Glenn Beck: ‘Liberals, You Were Right,’ We Should Never Have Gone into Iraq

[COpatriot]

Beck in 2006:

We went into Iraq three years ago to prevent World War III, as nuts as this might sound, to prevent the evil Iranian ideology from spreading across the region. We have to succeed there. The lives of our family will be seriously affected. You will not recognize the world if we lose.

Here's what I do know today. I know that searching for weapons of mass destruction was a side benefit of going into Iraq. The real reason was to plant the seeds of democracy and change the face of the Middle East.

I just want to tell you that I truly believe these mullahs are far worse than Hitler. I mean, Hitler was crazy evil. I believe these guys are biblically evil.

And don't miss tomorrow's program. We have a series starting tomorrow on the coming of the messiah. We'll do that tomorrow.

God I LOVE all the comments on the Breitbart article today featuring this video from all the butthurt Breitbart readers.

 

[klamath]

Open ended? I don't recall the original Afghanistan authorization being open-ended. Ex-Paul staffers claimed that Ron did not want to vote for it, and the staff threatened to resign if he didn't vote for it (after Ron's proposal was discarded).

Here is what Ron wanted, and introduced:

This is the resolution. No limits on time, no limits on nations and VERY broad on what a threat is. Take note of this little line.

national security and foreign policy

It is not even limited to our national security. That little resolution authorizes the President to conduct war ANYWHERE in the world and without a time limit.

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; andWhereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; andWhereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; andWhereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; andWhereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be itResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1 - Short Title[edit]

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces[edit]

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

 

[donnay]

Pretty funny how the world is. Even LIbertarians like RP voted for a open ended war when his congressional seat depended on it and libertarians chanted RP! RP! RP! Human nature is a joke.

He voted that way because government intel told them Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

 

[klamath]

He voted that way because government intel told them Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.

Not one mention of Afghanistan in there but the plural "Nations" is used.

 

[donnay]

Not one mention of Afghanistan in there but the plural "Nations" is used.

What are you talking about?

My comment was in response to your comment in post #25:

Pretty funny how the world is. Even LIbertarians like RP voted for a open ended war when his congressional seat depended on it and libertarians chanted RP! RP! RP! Human nature is a joke.

Ron Paul on The War in Afghanistan

Congressman Paul supported going into Afghanistan and attacking those who attacked us on 9/11. He voted to give the President the authority to use force there. However, Congressman Paul noted that using force against the Taliban was not a declaration of war. He stated that to declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex. Congressman Paul argued that the best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under those circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals. He cautioned against entering into such a vague and undefined war, but in the end supported the resolution to use force as it was the only option available and doing nothing was unthinkable. Congressman Paul's desire was to have clearly defined objectives that would be provided in letter of reprisal or a declaration of war. An authorization to use force provides no clarity as to scope and purpose.

After the military victory over the Taliban was achieved, Congressman Paul began attempting to reign in US military presence there to avoid the vague and prolonged war he cautioned against in 2001. In 2002, Congressman Paul noted in a floor speech that war with Afghanistan was simply no longer necessary. He noted that the people who attacked us had already been defeated and to further destroy Afghanistan only to rebuild it out of some misplaced sense of duty was simply not necessary.

Throughout the next few years, Congressman Paul maintained this same viewpoint on the war : the goals of the war were achieved and US forces should come home. He noted that drawing the US into a prolonged war was a plan put forth by Osama Bin Laden and the war threatens to do exactly what he stated was it's objective - to contribute to the bankruptcy of the US. He stated that the US now found itself mired in a war where victory could not be defined by the American people and withdraw cannot be accepted by the politicians.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Congressman Paul stated that if elected he would bring the troops home. After President Obama won the election, Congressman Paul stated that he didn't expect much to change as the Democrats were referring to the war in Afghanistan as "the good war."

After President Obama assumed office, Congressman Paul took part in a renewed effort to end the war. He was a vocal critic of President Obama's surge strategy there and stated that it took 10,000 troops to overthrow the Taliban and many times that to keep the peace. He again offered the solution of removing US presense from that country.

Since the surge in 2009, Congressman Paul has continued to speak about the need to leave the country and the continued to pledge to do that if elected President. When other candidates have pledged to listen to the advice and consent of Generals and Commanders, Congressman Paul has stated that the President sets policy and the Generals carry out those positions. Given the length of the conflict there, Congressman Paul has continually noted that no war has been authorized within Afghanistan only the use of force against those responsible for 9/11 and those people were gone years ago.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/The_War_in_Afghanistan/

 

[klamath]

What are you talking about?

My comment was in response to your comment in post #25:






http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/The_War_in_Afghanistan/

I am talking about what RP voted for as posted in post 42. The AUMF. What RP voted for did NOT even mention Afghanistan.

 

[DFF]

Glenn Beck is full of shit. Always has been. Not sure why some folks around here continue to buy the snake oil he's peddling.

 

[klamath]

And.... from an article about Obama's ISUS briefing to congress......

While the White House statement emphasized Obama would continue to consult with Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the President "basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn't feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with McConnell's assessment, adding she believed congressional authorization for military force in Iraq back in 2001 and 2003 still applied

Yep just Afghanistan...........

 

[satchelmcqueen]

youre about a decade to late beck. so fuck you again! (from a terrorist, basement dwelling, mayor of crazy town RON PAUL supporter)

 

[pcosmar]

I am talking about what RP voted for as posted in post 42. The AUMF. What RP voted for did NOT even mention Afghanistan.

And we never went into Saudi Arabia. Which is the only nation KNOWN to have aided the terrorists.
(Saudi Nationals funded by Saudi nationals) Trained in the US,, not Afghanistan.

The Taliban and Afghanistan had offered to turn Tim Osman over. They were not aiding him,, they were not sheltering him,, and had even put him on House Arrest at one point so the US could eliminate him..

And the FBI could find no evidence to connect him in any way to 9/11. He was wanted for other attacks in the ME,, all of them military targets.

There was no reason to attack the country. Period.

 

[pcosmar]

I really wish Ron hadn't played along with the Farce of blaming Tim Osman (Osama bin Laden),, but that was the meme being commonly pushed though there was no evidence of his involvement.

Tim Osman was a common boogieman.. and he supported that claim of his guilt,,

But Afghanistan tried to turn him over a couple times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/01/how-bush-was-offered-bin-laden-and-blew-it/

And this latest Beck spew has to do with IRAQ,, which also had nothing to do with 9/11..
It had to do with Non-existent WMDs.

but 9/11 changed everything and everything is blamed on 9/11.

 

[donnay]

I really wish Ron hadn't played along with the Farce of blaming Tim Osman (Osama bin Laden),, but that was the meme being commonly pushed though there was no evidence of his involvement.

Tim Osman was a common boogieman.. and he supported that claim of his guilt,,

But Afghanistan tried to turn him over a couple times.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/11/01/how-bush-was-offered-bin-laden-and-blew-it/

And this latest Beck spew has to do with IRAQ,, which also had nothing to do with 9/11..
It had to do with Non-existent WMDs.

but 9/11 changed everything and everything is blamed on 9/11.

I definitely agree. Thirteen years have come and gone and Iraq is worse off today than it was when Saddam ran the country. MIC seem to have this incredible record of propping up the bad guys, all around the world, to use them later as an excuse to take them out.

 

[COpatriot]

The comments from Beck's rag are pure joy.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...has-the-huffington-post-and-the-view-talking/

 

[Lucille]

^ Ha! Lots of RP mentions.

 

[mosquitobite]

And my interpretation of this isn't a way of defending Beck. Beck is being a chicken by not saying exactly what he means; what he can't bring himself to actually say: Ron Paul and his supporters were right.

^This.

Just say it Beck. Say it.

 

[Black Mamba]

Well...what do you guys think of this?

Check out these 2 articles:

http://conservativetribune.com/terrorists-take-wmds/

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/148...-seizes-non-existent-stockpile-wmds-iraq-war/

Does it vindicate Bush at all? I know most of you would say no, but I'm interested as to why. I'd like to get your thoughts.

 

[pcosmar]

Well...what do you guys think of this?



Does it vindicate Bush at all?

No,, The only WMDs that Saddam had were the ones the US gave him. And he had used them..

The few remaining that were found were deteriorated and useless. (it was reported as a side note)

Had there been anything found it would have been front page news years ago.
And Chemical weapons remaining there after all these years would have been US supplied. Just like all the other weapons they captured.

 

[acptulsa]

Does it vindicate Bush at all? I know most of you would say no, but I'm interested as to why. I'd like to get your thoughts.

Tell me this, sir. If a cop gave you a gun, then beat you to death because you were armed, would that be justified? Would it be moral?

 

[Black Mamba]

But wasn't that the whole reason for the invasion though? To get his WMDs? They couldn't find them, so people were saying that going in was a huge mistake since no WMDs were there... but in all this time, those WMDs were finally found.

 

[pcosmar]

But wasn't that the whole reason for the invasion though?

No. that was propaganda.

The reason was to destabilize the area and to pump massive $$$ into military contractors.