Glenn Beck: "Liberals, you were right."

[ksen]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/glenn-beck-iraq-liberals-right-107981.html

Glenn Beck is admitting he was wrong and liberals were right for opposing the invasion of Iraq.

“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his Tuesday radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

A day late and 4500 lives short but maybe he'll at least help keep us from going back in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually Liberals were saying that invading Iraq would be extremely costly, take a long time, and possibly not even work.

Liberals didn't say "we couldn't force freedom on people". The W Admin wasn't arguing that "we should force freedom on the Iraqis". They said we'd be welcomed as liberators. They said it'd cost $20 billion tops, they said we'd be out by Christmas. Liberals said, "that isn't going to work".

So once again, "Argo fuck yourself Beck."

 

[untermensche]

Actually Liberals were saying that invading Iraq would be extremely costly, take a long time, and possibly not even work.

Liberals didn't say "we couldn't force freedom on people". The W Admin wasn't arguing that "we should force freedom on the Iraqis". They said we'd be welcomed as liberators. They said it'd cost $20 billion tops, they said we'd be out by Christmas. Liberals said, "that isn't going to work".

So once again, "Argo fuck yourself Beck."

Exactly.

Liberals also opposed the war on moral grounds.

Saying, we have no right to kill with no evidence of imminent threat. We have other means to reasonably ensure Hussein doesn't develop nuclear and other weapons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually Liberals were saying that invading Iraq would be extremely costly, take a long time, and possibly not even work.

Liberals didn't say "we couldn't force freedom on people". The W Admin wasn't arguing that "we should force freedom on the Iraqis". They said we'd be welcomed as liberators. They said it'd cost $20 billion tops, they said we'd be out by Christmas. Liberals said, "that isn't going to work".

So once again, "Argo fuck yourself Beck."

Exactly.

Liberals also opposed the war on moral grounds.

Saying, we have no right to kill with no evidence of imminent threat. We have other means to reasonably ensure Hussein doesn't develop nuclear and other weapons.

Yeah, also that whole bogus WMD angle. The only reason to legitimately invade would have been to free Iraq, but the invasion was about protecting America from the ever present threat that was... Iraq? The liberals didn't bite.

The Military said we couldn't do it without a bazillion troops, so the W Admin fired Generals until he found one that said he could occupy Iraq with a straw, paperclip, and a rubber band. He was put in charge and America shocked and awed its way in a bloody mess of an occupation run by recent college grad yes men.

And these assholes won reelection!!!

 

[boneyard bill]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/glenn-beck-iraq-liberals-right-107981.html

Glenn Beck is admitting he was wrong and liberals were right for opposing the invasion of Iraq.

“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his Tuesday radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

A day late and 4500 lives short but maybe he'll at least help keep us from going back in.

Glen Beck has been doing many mea culpas on his show, but if you were to sum up the substance of those mea culpas it would be more like, "Libertarians, you were right."

- - - Updated - - -

Actually Liberals were saying that invading Iraq would be extremely costly, take a long time, and possibly not even work.

Liberals didn't say "we couldn't force freedom on people". The W Admin wasn't arguing that "we should force freedom on the Iraqis". They said we'd be welcomed as liberators. They said it'd cost $20 billion tops, they said we'd be out by Christmas. Liberals said, "that isn't going to work".

So once again, "Argo fuck yourself Beck."

Exactly.

Liberals also opposed the war on moral grounds.

Saying, we have no right to kill with no evidence of imminent threat. We have other means to reasonably ensure Hussein doesn't develop nuclear and other weapons.

Yeah, also that whole bogus WMD angle. The only reason to legitimately invade would have been to free Iraq, but the invasion was about protecting America from the ever present threat that was... Iraq? The liberals didn't bite.

The Military said we couldn't do it without a bazillion troops, so the W Admin fired Generals until he found one that said he could occupy Iraq with a straw, paperclip, and a rubber band. He was put in charge and America shocked and awed its way in a bloody mess of an occupation run by recent college grad yes men.

And these assholes won reelection!!!

Those assholes won re-election because those "liberals" who were "right" nominated someone who was just a big an asshole as the guys in power, and the sad, sorry thing about it all is that that other asshole is now one of the people currently in power.

 

[Togo]

This is an old political trick. If you were clearly wrong, and the people opposing you clearly right, you publically acknowledge a bizarre variation of what your opponents said, in an effort to belittle their position.

He's not going to stand up and say "Liberals, you were right. We didn't have a plan, we didn't know what we were doing, and we killed a whole bunch of innocent people because we had a hard-on about putting a big stars and stripes over an oil-rich country. We thought the only thing stopping Iraq from being a democracy was insufficient US firepower." No, he wants to be remembered as someone who went down fighting for freedom, and to remember liberals as the ones not wanting freedom.

In other words, he's still lying, just as he was before the war.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/glenn-beck-iraq-liberals-right-107981.html

Glenn Beck is admitting he was wrong and liberals were right for opposing the invasion of Iraq.

“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his Tuesday radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

A day late and 4500 lives short but maybe he'll at least help keep us from going back in.

Glen Beck has been doing many mea culpas on his show, but if you were to sum up the substance of those mea culpas it would be more like, "Libertarians, you were right."

- - - Updated - - -

Actually Liberals were saying that invading Iraq would be extremely costly, take a long time, and possibly not even work.

Liberals didn't say "we couldn't force freedom on people". The W Admin wasn't arguing that "we should force freedom on the Iraqis". They said we'd be welcomed as liberators. They said it'd cost $20 billion tops, they said we'd be out by Christmas. Liberals said, "that isn't going to work".

So once again, "Argo fuck yourself Beck."

Exactly.

Liberals also opposed the war on moral grounds.

Saying, we have no right to kill with no evidence of imminent threat. We have other means to reasonably ensure Hussein doesn't develop nuclear and other weapons.

Yeah, also that whole bogus WMD angle. The only reason to legitimately invade would have been to free Iraq, but the invasion was about protecting America from the ever present threat that was... Iraq? The liberals didn't bite.

The Military said we couldn't do it without a bazillion troops, so the W Admin fired Generals until he found one that said he could occupy Iraq with a straw, paperclip, and a rubber band. He was put in charge and America shocked and awed its way in a bloody mess of an occupation run by recent college grad yes men.

And these assholes won reelection!!!

Those assholes won re-election because those "liberals" who were "right" nominated someone who was just a big an asshole as the guys in power...

I said liberals, not Democrats. To confuse the two is folly.

...and the sad, sorry thing about it all is that that other asshole is now one of the people currently in power.

Funny, the assholes that started the whole thing and pretended the violence was a liberal media lie when dozens of troops died each week... is being compared equally to Kerry. That seems like folly as well.

 

[boneyard bill]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/glenn-beck-iraq-liberals-right-107981.html

Glenn Beck is admitting he was wrong and liberals were right for opposing the invasion of Iraq.

“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his Tuesday radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

A day late and 4500 lives short but maybe he'll at least help keep us from going back in.

Glen Beck has been doing many mea culpas on his show, but if you were to sum up the substance of those mea culpas it would be more like, "Libertarians, you were right."

- - - Updated - - -

Actually Liberals were saying that invading Iraq would be extremely costly, take a long time, and possibly not even work.

Liberals didn't say "we couldn't force freedom on people". The W Admin wasn't arguing that "we should force freedom on the Iraqis". They said we'd be welcomed as liberators. They said it'd cost $20 billion tops, they said we'd be out by Christmas. Liberals said, "that isn't going to work".

So once again, "Argo fuck yourself Beck."

Exactly.

Liberals also opposed the war on moral grounds.

Saying, we have no right to kill with no evidence of imminent threat. We have other means to reasonably ensure Hussein doesn't develop nuclear and other weapons.

Yeah, also that whole bogus WMD angle. The only reason to legitimately invade would have been to free Iraq, but the invasion was about protecting America from the ever present threat that was... Iraq? The liberals didn't bite.

The Military said we couldn't do it without a bazillion troops, so the W Admin fired Generals until he found one that said he could occupy Iraq with a straw, paperclip, and a rubber band. He was put in charge and America shocked and awed its way in a bloody mess of an occupation run by recent college grad yes men.

And these assholes won reelection!!!

Those assholes won re-election because those "liberals" who were "right" nominated someone who was just a big an asshole as the guys in power...

I said liberals, not Democrats. To confuse the two is folly.

...and the sad, sorry thing about it all is that that other asshole is now one of the people currently in power.

Funny, the assholes that started the whole thing and pretended the violence was a liberal media lie when dozens of troops died each week... is being compared equally to Kerry. That seems like folly as well.

The point is that Democrats nominated John Kerry who supported the war thus leaving no alternative for the voters. How do you beat an asshole with another asshole. They should have no complaint about losing.

Yes, all Democrats are not liberals and all Republicans are not conservatives. Bush/Cheney were not conservatives and neither was McCain or Romney. What about Obama? Is he a liberal? He is by his rhetoric but not by his performance.

 

[PyramidHead]

What about Obama? Is he a liberal? He is by his rhetoric but not by his performance.

But you just said that liberals were the ones who nominated Kerry. Which is it?

 

[Underseer]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/glenn-beck-iraq-liberals-right-107981.html

Glenn Beck is admitting he was wrong and liberals were right for opposing the invasion of Iraq.

“[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said at the start of his Tuesday radio show. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

A day late and 4500 lives short but maybe he'll at least help keep us from going back in.

So Glenn Beck hates America, hates our freedom, and loves the terrorists now? How did those dastardly liberals get to him?

 

[Underseer]

This is an old political trick. If you were clearly wrong, and the people opposing you clearly right, you publically acknowledge a bizarre variation of what your opponents said, in an effort to belittle their position.

He's not going to stand up and say "Liberals, you were right. We didn't have a plan, we didn't know what we were doing, and we killed a whole bunch of innocent people because we had a hard-on about putting a big stars and stripes over an oil-rich country. We thought the only thing stopping Iraq from being a democracy was insufficient US firepower." No, he wants to be remembered as someone who went down fighting for freedom, and to remember liberals as the ones not wanting freedom.

In other words, he's still lying, just as he was before the war.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the "liberal media" still treats the architects of that disaster as "experts" whenever they want an "unbiased" opinion on foreign policy. Even after they proved themselves to be wrong about everything, we still take their expert opinion as having more value than the opinions of anyone who turned out to be right.

 

[untermensche]

What about Obama? Is he a liberal? He is by his rhetoric but not by his performance.

But you just said that liberals were the ones who nominated Kerry. Which is it?

I'll give you a hint.

Liberals opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for it. They are both slightly right of center. It's just that the Republicans have moved so far right the center looks like the left to many. Reasonableness looks like a radical position.

There are very few liberals in the Congress. A handful. If you want an example of a liberal you have to look at somebody like the late Paul Wellstone.

 

[boneyard bill]

This is an old political trick. If you were clearly wrong, and the people opposing you clearly right, you publically acknowledge a bizarre variation of what your opponents said, in an effort to belittle their position.

He's not going to stand up and say "Liberals, you were right. We didn't have a plan, we didn't know what we were doing, and we killed a whole bunch of innocent people because we had a hard-on about putting a big stars and stripes over an oil-rich country. We thought the only thing stopping Iraq from being a democracy was insufficient US firepower." No, he wants to be remembered as someone who went down fighting for freedom, and to remember liberals as the ones not wanting freedom.

In other words, he's still lying, just as he was before the war.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the "liberal media" still treats the architects of that disaster as "experts" whenever they want an "unbiased" opinion on foreign policy. Even after they proved themselves to be wrong about everything, we still take their expert opinion as having more value than the opinions of anyone who turned out to be right.

Who turned out to be right? In the end nobody who is prominent today actually opposed the Iraq War at the time. Opposing the Iraq War turned out to be a route to obscurity. The one exception is Ron Paul. He actually made a name for himself due to his opposition to the war. But a big reason for that was that there wasn't anyone higher ranking than a Congressman who did campaign against the war.

 

[boneyard bill]

What about Obama? Is he a liberal? He is by his rhetoric but not by his performance.

But you just said that liberals were the ones who nominated Kerry. Which is it?

I'll give you a hint.

Liberals opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for it. They are both slightly right of center. It's just that the Republicans have moved so far right the center looks like the left to many. Reasonableness looks like a radical position.

There are very few liberals in the Congress. A handful. If you want an example of a liberal you have to look at somebody like the late Paul Wellstone.

How do you define a liberal and where were they? Does opposition to the Iraq War automatically make you a liberal? Then Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Pat Buchanan are liberals. If not, what does? Support for Obamacare or Hillarycare?

 

[Togo]

Who turned out to be right? In the end nobody who is prominent today actually opposed the Iraq War at the time.

Maybe not in your country...

 

[laughing dog]

This is an old political trick. If you were clearly wrong, and the people opposing you clearly right, you publically acknowledge a bizarre variation of what your opponents said, in an effort to belittle their position.

He's not going to stand up and say "Liberals, you were right. We didn't have a plan, we didn't know what we were doing, and we killed a whole bunch of innocent people because we had a hard-on about putting a big stars and stripes over an oil-rich country. We thought the only thing stopping Iraq from being a democracy was insufficient US firepower." No, he wants to be remembered as someone who went down fighting for freedom, and to remember liberals as the ones not wanting freedom.

In other words, he's still lying, just as he was before the war.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the "liberal media" still treats the architects of that disaster as "experts" whenever they want an "unbiased" opinion on foreign policy. Even after they proved themselves to be wrong about everything, we still take their expert opinion as having more value than the opinions of anyone who turned out to be right.

Who turned out to be right? In the end nobody who is prominent today actually opposed the Iraq War at the time. Opposing the Iraq War turned out to be a route to obscurity. The one exception is Ron Paul. He actually made a name for himself due to his opposition to the war. But a big reason for that was that there wasn't anyone higher ranking than a Congressman who did campaign against the war.

Ron Paul is the architect of the road to obscurity.

As to your other claims, Senators Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy were outspoken opponents of the invasion of Iraq. Besides the irrevelant Ron Paul, Representative John Murtha was opponent as well.

 

[boneyard bill]

This is an old political trick. If you were clearly wrong, and the people opposing you clearly right, you publically acknowledge a bizarre variation of what your opponents said, in an effort to belittle their position.

He's not going to stand up and say "Liberals, you were right. We didn't have a plan, we didn't know what we were doing, and we killed a whole bunch of innocent people because we had a hard-on about putting a big stars and stripes over an oil-rich country. We thought the only thing stopping Iraq from being a democracy was insufficient US firepower." No, he wants to be remembered as someone who went down fighting for freedom, and to remember liberals as the ones not wanting freedom.

In other words, he's still lying, just as he was before the war.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the "liberal media" still treats the architects of that disaster as "experts" whenever they want an "unbiased" opinion on foreign policy. Even after they proved themselves to be wrong about everything, we still take their expert opinion as having more value than the opinions of anyone who turned out to be right.

Who turned out to be right? In the end nobody who is prominent today actually opposed the Iraq War at the time. Opposing the Iraq War turned out to be a route to obscurity. The one exception is Ron Paul. He actually made a name for himself due to his opposition to the war. But a big reason for that was that there wasn't anyone higher ranking than a Congressman who did campaign against the war.

Ron Paul is the architect of the road to obscurity.

As to your other claims, Senators Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy were outspoken opponents of the invasion of Iraq. Besides the irrevelant Ron Paul, Representative John Murtha was opponent as well.

They were so outspoken that no one even knew it.

 

[laughing dog]

This is an old political trick. If you were clearly wrong, and the people opposing you clearly right, you publically acknowledge a bizarre variation of what your opponents said, in an effort to belittle their position.

He's not going to stand up and say "Liberals, you were right. We didn't have a plan, we didn't know what we were doing, and we killed a whole bunch of innocent people because we had a hard-on about putting a big stars and stripes over an oil-rich country. We thought the only thing stopping Iraq from being a democracy was insufficient US firepower." No, he wants to be remembered as someone who went down fighting for freedom, and to remember liberals as the ones not wanting freedom.

In other words, he's still lying, just as he was before the war.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the "liberal media" still treats the architects of that disaster as "experts" whenever they want an "unbiased" opinion on foreign policy. Even after they proved themselves to be wrong about everything, we still take their expert opinion as having more value than the opinions of anyone who turned out to be right.

Who turned out to be right? In the end nobody who is prominent today actually opposed the Iraq War at the time. Opposing the Iraq War turned out to be a route to obscurity. The one exception is Ron Paul. He actually made a name for himself due to his opposition to the war. But a big reason for that was that there wasn't anyone higher ranking than a Congressman who did campaign against the war.

Ron Paul is the architect of the road to obscurity.

As to your other claims, Senators Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy were outspoken opponents of the invasion of Iraq. Besides the irrevelant Ron Paul, Representative John Murtha was opponent as well.

They were so outspoken that no one even knew it.

I knew about it. Feingold and Kennedy knew about it. It is even in Wikipedia  (Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War) knew about it.
So, it is pretty clear your claim, as written, is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

What about Obama? Is he a liberal? He is by his rhetoric but not by his performance.

But you just said that liberals were the ones who nominated Kerry. Which is it?

I'll give you a hint.

Liberals opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Kerry and Hillary Clinton voted for it. They are both slightly right of center. It's just that the Republicans have moved so far right the center looks like the left to many. Reasonableness looks like a radical position.

There are very few liberals in the Congress. A handful. If you want an example of a liberal you have to look at somebody like the late Paul Wellstone.

How do you define a liberal and where were they? Does opposition to the Iraq War automatically make you a liberal? Then Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Pat Buchanan are liberals. If not, what does? Support for Obamacare or Hillarycare?

Liberals are left of center. They want to expand democracy. This means expanding power from the bottom up. Giving those at the lower end of the spectrum, the majority, more power.

Paul has no plans to expand democracy, and some of things he plans could likely decrease democracy by giving the wealthiest more power than they already have.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is an old political trick. If you were clearly wrong, and the people opposing you clearly right, you publically acknowledge a bizarre variation of what your opponents said, in an effort to belittle their position.

He's not going to stand up and say "Liberals, you were right. We didn't have a plan, we didn't know what we were doing, and we killed a whole bunch of innocent people because we had a hard-on about putting a big stars and stripes over an oil-rich country. We thought the only thing stopping Iraq from being a democracy was insufficient US firepower." No, he wants to be remembered as someone who went down fighting for freedom, and to remember liberals as the ones not wanting freedom.

In other words, he's still lying, just as he was before the war.

In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the "liberal media" still treats the architects of that disaster as "experts" whenever they want an "unbiased" opinion on foreign policy. Even after they proved themselves to be wrong about everything, we still take their expert opinion as having more value than the opinions of anyone who turned out to be right.

Who turned out to be right? In the end nobody who is prominent today actually opposed the Iraq War at the time. Opposing the Iraq War turned out to be a route to obscurity.

Well, there was that Barrack Obama guy.

The one exception is Ron Paul. He actually made a name for himself due to his opposition to the war.

Who? Isn't he the guy that lost every primary he ever ran in? What a king maker he turned out to be!

But a big reason for that was that there wasn't anyone higher ranking than a Congressman who did campaign against the war.

Russ Feingold?