GMA hire Glenn Beck: "Ted [Kennedy] is lying to you"
On the January 11 edition of his CNN Headline News program, host Glenn Beck -- recently hired by ABC's Good Morning America -- told viewers that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) "is lying to you" because Kennedy "doesn't want his [Iraq] strategy implemented." Beck cited no evidence for this allegation. Kennedy has introduced a Senate bill that would "prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States military forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007." Beck asserted that if Kennedy's plan were approved, "[Kennedy] and the Democrats would own the disaster in Iraq, not just President Bush," and, "It'll be the Democrats who would be on the hook in 2008, if and when things didn't go well." Media Matters for America has noted that recent polls show that most Americans want troops reduced or withdrawn from Iraq.
Beck also falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), for political reasons, "didn't say anything about" Bush's proposed troop increase. In reality, as the Associated Press reported January 11, Clinton "said Wednesday that Bush is offering the wrong plan and called for pressure to change that approach."
From the January 11 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Now, Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, he has a different strategy for Iraq.
KENNEDY [video clip]: An escalation, whether it is called a surge or any other name, is still an escalation. And I believe it would be an immense new mistake. [...] We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it.
BECK: Oh, that guy drives me out of my mind. Oh, I'm sorry. Is my mic on? Listen, Ted is lying to you. All right? He doesn't want his strategy implemented. And you know why? Because then he and the Democrats would own the disaster in Iraq, not just President Bush. It'll be the Democrats who would be on the hook in 2008, if and when things didn't go well. The reason I believe the Democrats want absolutely nothing to do with this is check out what the smart one in the Democratic Party has said.
What has Hillary Clinton had to say about the president's speech last night? Watch.
Oh, I'm sorry; I forgot. She didn't say anything about it. You can't get this woman on camera talking about the president's speech or any of this stuff. Why? She doesn't want to be the one leading the charge on this. Why? Because sending more troops is the right thing to do. If we don't, it will lead to much more bloodshed in Iran -- in Iraq, and Iraq will become Darfur.
Wow. Never seen that before.
Beck apparently finds a possible venal motive and assigns it to someone he doesn't like as a fact.
So original for him.
And so is GWBush. Their lies have cost thousands of lies and hundreds of thousands of maimings.
I would say Beck and Bush are more dangerous to the lives of people than Kennedy, who is in fact telling the truth. That is the main lie told by Beck today.
"Their lies have cost thousands of lies"
-----
Should be thousands of lives.
Bring back preview!
In reading the transcript of what the guy said, I couldn't quite understand why it was someone had supposedly told a lie, or even what the lie was...
I read it a couple of times, and didn't see either.
This is a great time right now, watching the administration's many "media" hacks swim with such futility against the tide of the American People's opinion.
They sure are earning their pay this week... and it's just the start, it's just the opening round.
He's prescient.
"It'll be the Democrats who would be on the hook in 2008, if and when things didn't go well."
Nice to see he's conceding the 2008 presidential election to the Democrats already!
The decline (if it could really be called a decline since I think the show is dumb anyways) of GMA is officially afoot...
You seem agitated. Settle down. Have a drink.
is this the same guy with the dooms day cake
Glenn Beck believes that the American Indians are descendants of the Israelites, and that God gave them dark skin as punishment for their wickedness. And here he is, presenting himself as a qualified commentator on matters of history and sociology.
Credibility?
We report, you decide.
Maybe Moroni told him that Kennedy is lying.
He looked through his peepstones and read it in his magic hat.
When was the last time Beck ever said Bush was lying? Or Cheney was lying? Or Rumsfeld? Or Condi Rice? Tony Snow? Dennis Hastert? Tom DeLay? Newt Gingrich? etc., etc., etc...
ABRAMOFF
"Because sending more troops is the right thing to do!"
Why, Beck?
Just like the republican congress owned the attack on the USS Cole?
its one thing to be a demagogue, its another to be demonstrably stupid when you do it.
A liar tells us that that someone else is lying. And we are supposed to believe him.
total shame on CNN.
You could grab any right-wing dumbass off the street, and you'd have Glenn Beck.
So is this why Good Morning America has hired Beck? To be calling Kennedy a liar?
Glen Beck is no talent and unintelligent. What does he have on the higher ups at CNN and ABC that they feel the need to put a moron like him on air? He's better suited to crayon and blunt nose scissors.
But, that's why they chose him. All the left wingers were busy causing bankruptcies. As dumb as Beck is (to you) he still had enough smarts to get hired by a company that isn't going bankrupt.
But why are you here, writing such blather on a message board, at on a Sunday morning instead of somewhere more edifying, say, at church?
Can't wait to hear what kind of dynamite excuse you'll come up with.
If we pull out now Iraq would become a staging ground for terroism and Iran. We would be in more danger!
a staging ground for Iran? They're going to start an already existing country in their country and send it into that already existing country and... I'm lost, but I'm very interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
If we'd have stayed the hell out of Iraq. there would be a buffer in place that would prevent Iran from expanding it's influence in the area.
We would be in less danger.
If we add 20k people over there, nothing will change. If you were really concerned about our safety, then you would deride bush, inc. for making this mess. Since you don't, I have to assume that safety isn't your real issue here.....I think that you're just going to deride the dems' ideas, and not bushco's, and veil it with how "unsafe" the dems' ideas are.
Until you admit that bushco f&cked everything up, you can't complain that others' ideas wouldn't be safe.
If we bombed the sunni triangle like we did Hamburg during WWII the terrorists would be less willing to increase their campaign.
Is there a conservative alive who knows the difference between a "fact" and "speculation"?
I notice that the previous 2 "FACTS" didn't get the response you gave mine. Isn't theirs just as much speculation as mine? But, I appreciate your vivid response to an idea that worked once (actually several times in WWII- the just war) so it could work again. Remember, history repeats itself.
Actually if you have read Albert Speer's book "Inside the Third Reich" you would realise that the bombing campaign had little, if any, effect on German production of miitary weapons. In fact the problem at the end of the war was not armamaments, but fuel. so, in form the bombing had little effect other than to demonstrate to the Soviets that the western powers were involved in the war in Europe.
The previous 2 "Facts" were somewhat tongue-in-cheek replies (as I read them) to insaneloki20024664's factless post.
I get the impression that you and insaneloki20024664 really believe your speculative notions are "facts".
2 points. 1) proud christian? Isn't pride one of the 10 deadly sins? 2)A true christian would not call for the death of anyone. Maybe you change the name to "Hate Monger"
2 points. 1) proud christian? Isn't pride one of the 10 deadly sins? 2)A true christian would not call for the death of anyone. Maybe you should change your name to "Hate Monger"
I'll help you out....1) I've already gone through that and you'll have to find my explanation yourself, 2) Do you know what being a "true Christian" means? Do you read/own a Bible? If you find something in there that says we cannot defend ourselves, get back with me.
How does one rationalize outright acts of aggression into self defense? You do know that we attacked Iraq, right?
No, I'm not a devoted Christian but I have to say that using the bible to justify violence smacks of terrorist fanaticism.
Was the sermon on the mount more of a shallow rock concert or was it a heartfelt appeal to humankind to love our fellow man?
And which terrorists are we fighting in Iraq? The same ones that attacked us on 9-11. And, of course you would think reading the Bible is fanaticism. Anyone that promotes morality is being a fanatic, right? No wonder most liberals don't approve of Biblical principles. It would ruin their "fun".
Or do our bombs discriminantly kill only terrorists?
Iraq did not harbor al qaeda bofore we arrived. So, why did we invade?
What a funny way to do that. I remember the 202 threat assessment the CIA did. It listed 60 countries al Queda was active in. Do you know what country wasnt on that list? Iraq. So in order to fight the terrorists that attacked us we invaded a country where they werent, leaving the country where they were. And that is supposed to make sense. In fact how in the world does it make sense to fight Islamic, fundamentalist extremists by invading the most secular country in the entire region? As usual your talking points are well rehearsed and memorized, your logic non existant
Try reading Matthew 5 sometime.
And attacking thing sure has worked for Israel in stopping terrorism hasnt it. Wait, no it hasnt. I am sure that any survivors of your bombing campaign that saw his children screaming in pain until they died would never be motivated to commit a terrorist act against us right? Its always the same logic for rightwingnuts. We just arent killing enough innocent people. if you seriously believe we will bomb our way to a solution to terrorism you are seriously deluded.
Our national security hinges upon much more than the projection of force. Security is protection of our ports and infrastructure. To protect us, our soldiers need to be here at home.
Bush is a madman working absurd calculations to insane conclusions. He is the decider, he will send 20,000 or more young American citizens to die in the total collapse of Iraq.
In order to meet the decider's goal of mid-East domination there will be no time limit on how long our soldiers must fight. Those who come home less complete than when they left will return to overcrowded and overburdened VA hospitals.
Bush and his supporters are breaking our armed forces. Reject this madman or stand complicit in his crimes.
Would kill us all with their death rays. I have every bit as much evidence to back up this claim as the insane one does his
A radio talk show host, tv host, author, hypocrite, clown, deep thinker, bigot, imbecile, and now, investigative reporter....a modern day renaissance man.
Glenn Beck has been wrong about everything - from Terri Shaivo to Iraq. But if he keeps talking the probability of being right increases. Glenn...keep talking.
He says we're in WWIII, yet there he sits. Glenn, you're a man of conviction. You proudly wear the flag. Show us the kid of courage you really have. Take the flag off and put a military uniform on. C'mon Glenn, do it for the real American...what do you say?
That's what I thought.
I tried to send a comment to GMA asking why are they putting a moron like Beck on-of course, their system doesn't work (not that expressing my opinion to them would do anything). I don't get it-has society become that stupid where people like Beck actually attract viewers. Do not intelligent or left thinkers ever watch tv or listen to talk radio that they don't attract ratings (thus demanding intelligent guests). Afterall (if one looks at elections), there are more of us than the conservatives.
Beck admits that Iraq is a "disaster" as opposed to going swimmingly. Of course Beck fails to mention that a misguided executive and a lapdog Congress are what brought us to this miserable point.
...The giant white face must live in the Truman Show, where his staff of producers feed him a reality that he believes to be real. The only difference is that Beck requests the reality and has it built around his own racism, stupidity, ignorance, biases, and hatefulness. He also has a staff devoted to misinformation that helps him believe his own lies. He probably considers himself the first mormon president.
Beck, Ted Kennedy on his 15th shot would tell more clear and truthful things than you.
is generally on his 15th BOTTLE by the time he gets to Capitol Hill.
But I need to be more respectful to the Senior Senator. Can he help it that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has spent a lifetime trying to assuage his guilt?
Yet another Socialist so wealthy that his lifelong Crucify the Priveledged campaign affects his lifestyle not one whit, but lets him play pied piper, for his endless amusement.
Yet another Socialist so wealthy that his lifelong Crucify the Priveledged campaign affects his lifestyle not one whit, but lets him play pied piper, for his endless amusement.
First, this is far too simple a description. But also, even if it were correct, it's better than bush's "Yet another Totalitarian so wealthy that his lifelong Crucify the Poor campaign blah blah blah."
Do you think bush grew up in texas, workin' the farm, livin' the country life? He's a big silver spoon baby, who has been bailed out of every hardship by his family and his family's friends. How is that better than anyone else's background on capitol hill?
I've had the same experience trying to contact ABC. It never works. And I share your wonderment about what's up with ABC. Of course over the last 10 years or so, they've probably scared off all intelligent viewers so they have to entertain their base (as in really base) viewers. ABCs credibility is on life support.
ABC might well be regarded very much a part of a totalitarian empire. This quaint idea some on the "left" have that we have entered a new era with Democratic control of Congress is pathetic. Ol' Republican appeaser Joe Lieberman (of the DLC and Likudnik Party) has just announced Friday (in contrast to his pre-election promises) that he is dropping his investigation of the White House failed Katrina disaster handling. Steny Hoyer is running the Democratic show under Pelosi, instead of patriot Murtha (Hoyer described on one Jewish online newsletter as "the best friend Israel has in Congress" and also described as "very close" to AIPAC which just last year had one of its operatives, Larry Franklin convicted of espionage against the United States, with two more AIPAC employees indicted and apparently facing trial). ABC, with their KSFO hate programming, fascist Beck and their truly malevolent "Paths to 9-11" fraud, and CNN too might as well be regarded as propaganda organs of the Democratic Leadership Council and AIPAC. There will be no substantive change in U.S. policy and the war will in all likelihood expand into Iran and Syria for the glory of a Greater Israel and the Ruling Class Stateside. Too pessimistic? If our new Democratic leaders can't get justice for the dead Americans in New Orleans, then why would any of you expect they would do anything to alter the carnage in Iraq, particularly when there are billions to be made there? The pattern of misrepresentation, distortions, omissions and outright lies coming out of ABC, CNN and the rest of the msm have convinced this observer that we are back in the days of yellow journalism, with a decidely totalitarian twist. The republic is gone folks; what are you gonna do about it?
On October 10, 2002, Senator Kennedy dissent against the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. He was one hell of a lot closer to reality than Beck was.
If America had listened to Senator Kennedy, Senator Byrd, and the President French Republic, Jacques Chirac, we may have even been able to seek out and destroy our real enemies, al Qaeda and bin Laden.
This is just a question, not a comment. Is it possible that Kennedy has been involved in national government long enough to remember the arguments about Vit Nam. both in relationship to increased troop numbers and depending more on indigenous troops (Vietnamization). Those memories, perhaps, drive his policy decisions. Perhaps this difference (Kennedy involved in national government while Bush was in Texas Air National Guard) could explain current policy differences. Just wondering
Would that "free lunch" be the financial markets where someone can go on a computer, click a mouse and increase their wealth without any additional work? How about the "free trade" bills that protect corporations from competition, democracy and common sense? Corporate welfare, which is gigantic? How about creating costs and refusing to pay for them, economists call these externalities and, again, they're huge. How about what information goes into the price mechanism or GDP numbers? Every time I hear this line of reasoning I think, "well, thirteen year olds will grow up one day, question free market economics 101 (all RATIONAL people question their basic precepts every so often) and realize that not only orthodox Marxism is utopian". Then I meet them as older adults, hear the same stuff and pray they don't vote or aren't in positions that can effect my life in any way. Usually they’re either in a good position financially, which takes away the impetus to challenge basic notions, or a working person and ignorant to what they’re saying. Which are you?