Glenn Beck: Iraqi PM endorses Obama plan?




RELATED VIDEO

GLENN: So the Der Spiegel story, you know, that has Barack Obama saying that the troops should be removed in about 16 months after the election, here's the actual quote from Der Spiegel. Why would you hazard -- would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the U.S. troops would finally leave Iraq? Maliki says, as soon as possible as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That we think would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, the possibility of slight -- with the possibility of slight changes.

Wow, there's the story the headlines have been all weekend that Iraq agrees with Obama. Now the question is, is that true or not. First of all, the blog, Hot Air, is reporting that Der Spiegel has changed the translation from the original posting of the quote. You wouldn't want to -- the original quote that was posted, then changed. You wouldn't want to post the original posting. Maliki said as soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. This is the original quote: U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months, assuming that positive developments continue. This is about the same time period that corresponds with our wishes. No word on why the translation has been changed in Der Spiegel. You know, I assume it's just because the German language was altered to assist Obama's campaign but if the qualifications are in there, this isn't Barack Obama's plan. He's for a pullout regardless of how things are going. Positive developments can continue or not, either way we're leaving. That's the plan. Not to mention Maliki later in the interview said this: So far as the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal because they fear it would be tantamount to an admission of defeat but that's not the case. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat but of a victory, of a severe blow that we have inflicted on Al-Qaeda and the militias. Again if you take Maliki at his word, that isn't Obama's plan. Obama's position is essentially, it's not that we've won, is that this war should never have been fought, it's a disaster, we have to escape as soon as possible. In fact, three days after meeting with Bush, this statement was released, three days ago. Quote: The prime minister and the President agreed that the bills would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal. But even saying that Obama's plan is a withdrawal 16 months from his election is completely wrong. That's his new position. His original plan was to withdraw troops in 14 months, and that was 18 months ago. You might remember Obama being against the surge, but you should also remember that he actually proposed legislation to stop it. The Iraq war de-escalation act of 2007. This is something he sponsored. He called for all troops to be gone by March 31st, 2008. It would have literally guaranteed defeat. He called the surge a reckless escalation. So if you think that Obama is right now, it's only because he was so incredibly wrong then. But don't let my words confuse you. Let's use the actual words from Obama himself. This is what he said on January 10th, 2007.

SENATOR OBAMA: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

GLENN: Okay. Then he said this on January 5th, one year later.

SENATOR OBAMA: And I said at the time when I opposed the surge that given how wonderful our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.

GLENN: Okay. That's not what he said. By the way, this is from a piece that is now circulating on YouTube that is just fantastic piece of all of the quotes that he gave again. So now he says -- he said all along that the surge would make things better. But let me play January 10th, 2007. It's Cut 1, one more time. Listen to it again.

SENATOR OBAMA: I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

GLENN: Okay. Cut 3, this is what he said on October 22nd, 2006.

SENATOR OBAMA: Given the deteriorating situation, it is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve.

GLENN: Okay. This is what he said in July 18th, 2007.

SENATOR OBAMA: My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

GLENN: Okay. That is before the -- that was, what, four days before the troop -- four days after the troops all arrived? He immediately said it's not working. This is what he said November 11th, 2007.

SENATOR OBAMA: Finally, in 2006-2007 we started to see that even after an election George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled up and initiated the search. To not see improvements but could actually worsen the potential situation.

GLENN: Okay. So that is November 11th, 2007. I think he's clear, one, two, three, four, five, five clips that we have, five clips where it is very, very clear the surge is not going to work. There's no way you can't put 20,000 troops in there, you can't double down. It's only going to make things worse. Here's now what he said three clips. The first one is from February 21st of this year, then April 8th of this year and then two days before July 4th, July 2nd of this year. My, would anyone like some syrup to go with these waffles.

SENATOR OBAMA: I think it is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. I also think the surge has reduced violence and provided breathing room, extraordinary work that our troops have done. They have performed brilliantly throughout the process and obviously I'm very pleased to see the reductions in violence that occurred over the last several months. There's no doubt that because of their heroism and their outstanding work, we had the opportunity to salvage the situation.

GLENN: This is amazing, just amazing to me. We're going to put all of this in the free newsletter at GlennBeck.com. If you want to have these clips. How is it this guy can now say he was right? I actually heard one of his surrogates on Chris Wallace's program yesterday where they were actually saying that Barack Obama has been right on Iraq the whole time. This is absolutely incredible. There is no shame. There is no shame. There is no one calling for Barack Obama to answer for the War is Lost banner behind him. There is no one calling for him to admit that he made a mistake on the surge. Do you remember George Bush? He had to admit that everything was going well and then it fell apart because he made an error, a mistake, he looked at the situation improperly and the Iraq situation fell apart. He was right on going in. He was right on how rapidly things would turn around. He was wrong about sectarian violence. And everybody said, can't you admit that you made a mistake, can't you admit you made a mistake, why won't you admit you made a mistake. I can't vote for a man who won't admit he's made a mistake. I was on the air saying it's a mistake, George. Just admit it. Can't vote for a man who can't admit he made a mistake. Where is anyone in the media demanding that Barack Obama admits this mistake? This is a huge mistake. Now what he's going to do is he's using Afghanistan to change the view of Iraq. Iraq is clean right now. So Iraq's not a problem. So he looks bad. So what they have to do is now focus on Afghanistan and make that into a nightmare, just like they did with Iraq. We've got to make Afghanistan into a quagmire, into a nightmare. And so what they're going to do is he's now going to focus on how bad things are in Afghanistan. You watch. The media is going to follow him and they're going to start doing all the stories on how bad things are in Afghanistan and the reason is going to be that we spent so much time in Iraq that we allowed Afghanistan to get away from us. I actually heard a question on television over the weekend from a reporter, why are we losing in Afghanistan. Wouldn't you say that we're now losing, we're losing in Afghanistan? We're now having that. And at the same time Barack Obama says George Bush gets us into another war, a war we can't fight, at the same time without any questions he says, I'm going to fly warplanes in and I'll bomb Pakistan, without any questions. Without anybody on the left. You want to talk about another war, there's your third war. You can't fly warplanes into Pakistan unless you want to declare war on Pakistan. You will destabilize it. How is it that I'm considered the hate monger, the war mongering, the fearmonger, all of this stuff when I've been saying, ringing the bell for years, the trouble is Iran. You've got to watch Iran. You've got to squeeze them, put pressure on them and liberate their people through their people. Help the people help themselves. Somebody do what Ronald Reagan did with Perestroika, with the solidarity movement. Somebody help the people in Iran help themselves. The same thing in Pakistan. Instead Barack Obama wants to take a hammer. And nobody in the media is willing to say anything. The conservatives are saying, you don't want to start a war with Pakistan. The conservatives have been the ones saying, you don't want a war with Iran. The liberals are saying, you don't want a war with Iran but, Pakistan, so what, they have nukes.

Do you realize that because of our policy right now on nukes with India that there's a no confidence vote in parliament in India. Don't ask me why I know this. A no confidence vote in India. It looks like because of what we've done now with the nukes, with the Bush administration that somehow or another the situation in India has been destabilized. We need these countries to stay together, not destabilize them. But nobody in the mainstream media will ask that. They will just call John McCain old.

Acclaimed environmentalist and author of "Apocalypse Never" Michael Shellenberger joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to warn us about the true goals and effects of climate alarmism: It's become a "secular religion" that lowers standards of living in developed countries, holds developing countries back, and has environmental progress "exactly wrong."

Michael is a Time "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress. He has been called a "environmental guru," "climate guru," "North America's leading public intellectual on clean energy," and "high priest" of the environmental humanist movement for his writings and TED talks, which have been viewed more than 5 million times. But when Michael penned a stunning article in Forbes saying, "On Behalf of Environmentalists, I Apologize for the Climate Scare", the article was pulled just a few hours later. (Read more here.)

On the show, Micheal talked about how environmental alarmism has overtaken scientific fact, leading to a number of unfortunate consequences. He said one of the problems is that rich nations are blocking poor nations from being able to industrialize. Instead, they are seeking to make poverty sustainable, rather than to make poverty history.

"As a cultural anthropologist, I've been traveling to poorer countries and interviewing small farmers for over 30 years. And, obviously there are a lot of causes why countries are poor, but there's no reason we should be helping them to stay poor," Michael said. "A few years ago, there was a movement to make poverty history ... [but] it got taken over by the climate alarmist movement, which has been focused on depriving poor countries, not just of fossil fuels they need to develop, but also the large hydroelectric dams."

He offered the example of the Congo, one of the poorest countries in the world. The Congo has been denied the resources needed to build large hydroelectric dams, which are absolutely essential to pull people out of poverty. And one of the main groups preventing poor countries from the gaining financing they need to to build dams is based in Berkeley, California — a city that gets its electricity from hydroelectric dams.

"It's just unconscionable ... there are major groups, including the Sierra Club, that support efforts to deprive poor countries of energy. And, honestly, they've taken over the World Bank [which] used to fund the basics of development: roads, electricity, sewage systems, flood control, dams," Micheal said.

"Environmentalism, apocalyptic environmentalism in particular, has become the dominant religion of supposedly secular people in the West. So, you know, it's people at the United Nations. It's people that are in very powerful positions who are trying to impose 'nature's order' on societies," he continued. "And, of course, the problem is that nobody can figure out what nature is, and what it's not. That's not a particular good basis for organizing your economy."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Dr. Voddie Baucham, Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Lusaka, Zambia, joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to explain why he agrees with Vice President Mike Pence's refusal to say the phrase "Black Lives Matter."

Baucham, who recently drew national attention when his sermon titled "Ethnic Gnosticism" resurfaced online, said the phrase has been trademarked by a dangerous, violent, Marxist movement that doesn't care about black lives except to use them as political pawns.

"We have to separate this movement from the issues," Baucham warned. "I know that [Black Lives Matter] is a phrase that is part of an organization. It is a trademark phrase. And it's a phrase designed to use black people.

"That phrase dehumanizes black people, because it makes them pawns in a game that has nothing whatsoever to do with black people and their dignity. And has everything to do with a divisive agenda that is bigger than black people. That's why I'm not going to use that phrase, because I love black people. I love being black."

Baucham warned that Black Lives Matter -- a radical Marxist movement -- is using black people and communities to push a dangerous and divisive narrative. He encouraged Americans to educate themselves on the organization's agenda and belief statement.

"This movement is dangerous. This movement is vicious. And this movement uses black people," he emphasized. "And so if I'm really concerned about issues in the black community -- and I am -- then I have to refuse, and I have to repudiate that organization. Because they stand against that for which I am advocating."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

We're going to be doing an amazing broadcast on Thursday, July 2nd, and we will be broadcasting a really important moment. It is restoring truth. It is restoring our history. It is asking to you make a covenant with God. The covenant that was made by the Pilgrims. And it's giving you a road map of things that we can do, to be able to come back home, together.

All of us.

And it's never been more important. Join us live from the Standing Rock Ranch on Blaze TV, YouTube and Facebook at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday July, 2nd and restore the hope in you.

Make sure you join us and use the hashtag and spread the word, fight the mob today and you'll save $20 on your year of subscription. We need you now more than ever.

RESTORING HOPE: Join Glenn live from Standing Rock Ranch to restore the American covenant youtu.be

On last week's Wednesday night special, Glenn Beck revealed where the Black Lives Matter organization really gets its funding, and the dark money trail leading to a cast of familiar characters. Shortly after the program aired, one of BLM's fiscal sponsors, Thousand Currents, took down its board of directors page, which featured one of these shady characters:

Ex-Marxist professor and author of "Beyond Woke," Michael Rectenwald, joined Glenn Beck on the TV show to fill us in on the suspicious change he discovered on the Thousand Currents webpage and the Communist terrorists who is now helping run the organization. (Fortunately, the internet is forever, so it is still possible to view the board of directors page by looking at a web archive from the WayBack Machine.)

Rectenwald revealed the shocking life history of Thousand Currents' vice chair of the board, Susan Rosenberg, who spent 16 years in federal prison for her part in a series of increasingly violent acts of terrorism, including bombing the U.S. Capitol building, bombing an FBI building, and targeting police for assassination.

"Their whole campaign was one of unbelievably vicious, murderous cop killings, assassinations, and bombings," explained Rectenwald of Rosenberg's terror group known as the May 19th Communist Organization or M19.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


Glenn's full investigation into the dark origins of the funding behind Black Lives Matter is available for BlazeTV subscribers. Not a subscriber? Use promo code GLENN to get $10 off your BlazeTV subscription or start your 30-day free trial today.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.