Txdigest.com

Glenn Beck has acknowledged that Democratic doves were correct to oppose the 2003 U.S. military invasion of Iraq. Liberals “said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” the conservative political commentator said at the beginning of his June 17 radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

His new stance is a significant transition from the position he maintained in 2007, when he claimed that withdrawing from Iraq would be “America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery.”

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/gl ... top&ref=OB

Beck is a Carnival Barker.

Conservatives were right to win in Iraq..and liberals were for that war as well.

Liberals were wrong for bailing out..and we'll be paying for that mistake for a long time.

Red Oak wrote:Beck is a Carnival Barker.

and standing next to Beck is the snake oil salesman- - - Dr OZ

I agree with Beck that it was a mistake to get rid of Hussein.
He was a sadistic bastard, but he was able to keep the Islamist extremists out of Iraq.
Muslims don't want democracy. It's incompatible with their religion.

I don't care whether it was conservatives, liberals or both who did it, it was a major mistake.

There was no evidence that justified invading Iraq. The planning for the invasion started a long time before 9/11 in order to invade 3 weeks later. The purpose was to get the military into the mideast for the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel who actually pulled off the attack on the WTC with the complicity of the Bush administration. Iraq was just the first of 7 countries whose governments we were going to overthrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E

Great hindsight there. As we know it's always 20/20

planosteve wrote:There was no evidence that justified invading Iraq. The planning for the invasion started a long time before 9/11 in order to invade 3 weeks later. The purpose was to get the military into the mideast for the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel who actually pulled off the attack on the WTC with the complicity of the Bush administration. Iraq was just the first of 7 countries whose governments we were going to overthrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E

Iraq wasn't invaded/occupied 3 weeks after the events of Sept 11 2001.

as for the other silly claims if they were made in that link ... hes a guy selling a book

John in Plano wrote:

planosteve wrote:There was no evidence that justified invading Iraq. The planning for the invasion started a long time before 9/11 in order to invade 3 weeks later. The purpose was to get the military into the mideast for the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel who actually pulled off the attack on the WTC with the complicity of the Bush administration. Iraq was just the first of 7 countries whose governments we were going to overthrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E

Iraq wasn't invaded/occupied 3 weeks after the events of Sept 11 2001.

as for the other silly claims if they were made in that link ... hes a guy selling a book

You are correct. They started calling for the invasion 3 weeks after. The invasion didn't happen until March 03. But, to call a 4 star general, former commander of SHAPE, a "guy selling a book", is amazing. And beside the point. Are you claiming his story was a lie?

Grassman wrote:Great hindsight there. As we know it's always 20/20

For my part, it isn't hindsight. I thought it was a mistake going into Iraq from the beginning, because of what would probably replace Saddam. We had him contained and he was no threat to us. I was also certain that democracy wouldn't work with those people.
I was both right and wrong in my predictions.
I thought it would wind up with a Shiite takeover engineered from Iran. It may still, but I see no signs of it.

planosteve wrote:

John in Plano wrote:

planosteve wrote:There was no evidence that justified invading Iraq. The planning for the invasion started a long time before 9/11 in order to invade 3 weeks later. The purpose was to get the military into the mideast for the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel who actually pulled off the attack on the WTC with the complicity of the Bush administration. Iraq was just the first of 7 countries whose governments we were going to overthrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E

Iraq wasn't invaded/occupied 3 weeks after the events of Sept 11 2001.

as for the other silly claims if they were made in that link ... hes a guy selling a book

You are correct. They started calling for the invasion 3 weeks after. The invasion didn't happen until March 03. But, to call a 4 star general, former commander of SHAPE, a "guy selling a book", is amazing. And beside the point. Are you claiming his story was a lie?

I do not understand the strange but commonplace theme at this forum of..being in the military is somehow some kind of instant credibility.

BillB wrote:

Grassman wrote:Great hindsight there. As we know it's always 20/20

For my part, it isn't hindsight. I thought it was a mistake going into Iraq from the beginning, because of what would probably replace Saddam. We had him contained and he was no threat to us. I was also certain that democracy wouldn't work with those people.
I was both right and wrong in my predictions.
I thought it would wind up with a Shiite takeover engineered from Iran. It may still, but I see no signs of it.

His anti aircraft was firing at our planes daily.

I do not understand the strange but commonplace theme at this forum of..being in the military is somehow some kind of instant credibility.

That's kind of like saying you don't understand why Bill Gates has instant credibility, he was just a programmer.

planosteve wrote:

I do not understand the strange but commonplace theme at this forum of..being in the military is somehow some kind of instant credibility.

That's kind of like saying you don't understand why Bill Gates has instant credibility, he was just a programmer.

He has credibility when it comes to computer programming..which does not give him "integrity" credibility.

Point is..surprise surprise..there are lying dirtbags in the military, just like everywhere else.

..and delusional wackos, too.

Hey, weren't you in the military?

GFB wrote:Hey, weren't you in the military?

Yes, and an officer in the Air Force like Clark. And I can tell you for absolute certain, that you don't make general if you are a lying dirt bag, in fact you will never make 2nd Lt.

planosteve wrote:

John in Plano wrote:

planosteve wrote:There was no evidence that justified invading Iraq. The planning for the invasion started a long time before 9/11 in order to invade 3 weeks later. The purpose was to get the military into the mideast for the benefit of Saudi Arabia and Israel who actually pulled off the attack on the WTC with the complicity of the Bush administration. Iraq was just the first of 7 countries whose governments we were going to overthrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E

Iraq wasn't invaded/occupied 3 weeks after the events of Sept 11 2001.

as for the other silly claims if they were made in that link ... hes a guy selling a book

You are correct. They started calling for the invasion 3 weeks after. The invasion didn't happen until March 03. But, to call a 4 star general, former commander of SHAPE, a "guy selling a book", is amazing. And beside the point. Are you claiming his story was a lie?

I stated 2 facts, not some directedenergythermitemininuke mumbojumbo

I stated 2 facts, not some directedenergythermitemininuke mumbojumbo

Good dodge. So, I'll ask again. "Do you think he was lying?"

planosteve wrote:

I stated 2 facts, not some directedenergythermitemininuke mumbojumbo

Good dodge. So, I'll ask again. "Do you think he was lying?"

When everyone sort of agrees, and one person disagrees...that person, more times than not, is wrong.