Glenn Beck is Wrong, the Liberals Were not Right About Iraq

Glenn Beck: Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn't get involved. We shouldn't nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free.

First, most of those who have been to Iraq, over the long run, disagree with that notion. I've combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman. I disagree with that notion as well.

Second, liberals argued in favor of slavery up to the end of the Civil War, should we have listened to them? Liberals said that we should conclude the Civil War and negotiate with the Confederacy. Should we have listened to them? Liberals argued in favor of Jim Crow laws, segregation, and other oppressive laws. Should we have listened to them?

Historically, liberals have advanced the wrong argument. Starting in the middle of the 20th century, they have argued as "useful idiots" for our enemies and adversaries.

Advance to the 21st century.

When the liberals argued against the Iraq war, they were doing so because they disagreed with George Bush. Every justification that the liberals came up with, against the Iraq war, was wrong. The Iraqis wanted freedom. Reconstruction went a long way to improving their lot.

Glenn Beck: I thought that was insulting at the time.

Yes, it was insulting at the time. However, what's more insulting than that is a "conservative" throwing his hands up and waving the white flag when the going gets tough. To rub salt into the wounds? That same "conservative" suggests that both sides should come together under that white banner.

Do you honest to God believe that we will come together with the other side? This given that they have been wrong for decades? You think we would come together with them simply because of your opinion about them being "right" and that we should move forward?

I'm sorry, I will stick to the facts. You were right before. You are wrong now. Your attitude, and your claiming that the liberals were "right" about the Iraq war, makes you precisely what our founding fathers had in mind when they coined the term "Summer Soldier" and "Sunshine Patriot."

Glenn Beck: Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn't force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right.

Liberals were wrong. There's an excellent chance that the majority of the liberals, that claimed that the Iraqis did not want freedom, did not deploy to Iraq.

I have news for you guys. The Iraqis wanted freedom. I saw that in their eyes. I saw it in their actions. 

It's so easy for you guys, sitting within the comfort of US civilization, to look over at Iraq and say, "They did not want freedom." 

The US military was not able to continue on with maintenance training with the right amount of troops. There was a lack of will in Washington D.C. to support this military request. This resulted in the deterioration of the Iraqi force. You can't use that as an explanation as to why you think that the Iraqis "did not want" freedom.

You could blame that on the failure of leadership in both Washington D.C. and Baghdad. You can't look at the results of that failure and say, "The Iraqis did not want freedom."

If the Iraqis did not want freedom, they would not have fled many of the cities and towns. They were getting away from the Sharia Law that you insinuate they preferred. They are fleeing from radical Islamic law. They are fleeing to safe areas where they would not be exposed to radical Sharia Law. 

Being protected from those realities, due to being within the comfort zone within US civilization, blinds liberals that you agree with to that reality.

Glenn Beck: We shouldn't have.

Wrong Glenn Beck, we should have. Going into Iraq was the right thing to do. However, as with anything else in the world, an effort like that requires decades of involvement. Granted, the military portion could end, but that does not mean the supports and other areas could not continue.

Washington D.C. failed to secure the straight cut victory that we achieved in Iraq. Don't turn around and say, "We should not have gone in."

To me, that makes you, or any other conservative that believes the same thing, nothing more than summer or sunshine conservatives. 

Glenn Beck statements from GlennBeck.com; Enough is enough: Bring them home, period., June 17, 2014.

Laura Ingraham Wrong About Iraq and WMD

Knowing what I know now, I'd still authorize the invasion of Iraq had I been President George Bush.

Laura Ingraham hammers Jeb Bush on his response to an interview question. The question involved a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario, Jeb Bush was in the same point in time as his brother was in the months leading to the Iraq invasion.

Laura Ingraham's response to his response assumed that the anti-WMD propaganda, of the left, was "true": 

Originally stated by Laura Ingraham:
When he's asked a simple question, good on Megan Kelly by the way, what was the question? Knowing what we know now, not if you are in the same exact circumstances your brother would you have authorized this war, no no no, knowing what we know now, mainly that there were no WMDs, we got bad intelligence, if you had known all those things, would you have, he said, "Yes, I still authorize the war. That, in my mind, reveals, it's a sneak peek as to what Jeb is going to face come general election should he win the nomination. Megan gave him a little taste of that, it's going to go way beyond would you authorize the war in Iraq?

During the run-up to the Iraq war, President George Bush advanced more than one argument as to why we needed to go into Iraq. His explanations were consistent with his initial speeches after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Mainly, that this war was not like any other war before. This war was one where you were going to have both visible and invisible parts to the public. This was a multidimensional war. 

The war in Afghanistan was the opening salvo, but not the final campaign in this currently ongoing Global War on Terror.

Or, as I'd like to call it, "Our reaction to the terrorist war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish global Islamic law."

George Bush explained multiple reasons to why we had to engage this war. This war includes the Iraq war. This greater war was going to involve a financial, economic, political, etc., as well as military leg. One main theme involved "freedom." In the case of Iraq, it included, "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

There's a reason to why it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Because of the successful media perpetrated propaganda campaign, the majority of the public thinks that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Perhaps Laura Ingraham could tell those soldiers, attacked by chemical agent laced IEDs in Iraq, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq.

Laura Ingraham, I dare you to tell those soldiers, who were attacked by sarin, mustard, and blister agent laced improvised explosive devices in Iraq... that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

From the beginning of the invasion and throughout our involvement in Iraq... That's the time frames for US military units and coalition members discovering chemical agents in Iraq. Chemical agents are one part of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hence, WMD were in Iraq.

If the mainstream media did its job, and emphasized these discoveries as much as they did the propaganda that there were "no" WMD, this would've been common knowledge.

As part of basic military training/basic combat training, new service members learn about Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the things that they learn is that WMD comes in one of three main forms. 

We have biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and nuclear warfare agents. All three constitute WMD.

Sarin, mustard, and blister agents are examples of chemical agents, hence "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, WMD were found in Iraq post invasion. Whether or not these were made prior to 1991 is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they were found post invasion, justifying one of President George Bush's arguments for going into Iraq.

But, that wasn't his only argument for invading Iraq.

In order to successfully combat terrorism, we have to take them on in different arenas. President George Bush consistently talked about these different arenas.

Going into Iraq was a logical next step in the War on Terror. From an asymmetrical warfare standpoint, this was an act of brilliance. Take a look at the map of the Middle East.

With Afghanistan on one side, and Iraq on the other side, Iran would have a hard time trying to maintain their status quo. The pressure, from economic and democratic change within the flanking countries, would make it harder to suppress the desires of the Iranian people.

Here's another angle on what's going on in the Middle East. With Israel, and a democratic Iraq, to the north of Saudi Arabia; and Lebanon, a democratic Iraq, Israel, and Turkey flanking Syria, we create similar situations for Syria... In the long term... That we created with Iran.

The invasion of Iraq created a checkerboard pattern of countries, in the Middle East, in different forms of democracy.

Herein lies the bigger element of President George Bush's ultimate plan for the Middle East. With countries in different stages of economic and democratic development, we could apply the other elements of asymmetrical warfare more.

The biggest one, offered by economic development, creates a situation to where we have something like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc., in the heart of the Middle East. From there, it's a matter time before the people in the other countries want the same thing.

Hence, the demonstrations that took place in the Middle East. A part of the Iraq invasion plan was a projected democratic "ripple effect." It was supposed to kick in and bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.

We saw that in the form of the "Arab Spring". It was up to Washington D.C. to leverage the Arab Spring. They were supposed to help bring about, and catalyze, positive economic and democratic change in the Middle East.

This included finding groups, within these countries, to support. Washington D.C. fell short of what it needed to do.

Now, people would point to ISIS, and what's going on in Iraq and Syria today. People would say, "We should not have gone into Iraq." That's a wrongheaded way to look at things.

This isn't like a project at home, where you try to construct something and it fell apart. Then you respond by saying, "I should not have built that." The fate of the United States does not hinge on your construction. However, it hinges on whether we succeed in the Middle East or not.

We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory, it was up to Washington D.C. to carry it through.

The cold hard fact is that the American-led coalition won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. The Iraqi military demonstrated competency. For the most part, the population supported this military. Within the Iraqi ranks, there was general respect up and down the chain.

The Iraqi military and security force showed competency. They tended to give the terrorists a bad day. 

The US military, toward the end of the Iraq involvement, saw a need to keep a residual force behind. All that was needed was a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). At first, the Iraqis did not want to have a situation to where US military was outside Iraqi law. However; they turned more toward giving us a SOFA on favorable terms for the US military.

The initial resistance was simply a negotiation ploy. It was a way to see if we would give them more of what they wanted before negotiations progressed. They were willing to push the envelope until they couldn't push it anymore. 

When they couldn't, they ultimately agreed to favorable terms.

Unfortunately, there was no will in the White House to get the military what it needed. In this case, to build up the Iraqi military and its capability to keep Iraq secure.

Consequently, what the US military helped create from March 2003 through December 2011 deteriorated rapidly. This allowed for ISIS to make rapid advances into Iraq. This is a feat that would not have happened had the US military received the support it needed post OIF.

So yes, Laura Ingraham, knowing what I know now, I still would've ordered the invasion. If I were president in the months leading up to the Iraq war, I would've given the same order that George Bush ultimately gave.

Fickleness in Washington D.C. should never be the cause for us losing the will to fight. The enemy has a vote. The ones that the West is fighting now has every intention of establishing radical Islamic law in the United States and elsewhere. 

They brag about it. This is what they're thinking about when they brag about placing the flag of Islam on top of the White House.

Anybody that says that we should not have invaded Iraq becomes a voluntary mouthpiece for the enemy. In this case, for ISIS. By attacking the justifications for going into Iraq, one contributes to the erosion of the will to fight. This works in our enemies' favors.

The question is not whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. That was the right decision. History will see it that way. That's a non-argument.

What should be looked at is the White House's failure to take the military's advise to heart in order to secure the victory. Based on that, ways to more effectively combat our enemies in the Middle East should receive the heaviest attention. People need to quit "next day" quarter backing.

TSA Treats an Iraq War Veteran like a Suspect

The walk down the terminal went smooth.

Four cordoned paths lead to a lone TSA agent sitting behind a podium. A couple of girls walked ahead of me and reached the agent first. I stopped and waited. He cleared them and they went to the security check area. I walked up to the agent and handed him my ID and boarding pass.

He scanned my ID card, signed my boarding pass, then said, "Thank you for your service Sergeant!" I said, "thanks," then moved into the security and scanning area. I pulled a couple of bins from the stack. I also grabbed a jewelry bowl for my watch, dog tags, wallet, and other personal items.

I threw my shoes into one of the bins, my laptop into the second bin. All smaller items went into the jewelry bowl. After I got all my items in line, I checked all my pockets a second time. "I had to miss something!" I thought. Then I stopped. I had my shirt stays on. I pulled them off quickly, and placed them in the jewelry bowl, on top of my watch, wallet, dog tags, belt, pens, car keys and other belongings.

Some TSA agents didn't look like they wanted to be there.

I pushed the items toward the scanner. The African American TSA agent looked at me, then my stuff. The look on her face suggested that she didn't feel like working that day. I could understand the feeling. It was Memorial Day, a time that most people go to the beach and enjoy a barbecue.

Memorial Day 2011 did start off with the perfect beach weather conditions.

After a little pause, she started the conveyer. I pushed one of my items after another in. First, the jewelry bowl, then my army assault pack.

My assault pack's story started in Iraq. Soldiers from the unit that we relieved didn't want it. "Sure!" I said, "I'll take it!" Can't hurt to have two assault packs!

After the assault pack went through the scanner, I sent my laptop case, my laptop and my shoes through.

After the last of my items went through the carry-on baggage scanner, I turned toward the personal scanner. Two to three TSA agents, all Caucasian, stood waiting for me on the other end. There was another scanner line, also manned by mostly Caucasian agents. Traffic started to pick up. I stepped through the scanner and overheard one of them say, "You're good!"

The TSA agent provided an ineffective body search

Three seconds after clearing the scanner, it happened. The scanner made a "beep" sound. I heard another TSA agent say, "Oops, we've got to check you!" A TSA agent directed me towards a search box, with foot prints placed where they wanted people to stand. The TSA agent said, "Turn to your stuff and raise your arms!" I asked him if I could get something from my bag.

Naturally, he was afraid that someone, with an Army assault pack and Army dog tags, might pull an M249 out and go Rambo on him. So he said, "No!" All I wanted to do was to grab my military medals, and to hold them up in the air as I was being searched.

Then he commenced the search. I gave him an "A" for professionalism. He didn't show anger or malice; he told me precisely what he was going to do next. However; I gave him, and Norfolk Airport's TSA team, an "F" for search quality.

I had this issue happen to me in January 2008, at this airport.

I set the scanners off; which caused a TSA agent, an African American, to grab a manual scanner. He swept it over me and found the problem... I had forgotten to remove my shirt stays. "Where was this hand scanner now?" I thought. That hand scanner would've limited the area on me that needed to be searched.

I have a theory as to why I got flagged for a follow on search.

That Friday, while at the Kansas City, MO (MCI/KCI) airport, I set the scanner off. Both, the 27th and 30th of May, I rushed to remove my shirt stays. It could've been the way I removed the shirt stays... pulling them off instead of unsnapping them.

The KCI TSA agents used common sense and reason in my case. They checked my laptop bag instead of me.

I guess they didn't think that I was going to go Rambo on them.

But, a hand scanner would've zeroed in what caused the main scanners to go off in the first place. Those hand scanners were nowhere to be found, at the Norfolk International Airport TSA area.

And get this. I didn't have anything on me that would set the scanners off. The TSA hand search didn't find the problem.

A second reason I gave him an "F" for search is that the way he searched me wouldn't have turned any items up. In some parts of the search, he formed his hands with all fingers and thumbs pointing outward. Then he brushed the area my body meets my legs. He did the same in my rear end area.

In the Army, we call that the credit card swipe. Our search methods, and this guy's search methods, were different like night and day.

I could've had a penny taped where my leg met my torso, and he wouldn't have found it. Soldiers doing a detainee search would've found it though. Bottom line, the agent's pat down served no tactical value when it came to preserving security.

A Hispanic and African American in the search box, with most TSA agents and travelers being white.

I looked right next to me, and there was a second passenger receiving a pat down. He was an African American male. I was prior Navy. I could tell, by looking at his haircut, his personal appearance, and by the way he carried himself, that he was either in the Navy, or was a Navy veteran.

The look on his face told me that he saw this as an inconvenience... not as having any tactical value.

After the pat down, I thought, "Really?"

I collected my items, put the laptop bag into the laptop case, put my belt on, reloaded my pockets with the wallet, pens and car keys. I slapped my belt back on, then, once I got all my stuff together, I walked to the waiting bench within the search area.

Iraq War veteran responds to the TSA's treating him like a suspect.

I grabbed the zipper on my laptop cover flap, then reached in. I pulled my medals out, then stood up. I looked around, then did the "throat clearing" speech start. I noticed that the majority of the TSA agents, and travelers, were Caucasians. I noticed this fact even when I turned around during the search.

I raised my medals in the air.

My Iraq Campaign Medal, with a campaign star, was on the first row, all the way to the left. It hung adjacent to my Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal. Under my fingers, but still visible, was the National Defense Service Medal, with bronze star. My Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal led the barely visible follow on row.

I said, "Ladies and Gentleman, Iraq War Veteran here, I just got treated like a suspect in my own country!" I had barely finished that statement when the lady running the carry-on baggage scanner gasped at my audacity.

One of the agents responded, "Sir, we're just doing our job, just like you did yours, we thank you for your service!" I did what I had to do, and didn't want to follow on with the agent's reply.

I could've replied that I'll believe that they're doing their jobs, like we did ours, the moment I see a TSA agent get subject to the same criteria the rest of us get subjected to. Come to think of it, I didn't even see any ground crews go through security.

I could've also said something about how troop deaths would've been higher if we did our jobs like the TSA did. But I didn't, I had a flight to catch. Besides, I didn't want security to follow up on my choice to exercise my freedom of speech... on a day dedicated to those that gave their lives to preserve our rights and freedom.

I intend to put more visual drama to this the next time I fly. I've purchased an "Iraqi Freedom Veteran" T-shirt that I've designated as my "flying" T-shirt. I want people to see me in that shirt the next time I get searched. I also want a future search as "ammo" for those looking for material to use to criticize shady TSA airport searches.