PDA

View Full Version : Olbermann: Go to Iraq and fight, Mr. President


funk
July 20th, 2007, 04:29 AM
i saw this speech on countdown tonight. a little dramatic, but there are alot of good points...

It is one of the great, dark, evil lessons, of history.

A country — a government — a military machine — can screw up a war seven ways to Sunday. It can get thousands of its people killed. It can risk the safety of its citizens. It can destroy the fabric of its nation.

But as long as it can identify a scapegoat, it can regain or even gain power.

The Bush administration has opened this Pandora’s Box about Iraq. It has found its scapegoats: Hillary Clinton and us.

The lies and terror tactics with which it deluded this country into war — they had nothing to do with the abomination that Iraq has become. It isn’t Mr. Bush’s fault.

The selection of the wrong war, in the wrong time, in the wrong place — the most disastrous geopolitical tactic since Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia in 1914 and destroyed itself in the process — that had nothing to do with the overwhelming crisis Iraq has become. It isn’t Mr. Bush’s fault.

The criminal lack of planning for the war — the total “jump-off-a-bridge-and-hope-you-can-fly” tone to the failure to anticipate what would follow the deposing of Saddam Hussein — that had nothing to do with the chaos in which Iraq has been enveloped. It isn’t Mr. Bush’s fault.

The utter, blinkered idiocy of “staying the course,” of sending Americans to Iraq and sending them a second time, and a third and a fourth, until they get killed or maimed — the utter de-prioritization of human life, simply so a politician can avoid having to admit a mistake — that had nothing to do with the tens of thousand individual tragedies darkening the lives of American families, forever. It isn’t Mr. Bush’s fault.

The continuing, relentless, remorseless, corrupt and cynical insistence that this conflict somehow is defeating or containing or just engaging the people who attacked us on 9/11, the total “Alice Through the Looking Glass” quality that ignores that in Iraq, we have made the world safer for al-Qaida — it isn’t Mr. Bush’s fault!

The fault, brought down, as if a sermon from this mount of hypocrisy and slaughter by a nearly anonymous undersecretary of defense, has tonight been laid on the doorstep of... Sen. Hillary Clinton and, by extension, at the doorstep of every American — the now-vast majority of us — who have dared to criticize this war or protest it or merely ask questions about it or simply, plaintively, innocently, honestly, plead, “Don’t take my son; don’t take my daughter.”

Sen. Clinton has been sent — and someone has leaked to The Associated Press — a letter, sent in reply to hers asking if there exists an actual plan for evacuating U.S. troops from Iraq.

This extraordinary document was written by an undersecretary of defense named Eric Edelman.

“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq,” Edelman writes, “reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia.”

Edelman adds: “Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”

A spokesman for the senator says Mr. Edelman’s remarks are “at once both outrageous and dangerous.” Those terms are entirely appropriate and may, in fact, understate the risk the Edelman letter poses to our way of life and all that our fighting men and women are risking, have risked, and have lost, in Iraq.

After the South was defeated in our Civil War, the scapegoat was Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and the ideas of the “Lost Cause” and “Jim Crow” were born.

After the French were beaten by the Prussians in 1870 and 1871, it was the imaginary “Jewish influence” in the French Army general staff, and there was born 30 years of self-destructive anti-Semitism, culminating in the horrific Dreyfus case.

After the Germans lost the First World War, it was the “back-stabbers and profiteers” at home, on whose lives the National Socialists rose to prominence in the succeeding decades and whose accused membership eventually wound up in torture chambers and death camps.

And after the generation before ours, and leaders of both political parties, escalated and re-escalated and carpet-bombed and re-carpet-bombed Vietnam, it was the protest movement
and Jane Fonda and — as late as just three years ago — Sen. John Kerry who were assigned the kind of blame with which no rational human being could concur, and yet which still, across vast sections of our political landscape, resonates unchallenged and accepted.

And now Mr. Bush, you have picked out your own Jefferson Davis, your own Dreyfus, your own “profiteer” — your own scapegoat.

Not for the sake of this country.

Not for the sake of Iraq.

Not even for the sake of your own political party.

But for the sake of your own personal place in history.

But in reaching for that place, you have guaranteed yourself tonight not honor, but infamy.

In fact, you have condemned yourself to a place among that remarkably small group of Americans whom Americans cannot forgive: those who have sold this country out and who have willingly declared their enmity to the people at whose pleasure they supposedly serve.

A scapegoat, sir, might be forgivable, if you hadn’t just happened to choose a prospective presidential nominee of the opposition party.

And the accusation of spreading “enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia” might be some day atoned for, if we all didn’t know — you included, and your generals and the Iraqis — that we are leaving Iraq, and sooner rather than later, and we are doing it even if to do so requires, first, that you must be impeached and removed as president of the United States, sooner rather than later.

You have set this government at war against its own people and then blamed those very people when they say, “Enough.”

And thus it crystallizes, Mr. Bush.

When Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside ordered a disastrous attack on Fredericksburg in which 12,000 of his men were killed, he had to be physically restrained from leading the next charge himself.

After the First Lord of the British Admiralty, Winston Churchill, authored and enabled the disastrous Gallipoli campaign that saw a quarter-million Allied soldiers cut down in the First World War, Churchill resigned his office and took a commission as a front-line officer in the trenches of France.

Those are your new role models, Mr. Bush.

Let your minions try to spread the blame to the real patriots here, who have sought only to undo the horrors you have wrought since 2002.

Let them try it, until the end of time.

Though the words might be erased from a million books and a billion memories, though the world be covered knee-deep in your lies, the truth shall prevail.

This, sir, is your war.

Sen. Clinton has reinforced enemy propaganda? Made it impossible for you to get your ego-driven, blood-steeped win in Iraq?

Then take it into your own hands, Mr. Bush.

Go to Baghdad now and fulfill, finally, your military service obligations.

Go there and fight, your war. Yourself.

... or if you don't like reading, here's a link to the video

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19859124/

Inspector_XXX
July 20th, 2007, 07:18 AM
Olbermann is awesome. Finally someone expresses the rage I feel at watching Bush behave like the spoiled trust-fund brat he is.

BigDaddy_GFS
July 20th, 2007, 10:34 AM
Olberman is a top-notch speaker. I touted him as just another goof with a mic. But in the last couple of years, he has whipped off some really good commentaries like this.

Serious kudos for him.

ÜberDork
July 20th, 2007, 12:04 PM
Good one funk. We need more outrage at the sheer stupidity and flimsy arguments that Bush and his neo-cons spout.

I wonder why we got into this mess and why this administration can't get anything to work properly. Keith Olbermann has had some good commentaries about Bush and so does Bill Maher:

New Rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word, "liberal," they also have to take back the word, "elite." By now, you've heard the constant right-wing attacks on the "elite" media and the liberal "elite," who may or may not be part of the Washington "elite," a subset of the East Coast "elite," which is overly influenced by the Hollywood "elite." So, basically, unless you're a shit-kicker from Kansas, you're with the terrorists.

You know, if you played a drinking game where you did a shot every time Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being elite, you'd almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh.

I don't get it. In other fields outside of government, "elite" is a good thing, like an "elite" fighting force; Tiger Woods is an "elite" golfer. If I need brain surgery, I'd like an "elite" doctor. But, in politics, "elite" is bad. The "elite" aren't down to earth and accessible like you and me and President Shit-for-brains.

Which is fine, except that whenever there's a Bush Administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment, and you think to yourself, where are they getting these screw-ups from? Well, now we know. From Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding.

Take Monica Goodling, who, before she resigned last week, because she's smack in the middle of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, was the third-ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old. And though she never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.

How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College. You know, Messiah, home of the Fighting Christ-ies? And then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disney World would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, has a law school.

And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years, and you only have to read one book. U.S. News & World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a Tier Four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook.

This is for people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.

Now, would you care to guess how many graduates of this televangelist's diploma mill work in the Bush Administration? 150. And you wonder why things are so messed up. We're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college funded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich U.? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House?

In 200 years, we've gone from "We, the people," to "Up With People." From "the best and the brightest" to "dumb and dumber." And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George Bush than Pat Robertson's law school?

The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by "elites." It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And, by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her ass out of jail, went to a real law school.

http://www.youtube.com/img/pic_youtubelogo_123x63.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvYFvbVi6S0

BigDaddy_GFS
July 20th, 2007, 01:02 PM
Pat Robertson....one of the top 3 reasons I renounce my redneck, bible-thumping heritage.

funk
July 20th, 2007, 01:10 PM
...so does Bill Maher

yeah i read bill maher's interview in playboy a couple months ago. it was quite good.

jdrock24
July 20th, 2007, 02:58 PM
I normally can't stand Bill Maher because he's way too smug for me, but I found this funny. Maybe because I could read it instead of listening to his voice.

ronmexico
July 20th, 2007, 04:13 PM
always liked olbermann from his espn days.....and that his closing remarks of "good night, good luck," are those of Edward R. Murrow.....i use to dislike Maher but the last couple years he has grown on me, not a complete douche bag

Inspector_XXX
July 21st, 2007, 03:19 AM
Olberman is a top-notch speaker.
Actually, the thing is (for me anyway) I don't think he's that great of a speaker. He's better than me, and obviously he's good enough to get on TV, but he stumbles over his words more than he should.

The reason why I really like him (and I think the reason why he's so popular) is because he's one of the very few people on cable TV who actually seems to understand just how much this administration is fucking up the country (and nobody on network TV gets this). Everyone else in the media pretends that starting a war under false pretenses and letting soldiers continue to die rather than admitting you made a mistake is just the same old shit that's always been going on. Nobody notices that the Justice Department is being filled with a bunch of people from a shitty law school that just happens to be run by Pat Robertson. Nobody remarks on the fact tha Bush just used the power of his office to shield his subordinate from facing justice for breaking the law.

Seriously, who are the guys who actually get it and express the outrage? Olbermann, Maher, Jon Stewart... am I missing anyone or is that really it? Nobody on CNN. Nobody ABC, NBC, CBS. A spoiled, pouting frat boy and his cronies are running the country to hell in a handbasket, and the only people on TV who take notice are on second-tier cable news networks, premium cable, and Comedy Freakin' Central.

"Liberal media" indeed.

Veracity
August 9th, 2007, 02:59 AM
Great speech/video but its always hard for me to take Olbermann seriously because I always hear his baseball commentary in the back of my mind when I hear him speak.

zebulon
August 9th, 2007, 06:02 AM
As many of my European fellows there is a question which remains with no answer '' Why after the 911 tragedy President Bush jumped into the opportunity to put all the blames on Saddam's shoulders who in fact had nothing to do with it. And the most unbelievable thing is that majority of American people followed this route while in Europe we all well knew that real danger came from states like Iran, Syria and others . At that time and since we refused to participate to this infamy Bush accused us of being cowards, followed in the same way by a majority of American !
This will obsess me for the rest of my life. Can you imagine the mess in which we all would find ourselves if United Nations troops would have been sent to Irak?

ÜberDork
August 9th, 2007, 11:14 AM
As many of my European fellows there is a question which remains with no answer '' Why after the 911 tragedy President Bush jumped into the opportunity to put all the blames on Saddam's shoulders who in fact had nothing to do with it. I agree.

This is the big unanswered question for which we may never fully understand exactly why Bush and the Neo-cons went into Iraq instead of waging the so-called "war on terror" where it needed to be fought.

funk
August 9th, 2007, 02:36 PM
As many of my European fellows there is a question which remains with no answer '' Why after the 911 tragedy President Bush jumped into the opportunity to put all the blames on Saddam's shoulders who in fact had nothing to do with it.
it was a personal vendetta. remember bush's daddy?

And the most unbelievable thing is that majority of American people followed this route while in Europe we all well knew that real danger came from states like Iran, Syria and others . At that time and since we refused to participate to this infamy Bush accused us of being cowards, followed in the same way by a majority of American !
This will obsess me for the rest of my life.
please keep in mind that it was a very slim majority ;)