What's new
  • ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Keith Olbermann bitchslaps Shrub with last night's "special comment"

Nikijad4210

Member
Veteran
All I can say is HELL YEAH!
It's about damn time SOMEONE on the boob tube said something. I gotta hand it to Keith Olbermann, Wolf & I watched this last night with our jaws somewhere in the vacinity of the floor, and I gotta be honest, this qualifies as a bona fide verbal slap in the face, and he got a well-earned round of applause from me.

If you don't want to read this, there's a video link within the link provided. Although, reading this doesn't really do it justice at all, Olbermann's presentation of this, with distain, disgust, and outright anger is much better conveyed through the video.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583889/

Bush's legacy: The president who cried wolf
Olbermann: Bush's strategy fails because it depends on his credibility


• The president who cried wolf
Jan. 11: In a special comment, Keith Olbermann says Bush's plan for Iraq is a failure because it is dependent on the president's credibility.


SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 10:05 p.m. ET Jan 11, 2007


Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.

Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me” — only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.

Only this president could extol the “thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,” and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — “engage Syria and Iran” — and transform it into “threaten Syria and Iran” — when al-Qaida would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.

This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes.

And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy’s friends, “Ok, which one of you is next?”

Mr. Bush, the question is no longer “what are you thinking?,” but rather “are you thinking at all?”

“I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended,” you said last night.

And yet — without any authorization from the public, which spoke so loudly and clearly to you in November’s elections — without any consultation with a Congress (in which key members of your own party, including Sens. Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman and Chuck Hagel, are fleeing for higher ground) — without any awareness that you are doing exactly the opposite of what Baker-Hamilton urged you to do — you seem to be ready to make an open-ended commitment (on America’s behalf) to do whatever you want, in Iran.

Our military, Mr. Bush, is already stretched so thin by this bogus adventure in Iraq that even a majority of serving personnel are willing to tell pollsters that they are dissatisfied with your prosecution of the war.

It is so weary that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq will be on their second tours or their third tours or their fourth tours — and now you’re going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well?

Who is left to go and fight, sir?

Who are you going to send to “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria”?

Laura and Barney?

The line is from the movie “Chinatown” and I quote it often: “Middle of a drought,” the mortician chuckles, “and the water commissioner drowns. Only in L.A.!”

Middle of a debate over the lives and deaths of another 21,500 of our citizens in Iraq, and the president wants to saddle up against Iran and Syria.

Maybe that’s the point — to shift the attention away from just how absurd and childish this latest war strategy is, (strategy, that is, for the war already under way, and not the one on deck).

We are going to put 17,500 more troops into Baghdad and 4,000 more into Anbar Province to give the Iraqi government “breathing space.”

In and of itself that is an awful and insulting term.

The lives of 21,500 more Americans endangered, to give “breathing space” to a government that just turned the first and perhaps the most sober act of any democracy — the capital punishment of an ousted dictator — into a vengeance lynching so barbaric and so lacking in the solemnities necessary for credible authority, that it might have offended the Ku Klux Klan of the 19th century.

And what will our men and women in Iraq do?

The ones who will truly live — and die — during what Mr. Bush said last night will be a “year ahead” that “will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve”?

They will try to seal Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad where the civil war is worst.

Mr. Bush did not mention that while our people are trying to do that, the factions in the civil war will no longer have to focus on killing each other, but rather they can focus anew on killing our people.

Because last night the president foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls, but no more after that, and if the whole thing fizzles out, we’re going home.

The plan fails militarily.

The plan fails symbolically.

The plan fails politically.

Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility.

You speak of mistakes and of the responsibility “resting” with you.

But you do not admit to making those mistakes.

And you offer us nothing to justify this clenched fist toward Iran and Syria.

In fact, when you briefed news correspondents off-the-record before the speech, they were told, once again, “if you knew what we knew … if you saw what we saw … ”

“If you knew what we knew” was how we got into this morass in Iraq in the first place.

The problem arose when it turned out that the question wasn’t whether we knew what you knew, but whether you knew what you knew.

You, sir, have become the president who cried wolf.

All that you say about Iraq now could be gospel.

All that you say about Iran and Syria now could be prescient and essential.

We no longer have a clue, sir.

We have heard too many stories.

Many of us are as inclined to believe you just shuffled the director of national intelligence over to the State Department because he thought you were wrong about Iran.

Many of us are as inclined to believe you just put a pilot in charge of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because he would be truly useful in an air war next door in Iran.

Your assurances, sir, and your demands that we trust you, have lost all shape and texture.

They are now merely fertilizer for conspiracy theories.

They are now fertilizer, indeed.

The pile has been built slowly and with seeming care.

I read this list last night, before the president’s speech, and it bears repeating because its shape and texture are perceptible only in such a context.

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America.

Now he says it is vital.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control.

Last night he promised to embed them in Iraqi units.

He told us about WMD.

Mobile labs.

Secret sources.

Aluminum tubes.

Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary:

Because Saddam was a material threat.

Because of 9/11.

Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaida. Terrorism in general.

To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases.

Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

Because — 439 words in to the speech last night — he trotted out 9/11 again.

In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

To get Muqtada Al-Sadr. To get Bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than the generals told him to. He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government “de-Baathified.”

He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. He gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

He and his government told us: America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throes.

He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.

He has insisted it’s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.

He has trumpeted the turning points:

The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam. A provisional government, a charter, a constitution, the trial of Saddam. Elections, purple fingers, another government, the death of Saddam.

He has assured us: We would be greeted as liberators — with flowers;

As they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about “stay the course.”

We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And, last night, that to gain Iraqis’ trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.

He told us the enemy was al-Qaida, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.

He told us the war would pay for itself. It would cost $1.7 billion. $100 billion. $400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night’s speech alone cost another $6 billion.

And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November and the majority of the American people.

Oh, and one more to add, tonight: Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

Mr. Bush, this is madness.

You have lost the military. You have lost the Congress to the Democrats. You have lost most of the Iraqis. You have lost many of the Republicans. You have lost our allies.

You are losing the credibility, not just of your presidency, but more importantly of the office itself.

And most imperatively, you are guaranteeing that more American troops will be losing their lives, and more families their loved ones. You are guaranteeing it!

This becomes your legacy, sir: How many of those you addressed last night as your “fellow citizens” you just sent to their deaths.

And for what, Mr. Bush?

So the next president has to pull the survivors out of Iraq instead of you?


Damn fucking straight, man :joint:
 
G

Guest

I watched that... and he's pretty right on... too bad Oberman is such a putz with zero credibility.
 

Nikijad4210

Member
Veteran
I know he doesn't have much credibility, but I'm not interested much in his political standings. However, I give him props for the commentary--it was well-articulated, and delivered flawlessly to the point.
 
G

Guest

If he didn't have credibility before ......he does now, in my book anyway.


Seed
 
M

Mr. Nevermind

Spreading Seed said:
If he didn't have credibility before ......he does now, in my book anyway.


Seed


Olberman is aces in my book. And as far as credibility? Bush has zero so anyone bashing him is right.

The main problem is that its only words and for all his points that hit hit right on the head, you have 1000's of AM radio stations that say the exact opposite of him. He is only 1 voice that gets drowned out.

People made a choice in November to choose leadership that would get us out of Iraq. Bush has shown that he gives a rats ass what the people say and he is going to do what he wants and spend our tax $$ in any way he seee's fit.

Only action can bring change. Protests? they dont do shit but make us look like silly hippies. If Bush wont hear us and govenrn according to the will of the people then action needs to be taken. 1 idea that would get attention is for all to go to your employers and change how takes are taken out. Go exempt and have no money taken out. If enough people do it then a message is sent that the US is no longer willing to let you spend billions of our $ overseas.

Moeny gets attentions. So withhold your $$ and let the government know that until they can be good stewards with our $$ then they cannot have it.





Nevermind
 
G

Guest

It's a shame Obermans rant will fall on deaf ears for the most part.

I Knew I should of paid more attention in school, but how is this happening?

How can a president, elected by the people for the people, ignore the people and suffer no consequences?

To me, it looks like the Dems are rolling over already.

Is the president really untouchable?

Does he have a secret hide out on another planet to keep safe when all hell breaks loose in this country?

I've said it before and I'll say it again,

When we would get pushed around by the bully in the school yard, we would team up and push back, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the world does the same thing to us.
 

billycw

Active member
Veteran
How can a president, elected by the people for the people, ignore the people and suffer no consequences?

well the way i see it he was never elected by the people. that 2000 election was a joke. so if he gained office against the "peoples" will, why would he listen after he has the office?

dems do need to start taking a stand an fight. all that 48hour stuff nancy p. was talking, dont really see the follow through. they did pass or start to pass minamuim wage increase though(good for them). just would like to see more.
 

Nikijad4210

Member
Veteran
I don't expect miracles out of the Dems, Billy.

I hate to say it, seeing as how Dems could be this country's saving grace, but at this point, same puppets, different hands, if you catch my drift.....
 

billycw

Active member
Veteran
same puppets, different hands, if you catch my drift.....

well said. couldn't agree more. the only solution to all this crap would be to get a third party elected to shake things up. a green party would be nice, or even a libertarian. be like jumping in a freezing lake in winter. shoking at first, glad you did it after.
although i dont see this happening in my lifetime.

"some may say im a dreamer, but im not the only one"
 

southpaw

Member
I swear I almost could have seen this coming. Keith's best days as a broadcaster are behind him (he should have stayed on Sportscenter) but I saw him kind of quietly shut down Chris Matthews the other day and I thought, hmm... that's different.

Here's hoping he gets a few more of these salvos off before they shit-can him.
 

bluebublelove

Active member
zero credibility is right. but everything he said is dead on to the point for sure. it was simply "well written".

thats for the link nikijad I hadn't seen this.

Peace!
 

gaiusmarius

me
Veteran
why zero credibility?

seems to me he sees further than most and is not afraid to tell it like he sees it. he's a great orator too.
 

Grat3fulh3ad

The Voice of Reason
Veteran
billycw said:
well said. couldn't agree more. the only solution to all this crap would be to get a third party elected to shake things up. a green party would be nice, or even a libertarian. be like jumping in a freezing lake in winter. shoking at first, glad you did it after.
although i dont see this happening in my lifetime.

"some may say im a dreamer, but im not the only one"
Third party will not even be a real solution as long as large corporations are allowed a lobby in washington to buy votes... some members of any party will be for sale as there is a nearly limitless supply of funding poured into vote buying, er, lobbying....

Oberman surely did hit the nail squarely on the head though...
 

Nikijad4210

Member
Veteran
Third party will not even be a real solution as long as large corporations are allowed a lobby in washington to buy votes... some members of any party will be for sale as there is a nearly limitless supply of funding poured into vote buying, er, lobbying....

Exactly, Grat3fulh3ad. Money = power.....
 

guineapig

Active member
Veteran
I hesitate to say this, and if i hadn't been raped by the police who invaded my home
all to confiscate 1 plant, i probably wouldn't have thought this way....

so....

the more troops that shrub sends over there, the less law enforcement officials that
there are over here to invade our homes......many police departments across the
nation have had staff leave to serve in Iraq and many police officers are in the
national guard as well.....

don't get me wrong: i don't want any harm to come to our troops, but realistically,
the more police officers that get ordered to serve in Iraq the better off Cannabis
growers are.....

just food for thought......i am not a vicious, vindictive person who hates police even
though i feel absolutely violated by them.....oh well.....

:ying: kind regards for all from guineapig :ying:
 

guineapig

Active member
Veteran
US troops are ripping up cannabis plots all over the world, according to recent articles
published from Iraq and Afghanistan (which i am too lazy to do a search on....)

2 plots down, 50 billion to go......

-gp
 
Top