Glenn Beck: Liberals, you were right on Iraq

[cptau 169]

Said it before, I'll say it again.

We knew, everyone did, that leaving Saddam in power , as we did after the first Gulf War, that we'd be back there, in 10 years or so. It was inevitable.

And sure enough , we went back.

I didn't nor do I have any problem w/ that decision.

What I DO have a huge problem with is how we tried to rebuild and spend them into the 21st century, sending insane amounts of materials and BRAND NEW equipment over there. The biggest , most expensive embassy in the world sits over there.

W H Y ??? >:(/> :brickwall:/>

Exactly like with 'nam, we won the war, but lost the peace. Completely foreseeable, and entirely unnecessary.

Why did we go back? He was not threatening, harassing anyone outside his borders. If he had WMDs he dumped them. So why did we need to spend trillions, kill 4000+ of ours and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and physically destroy most of the infrastructure in that country. You didnt and dont have a problem with it? What did we accomplish that satisfied you? I will admit for a long time i thought we should "finish the job" and liberate those people. several years ago i realized that is not going to happen. That country, region and the world was better of with Saddam in charge of that country. He was an evil piece of sh-- but that is what they need. Nothing good was accomplished.

Bush 41 didn't finish off suddam's government or at least his republican guard military in the Gulf War. The US even took mercey and allowed them to retreat from Kuwait. That was the advice of Colin Powell that bush 41 should not have listened to then. That republican guard unit went home and kept suddam in power.

Most military experts believe that the 2003 war was just unfinished gulf war business for Bush 43. The threat of chemical weapons was a saddam bluff that he paid dearly for , but we paid dearly too. None of those countries are worth saving. Just drill for more oil here and elsewhere and let the Arabs fright it out to live in the 13 century......

[TastesLikeChicken 0]

Bush 41 didn't finish off suddam's government or at least his republican guard military in the Gulf War. The US even took mercey and allowed them to retreat from Kuwait. That was the advice of Colin Powell that bush 41 should not have listened to then. That republican guard unit went home and kept suddam in power.

Most military experts believe that the 2003 war was just unfinished gulf war business for Bush 43. The threat of chemical weapons was a saddam bluff that he paid dearly for , but we paid dearly too. None of those countries are worth saving. Just drill for more oil here and elsewhere and let the Arabs fright it out to live in the 13 century......

Exactly cptu

[TitanTiger 21,068]

In my opinion, Glenn Beck could be declared legally insane. I have never seen a man more inclined to switch sides, positions, and opinions about all things, more than Glenn Beck, and I really mean that. Yes, its true, I DO NOT like Barack Hussein Obama, but atleast he stays true to destroying America and doesn't hide it. Beck is all over the place. Iraq would crap itself when Saddam died anyway, Bush just got a head start.

Could I get a list of all these many things he's switched sides on that make him the guy that does it more than anyone and possibly insane?

Also, is it a bad thing to change your mind on a thing in light of new facts?

[homersapien 12,172]

George H.W. Bush was correct before anyone. He knew the "can of worms" he would open by "going all the way to Baghdad".

Back in the days where the differences between parties still allowed for an overlap of common sense between them.

There was still some genuine belief that effective government was more important than politics and power. I worry less about potential repercussions of the War on Terror, or War in Iraq, than I do over the war on ourselves, the war of left vs. right ideology. How long can the rhetoric sound like the basis for civil war, without actually having civil war? The people who profit from spreading the rhetoric/propaganda should be ashamed. The people who cannot tell the difference between information and propaganda, are fools.

I agree itch, I am watching MSNBC and you are dead on target. These people are absolute fools. How could anyone possibly believe this garbage? Fools truly do follow fools. Unbelievable.

I think you missed his point.

[homersapien 12,172]

Said it before, I'll say it again.

We knew, everyone did, that leaving Saddam in power , as we did after the first Gulf War, that we'd be back there, in 10 years or so. It was inevitable.....

BS.

It true, Bush wouldn't have pulled the plug. That restraint is also why we had such international cooperation in the first place. No one with any sense would want to "buy" Iraq.

In hindsight, it was a masterful decision on his part. Realpolik, if you will.

"Junior" - on the other hand, thought he was a F***in crusader. The proof is in the pudding.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

George H.W. Bush was correct before anyone. He knew the "can of worms" he would open by "going all the way to Baghdad".

Back in the days where the differences between parties still allowed for an overlap of common sense between them.

There was still some genuine belief that effective government was more important than politics and power. I worry less about potential repercussions of the War on Terror, or War in Iraq, than I do over the war on ourselves, the war of left vs. right ideology. How long can the rhetoric sound like the basis for civil war, without actually having civil war? The people who profit from spreading the rhetoric/propaganda should be ashamed. The people who cannot tell the difference between information and propaganda, are fools.

I agree itch, I am watching MSNBC and you are dead on target. These people are absolute fools. How could anyone possibly believe this garbage? Fools truly do follow fools. Unbelievable.

I think you missed his point.

Its a pattern.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

George H.W. Bush was correct before anyone. He knew the "can of worms" he would open by "going all the way to Baghdad".

Back in the days where the differences between parties still allowed for an overlap of common sense between them.

There was still some genuine belief that effective government was more important than politics and power. I worry less about potential repercussions of the War on Terror, or War in Iraq, than I do over the war on ourselves, the war of left vs. right ideology. How long can the rhetoric sound like the basis for civil war, without actually having civil war? The people who profit from spreading the rhetoric/propaganda should be ashamed. The people who cannot tell the difference between information and propaganda, are fools.

I agree itch, I am watching MSNBC and you are dead on target. These people are absolute fools. How could anyone possibly believe this garbage? Fools truly do follow fools. Unbelievable.

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

[autigeremt 7,133]

We shouldn't have occupied Iraq. Surgical strikes on targets where CBRN was suspected to be housed could have taken care of the threat along with freezing assets until Saddam gave in on our demands.

But once again, it's water under the bridge. Do we learn from it or do we continue to do what this country has done over and over again and forget history in spite of it?

[TitanTiger 21,068]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they’re rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the “corporate media” for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren’t telling people what to think; they’re responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they’re rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the “corporate media” for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren’t telling people what to think; they’re responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

I think Rod is partially correct where it pertains to the frequent viewer. Those with no real opinion, that ocassionally tune in, can form thoughts on rhetorical/propaganda intake. Those that do form thoughts and apply that "intake" without research are fools.

[AUFAN78 4,130]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they’re rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the “corporate media” for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren’t telling people what to think; they’re responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

I think Rod is partially correct where it pertains to the frequent viewer. Those with no real opinion, that ocassionally tune in, can form thoughts on rhetorical/propaganda intake. Those that do form thoughts and apply that "intake" without research are fools.

BTW, What point did I miss exactly?

[channonc 466]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they’re rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the “corporate media” for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren’t telling people what to think; they’re responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

This is exactly right. I can't tune into MSNBC for the above reasons. Additionally, I usually want to actually get the headlines, not constant drivel about partisan issues. I like to think, I like to hear discussion. The older I get, the more gray I see the world. Issues are complex, sometimes there's no one "right" way. Sometimes meeting in the middle is the best solution. Unfortunately, that just doesn't fit in with the constant partisan bickering that you see on MSNBC of Fox. (With a few exceptions).

[alexava 6,974]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they're rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the "corporate media" for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren't telling people what to think; they're responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

This is exactly right. I can't tune into MSNBC for the above reasons. Additionally, I usually want to actually get the headlines, not constant drivel about partisan issues. I like to think, I like to hear discussion. The older I get, the more gray I see the world. Issues are complex, sometimes there's no one "right" way. Sometimes meeting in the middle is the best solution. Unfortunately, that just doesn't fit in with the constant partisan bickering that you see on MSNBC of Fox. (With a few exceptions).

you should run for office.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they’re rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the “corporate media” for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren’t telling people what to think; they’re responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

That is a really interesting quote. Is it all about ratings and money? It is a business. I guess it really is more about being entertaining than being informative.

It is interesting how these "news" services are built on demographics and driven by demand. Frightening what that says about the population.

I don't totally buy into the idea that they are just giving people what they want. Big question: Do these networks have a higher responsibility than just making money for their investors?

Other than PBS, is there a truly educational network. The History Channel isn't what it once was and, the Science Channel seems to be headed in the same direction. Sometimes I wonder if television isn't a bigger problem than drugs.

[channonc 466]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they're rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the "corporate media" for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren't telling people what to think; they're responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

This is exactly right. I can't tune into MSNBC for the above reasons. Additionally, I usually want to actually get the headlines, not constant drivel about partisan issues. I like to think, I like to hear discussion. The older I get, the more gray I see the world. Issues are complex, sometimes there's no one "right" way. Sometimes meeting in the middle is the best solution. Unfortunately, that just doesn't fit in with the constant partisan bickering that you see on MSNBC of Fox. (With a few exceptions).

you should run for office.

Thanks. I think I would have a long way to go though... for example, most on this forum wouldn't even consider voting for me.

[DKW 86 7,866]

channonc, some of us would. It is refreshing to hear that someone doesn't have all the answers.

I too see far more grey the older I get as well. Maybe I just see the fringes getting wrong on both sides more?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

channoc....I would be happy to campaign for you as Pres. if you would let me be the NASA Administrator (LOL). They need new leadership.

[channonc 466]

channoc....I would be happy to campaign for you as Pres. if you would let me be the NASA Administrator (LOL). They need new leadership.

It's a deal!

[channonc 466]

channonc, some of us would. It is refreshing to hear that someone doesn't have all the answers.

I too see far more grey the older I get as well. Maybe I just see the fringes getting wrong on both sides more?

Yep. So true.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I see more gray as I grow older too but it's not related to my political beliefs

[AUFAN78 4,130]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they're rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the "corporate media" for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren't telling people what to think; they're responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

This is exactly right. I can't tune into MSNBC for the above reasons. Additionally, I usually want to actually get the headlines, not constant drivel about partisan issues. I like to think, I like to hear discussion. The older I get, the more gray I see the world. Issues are complex, sometimes there's no one "right" way. Sometimes meeting in the middle is the best solution. Unfortunately, that just doesn't fit in with the constant partisan bickering that you see on MSNBC of Fox. (With a few exceptions).

you should run for office.

Thanks. I think I would have a long way to go though... for example, most on this forum wouldn't even consider voting for me.

You might be surprised. I think most would agree with your sentiment.

FWIW, the partisan bickering I see here appears to be nothing more than entertainment. Totally harmless and quite fun!

I would be remised if I didn't elude to the countless polls and studies regarding the impact cable news has on the public. Those studies have confirmed cable news not only reaffirms thought, it influences it too.

Good Day!

[autigeremt 7,133]

I think you missed his point.

So in your opinion, MSNBC does not spread rhetoric/propaganda and it's followers/true believers are not fools?

I think the point was, Fox and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. That coin is called "confirmation bias" and one side is conservative, the other liberal. But rather than "propaganda", it's really just a response to the marketplace. I'll quote Rod Dreher here:

The ugly truth is that people consume news like my kids consume food: they hate anything that might be remotely challenging or unfamiliar, and all things considered, they're rather eat sweets than meat or vegetables.

People love to blame the "corporate media" for this kind of thing, but the problem is us.

Fox and MSNBC aren't telling people what to think; they're responding to people wanting to be told that the way they already think is correct.

This is exactly right. I can't tune into MSNBC for the above reasons. Additionally, I usually want to actually get the headlines, not constant drivel about partisan issues. I like to think, I like to hear discussion. The older I get, the more gray I see the world. Issues are complex, sometimes there's no one "right" way. Sometimes meeting in the middle is the best solution. Unfortunately, that just doesn't fit in with the constant partisan bickering that you see on MSNBC of Fox. (With a few exceptions).

you should run for office.

Thanks. I think I would have a long way to go though... for example, most on this forum wouldn't even consider voting for me.

You may be shocked by that one. If you shoot straight and are willing to look at your base in the eyes and say "hey, it's not all about you or them"....you'd have strong support.

[channonc 466]

Wow. Mark it down. My exploratory committee begins here.

[autigeremt 7,133]

Let's get the signs ordered...

[alexava 6,974]

Wow. Mark it down. My exploratory committee begins here.

i need a high paying position in your campaign for inciting this madness. i have no experience which means i am very qualified. and i cant work on fall saturdays.