STFU
To say the liberals were right about Iraq is absurd. They undermined the peace after Saddam was successfully removed from power. Just like nam.
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 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?"
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
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
Crusader 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...
quite wrong.
We needed...Eisenhower...
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.
Punk.
STFU
To say the liberals were right about Iraq is absurd. They undermined the peace after Saddam was successfully removed from power. Just like nam.
Yeah? They didn’t get the message after we said “To the shores of Tripoli”, that we would be back.
Bottom line, is wherever we attain victory we always rebuild that which we destroyed.
Iraq was going to take at least a generation to implant democracy and representative government.
We left and the vacuum is being filled.
“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.”
Exactly right!!!
After 911, EVERYBODY was for going over and kicking Al Quaida’s butt. EVERYBODY, even the left.
The problem arose when they realized it was George W. Bush in the White House when we SUCCEEDED at the task.
THAT is when they figured out that they couldn’t let that happen and started bad-mouthing the war and lying about BUSH lying and all that.
Somebody, feel free to correct me here... I was under the impression that the Gulf War stopped with a cease fire and NOT a peace treaty.
And that the cease fire had CONDITIONS, which Hussein stopped following once Clinton was in office and didn’t bother to enforce.
After 911 happened, we needed a base over THERE from which to fight the terrorists, right? Didn’t we essentially ‘un-pause’ the Gulf War due to the cease-fire conditions being broken?
The entire Bush administration said, unequivocally, that we would need to stay in Iraq for a long time. Hell, we're still in South Korea. But one of the reasons that Obama got elected was promising to leave Iraq. And, anybody who knew anything called it a “timeline” and predicted exactly what is happening now.
But we, they, still get to blame Bush.
“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.”
POST OF THE DAY! Well said, Paladin2.
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
= = = = = = = = = = = =
As stated by another poster (or two) gas is almost double since BO took office.
For the W and Cheney administration if gas went up a tenth of a cent, the left was pounding us with Bush and Cheney are OWNED by Haliburton -read BIG OIL.
With the prices DOUBLED I have yet to read about any such nonsense..Much like we were given a ‘daily scorecard’ on News shows and Papers on how many deaths that day in ‘the war’.
Funny how whenever a ‘crisis (real or imagined) arises’ the price of gas GOES UP.
If something ‘good’ happens the price doesn’t go ‘DOWN’ because we are told that ‘We don’t get enough from _______ to effect the price at the pump’ (unless of course it is up).
Same as the Oil companies for years have been telling us that the high prices are/were due to having so many different blends and standards.
During a ‘crisis’ in the Bush Admininstration, Bush ordered the blends to be suspended till the crisis passed.
When prices didn’t go down, WE were told “well a gallon is still a gallon and SOMETHING has to fill the void”.
And yes, I realize, the Government (all factions combined) makes more off a gallon of gas then the Producers and Shippers etc.
It never passed the smell test with me either. I’m all for kicking someone’s ass but it smelled to me like finishing the work daddy started.
Perhaps we are talking about different lessons. In my lesson, neither Japan or Germany would have lasted as the "homogeneous nation" you refer to for more than a few weeks without U.S. occupation. Both were severely strained if not nearly wasted, starving, and in the case of Japan very short on ammunition and incapable of anything more than a suicidal self-defense. Significantly, the very large hungry Russian bear was poised on both doorsteps.
We might agree on the lesson of Vietnam, however, if you concede we stabilized the area but then (via a leftist Democrat Congress) cut off support. Two years later, in 1975 NVN was able to shake off its damage, was finally able to rebuild a combat force and thereupon violated the peace accords.
We were right to go in. We should have established a strong man to keep the nuts art bay...someone like Sadat or Mubarak who was friendly to the west....
Yes, it might have meant a less-than-ideal nation as far as “looking like America”, but it WOULD have been a safer region and given hope to freedom loving elements in Iran.
Bush didn’t blow it—Obama did.
>> The true lesson here was the lesson of Vietnam <<
Yes, for sure. After Nixon’s ferocious bombing campaign in late 1972/early 1973, we more-or-less won in Vietnam. The north Vietnamese agreed to a peace settlement that left our Saigon allies in reasonably good shape. Maybe we shouldn’t call it a “”victory” — but it was a stalemate that could have lasted indefinitely with a modicum of U.S. assistance.
But then, thanks to Watergate and Nixon’s subsequent disgrace, the libs in Congress (including especaily Republican Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky) were able to forbid all military aid to SVN. We couldn’t even give medical supplies to ARVN, much less tactical air support.
In other words, we didn’t lose SVN. We gave it away, just as President Ø has given Iraq away.
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.