CNN & ABC's Beck: Iraq war "was always about getting to Iran" -- WMDs just "a bonus"
On the April 3 edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck claimed the war in Iraq "was never about Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction. I mean, that was a bonus. It was always about getting to Iran, the head of the snake and the center of evil in the modern world."
Media Matters for America noted Beck's previous suggestion that the Bush administration's stated justification for going to war -- that former Iraq president Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - was, in fact, a cover for its real intention of "getting to Iran." On the July 24, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News program, Beck stated the administration's weapons of mass destruction claim was "real" but "just gravy." He later added, "We went into Iraq three years ago to prevent World War III, as nuts as this might sound, to prevent the evil Iranian ideology from spreading across the region."
As Media Matters has also noted, ABC News announced January 9 that Beck will join Good Morning America as a regular commentator. At the time, GMA senior executive producer Jim Murphy said, "Glenn is a leading cultural commentator with a distinct voice."
From the April 3 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: From the beginning, I believe we, as a nation, have screwed this war up six ways to Sunday. George Bush framed it wrong in the first place. This was never about Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction. I mean, that was a bonus. It was always about getting to Iran, the head of the snake and the center of evil in the modern world.
If he had been more up front at that point about that, I believe we wouldn't be facing the degree of opposition that we currently are and that he currently is.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Oh, so now Bushco was playing Risk?
Good point, but do you have to use the thoroughly worn-out buzzword "Bushco"?
OMG, I've become habitualized!
I can see them now. C'mon, triple six's! Dang! Another tie...
I prefer BushieCo. However you slice it, the "CEO" prez has joined Kenny-boy in the Leadership Hall of Shame.
We are going to lose our a**es over there because the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy can't keep its eye on the ball--heck, they can't even decide what the ball actually looks like!!
Excuse number 223 for getting into the Iraq war. Iran seems little touched by the fiasco going on next door. Beck is taking over the title of Big fat idiot.
If anything, Iran is now MORE powerful in the region than before we invaded. Smooth move, X-lax.
"Smooth move X-Lax"?
Geez, that's older than Bushco. That's just too far out, man.
That's really swell.
Squares, man. Squares.
poppycock!
T'is better to hold one's tongue and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and be GLENN BECK.
RS,
I dunno... I think I'd kind of like to hold Beck's tongue...
... with a pair of ViceGrips.
Iran is predominanty Shia. Sadam's regime was Sunni, which oppressed the Shia. The majority of Iraq's population is Shia. Now the Sunni's, who terrorized and murdered the Shia, is getting some of it's own back. The puppet gov installed by Bremer is Shia because the population is Shia and voted along sectarian lines. Ain't democracy grand? By invading and occupying Iraq in an old school colonial land and resource grab, we brought to puppet power the sectarian forces that are shared with Iran. The US, via it's chimp in chief, made Iraq a sattelite country to Iran, who will now, due to sectarian Shia affiliation, influence the outcome and future of Iraq, making them far greater a power in the region. Thanks lil georgie!
I think that John Edward (the guy who talks to dead people, not the presidential candidate) is going to have to relinquish his title to being "The Biggest Douche in the Universe". With this statement, Beck has him beat, hands down.
At least we have a NeoClown apologist finally admitting that the whole WMD thing was a big friggin' lie. I guess that's progress.
Nerzog, it might just mean that the GOP realizes they're down to their fruitcake base, and they can actually say what they're really thinking.
As Jon Stewart said, "Finally, someone who says what the people who aren't thinking are thinking!"
So now Beck is claiming that the rationale for Iraq was a big lie?
Hmmm. If that's the case, then that officially makes Bush and just about everyone in his administration a liar. It would definitely mean he betrayed our trust. And it almost certainly makes invading Iraq illegal, which would make Bush a war criminal as well. I'm pretty sure you can't knock over a sovereign nation and install a new government just for the sake of "getting to" another sovereign nation. It would also lend credence to the concept that we're terrorizing Iraqis (since we're admitting we had no legitimate cause to be invading their country and putting their lives at great risk).
In fact, Beck is almost outright calling Bush a moron here, because Iraq hated Iran. Knocking over an enemy of the country you're trying to "get to", and letting them vote in people sympathetic to that country has to be the absolute stupidest strategy ever.
I'm sure AnotherAmerican will be along to decry Beck's liberal hate speech any moment...
How incredibly small and classless it is to prompt another poster for a response, when they may not even have read your post to defend their comments whatsoever.......and even slimier to link an unrelated thread.
Sounds eerily familiar to...............?
I think my point is valid. He accuses liberals of saying these "hate"ful things about Bush, but then Beck's comments lead to the exact same conclusions as what he's griping about. If he comes by he's welcome to respond, otherwise what's the damage? If you'd like to mount some sort of defense on his behalf, have at it. If you don't think there's one to be made, then he obviously deserves the criticism for his ridiculous remarks, the same way you do on a near-daily basis.
I just love how any attempts to keep you and your ilk accountable and honest are just beyond the pale. If you want to post, be prepared to discuss and defend. I am. Regarding "small", this coming from the guy who accuses Clams of being a liar constantly without backing it up, who doesn't recognize the meaning of the word "or", and who gets so upset when Dems do something that doesn't play into Republican hands that you completely forget what you said not even two weeks previously.
You are on this thread, so it's fair for me to point that out, even by your ever-changing standards.
Yeah, it sounds eerily familar to you. Look at this thread, where you tried to provoke me with some unintelligible "satire" of something I'd written in another completely unrelated thread. Unfortunately for you I wasn't even paying attention to that thread and didn't read your petty comments until days later. Man, your hypocrisies are really piling up lately.
[link to mediamatters.org]
I 'm glad you linked to that thread, Brab. I wouldn't have otherwise known that AA busted out a rubber/glue, "I know you are but what am I "comeback directed at me.
I hate to miss those.
Exactly. My enemy's enemy is...my enemy? Something is a little off here.
I'm curious if Beck later backed up his theory in any way. I'd sure love to hear it. How exactly would that 2003 meeting of the joint chiefs have gone?
Bush: "Okay, fellas. Now I know Osama is in Afghanistan, and most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. So here's what we do. We attack Iran. But not yet. First we're gonna attack Iraq, and in doing so, strengthen Iran, deplete our military, lose popular support, lose both houses of congress, and kill thousands of Iraqis. Then, four years later, we invade Iran. It's just crazy enough to work!"
I know it is often refreshing to hear someone in the media like Beck actually speak their mind, but not when they just spew out whatever nonsense pops into their head without any thought. Someone really needs to put a muzzle on this guy.
You now what would be funny. Send Beck a copy of Borak. It would be a sure thing that Beck would demand we nuke Kazakstan in retaliation for the anthem Borak sang at the rodeo.
Sadly, this may be the most truthful thing I've heard Beck say. Iran is located between Afghanistan and Iraq. I've suspected all along that the whole "war on terror" was an excuse to get to Iran. (except, it was offing Saddam that was the "bonus")
I actually heard a right-winger tell me that himself about a year ago, pointing out how we invaded countries on both sides of Iran in order to position ourselves against it. I looked at him like he was crazy and said "And that's supposed to justify it?" He didn't really have much to say about it after that.
If I were China and South Korea, I'd be worried right now if this theory is correct.
Why China and North Korea?
China and South Korea, by which to surround North Korea.
Last night the guest host of Anderson Cooper 360 actually did a short segment on the cherrypicked WMD intelligence; now Glenn Beck is basically admitting that the whole thing was a lie, and I really doubt that he says anything without GOP approval. Is the house of cards collapsing, or is this some kind of new propaganda strategy to distract us from other scandals? This could get interesting.
Recruitment is difficult these days. Beck should put his butt where is mouth is and join up ala Pat Tilmon.
Sad to see Beck and Pat Tillman mentioned in the same sentence.
Goobs -
You and I know that The Beaver supports just about any war in the Mid-east, but he would prefer to do it from his comfy couch. He's is one of those that likes to sound tough, but that's where his courage ends.
He really does not have the courage of his convictions. According to him we're fighting WW III, but he stays home.
Bottom line - The Beav is a coward, and we all know it.
To paraphrase the late Phil Ochs,
"If you ever have a war without blood and gore, HE'LL be the first to go."
Sadly, this may be the most truthful thing I've heard Beck say. Iran is located between Afghanistan and Iraq. I've suspected all along that the whole "war on terror" was an excuse to get to Iran. (except, it was offing Saddam that was the "bonus") kilgore.trout4511165 / Wednesday April 4, 2007 05:55:56 PM EST
No, going after Afhanistan then Iraq and then Iran is an excuse to go after Alaska. Only until then will Bush have discovered nuking Alaska was based on bad intel. Not his fault though.
Dulce bellum inexpertis
Erasmus
He's just so eager to have a war in which he'll never have to risk his own sorry hindquarters. If i could go back in time to 9 months before he was born, i would tell his parents to either use a condom or consider playing Yahtzee instead
hey at least Beck admits the truth, why is MMFA picking on him for this one?! I saw through the Iraq war and knew they were trying to get to Iran, we are amassing forces near the Iranian border right now according to Russian Intel. Why is MMFA pointing out a conservative who ISNT making a FALSE CLAIM!!!!
beck ftw
Well, of course YOU saw through the ruse, Joystick Jockey. You're a skilled professional of the 109th Chairborne, with special training to recognize the underlying tactics, and the easter eggs and cheats in the president's program.
I thank you for not spilling the beans before Beck did. I didn't want to have to be shot for my knowledge (something I've never had to worry about in my life).
The kernel seems to be off of school and getting into the Peeps today.Nothing a little nap won't cure.
Wow. Once again Glenn Beck reveals the superior business savvy behind the decision of CNN and ABC to hire him and keep him on the air.
Such brilliance. Such flair. Such wisdom. Such insight.
Talk about the dumbing down of America.
I never agreed with going to Iraq, even when everyone and their mothers were raving about WMDs and what not. THe argument that saddam was a horrible person and should have been taken out is ok i guesss, but what about all the other horrible people out there who are killing thousands of people in africa? so that argument doesnt really hold up to well...however to play monday morning general, i believe that the entire operation was horribly concieved. The planning was rushed and the arrogance not just by the bush, but the army in general was just astonishing for the size of the country and operation. People may not agree but if we went into iraq with 500000 troops iraq would be much different today. WIth that size of a force, you can effectivly track down criminals and insurgents, close the borders to any outside influence, and secure the country under martial law until there was some damn peace. THEN the government should have been formed and moved into position, then elections should have been held and then after we been training new troops for iraq should we have started taking troops out. I assume they didnt do this because of the amount of civilian casualties that might have occured early on in the occupation. I believe that we would have saved many more lives and money if we just choked out the country early on in the first place. I dont approve of a troop surge unless we are willing to throw more than another 200000 troops into thta country in order to effectivly shut it down to any outside influence. but once again, the arrogance of the administartion and our own oversite is keeping the commanders from actually makeing sound military decisions...dont change what works people! ok thats it for a rant ha
on another note...beck comes off as a less funny rush, he isnt nearly outragous enough to have a place in this world, at least rush and savage go all the way to the edge so there is no doubt in most peoples minds that they are crazy, beck tip-toes the line so he can sound more legit, pussy