
That’s the only one with entertainment value. The rest are worth fast forwarding:
Tearful Glenn (awkward....)
I Fear For This Nation Even More Tearful Glenn
Serious Glenn (no yuks the entire hour)
Single Issue Glenn
Food Insurance Glenn
Gold Bug Glenn
There Go My Men And I Am Their Leader Glenn
Amateur Hour Glenn (showboat callers ramble on & on)
I Learn So Much From My Children Glenn
But then there’s:
Inclusive Glenn (Libs, gays, Muslims, atheists, conservatives, Christians all in agreement)
Kumbaya Glenn (maybe we can agree with the Iranians on some things)
Can’t We All Just Get Along Glenn (where Pat, Stu & Jeffy would storm off the set except Glenn signs their paychecks)
Glenn really is like a box of chocolates. You never know which Glenn you’re going to get.
OK - :)
The price hikes have been relatively slow, like the frog in the water slowly becoming hotter. I am talking about something like gas suddenly going from 6 to 7 dollars just before the election. A matter of timing, if you will.
The killers coming across our borders now are schoolgirls compared to those that are being created for us in the Middle East...(And for all we know the Muslim Jihadists are wandering into the US along with all the rest of the illegals.
There were many reasons to go into Iraq...Obama’s incompetence(?) is now proving how central it is to the geo political landscape.
I will never regret voting for GW Bush, I will always regret others voted for Obama.
Thank you for a post other than looking to blame Bush or Obama for the Iraq failure. They want to see the war in political election terms. This war is a FU mutually supported by both parties voting for it.
Bush surrendered to islam on 09/12/2001, with his "Islam is a religion of peace" speech.
With that one mind-boggling stupid statement, Bush condemned human civilization to another dozens of generations of islamic terror.
This same idiot also asked of some reporter in the first few days after 09/01/2011, "What are you suggesting -- that we go to war against all of islam?" Well, yes, you dumb twit. All of islam is at war against the USA; actually against all of human civilization. If we don't respond in kind, it will be just a massacre, quickly or slowly, but it will be a massacre.
What should we have done instead? The USA could have, and should have, taken that opportunity, while the whole world watched and waited, to announce that islam, in all its forms, would be eradicated from the planet; outlawed in every civilized nation; hunted down and wiped from the face of the earth; its adherents exterminated like the insects they strive to be.
The whole of civilized humans would have heartily agreed, and the other communists would have kept their mouths shut. But no, the Trotskyite RINOs are just as much at war against humans as are the Stalinist Democrats, and as are the muslims. They have the same objectives; just different methods.
Look, it was a leadership shaft job on our military...
Doesn't take much looking to see that was certainly the case beginning in 2009...
Our soldiers were valiant but there was not enough of them...
Gen Patraeus was equal to the task, and just as successful.
...we should not be nation building, we don't know what side to be on.
That, of course, is your opinion and the facts refute that opinion. We have done excellent nation building. Sometimes that building involves letting nature take its course. We stabilized Iraq and was doing just that.
...we don't know what side to be on.
It may be some of us do not. For instance, it can be argued your reluctance to vote for the lesser of two evils is simply a vote for great evil, even though that it most likely not your intent.
In the case of Iraq, almost all of our government and most of the free world agreed the U.S. picked the right side to be on.
You challenged me on these points. You also carried a rifle in WWII and I respect that and mean no disrespect in this response.
Yes. And unless BOTH parties admit to that, nothing will have been learned. And then in five years or so, the whole FU will be repeated. Maybe in Iraq (again), maybe somewhere else in the Middle East, maybe in Africa.
FU Beck. You phony huckster.
In 1998 100% of the Senate and Bill Clinton agreed Sadaam would be removed by any means necessary.
The Democrats can’t claim immunity on this issue.
In fact, it was damned near unanimous in 2002 to follow through on that commitment.