Glenn Beck: “Liberals, you were right. We should never have gone into Iraq”

Glenn Beck: “Liberals, you were right. We should never have gone into Iraq” June 18, 2014

Repentance is good for the soul.

Thing is, Andrew Bacevich, Pat Buchanan, St. John Paul and Benedict are not very accurately described as liberals.  But he means well and it’s good to see.

"Whether it is one, two, three or four genes is not material to the fact ..."

On gays in the Church
"Glad to see you're still fighting the good fight!"

A follow-up to yesterday’s post: On ..."
"Ain't nobody's business but their own. They are the experts in their own lives.Bringing another ..."

On gays in the Church
"Expecting a single gene to control such a complex behavior as sexuality is ridiculous. So ..."

On gays in the Church

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • captcrisis


    Now only if they’ll listen to us the NEXT time they try to bully us into a stupid war.

    • Joseph

      St. John Paul II told the West not to invade Iraq, he told the world leaders that if they invaded, doors would be opened that they would be unable to shut.

  • Studen tof GKC

    Hmmm… I’m a bit skeptical. When he says, “…come together…’ and “we shouldn’t nation-build.” Sounds like a Hudge and Gudge remark to me. Let me translate, if you will: “we shouldn’t nation-build” — Translation: “Uhhh… as a conservative and we need to save money… we did what could to fight in Iraq and that’s enough…pull out our troops to stop rebuilding the damage we’re responsible for…they can take care of it themselves.” Glenn’s statement sounds a lot like what went wrong during WII after our occupation in Germany. We are obligated, out of charity, to re-build as the result of a war which we were partly responsible for.

    Another point of transtation: “…come together…” — Translation: “you see guys….I’m really and have always been a liberal-conservative.”

    Glenn is an Ayn Rand conservative. And nothing what he says is in conflict with it. Therefore, he’s not interested in our troops and saving lives. If he were, he wouldn’t denounce nation building. Which, quite frankly, is what you do after a war to prevent any further harm done to the people (i.e. preventing acts of retribution and vengeance as a result of letting people fall into despair, poverty, and despotic elements which arise thereafter. Glenn is pure and proud progressive who faults on his history. History tells us that you cannot go and fight in a war, having caused damage and greatly reducing people’s lives, and leave. Only Ayn Rand conservatives and progressive liberals agree on this point.

    Sorry I don’t buy Glenn Becks response.

    • tz1

      We were only able to build the USA nation by slaughtering or moving to reservations the nations that were here (note the different Catholic and protestant approaches).

      I am interested in saving the lives of our troops and not wasting them or having them maimed in an ignoble and futile cause.

      “Iraq” was a colonial arbitrary border creation. You can no more have Kurds and Shiites and Suniis in one nation than you can have Israeli Jews and Palestinians. If you want to nation build, start there.

      The only thing that held Iraq together was Saddam’s brutality. But that saved the Christians. We are not willing to publicly be as brutal (as such, we will commit war crimes as ? Manning exposed).

      As to Beck, serial examination and repentance only after feeling a 2×4 is not a cause for joy. He still complains about libertarians, though they were also right on the issue. There is hope, but the force available to the church and the force available to the state serve different purposes

  • Dan F.

    stopped clock and all that but good to see.

  • Catholic Fast Food Worker

    It’s stupid how the news outlets (msnBS, Fox, cnn, cbs) still routinely interview the failed war hawks (or is it chicken hawks?) that got us in this mess in the first place. Sen. Lindsey Graham, McCain, Bill Kristol, Obama cronies & the rest. They’re solution to all human conflict: bomb, bomb, war, war. I remember watching two years ago many interviews of McCain. He supported arming & supplying military weapons to the Syrian rebels against Assad. Then those rebels turned out to be Muslims intent on destroying all religious minorities (including the Ancient Christian groups of Syria). McCain cares nothing about Christians in ancient lands. Also the administration supports (with foreign aid & all) the overthrow of Mubarak & we get the Muslim Brotherhood. Now they want to ally with the supposed “mortal enemy” of “nuclear” Ayatollahish IRAN against Iraq? Are you serious? (It sounds like the Orwellian plot of perpetual warfare & the interchangeable labels of “ally” & “enemy”.) Also, Muslim immigrants get to come to USA & Europe & enjoy all our security & religious freedom but Christianity is legally restricted & persecuted in Muslim countries all over Middle East, Africa & south east Asia. (Double standard much?) We need leaders to quit the “political correctness”. No more Muslim immigrants to the West until Muslim countries quit persecuting Christianity. It’s Islam vs Christianity all over the world, & the Western political leaders are kidding themselves. (The explosive state of Islam is worse than during the Crusades.) War & violence is NEVER the solution (we’re Christians called to love our enemies by our King), but people & leaders & secularists in the West need to start caring about the Islamic threat, reclaim our Christian heritage & civilization, & quit pandering to Muslims. People who deny the crucifixion of Christ (as in the Quran) are unable to see the supreme love of God; I have Muslim friends & they have this sickening “eye for an eye” attitude against their “oppressors” in their homelands. The Koran teaches this violent strict justice worldview; the Gospel reveals a peaceful King of Kings willing to fully “submit to the will of God” by becoming the Sacrificial Lamb of God for our salvation. Only the Gospel of Christ will bring peace to Muslims. Islam means “submission” (to God’s will) in Arabic. The greatest act of Islam was that of the One without sin surrendering Himself on the Cross to the Father’s Will; the Quran explicitly denies this greatest act of Islam. This is their heretical mistake which brings them much misery & violence amongst themselves.

  • kirthigdon

    Beck often comes to the right conclusion a few years late, but who am I to criticize. It took me years to see that my support of the first US war against Iraq was wrong and decades to see that my participation in the US war against Vietnam was wrong, although I thank God that I never had the opportunity to kill or otherwise harm someone while I was there – I was simply a REMF clerk. Here’s praying that Beck will return to the Catholic Church.
    Kirt Higdon

  • Wes

    A book could be written about how terms have been so confused. What passes for being “liberal” today is not really what liberal meant in the good sense of the word. Today, liberal basically means anyone who is for expanding the federal government, abortion on demand, gay marriage, and Planned Parenthood. Count me out.

    But since when is it “conservative” to think everything that happens in other countries is our business? Since when is it conservative to spend American lives and treasure so easily? If that’s what conservative means, then count me out on this one, too.

  • Willard

    Thanks for acknowledging Pat Buchanan. Even though I find myself increasingly on the left, Mr. Buchanan is a fine Catholic and great example of the “thing that used to be conservatism”.

    • Willard

      Doh! Meant to say he is a great example of authentic conservatism.

    • Catholic Fast Food Worker

      Indeed, I love it when Raymond Arroyo interviews Pat Buchanan.

  • Mike Blackadder

    Whether or not it was a good decision to send troops into Iraq is a valid point of dispute. There are arguments on both sides, and yes you must account for the consequences of your decision, including whether there is a real willingness among Iraqis to quell radicalism, to rise above the injustices under Saddam. From a Christian perspective I really don’t think that there is one right answer. Nor do I think that the experience of the Iraq war vindicates the notion that Iraqis are a hopeless cause.

    So I can say that I don’t share Beck’s conviction that Liberals were right because I don’t know. What I do know is that from the time that America decided to wage war in Iraq against Sadam’s regime (which was a legal action given non conformance of Saddam’s regime to international law) that the general impact of Liberals was to do everything in their power to ensure failure of the mission in Iraq in order to be more right than Bush. And that includes Obama’s foreign policy decisions which in many instances run contrary to what was achieved under Bush.

    The truth is that the success of the Iraq mission was in removing a substantial threat and an oppressor and in eventually winning over the Iraqi people to the American cause of establishing peace and freedom and rejecting the radicalism and oppression offered by Al Qaeda and other insurgents. It was exactly in observing the commitment of the American military and political leaders that gave them the opportunity to make that choice.

    When it then becomes clear that the American objective has changed and that Americans no longer show commitment the the choice is either to find security in the viability of their own government or become engulfed in the whoever demonstrates strength, even if they are radical and oppressive. Beck is wrong to judge all Iraqis as though they are truly free. The mettle of the Iraqi people was best demonstrated when they were given the opportunity. That opportunity is now gone.

    • Marthe Lépine

      Ir is not clear from your comment if you mean “Catholic” or other Christian denominations. From a Catholic perspective, the answer should have been clear, since it was given by, among others, 2 Popes. The US had no just reason to invade a country on a different continent in order to offer its population the “opportunity” of joining “the American cause of establishing
      peace and freedom and rejecting the radicalism and oppression offered by
      Al Qaeda and other insurgents.” These were foreign objectives imposed by a foreign power, and it is certainly not surprising that such foreign intrusion has given rise to even more terrorists. On the other hand, I have read from some other “less pure” sources that apart from that so-called American “idealism”, there was a much more pragmatic reason to invade a foreign country: That country is sitting on a lot of oil that apparently was being coveted by some multinational corporations. Just the consideration that some dictator on another continent was not following international law was not a justification; if that had been the truth, it should have been an international effort, not just a US effort. Nobody has democratically elected the US as the world police force! And looking back, it actually seems that Saddam might have been doing the job of keeping some kind of balance between rival factions in Iraq, and that US meddling has just destroyed that balance, with the consequences that we are seeing now.

      • Mike Blackadder

        We’ll be waiting a long time before ever hearing an opinion from the Vatican that there ought to be a military air-strike or boots on the ground to solve a world conflict regardless of the circumstance. It’s their prerogative to guide world leaders in that direction within the context that it is not the Vatican’s responsibility to make these decisions on behalf of nations, and that it is state leaders who are fully empowered and accountable for their choices with regard to national security and directing their forces. The Vatican can ask: is mankind responsible for the violence that occurred during WWII? And what is the solution to that problem? What overall direction must we move in to prevent the next war? These are the musings of our religious leaders and their perspective should be contemplated by all of the faithful. At the same time, can the Vatican support even in hindsight the policies of Winston Churchill when England stood alone against Hitler’s campaign to conquer Europe and Asia? Can the Vatican support even in hindsight the decision of America to cross the sea and aid in halting Hitler with raw violence? No they can’t, but that doesn’t actually call into question the morality of the Vatican, it is simply reasserting the reality that Vatican opinions regarding world affairs are meant to guide decisions; they are not to be taken as actual policies and certainly do not qualify as Catholic dogma.

        “Just the consideration that some dictator on another continent was not following international law was not a justification; if that had been the truth, it should have been an international
        effort, not just a US effort.”

        Well actually the non-conformance of the Saddam regime to the conditions of a cease-fire (following driven back by U.S. after invading Kuwait), their lack of cooperation with UN inspectors, an active program of nuclear weapons development and unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction did justify the option of a military invasion of Iraq. Other options were available as well, such as the continuation of sanctions that were already in place at the time, even though there is no question that they were ineffective, furthering a policy of starvation of the Iraqis people. In any case, the ultimatum put to Saddam as a diplomatic option to avoid war was ultimately rejected by Saddam not because Saddam actually had international support for his argument that he was doing nothing wrong and not because Saddam thought he would defeat the Americans and escape capture, but because he obviously did not believe that there was resolve to carry out the threat, and the clear and outspoken lack of support within the international community which you allude to certainly contributed to that outcome.

        Regardless, the point raised in my previous comment was that there was a difference of opinion regarding the policy of military action against Iraq which was somewhat partisan (though not
        entirely) and that it’s a whole other thing to settle that question. What remains inexplicable and not addressed in your reply was Liberals actively promoting failure of the Iraq campaign – either in the form of propaganda (like the continuous false claim that Al Qaeda and other insurgent forces (like Iran) were not operating in Iraq, like the false claim that violence was a response of Iraqi people to America’s presence, like the false claim that continued presence of Americans was only necessary due to a lack of incentive of Iraqis to handle their own problems) and by opposing politically policies of restoring peace in Iraq after having removed Saddam and dangerous materials from Iraq. Liberals opposed the Bush troop surge not only when proposed, but even after it proved enormously successful, falsely claiming Petraeous was a liar when reporting favorably on the results and hastily tried to force Bush to withdraw troops even as Iraqis chose to reject Al Qaeda, even as middle east polling demonstrated Muslim countries turning against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden due to their tactics, and were joining the cause of Americans and as Iraqis were finally obtaining condition peaceful enough to make political progress. Obama when president used the opportunity provided by Bush’s successful policies to continue handing security over to Iraqis military and reducing the American presence.

        However at the end of the day Obama enacted his own version of foreign policy. A policy that is a continuation of his rhetoric during the days of the Bush presidency. He has fulfilled Saddam’s wishes 5 years too late, and has assured radical influences in the middle east that the United States will apologetically leave them be. Perhaps not realizing that guaranteeing withdrawal of their presence, guaranteeing the closing of Guantanamo, and a multitude of other irresponsible policies, hands to the enemy every incentive to revive their efforts and fuels recruitment to their ranks. Radicals being routed out and losing to Americans in Iraq had the opposite effect of course.

        It’s no surprise that we find ourselves where we are today in Iraq and Syria and Russia militarism; at least it isn’t a surprise among Republicans, who recognize that terrorist organizations actually exist and predicted this exact outcome from Obama’s version of foreign policy (though perhaps we didn’t expect it to come up so quickly). Just as we predicted that Iraqis would rise to the occasion and reject radicalism when given the chance.

        It’s insulting to the Iraqis people to suggest that Saddam was good for them. He certainly was not. He violently oppressed the majority of his people through murder, torture, starvation, fear and was a tyrant that Iraq celebrated being rid of. They do not love violence any more than any other ordinary people and that, among other reasons, is why Beck is dead wrong. This is the hand that they’ve been dealt.

        • Marthe Lépine

          Oh Dear Oh Dear! You do seem to protest too much! Well, you are entitled to your opinions, and your rant seems to me to say much more about you than about the situation. But It’s only me…

          • Mike Blackadder

            Yes, ‘what this says about me’ is that I’m actually informed about the situation. Which means that I have an informed opinion. Or sorry, do you actually think ‘not invading Iraq’ and ‘don’t storm Normandy’ is actually Catholic dogma?

            • Marthe Lépine

              Difference: Invading Irak was preemptive war, clearly dealt with in the CCC. Normandy had actually been invaded by an enemy, it was not itself the enemy, and the efforts were about helping free it. You could claim that the US were helping free Irak from Saddam, but Saddam was never in a situation that would have allowed him to do as much damage as Hitler. He might have been in the future, but it did not justify invading Irak as prevention, and there wad no proof that he had the means at the time of the invasion.

              • Mike Blackadder

                I didn’t suggest that Normandy and Iraq were the same. I said that the Vatican’s position of opposing both campaigns is the same because they invariably oppose war and violence. In fact the argument that I made wrt Normandy is only effective if you recognize that the situations are different and storming Normandy less controversial. I think that’s quite clear, so I don’t understand why you seized on that as a counter argument.

  • Mike the Geek

    So if one disagrees with Mark Shea, it is a sin requiring repentance? Methinks there might be a touch of prelest going around the office.

    • chezami

      What are you talking about?

      • orual’s kindred

        I’ve been wondering about it as well. One implication seems to be that supporting the invasion carries no consequences to be repentant about. What Glenn Beck and similar-minded people did was simply disagree with Liberals–which, as it also seems to be implied, is you, Mark Shea. You are Liberals! And hence the protest against the perceived suggestion that disagreeing with you is a sin.

        It’s a rather confusing comment. However, it does appears to be quite complimentary of the power which you wield as Dark Lord of all Dark Lords 😀

        • orual’s kindred

          does appears

          Pffft. Need lunch.

        • chezami

          I’m still confused. As near as I can tell, Mike means that being wrong about a decision that killed 100,000 people is morally neutral and the *real* sin is offending my big fat arrogant liberal ego. If I’m wrong, I’m jiggered as to what he *does* mean. That’s my best guess.

          • orual’s kindred

            Well, it seemed to me that he was saying that the decision yielded no death, damage, or any other result to be remorseful over. So yes, I’m also still confused.

            Anyway, hail the Dark Lord!

      • Mike the Geek

        I’m talking about the fact that admitting one was incorrect in a decision is not the same as repenting of sin. I regret the fact that I sold my Dell stock prior to a set of stock splits resulting in a 256+ fold value increase. It cost my family (literally) a couple of mililion bucks – significantly more than my net worth after 40 years of working. I don’t “repent” of it because there’s a big difference between coming to a bad conclusion and committing a sin. There are, unfortunately, some who can’t tell the difference.
        Going forward, I would conclude that it is no longer possible for the USA to engage in a just war anywhere, because we are demonstrably incapable of pursuing one to victory – which, IIRC, is one of the just war reqs.