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.
Nope.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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
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.”
>> 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.