Glenn Beck: 'Liberals, You Were Right' About Iraq War

Huff ^ | 06/17/2014 | Alana Horowitz

[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 wasn’t.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t 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?"

[Paladin2]

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.

[InterceptPoint]

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.

[cuban leaf]

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.

[Servant of the Cross]

Um .... Glenn ..... you're missing an INCONVENIENT truth ....

"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 Iraq’s 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 Iraq’s 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

”Iraq’s 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 America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein’s with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[ManHunter]

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.”

[dsrtsage]

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%.

[Nervous Tick]

>> 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.

[ex-snook]

"Post-WWII Japan and Germany was the lesson."

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.

[MinuteGal]

It's beginning to look like we should never go into any war ever, ever, as the Left has made WINNING a war a no-no....Korea, Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, no clear-cut victories here, as in Japan and Germany. The Left wants no clear-cut victories, and it's getting what it wants.

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......

Leni

[Old Teufel Hunden]

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...

[frog in a pot]

Thank you for your summary at #24.

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.

[woofie]

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 it’s 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

[Fiji Hill]

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.

[Durus]

It is inaccurate for Beck to claim that liberals were against the war before it began.

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.

[Leaning Right]

Post-WWII Japan and Germany was the lesson.

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.

[Soul of the South]

“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.

[jpsb]

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.

[Noamie]

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.)

[angcat]

Woofie I don't want to see our men die I love our Military but all this in the Middle East is for nothing. Our Troops are being used by Obama our Generals are being purged we have rules of engagement that are killing them. We need to take care of our border and get rid of the gangs that are murdering the innocent. The war is now here.

[Dick Bachert]

"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 WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION.

Fixed it!