About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Beck: "I no longer support the military actions that we're in -- the way we're doing them. ... [W]e are creating another Vietnam"

November 25, 2009 10:25 am ET

From the November 25 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Max Credits (November 25, 2009 10:28 am ET)
      10  
      I'm sure he shed a big fake tear when he peeled the yellow ribbon off the back of his gas-guzzler.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (November 25, 2009 10:35 am ET)
      9  
      Of Course you "no longer support the military actions" and we know the reason: you want to attack and criticze the President. Duhhhh. Anything Obama is for, your dumb-a#s is against.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bruce1ace (November 25, 2009 10:45 am ET)
          8
        That goes both ways.

        Tell me where Obama is differing from the previous administration in the following areas:

        35,000 more troops to Afghanistan to be announced in a few days.

        Bailouts for Wall Street (trickle down economics)

        A health care reform bill that progressives will have to hold their nose to support by the time it gets out of committee. Who knows if it will even pass?

        Tax increases for the wealthy (hasn't happened)

        Repeal of the Bush tax cuts (nope)

        Don't Ask Don't Tell (Don't even go there)

        Dismal job creation numbers and good news is not on the horizon.
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Good grief with all the high fiving around here that you got Democrats in office do you look at how they actually govern? It's more of the same.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by terrapin53 (November 25, 2009 10:53 am ET)
          9  
          I will give it a shot Bruce.

          Bush said no to more troops just last year.
          Bailouts pretty much had to conitnue once they were started. You would not want to know what it might be like had all these instituions gone under.
          Health reform will go through.
          Tax increases for the wealthy and the repealing of the Bush tax cuts are one in the same the and Obama always said he would just let them expire at the end of 2010.
          Don't as don't tell. At least he did not just do it all on his won to appease his base. He is gettign military input, and anwya, I think he needs congress to do it.
          Dismal job creation. Jobs losses are always the last to appear when a recession starts and the last to improve when a recession recovers. Anyway, I though the right says government cannot create jobs. (Michael Steele).
          Report Abuse
          • Author by manofmystique (November 25, 2009 11:34 am ET)
            2  

            On the money....
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bruce1ace (November 25, 2009 11:49 am ET)
                3
              Bailing out Wall Street is the Progressive position? No it's not.

              More troops to Afghanistan is the Progressive position? No it's not.

              Health Care reform with a watered down or lack of a Public Option? Not progressive.

              You should set the bar higher for your candidates.

              If a Republican were doing the exact same things you would be all over him about it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Boxer1979 (November 25, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
                1  
                bruce1ace,

                I am a progressive and I will let you know the real truth.

                - Wall Street bank bailouts had to happen, because of a little bill that was passed in 1999 that allowed banks to merger, and with those mergers take a lot of accounts with them. (Personal and Business) The failure of those banks would send us into another Great Depression.

                - This version of health care reform stinks! SINGLE-PAYER would have worked far better, but this reform is a little and I mean a little better then the previous status quo.

                - Troop levels? Neither war was needed, but thanks to the neocons and the influience of corporate business we are there and sadly Obama fell to the coporate influience namely the Military Industrial Complex.

                I would not care who was in office, I would trash both if they were putting this country like this. Too bad Republicans been this way since 1870's and that is why were are in this mess. SO THANK YOU REPUBLICANS!
                Report Abuse
              • Author by terrapin53 (November 25, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
                1  
                Gee Bruce, maybe Obama is not as big a progessive as you have been led to believe by your right wing pundits. Maybe he does not cow tow to the left wing like Bush did with the neo cons.

                Bailing out wall street...both parties approved that.
                More troops - Obama campaigned on that
                Health care reform - you are right, they should have gone single payer.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
               
            I dont think repealing don't ask don't tell requires congress at all. And I do think obama is or will be working with military leaders to repeal it at some point in the next few years. I think it will be repealed before the term is up for sure.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bewildered (November 25, 2009 11:40 pm ET)
                 
              True. Don't ask Don't tell could be repealed by the President at any time, but President Obama has already stated that he would prefer a law be passed through Congress so that the next President couldn't simply change the ruling at will.

              I'm sure he is trying to get all those affected - military, navy, etc. - by this decision to coordinate their efforts in the adjustment process. In a letter that I witnessed on "The Rachel Maddow Show", Barack Obama stated that Congress moves slower on passing legislation than he has expected.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 12:52 pm ET)
             
          i AGREE with most of what you said but do you think it has anything to do with the entire republican party vehemently opposing every single thing obama tries to get done. If we have a watered down bill - it will be because the GOP and four fake democrats yanked all the reform out of the reform bill. If it has no teeth and is totally ineffective, who exactly do you think caused this to happen? the GOP, leibermann, nelson, landreiu and Lincoln. There is nothing the dems can do except get it through reconciliation and hope to salvage some form of the public option. But such slaps in the face will not go without retribution. Lincoln is up for re-election in 2010. Leib is holding a chairmanship in the democratic caucus. Liberals know this! There will be severe political repurcussions for threatening to filibuster their own caucus.

          Bailouts were passed and signed into law by Bush idiot. This was not obama. Plus, you conveniently left out the stimulus act which was one of the few more liberal things obama has done. Also, it should be known that both regulation of wall street (god knows what will end up passing) and a bill to address environmental concerns are already in the works in various committees. This fricken healthcare bill is taking forever but committees are writing up bills for future reform while they wait.

          And your not wrong about repealing the bush tax cuts but Obama is increasing taxes on the richest 5 percent. He did it already i BELIEVE and I think some version(s) of the healthcare legislation discuss further tax increases on the super rich.

          Also, while I dont agree at all with continued escalation of afghanistan and I think its like to end badly, it should be noted throughout the campaign obama consistently said he would elevate troop levels in afghanistan. Hopefully, the actual plan will become more clear over the coming week.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bruce1ace (November 25, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
               
            I appreciate your response I would only add that Bush got his tax cuts through and started two wars with less of a majority congress than Democrats now have.

            So if you are blaming Republicans for killing current legislation, it seems to me you could blame Democrats for not killing the stuff you think has hurt our country so badly.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (November 25, 2009 10:35 am ET)
      11  
      What a f***ing hypocrite.

      Bush invades Iraq, Beck waves the flag.

      Bush invades Afghanistan, Beck waves the flag.

      Bush negotiates a status of force agreement for Iraq, Beck waves the flag.

      Obama implements the status of forces agreement, Beck yells traitor.

      Obama tries to fix Afghanistan policy, Beck calls him a traitor.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (November 25, 2009 10:45 am ET)
        10  
        But how will this go over with the Teabaggers. Support for the troops is one of the few things they really care about.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by carlh (November 25, 2009 10:51 am ET)
             
          Interesting point...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 11:11 am ET)
          4  
          They'll go right along because most of them are as hypocritical as Beck.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by all your eyes (November 25, 2009 11:28 am ET)
            2  
            How about the Repugnants in congress? If they really want to make trouble for Obama, this is their opportunity. I doubt their base will make them pay. As we've seen with them, political points against the President usually trumps the good of the nation, or even their own values. Whatever Obama supports, they oppose.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (November 25, 2009 12:26 pm ET)
               
            "But how will this go over with the Teabaggers. Support for the troops is one of the few things they really care about."


            "They'll go right along because most of them are as hypocritical as Beck."



            Hell, they'd BETTER go along, or Daddy Hannity will call them "traitors" for disagreeing with the president during wartime -- right, Sean??

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
             
          They will do exactly what beck did. Instead of thinking for themselves, they will decide they still support the war but don't support "HOW Obama is handling it." Whatever that means. He is handling it by doing exactly what the braindead teabags want, he is increasing troop levels dramatically as the general asked. I think this is going to destroy obama if he lets this war last through 2012. Obama has the perfect lessons of history setup before him in LBJ.

          Johnson is considered one of the great presidents for passing landmark reforms like medicare and he played a proactive role in passing such laws. He did the arm twisting. He told congress what he needed in the bill and they got it down. LBJ has gone down in history as only mediocre as a whole because he became obsessed with vietnam and listened to a whirlwind of advisors who were all advocating for it. And vietnam turned out to be the downfall of one of the most historic presidencies in regards to progress and change.

          Obama is fast with almost identical tasks. He wants to pass numerous reform bills through a divided congress to address a myriad of social, environmental, economic and political problems. And he has a war that is slowly losing support from the country and which requires excessive troop elevation and he is likely surrounded by people who are telling him he cant pull out now. So what do you do Mr President? YOU LEARN FROM HISTORY!!!

          You follow in LBJ's footsteps on passing reform. You should be out there, twisting arms, making threats even bribes to congressman and dictating to reid and pelosi exactly what you think each bill MUST have. So far, you are getting a D in this and only because of a lack of a clear visual. I dont see you arm twisting. I certainly dont see you demanding a strong public option or you won't sign it. I dont see you threatening leibs or nelson or lincoln to throw them out of the caucus and remove all chairmanships.

          As for the war, well just do what LBJ did not. Make sure that we have a clear exit plan. Make sure that you do not send even one more troop in before you set a date to begin taking troops out. MAKE SURE you do not allow this war to continue through the end of 2011. If we are still fighting in afghanistan in 2012, you will not be re-elected. This war will end up being your downfall.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by terrapin53 (November 25, 2009 4:48 pm ET)
             
          Remember, the request was for 40k and Obama is giving 34k. That gives the wingnutz 6,000 reasons to hammer Obama. They will find stuff to hammer him on for this decision.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (November 25, 2009 10:37 am ET)
      3  
      And since reptiles sometimes live under rocks, Glenn must have been under one for the last seven years. Seven years in which resources were redirected towards Iraq.

      And his claim that our withdrawal would mean the Taliban would fill the vacuum ignores the fact that they were never defeated. They've remained.

      What the hell does he think we can do there?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (November 25, 2009 10:38 am ET)
         
      OMG U GUYZ GLENN BECK HATES FREEDOM AND ALSO IS A GREAT BIG HITLER ALSO.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (November 25, 2009 10:41 am ET)
      5  
      Oh, I see, when Georgie was sending off the troops to fight without adequate armor, to fight for the Bush family honor and oil, which is kinda redundant, without a plan or an exist strategy, that was okay. But when this President takes his time to consider what is best for the troops, as well as both nations, he isn't fully committed and shouldn't do that. Is anybody as offended as I am when Beck talks about his "policies"? Policies are the perview of politicians, people in office or running for office, who need to consider things in order to rule. Since when did this drunken rodeo clown become a (perspective) member of government? And he will find, if he really should, by some great mischance, be elected, that he can not just order the troops home and plan the parade for the next week. A pull-out takes weeks or months to arrange.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by spinny (November 25, 2009 10:43 am ET)
         
      Hippie
      Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (November 25, 2009 10:46 am ET)
      4  
      Gee, I don't evenhave to listen to this to know he is against it because it was Obama's decision. This guy is plastic!!!!!!!!!!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RKAllen (November 25, 2009 10:50 am ET)
      12  
      No, sir! No! We are in this situation because of people like you, sir! People who supported these wars and gave our Commander(s) in Chief(s) a blank check to push their operations and agenda, while the rest of us were screaming, "NO!" How dare you decide that now is the time to pull your support of our millitary actions.

      Don't you EVER visit another millitary base or VA hospital you lying, twisted, evil, little person!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (November 25, 2009 11:02 am ET)
        2  
        "Don't you EVER visit another millitary base or VA hospital you lying, twisted, evil, little person!"

        Feel better now? I usually do when I spit up something that foul.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by westofkanye (November 25, 2009 11:18 am ET)
          1
        The commander in chief and congress are the only ones who can send our troops into harms way. Blaming Beck, et al, is ludicrous.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 11:08 am ET)
      5  
      Now he thinks we're creating another Vietnam?!?! And whatever happened to supporting our military no matter what? A couple of years ago it was treason to say you don't support them and you weren't allowed to criticize the President during a time of war. F***ing hypocrite.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 11:08 am ET)
      3  
      Now he thinks we're creating another Vietnam?!?! And whatever happened to supporting our military no matter what? A couple of years ago it was treason to say you don't support them and you weren't allowed to criticize the President during a time of war. F***ing hypocrite.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by JLP (November 25, 2009 11:23 am ET)
         
      Just saw this on google news, Beck has purchased land in an undisclosed South American country to build and promote "Becktown" as an alternative, utopian society.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by KLJTech (November 25, 2009 11:23 am ET)
      7  
      NOW, you no longer support the military actions, isn't that convenient? I have not one once of respect for this sad excuse of a man. Guys like Beck are trying their level best to stir up as much fear and hate that's possible without any regard to the fallout.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by scubcap647 (November 25, 2009 11:25 am ET)
      6  
      Wasn't this guy one of the people screaming "We fight to win" a little more than a month ago. Now that Obama is likely to do what they were demanding he do Beck wants to take the opposite view on the issue now? What has changed?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lizinbklyn (November 25, 2009 11:27 am ET)
        4  
        getouttahere . .

        Becky wants President Obama to CUT AND RUN?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Lizinbklyn (November 25, 2009 11:31 am ET)
          6  
          I might add . .

          How silly of President Obama NOT to include Becky when planning the military strategy in Afghanistan.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (November 25, 2009 11:33 am ET)
        3  
        You know I hadn't thought about it like that but you're probably right on target. President Obama said he intends to win this and people who oppose him can't stand the thought of that happening.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by manofmystique (November 25, 2009 11:45 am ET)
           
        What "changed" is that...anything Obama is for, Beck is against: simple as that.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by draftedin68 (November 25, 2009 11:58 am ET)
      2  
      Words unspoken...

      Here is what the Mormonster is really saying:

      I'm all in if the POTUS is a wannabe-schit-kicker-but-blue-blood-born white guy.

      I'm outta here if the POTUS is a who-cares-where-he-comes-from NI66ER.

      It's just that simple.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lizinbklyn (November 25, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
           
        Totally agree . .

        I think we can all imagine these mindset of these salivating, calculating, seething racists on the eve of 11/4/08??
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Indy (November 25, 2009 12:10 pm ET)
      1  
      Beck once again just illustrates the total hypocrisy and sociapathic partisan and arguably traitorous hackery at the root of the Republican base. They are only for the sole dominance of their political party by nearly any means. Country, blood and treasure be damned.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (November 25, 2009 12:16 pm ET)
         
      Beck: "I no longer support the military actions that we're in -- the way we're doing them. ... [W]e are creating another Vietnam"

      Just like you was for the bailouts, then not for the bailouts.

      This opinion of his will change. (Hypocrite)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by progressiveright (November 25, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
         
      Bush created the Vietnam when he had no plan for these wars. This is what Obama is trying to get us out of at this time. Get real Glenn.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (November 25, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
         
      I actually agreed with beck for about 10 seconds. I also think this is a mistake and will likely turn into another vietnam if we do not set a date to inact an exit strategy the day that we send more troops in.

      But this is obviously all about opposition to obama and not at all about beck's own feelings on the war. Are we supposed to think its just happenstance that beck starts to lean towards opposing the very same few days Obama decides to dramatically escalate the troops.

      Seems to me beck's take is he wants to support the war while opposing obama in any way as strongly as he can without saying he doesnt support it. Can't you for once actually think for yourself beck? But this announcement is ridiculously transparent. Now beck has fashioned himself in some stupid limbo where he pretends to support the war but oppose anything obama has to do with it. So beck is just waiting for obama and then, forming his opinions to be as contradictory as he can. Good job buddy!

      I can see right through you beck but im sure your faith listeners are just shaking their head in agreement. Fact is, it is obama's choice to continue the war or pull out now. It is congresses decision as to how long they will fund this inevitable catastrophe and the actual implementation or the way in which the war is being handled as beck said is really up to mccrystal. But no general ever says we can't win, this is dumb lets go home. Beck is such a little snake. Cant he have a real thought for once?
      Report Abuse