Thank You Glenn, for finally admitting the truth about the mess in Iraq
Dear Glenn Beck,
I just want to say THANK YOU for finally admitting that you and your conservative ilk were wrong about the Iraq War. It took you a dozen years or so, but hey, better late than never.
Granted, I have to say, when you decided to finally admit your wrongs on Iraq, I didn’t really agree with every angle you had on it. Seeing as you are Glenn Beck, I couldn’t bring myself to agree with you completely. Yet, Glenn, there is one strong point that you made that I think is crucially important. This importance applies not just to Iraq, but to other important issues as well.
Coming out on air and admitting that Iraq was a mistake is important, not necessarily because of your personal significance, but for what it represents: a growing trend among conservatives that is turning away from the interventionism of the past.
Not only did you admit that going into Iraq was a mistake, but rightfully pointed out that no more blood and treasure should be spilled to fix a situation that is nearly unfixable. Iraq is the one humpty-dumpty that the US cannot put back together again.
Now, granted, many conservatives are still toeing the line. Many still claim that Iraq was not a mistake, and that the current situation is basically all Obama’s fault. Normally, Glenn, I would have thought you would have just joined the crowd on the right and use the Iraq situation as an opportunity to attack Obama. Instead, it seems , perhaps for the first time, you showed a little integrity by speaking honestly to your listeners about what is wrong in Iraq and how we got there.
There is a growing consensus by many on the left and right about the nature of our interventionist policies and the negative effects they cause. While people on the right and left are divided on so many issues, it seems that in foreign policy, of all places, conservatives and progressives can come together and oppose further costly interventions.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m sure we disagree on just about everything else, so I won’t be signing up for the Glenn Beck fan club anytime soon. Having said that, I do think your voice on matters such as Iraq can be important. There has to be some voices capable of spreading the reality of the Iraq fiasco to conservative audiences, and I think you can be very helpful in this regard.
Iraq truly is a mess, and I am glad that someone on the far right is able to speak honestly about what is so wrong and why. Rather than use the crisis to score political points, we need to understand what went wrong and why there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.
If liberals and conservatives can work together toward a common cause as noble as opposing interventionism, then we are headed in the right direction. As much as we will disagree on everything else, we should cherish what we can agree upon and work together to accomplish these common goals and interests. Thank You, Glenn Beck. Finally you saw the light. Now if only you’d stop calling for President Obama’s impeachment.
Well, Ronald, No. Once again, conservatives are masters at projection. I don’t even watch MSNBC, and when I briefly used too Chris Matthews was by far my least favorite show host. Rather than waste my breath explaining the death toll of attacks under Bush, Politifact wrote this piece which confirms the number I gave you, and also states that the number of attacks is “understated” the level of fatalities. Your assertions are very incorrect. 13 separate attacks, and 62 fatalities (in and outside of embassy walls) during Bush’s term. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/
You assume that because you obsessively watch and listen to the garbage on Fox Noise, that somehow I must also act in such a way to MSNBC. That goes to show how little you know about progressive audiences. Unlike conservatives, who blindly follow the mantra and placards read to them by overpaid stooges, progressives tend to be more diverse in opinion and open minded, and tend to far too independent to fall in line to any one broadcaster.
Back to Benghazi, who knows why what decision was made. My question is why all the vain outrage over this one, comparatively small, incident somehow worse then the dozens of attacks and deaths under Obama’s predessor? Let’s hold the administration accountable, I’m with you there. But why is it that only Obama is worthy of such a charge, while Bush did far worse in this regard and is still praised by righties like you that Bush kept us safe and is going to be remembered as a great president one day.
Now, my favorite, WMDs in Iraq. You have to be kidding? How old are you Ronald? Were you around in 2003. I was twelve then, and I remember the speeches Bush spoke pretty clearly about mushroom clouds, Saddam’s connections to Al Qaeda (and 9/11), Weapons of Mass Destruction and how urgent it was to remove them from Iraq via invasion. This article from Salon might set the record straight. The Administration knew pretty well the situation, yet wanted war so badly that they used whatever they could get their hands on to justify an invasion.
http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/
Also, Bush, much like Obama on the healthcare tax issue, flipped the issue about Iraq several times. First it was to remove WMDs, then once that was proven false it shifted into removing a bad dictator and bringing “democracy” to the people of Iraq. Yeah, how’s that working out there? Iraq was supposed to become this bastion of Western-style democracy in the Middle East. Need I say more, Ronald?
Last but not least, Ronald, I am not that big of a fan of the ACA (Obamacare). Honestly I would have preferred a single payer system, and personally think Obama made a mistake in not going as far as he could have gone with altering our atrocious heath care system. I don’t fully support the law as it stands, though it has some good things to it, overall it needs to be expanded and made stronger. Having said that, I don’t think going back on a campaign promise to try and pass health care reforms of some kind is an impeachable offense. As I said, if lying about a war and getting thousands killed is not an impeachable offense, than what the hell is Ronald?
If you want to hold Obama accountable, then Bush should be too. Maybe if you flush the Sean Hannity out of your system, you might realize this.
It is just not good enough anymore—and never should have been—for those on the American Right to call for the president’s impeachment on the basis of generalizations such as “For all his lies” and “usurping congressional authority” and “failing to do his duty.”
In other words, what “lies” has he told that rise to the level of impeachable offenses? Name them. And what “usurping [of] congressional authority” on the part of the president rises to the level of an impeachable offense? Name it and make your case. “Failing to do his duty?” When did he fail to do his duty? Name the instance and make your case for it being a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
Do you have any proof whatsoever that there is anything to the IRS controversy other than it being a bungled effort to deal with an almost understandable case of mid-level bureaucratic confusion over how a particular law should be applied? If so, give it to us and then send it to Darrell Issa—he is desperately in need of something to justify continuing his bogus hearings.
The same with Fast & Furious. Any proof of any wrong-doing on the part of the administration? If so, give it to us and send a copy to Darrell Issa—F&F represents another of his epic fails.
Your issue with the decision by the Roberts Court to deem the ACA “penalty” a “tax” was, as I just said, a decision made by the Court and not by the administration. Impeach the Chief Justice, if you want, but the president has no culpability there.
Congressional investigations and calls for impeachment have become nothing more than default positions for Republicans. They investigate and litigate as a way of justifying the fact that they don’t legislate. And they don’t legislate because, other than cutting taxes for the wealthy, they have absolutely no coherent public policy—the latter being why the 112th and 113th Congresses are competing with each other for the title of “Worst Congress in American History.”
And, by the way, the Biggest Lie of 2013 was not “If you like your policy, you can keep it.” It was “The Republican Party is the party of the American Worker” (John Boehner—over and over and over again).
Ronald, clearly you hold double standards of what is an impeachable offense. So a president can be impeached for making a campaign lie, having foreign diplomats die under his watch, or respecting state statutes on gun sales? Yet, if a president say lied to get us to invade and occupy another country for nearly a decade, costing 4 trillion dollars (unpaid for) and over 4000 American lives (as well as 1,000,0000 Iraqis) then that is not impeachable? Not only is that not impeachable, you probably are among those who defended Bush thick and thin and believe he was probably one of the best presidents ever.
For one, let’s go to Benghazi. Under the administration of George Bush and Darth Cheney, over 60 US diplomats and related staff were attacked and killed in the Middle East and beyond. Were you out there calling for impeachment? So four guys die under Obama, and we should overthrow him?
Fast and Furious. Most of your ilk don’t know this but the Fast and Furious scandal has more to do with state gun laws of Arizona then it did with federal involvement. Arizona has one of the loosest gun laws in the nation, and often its gun shows and retailers sell to drug cartels. That’s why the feds got involved. They didn’t sell the guns to the cartels (the feds) the gun retailer being tracked was. The guns that were sold were being traced by the feds, because that was the best they could do. They couldn’t seize the guns, because they had no prior legal reason to do so. You can’t seize property based on a hunch. That’s what the tracking program was for. The feds gave traced guns to gun retailers, who then sold it to cartels. Believe it or not Roland, Fox Noise doesn’t always know what the hell it’s talking about.
Now, Obamacare. As Rusty Inman stated, it was the Supreme Court that affirmed the tax. So Obama made some campaign promises that he later retracted, WOW. Why don’t you just go ahead and impeach every politician in the country if that’s your standard. Obama, for better or worse, is a politician. Of course he’ll say things that he he might retract at some point. So we need to impeach Obama for changing his stance on a tax issue, in order to try and get Americans healthcare?
As I commented earlier. If we can try and impeach Obama for all that you listed, and not try and impeach Bush for what he did in Iraq and to our civil liberties, then I have to question your standards of information (if you have any.)
Sure. We can put Obama on trial for all of that, if you let Bush and Cheney be put on trial for war crimes and lying to the people about invading Iraq.