Glenn Beck Admits Liberals 'Were Right' on Iraq War [LameStream Media Alert]

Newsweek ^ | 6/18/14 | Zoë Schlanger

[Objective Scrutator]

Conservative pundit Glenn Beck admitted on his radio show Tuesday that he was wrong and liberals were right for opposing the invasion of Iraq.

“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his radio show on Tuesday. “You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

“You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else, it doesn’t work. They don’t understand it or even really want it,” Beck said.

[Objective Scrutator]

You always have to laugh at the LameStream Media stating that the liberals were right about something when it's quite blatant that liberals only hold opinions which they believe will destroy America. Glenn Beck's notion that it is impossible to make the Iraqis accept democracy is correct (humanitarianism is always a foolish justification), but to suggest we withdraw from the area entirely is foolishness at best, and treasonous at worst. While there are certain aspects of Bush's policy that reasonable people can disagree with, reasonable people recognize that cutting and running from Iraq is anathema to American interests.

That being said, it seems that is difficult, and potentially impossible, to have a strong Iraqi government which is pro-American. Therefore, we should make sure that the Iraqi infrastructure is ineffective for anyone except for Americans.

[Gene Eric]

>> Beck: You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis

The idiot and his idiotic premise.

[Kackikat]

I have always believed that Beck was hired to prepare America for the ‘coming out’ of the NWO that has been in control for years, secretly. Yes, he had some great info and real outrage at some things, but his program was created to inform GOP voters so the backlash would be less.

[SoFloFreeper]

Democrats who voted for the Iraq “war”:

If you remember that day, it was a day of speeches. And at least out among the Littles, the final count wasn’t known until the roll was called. Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Source: http://americablog.com/2013/03/in-memoriam-the-iraq-war-how-they-voted-in-the-senate-why-you-should-care.html

[bigdaddy45]

Well... how is he wrong? I’ve seen no indication that they are capable of handling it. Have you?

[Jim Robinson]

FUGB!! Surrender monkeys need not apply!!

[shelterguy]

Beck should brush up on history before he speaks.

William J. Clinton
Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
October 31, 1998

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:

The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

[SoFloFreeper]

Post #4 names liberals who VOTED YES to the Iraq “war”. So were THEY right, Beck?

[Gene Eric]

Are you implying the Military actions on Iraq were about forcing democracy on its inhabitants?

[DB]

I was very much against nation building.

But we committed to it and we should uphold our commitments.

When you can’t be trusted to honor your commitments, you lose all credibility and no one will trust you.

Iraq failed because we walked away. We made failure a self fulfilling prophecy.

[BigBobber]

Beck is an idiot.

Democrats purposefully sabotaged this effort, as they did the conclusion of the Viet Nam conflict, just so they could say “I told you so”. Then they blame the massacre of those who wanted freedom and were foolish enough to fall in with us on the Republicans.

The objective is to decrease U.S. influence in the world and embolden their communist fellow travelers. Democrats have no concern that thousands or millions will die in the process.

Beck is a looney, with the inability to understand the motives and methods of those who want to destroy freedom around the world.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

You cannot FORCE democracy on anyone..a true statement.
However, EVERYONE deserves a good and fair chance at attaining democracy. If they succeed and what they do with it is up to them.
The Iraqis were given a good and fair chance, but the two groups of Islam, could not and would not live as one.
I will point out that the citizens of two of the worst regimes in history, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, were given, following WWII, a good and fair chance at attaining the place they are at today. We stayed and assisted, but did not impose.
Frankly I believe that if the SUNNI and SHIITE peoples were living in completely separate countries, with firm borders, they could succeed, but each on their own.

[Liberty Ship]

Beck is overlooking the fact that, regardless of whether or not “democracy” was a good idea for Iraq, as long as we had a military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we had Iran bracketed. Beck is a good man, but he needs some schooling in strategy.

Now, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, upon him prayer and peace, and his ordering our forces out of these hard won keystone locations, there is nothing stopping the assembly of a Radical Islamic Arc from Egypt to India.

So instead of “divide and conquer,” now they are assembling and gaining momentum.

[bicyclerepair]

Really struggling to find pity for them killing each other over there.

mozlums are today’s neanderthals.

[wideawake]

When the going gets tough - Glenn Beck is nowhere to be found.

[bigdaddy45]

Sure was a big part of it

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/19/bush.speech/

[TigersEye]

Invading Iraq and nation building are two entirely different things. We had plenty of cause to invade and wipe out Saddam, his sons and the Iraqi military leadership.

Let's set the context first. We were in a state of war with Iraq, under a cease fire.

• 1. Iraqi provocation of American planes patrolling the no-fly zone. "More than 42,000 sorties were flown during that time. Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and other anti-aircraft systems targeted ONW aircrews on nearly every flight." (That sounds like 42,000 reasons to me but I'll only count it as one. I doubt you care whether any American or British planes get shot down.)
• 2. Saddam defied 17 UN resolutions that were a result of his losing the war. (again, that should count as 17 reasons but you get a break because you're a liberal who would cry if you had to face reality.)
• 3. Saddam tried to assassinate a former U.S. President.
• 4. Saddam was killing the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq that we had promised protection.
• 5. Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
• 6. Iraq's biological weapons program.
• 7. Iraq's chemical weapons program.
• 8. Saddam's extensive cooperation with terrorists.

I left out the 500,000+ people Saddam had killed because, after all, neither you nor I care about those filthy little brown people. Right? /s

[VRWC For Truth]

Does Beck have another book to sell?

[griswold3]

Exactly the way I feel. Glen Beck acts as if there is a potential to put this nation ‘back together’. We lost this nation a long time ago. There is less and less to be ‘united’ about any longer.

[Objective Scrutator]

I see that this response was originally directed towards some traitorous moonbat in another thread, and C/p’ed (presumably) in response to me. I’d like to clarify that going on what you posted, we are entirely in agreement. I mainly started this thread to remind people where Beck’s true allegiance lies.

The only point I agree with Beck on is that Muslims do not understand democracy. To me, there are only two viable solutions: either crush Iraqi infrastructure so they can never bother the rest of the world again, or install a non-Islamist, pro-American dictator who will crush any Muslim faction which dares to challenge its government while also submitting to American demands. Bush’s main flaw is that he sees Muslims as people who can be negotiated with; the reality is that Islam must be crushed in its entirety.