Glenn Beck: Liberals, you were right on Iraq

[icanthearyou 4,468]

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

May I be your chief of staff? My basic philosophy is, anyone who goes to work within the government gives up the privilege of serving their career, their resume, or even their boss. The ultimate duty of those in government is to serve the people. I will take the blame for any and all, honest mistakes. I will be your personal cheerleader for all victories and accomplishments. However, if you ever deliberately undermine the legitimacy of the office, I will run to the press. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. President.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

Megyn Kelly, Fox News, interviewing Dick Cheney:

In your op-ed, you write as follows: 'Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.' But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well, sir. You said there were no doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes back in 2005. And you said after our intervention, extremists would have to "rethink their strategy of jihad." Now with almost a trillion dollars spent there with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?

http://www.realclear...ng_on_iraq.html

Of course he responds with the standard, meaningless, boilerplate barfola we've come to expect from the Iraq War Apologist tribe. But kudos to Ms. Kelly for straight up asking him the hard questions.

[telling tiger 156]

Agreed on Ms. Kelly, she deserves much credit for that interview.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ICHY.....you flunked already. channoc would be Mrs. President.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

ICHY.....you flunked already. channoc would be Mrs. President.

Well, since I was counting on you as my deputy, I blame you for not keeping me better informed. I'll let this one go. Let's not let it happen again. Okay? Okay.

On behalf of my deputy chief, I apologize Madame President.

[channonc 466]

ICHY.....you flunked already. channoc would be Mrs. President.

Well, since I was counting on you as my deputy, I blame you for not keeping me better informed. I'll let this one go. Let's not let it happen again. Okay? Okay.

On behalf of my deputy chief, I apologize Madame President.

My new administration will reward those who admit when they are wrong! No worries!!

BTW- no campaigning on holy days AKA football Saturdays!

[quietfan 233]

Wow, I finally agree with Beck on something.

LOL...I had the same thought. And it worried me!

__________________________

As for my take on history, for what it's worth:

I also wondered why we let Saddam stay in power after Desert Storm. I even think to some degree we betrayed the Shias of the Delta and the Kurds in the north when we left Saddam the power to crush their post-war revolts.

However I did somewhat understand the dangers of the power vacuum that would be left if he were removed, and the resulting dangers of Iraqi civil war, Iranian expansion, and regional instability. That's the main reason Bush Sr. left him in place. H.W. Bush may have also felt that completely taking down an Arab leader might have made us look too aggressive/imperial and been detrimental to the considerable Arab goodwill we had earned for Desert Storm and liberating Kuwait. Unfortunately, that post-war goodwill never much came to anything. I really thought we had a good opportunity to make other diplomatic advances in the Middle East at that time (like a negotiated compromise between Palestinians & Israelis, or greater democracy in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states), but nothing came of it.

But I never understood Bush Jr's invasion of Iraq. ...Afghanistan, sure, because Al Qaeda & its Taliban hosts were the ones who attacked us on 9/11, but why Iraq?

I never bought into the "WMD's" and "Saddam backed 9/11" myths. I never thought we could control Sunni/Shia/Kurd rivalries without using the same brutal methods Saddam used. I never expected us to be "greeted as liberators". At the very least, I though Operation Iraqi Freedom was a wasteful dilution of resources when we had not finished the job in Afghanistan yet. It also seemed strange to me that so many of G.W. Bush's advisers encouraging him to invade Iraq were the same folks that advised his dad when he didn't march on Baghdad.

But here we are today. I frankly don't see any pathway to peace in Iraq that doesn't include autonomy for separate Sunni/Shia/Kurd interests, but neither do I think independent states for each group is any guarantee of peace in the region. Separating the majority Muslim vs. Hindu areas of colonial India into the separate modern states of India and Pakistan was supposed to lead to peace between those groups also, but that never fully happened.

It is true that oil was the primary reason the region became significant to Western politics and powers--no one gave them much thought, nor were they much of an international concern or danger, before oil was discovered there. That's one reason why I'd like to see the world move past its oil dependence to other sources of energy. Even if the U.S. could become independent of Middle Eastern oil through other sources (and I'll avoid any digression into pipeline politics or environmental politics), much of the modern world and most of our allies would still depend on it so it would remain a big factor in world security and world politics. Isolationism stopped being a viable option for the U.S. and the modern world economy a century or more ago.

However, technology has also created a second concern that has nothing to do with oil:

Since it is now possible for even small groups to acquire weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer simply ignore tiny "backwater" areas that otherwise would be of no value, trivial importance, or little threat. (As we pretty much did with the Middle East until the mid-1900's.) We can't really say "Oh, let 'em fight it out among themselves, why should we care?" when nukes, chemical and/or biological weapons are on the table.

[homersapien 12,172]

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.

Very interesting. It's fascinating - and sobering - to consider human nature objectively.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ICHY...you might make a great Chief of Staff in the current administration, already blaming your mistake on someone else. But I have confidence channoc isn't going to play that game. Besides, I already have the job of NASA Admnistrator.

[DKW 86 7,866]

I had a guy that is well older than most of us, except maybe PT, tell me about some ME history....lol

He gave a thumbscale version of how we got Kuwait on the map. How Kurdistan vanished, etc.

Anyone seen the movie "Exodus?" Would recommend it to anyone. It will give you a quick refresher course on how Israel was created.

The quick version of all this is...Some Elitist folks draw a line on a map and we fight wars that last decades.

[Strychnine 1,808]

I had a guy that is well older than most of us, except maybe PT...lol

He gave a thumbscale version of how we got Kuwait on the map. How Kurdistan vanished, etc.

Anyone seen the movie "Exodus?" Would recommend it to anyone. It will give you a quick refresher course on how Israel was created.

The quick version of all this is...Some Elitist folks draw a line on a map and we fight wars that last decades.

I'd be more in favor of fighting a war against the Elitists.

[DKW 86 7,866]

I would too.

"Draw a line, start a war" is not a very good business model.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

DKW.....watch it, you ain't no spring chicken yourself

Serious question......who are Elitists?

[DKW 86 7,866]

Mainly British and UN types I guess would be my main point.

[Strychnine 1,808]

People that draw up post-war borders without giving proper consideration to the demographics, culture, and history of an area or region.

[Tigermike 3,657]

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 are an Aubie not a bammer, we would vote for you.

[homersapien 12,172]

People that draw up post-war borders without giving proper consideration to the demographics, culture, and history of an area or region.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was intentional.

[Strychnine 1,808]

People that draw up post-war borders without giving proper consideration to the demographics, culture, and history of an area or region.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was intentional.

And that's even more disturbing isn't it?

[homersapien 12,172]

People that draw up post-war borders without giving proper consideration to the demographics, culture, and history of an area or region.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was intentional.

And that's even more disturbing isn't it?

Well, I am sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Strychnine 1,808]

People that draw up post-war borders without giving proper consideration to the demographics, culture, and history of an area or region.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was intentional.

And that's even more disturbing isn't it?

Well, I am sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

As agendas and motives often do.

[homersapien 12,172]

People that draw up post-war borders without giving proper consideration to the demographics, culture, and history of an area or region.

They knew exactly what they were doing. It was intentional.

And that's even more disturbing isn't it?

Well, I am sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

As agendas and motives often do.

Yep. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

[cooltigger21 0]

The war was a success and we had the country in a situation where it could become, in time, an ally of the United States. Problem was Democrats in congress, Obama and the anti war left he catered to wanted us out at any cost. You just can't pull up stakes like this and not expect bad things to happen. I don't but the notion that sharing power with these people would have prevented this. Isis, like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and all the other variations of the Muslim extremists are out for one thing and one thing only. They intend to spread the sharia law and their brand of Islam to as much of the world as possible. If I thought for one second they would confine their activities to that region of the world, I would say let them fight it out among themselves. Problem is they won't be content with just their little corner of the world. They will continue to push further out and continue until somebody stops them. They will not leave us alone.

[alexava 6,974]

Your last sentence is what THEY are saying too.

[DKW 86 7,866]

The war was a success and we had the country in a situation where it could become, in time, an ally of the United States. Problem was Democrats in congress, Obama and the anti war left he catered to wanted us out at any cost. You just can't pull up stakes like this and not expect bad things to happen. I don't but the notion that sharing power with these people would have prevented this. Isis, like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and all the other variations of the Muslim extremists are out for one thing and one thing only. They intend to spread the sharia law and their brand of Islam to as much of the world as possible. If I thought for one second they would confine their activities to that region of the world, I would say let them fight it out among themselves. Problem is they won't be content with just their little corner of the world. They will continue to push further out and continue until somebody stops them. They will not leave us alone.

i disagree. I think it could have become a democracy, but i truly do not believe that the people are ready for freedom, for self rule. If they ever get there. It will be decades from now. We cannot afford, manpower wise to keep troops there for the next 2-3 decades. We cant afford $$$wise now either. It might be a good idea, but the investment IMHO is too high in blood and money.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

The war was a success and we had the country in a situation where it could become, in time, an ally of the United States. Problem was Democrats in congress, Obama and the anti war left he catered to wanted us out at any cost. You just can't pull up stakes like this and not expect bad things to happen. I don't but the notion that sharing power with these people would have prevented this. Isis, like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and all the other variations of the Muslim extremists are out for one thing and one thing only. They intend to spread the sharia law and their brand of Islam to as much of the world as possible. If I thought for one second they would confine their activities to that region of the world, I would say let them fight it out among themselves. Problem is they won't be content with just their little corner of the world. They will continue to push further out and continue until somebody stops them. They will not leave us alone.

The war was never a success other than we toppled Saddam from power. Everything after that was a mess because of bad assumptions and piss-poor planning.