Olbermann: "Let Obama be Obama"

Olbermann: The witch-hunt vs. Sherrod, and those who made it possible

To paraphrase President Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt — Mr. Messina, and Mr. Emanuel, and everybody else in this White House who is gradually remodeling this President into something generic and safe and electable in 2012 by the slimmest of margins on the strength of being as media-circus-free and better suited to "this atmosphere" as possible.

Let Obama be Obama! And that advice must be heeded by one man above all others.

Let Obama be Obama?

Breaking news for you, Olbermann. This is Obama being Obama. Mr "No Drama" Obama who avoids confrontations at all costs until his back is against the wall and he has no choice but to respond.

What I find interesting here is that Olbermann is saying that Obama is simply a political puppet of stronger forces like Jim Messina and Rahm Emmanuel. So, I guess when he said, "The buck stops with me", he really meant that it stops with him after he's been directed by his advisors about what to do with it.

I suppose Olbermann had to include some excuse to cover for Obama in this shameful incident that saw a useless WH political machine throw yet another African-American under that now infamous bus to keep his Obama-loving fans happy. I doubt they even realize that Olbermann said Obama's presidency is being managed behind the scenes just as Dubya's was.

To top it off, Olbermann apparently believes that "Fired up?" was more than just some catchy campaign slogan.

The question used to be "fired up?" - and the answer: "Ready to go!" The question now is "fired up?" - the answer now is: "Not ready, because we cannot afford the impression of not looking sufficiently presidential and neutral and inviting a media circus in this atmosphere."

And he doesn't seem to realize yet that "hope" and "change" meant that starstruck fans like him would be hoping Obama would change all through his presidency to become this flaming liberal he never was during his campaign. That was blatantly obvious to anyone who was paying attention without fanboy blinders on.

There has been no gradual remodeling of Barack Obama during his presidency.

Obama is being Obama.

By stating, "Let Obama be Obama", what Olbermann is asking is that he be anyone but who he really is. And that is obviously not going to happen.

As for what happened to Shirley Sherrod, the Leave Obama Alone! crowd which has insisted he had no part to play in this travesty and who didn't think he owed Mrs Sherrod a damn thing because of that will now have to live with the fact that he has finally personally apologized to her - because he was ultimately responsible for the actions of his government.

Too little, too late considering just how quickly his administration jumped to get rid of her in the first place after (yet again) foolishly believing that right-wing nuts actually tell the truth. Some of his defenders even tried to claim that Vilsack wasn't a part of the administration. Apparently, they don't either don't know how government is structured or they were just grasping at any excuse to place distance between Obama and Vilsack. Either way, it's been quite the pathetic display of refusing to hold those responsible accountable.

Those defenders - comparable to Bush's 20 percenters - truly believe he is not responsible for anything that goes wrong in his administration while heaping praise on him for absolutely everything that goes right. They gaze at pictures like him as if he's some sort of teen idol - a phenomenon I never saw any Bush supporters engage in. Can you imagine the ridicule from the left if some right-wing blog had posted that kind of propaganda week in and week out during Bush's presidency while adding only Good News™ about what their dear leader was up to because they couldn't deal with reality?

That's why they cannot fathom any criticism being lobbed Obama's way. "Brand Obama", as described by Naomi Klein,  is too big too fail and must be bailed out continually at all costs:

Klein: One of the things in this-you know, a large part what I write about in No Logo is the absorption of these political movements into the world of marketing. And, you know, the first time I saw the "Yes, We Can" video that was produced by Will.i.am, my first thought was, you know, "Wow. A politician has finally produced an ad as good as Nike that plays on our, sort of, faded memories of a more idealistic era, but, yet, doesn't quite say anything." We think we hear the message we want to hear, but if you really parse it, the promises aren't there, it's really the emotions.

And, you know, I think that that explains in some sense the paralysis in progressive movements in the United States where we think, Obama stands for something because we-our emotions were activated on these issues, but we don't really have much to hold him to because, in fact, if you look at what he said during the campaign, like any good super brand, like any good marketer, he made sure not to promise too much, so that he couldn't be held to it.

Political consumers.

That does not bode well for a democracy that is supposed to be based on reason. And we're watching as the results of that marketing are being played out while dignified people like Shirley Sherrod become victims of that emotional consumption engaged in by the right, the left and all of those in between. It has produced the same outcome as unchecked capitalism: moral bankruptcy.
 

Video: Olbermann on the Palin Interview

Yes, Keith Olbermann is mainly a bloviating blowhard most nites who could obviously use a very long vacation away from politics considering that, any day now, his head could literally explode but he did a good job of dissecting Charlie Gibson's interviews with Palin on Friday nite:



Sarah Palin: Talking Points Machine

I've long suspected that Republicans are bots. Those interview clips confirmed those suspicions.



That was followed by more analysis by Newsweek's Richard Wolfe:


Sarah Palin is a nightmare waiting to happen.
 

A Special Comment of My Own to Keith Olbermann

No doubt, following his Friday Special Comment Completely Unhinged Pundit for Obama performance of the year, (transcript), Keith Olbermann spent the entire long weekend sprawled out on his fainting couch while minions dabbed his forehead with a cold cloth and fed him seedless grapes while fanning the man down from the hysterical fever he wound himself into in reaction to Hillary Clinton's mention of the timing of RFK's assassination last week.

Keith Olbermann, the man who signs off his shows with Edward R Murrow's signature line, "goodnight and good luck", is no Edward R Murrow.

I can't ever imagine that Murrow, who used his journalistic power to rail against Joe McCarthy's communist witch hunt, would ever have said to Hillary Clinton at the mere mention of the word "assassination", "You cannot say this!" as you chose to, Mr Olbermann. Murrow did not stand for censorship. He stood for truth. What an insult that the Obamakin Bloviator-in-chief, Keith Olbermann, would pretend to be the reincarnation of a journalist like Murrow who fought for freedom of speech and thought.

And it's quite obvious that though Olbermann yelled his way through his laundry list of things that Clinton has supposedly been "forgiven" for, he has not forgiven her for any of them. Not with that tone. Not with that rage. Not with that ego. And not with that continual level of vitriol towards her as he twists her words to make her even more of an enemy to the people than George W Bush - as if that's even possible.

While he tried to couch his bombastic outrage against the mention of the dreaded "a" word by saying that it might invoke who knows what against all of the presidential candidates, we all know better. This was not about concern for the safety of McCain or Clinton, this was solely about Obama - the man to whom the Kennedys "passed the torch" and who has repeatedly been compared to the Kennedy brothers - cast as the new Democratic saviour who can do no wrong.

Your entire viewing public is not that naive, Mr Olbermann.

You saw an opportunity for a self-gratifying ego and ratings boost. Why else would you publish a preview of your comment on Daily Kos Obama before you went on the air? You know who's paying your bills now - all of the hyperbolic Obama supporters who are willing to drool over the mention of your name since you've become their MSM pied piper. All of those hysterical Obama supporters who went on throughout the weekend about how "Hillary wants Obama dead" and/or that her reference to the Kennedy assassination was a coded "dog whistle" with the hopes that "someone" would kill him so she could win the nomination.

Those are the sentiments you're helping to fuel.

It's insanity and you know it. And, if you don't, Obama certainly does:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning," he told the Puerto Rico radio station Isla, "sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make. And I think that is what happened here.

"Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it," he added, "and I would take her at her word on that."

You see, Mr Olbermann, that's the difference between the type of mass delusions you choose to peddle and reality. Then again, General Electric doesn't collect the massive ad money from Senator Obama that your wild rantings need to bring in to sustain your show, does it? Obama can afford to tell the truth. It seems you can't afford to actually be rational when it comes to Clinton anymore since it's so fashionable and profitable to grossly exaggerate practically anything she says for your benefit and for the benefit of your corporate overlords.

You see, Mr Olbermann, that's yet another reason why your bloviations so insult the memory of Murrow. While he implored the corporate television owners to do what he felt was their duty to inform instead of focusing on the almighty advertizing dollar as their main motivator, you continually brag about your ratings and too often, during this Democratic race, have only offered half-truths that favour your chosen candidate, Barack Obama, because you know that preaching to the angry anti-Clinton mob is what keeps many of your viewers tuned in.

Murrow must be rolling over in his grave.

You're effective when you rant against the war crimes of the Bush administration; when you expose their crimes and endless human and civil rights violations; when you actually stand on rational principles of justice and fairness that they have so abused. But to use the same amount of outrage you employ about those human tragedies and the death of democracy - assassinated bit by bit by the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney - against a candidate you simply don't like and do not support is the worst kind of political theatre and sensationalism.

I certainly won't tell you what you cannot say, Mr Olbermann. I feel no need to censor you. But it seems that you would do yourself, your viewers, and your corporation a favour if you took a deep breath once in a while to actually process those feelings of outrage that you have before you turn them into yet another Special Comment that embarrasses all involved - including the memory of your idol, Mr Edward R Murrow.

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.

- Edward R. Murrow

Olbermann on NAFTAgate: Innuendo and Truth

On Thursday nite, Keith Olbermann had this to say about NAFTAgate:

Olbermann: For a week now, Senator Clinton has bashed Senator Obama and even possibly won votes based on the story that Obama had publicly railed against NAFTA while a memo by a Canadian diplomat claimed Obama's campaign secretly assured them his stand "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans"

First of all, the memo Olbermann refers to was only brought to the public's attention on March 3, 2008 by the AP's Nedra Pickler - the day before Tuesday's primaries. Therefore, it isn't possible for Clinton to have been railing against Obama based on that memo before that time. (As an aside, Macleans' Luiza Ch. Savage published a copy of that memo on Thursday.)

Back to Olbermann:

Olbermann: In our fourth story in the countdown, Obama's adviser denied speaking those words and now we learn that a much higher source from Canada revealed late last month that the NAFTA promises came from a very different source, the Clinton campaign. According to an unnamed source speaking to that nation's equivalent of the Associated Press, the Canadian Press, it was Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian government to reassure them about Clinton's anti-NAFTA rhetoric. The Canadian Press reporting that the source heard the chief of staff to Canada's prime minister say in a room full of television journalists "someone from Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . someone called us and told us not to worry."

Olbermann then introduced his guest, Howard Fineman, and asked, "am I oversimplifying this or is this story now basically the opposite of what it seemed to be a week ago?" to which Fineman responds, "Yeah, it is 180 degrees different".

Except that it's not.

Take a look at the original CTV story:

Low-level sources also suggested the Clinton campaign may have given a similar warning to Ottawa, but a Clinton spokesperson flatly denied the claim.

That was in the same story that alleged that Obama's campaign "told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously".

That's not "180 degrees different". It's exactly the same.

Fineman then said he "think(s) it was the Clinton camp that started the conversation with the Canadians about don't worry about NAFTA".

Except that no one has proven anything like that, Fineman.

Even after Olbermann pointed out that there was, as he put it, an "obscure reference" to the Clinton side in this, Fineman stated that he thought the Obama campaign didn't know about it until Thursday. Fineman then said the Obama campaign hadn't issued a "flat denial saying the story wasn't true". That's not true. The Obama campaign definitely fumbled its reaction to this story but it has issued denials since the story broke. Here's just one of them from this week:

When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.

The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly.

Meanwhile, as soon as CTV news broke the story last Wednesday, their television reporter Tom Clark said the Clinton campaign was giving the Canadian government "blanket immunity" to release the name of anyone on her staff who may have been in touch with them. That's why the allegations against her were dropped so quickly. The Canadian sources haven't released anything to back up that claim. Apparently, someone must have thought the release of the memo later that week could be used against Obama and that's why the story, as it related to him, continued to have legs.

Fineman then went on to say that he thought the Obama campaign believed it "has the upper hand in the NAFTA debate" as an excuse for not responding more forcefully. In other words, never mind that a foreign government might be creating the impression that his NAFTA promises aren't true, they'll just ignore it and hope it goes away. Does Fineman really believe that's what happened or could it be that their economic adviser Goolsbee, who wasn't straight with the media as soon as his meeting with Canadian officials was revealed, has created a PR nightmare for the campaign?

Olbermann then cited the NAFTA story as another one of the Clinton campaign's recent screw ups. The fact is that there's no "there" there - not with this story. Olbermann and Fineman should have done more research before they went on the air with this in the fashion that they did. If you watch the video, you'll see a shocked and surprised Olbermann acting is if what he's reporting is proof that the Clinton campaign reassured the Canadian government on NAFTA despite the fact that his very words belie that incredulity.

Keith Olbermann has a lot of pull with Democratic and so-called "progressive" viewers, many of whom, at places like Daily Kos, (nicknamed Daily Obama because of the overwhelming support for that candidate there) now believe that he has nailed Clinton to the wall on NAFTAgate when no such thing has happened.

Olbermann is not responsible for how his viewers react to what he says, but he owes them the truth, not innuendo backed up with an overly-emotional response along with a guest who doesn't even know what he's talking about. For Olbermann to act as if he believed the unnamed source who fingered Ian Brodie (an allegation that has yet to be investigated) is either lazy journalism or biased reporting against Clinton.

I don't support either candidate and I'm no Clinton apologist. I just expect responsible journalism - not hyperbole that can be interpreted as facts. Sometimes actions speak louder than words and I believe they have in this case.

Watch the video:



Related:

Here's the latest news from Canada on this story - Government will probe 'entire' NAFTA leak: PM.

US ambassador Wilkins has since backed off from his claims of "interference" as reported in the CBC story linked to above.

"I do think the term 'interference' is a little strong. It implies some intentional act. And I've got no way of knowing whether it was unintentional or intentional, or anything of that nature. But my statement of interference was not meant to mean intentional interference by the Canadian government, and unfortunately that's the way it got played."

How lawyerly of him.
 

Video: Olbermann to Bush, 'You're a fascist'

Watch it:



Read the transcript.

In part:

As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation.

The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear.

We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, and we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, and we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

Video: Olbermann on Torture, Mukasey and Bush

From the transcript:

Water-boarding, he [Levin] said, is torture.

Legally, it is torture .

Practically, it is torture.

Ethically, it is torture .

And he wrote it down.

Wrote it down somewhere, where it could be contrasted with the words of this country's 43rd President: "The United States of America does not torture."

Made you into a liar, Mr. Bush.

Made you into, if anybody had the guts to pursue it, a criminal.

Does anyone have the guts to pursue it? That is the question.

You can read the ABC News article about Daniel Levin's experience here.

Update:

The Senate Judiciary Committee today narrowly voted to approve the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general despite the opposition of most of the panel's Democrats over his refusal to say whether an aggressive interrogation tactic constitutes illegal torture.

The committee's 11-8 vote sends Mukasey nomination to the full Senate, which is expected to confirm him in a floor vote to be held by next week.

link

Video: Maher Arar

Maher Arar speaks about his experience:



Last week, some US legislators apologized to Maher Arar for his kidnapping and rendition. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Hawkish Asshole), who didn't even know that Arar had a family apparently, (that's how much he gives a damn) called it a "mistake" - a "serious error" - while at the same time defending the hardass tactics that the US uses because, after all, there are SCARY TERRORISTS out there everywhere.

You can watch that exchange here:



Rohrabacher should have gotten a big dose of STFU.

On Wednesday, when she went to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, Condi Rice was confronted by a Code Pink protester who repeatedly called her a "war criminal" (video) as security "escorted" (ie. manhandled) a couple of other protesters out of the room. Ms War Criminal admitted during the hearing that Arar's case wasn't handled properly. Nice diplomatic words meaning that they fucked up severely but she would not apologize.

"We have told the Canadian government we do not think this was handled particularly well … and we will try to do better in the future," Rice said while testifying before the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee.

Do you get the sense she's talking about a man who was traumatized by torture at the US's behest? No. Neither do I. They'll "try to do better"? What a huge insult. They have no intention of "doing better". They're just sorry they got caught.

The ever gracious Arar was thankful for the committee's attention to his case but this isn't over yet. Arar is still on the US no-fly list and has a court case pending in the US that had previously been rejected on the grounds of "national security" - that handy catch all phrase that provides cover for everything illegal the Bush administration and its cronies have perpetrated.

When comedian George Carlin was interviewed by Keith Olbermann on Tuesday nite, he said of the US, "this country is finished" (video). I agree.
 

Video: Olbermann on Bush's Hypocrisy

The US senate on Thursday wasted its precious time debating and passing a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's ad about General Petraeus.

Think about that.

With all of the business the Democratically-controlled senate should be giving serious consideration to, it wasted hours discussing an issue of free speech. Over 20 Democrats rolled over and play scared patriot and went along with the Republican resolution. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) tried to offer an amendment (that was shut down) adding condemnations of the swiftboating of John Kerry and the shameful ad run against veteran Max Cleland in 2004. The important word in that previous sentence is "adding" because the wording of her amendment also included decrying MoveOn's ad.

At every turn, the Democrats have run away from criticism that they aren't "serious" about dealing with terrorism. They fall over any time sometime from the right accuses them of not supporting the troops or the US military. They continue to act out of fear and cowardice even though they have the power to set the agenda. They have been absolutely useless since they won back the house and senate. And now, here they are again, bowing to their right-wing masters who happen to be offended by a newspaper ad.

Keith Olbermann took on this issue on Thursday evening in his special comment: Olbermann to Bush: ‘Your hypocrisy is so vast’ (transcript)

Here's the video and I hope more than a few of those Democratic pushovers watched his show as well:

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

~Albert Einstein

9/11 - 6 Years Later

This man - this incompetent, criminal opportunist - is set to speak to Americans again on Thursday. And who would have guessed that, 6 full years after the attacks of 9/11, the topic of his speech would be war with Iraq? Certainly not the neocons who seized on the horrors of 9/11 as an excuse to illegally wage war on that country. They thought it would be a cakewalk. Many of them are now tremendously frustrated that their dreams of pillaging Iraq's oil have not yet been fully realized. "Blood and treasure" was a phrase used throughout the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker the past two days. Why was I reminded of pirates?

And what of the Afghanistan war - the so-called just war waged after the 9/11 attacks? It's been quietly forgotten. When Petraeus was asked how his plans for Iraq might impact the GWOT, he basically said that figuring that out was not his department - that it was his job to focus solely on the Iraq war. He couldn't (or wouldn't) answer how the concentration of American troops might affect the US military's inability to deal with conflicts in the rest of the world and at home. His responses reminded me of the warnings given before and after 9/11 about US intelligence agencies not working together to deal with possible threats. And we all know what the result of that failure was.

Ryan Crocker, acting like a CEO addressing concerned corporate shareholders about their investments in Iraq (and that's really what his testimony was about, wasn't it?) could only parrot Petraeus by admitting he was "frustrated". He spoke with a chilling, distant, business-like indifference about the plight of the actual people - the Iraqis - whose fate is in his hands. No "timelines, dates or guarantees". Nothing.

And neither man could admit that the counter-insurgency strategy that's been implemented has also been practiced (most likely by accident since the official Petraeus manual hadn't been written yet) in Afghanistan - that of working with the locals while not making the much-needed connections to the federal government. The result? War lords back in power. The Taliban continuing its oppression. Karzai crying crocodile tears over all of the civilians NATO and the US military keep killing in air strikes - air power being used because there are not, and never were, enough troops on the ground. Opium once again the number one cash crop driving Afghanistan's economy. But, on this anniversary of 9/11, Iraq was the focus.

Petraeus, claiming he didn't have any sort of political agenda, was basically a two-trick pony: the problems in Iraq are being caused by al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran - convenient targets considering the Bush administration's fearmongering of late. And, as was pointed out to Petraeus, the fact that the Sunnis are rebelling against AQI in al Anbar is not so much about the fact that they've suddenly been won over (in the "hearts and minds" game). The opposition to AQI came about because their people were being raped and slaughtered. The US military seems to have no problem with supporting the Sunnis, especially since they can execute whomever they like without following the rules of war. And while Petraeus heralds this so-called triumph, the political reality of supporting the Sunnis is actually counter-productive to the concept of "national reconciliation" that both Petraeus and Crocker admit has not moved along as expected. Well, what do they expect when neither of them said one thing about the absolutely rampant corruption in al Maliki's government along with his dictatorial actions to shut down any investigations about the wrongdoing?

Shades of Afghanistan once again.

And while Petraeus hopes that touting so-called progress at the micro level is reason enough to convince congress, Americans and the world that the occupation should continue, the Bush administration is placing serious roadblocks to dealing with players in the region, like Iran and Syria, at the macro level - using threats, intimidation and sanctions as a macho form of cowboy diplomacy. How has that worked out so far?

Meanwhile, Karzai is once again trying to negotiate with the Taliban while they refuse to do so with foreign troops in the country and Musharraf pulled out of attending an Afghanistan peace conference in August. As a result of Musharraf's continual inability or reluctance to deal with insurgents in Waziristan, the US government is now placing its hopes in the return of the corrupt Benazir Bhutto. (The NYT has more on Pakistan's current political situation.)

On all of these fronts, there is no coherent and comprehensive policy except the continued push by the White House to assert its executive powers (made up as they go along while shredding the constitution in the process) against the American people.

“Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.”

-James Harvey Robinson, Amercian historian (1863-1936)

The dangerous fawning of the Republicans who place their party and president before their country is still on display this week, despite the mountains of evidence that have proven that the choice to invade Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that execution of that and the Afghanistan war are massive failures. And they, along with corporatist Democrats who believe they owe their fealty to members of the military industrial complex - including lobbyists for foreign governments like Israel which is now under an even greater threat as a result of the regional destabilization - have sold out their constituents; doomed them to more funerals and the human and financial costs of dealing with the wounded coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan while still creating a hell overseas that they cannot even bring themselves to honestly imagine. Token visits to safe areas like the green zone or tours outside those boundaries under extremely heavy guard do not provide them with an adequate sense of reality. They'd do well to spend time with some of the 2 million refugees, within and outside of Iraq, to really understand exactly what they have wrought. Maybe then they wouldn't keep fiddling while Baghdad and Helmund province in Afghanistan burn as a result of their rash decisions.

So, on this day while America and the world once again mourns for those killed on 9/11, who is mourning for the hundreds of thousands who have died due to the need for revenge that followed that day 6 years ago?

And the question that once again hangs in the air is simple: Was it all worth it?

And who has been held accountable? Keith Olbermann offers "No truth, no consequences":


Where is the mass rebellion?

Update: The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

And so it begins...
 

Video: Olbermann - Surge Protectors & The Great Conflation

All of the buzz leading up to the surge report to be given by Petraeus next week has been like watching movie trailers in which the major action shots released show, for all intents and purposes, the entire content of the movie.

There won't be any surprises.

Olbermann has a look at how "insurgent" numbers have been fixed around the surge policy and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek discusses 'The Great Conflation" ie. the continual, nauseating linking of the Iraq war with 9/11.



The situation in Iraq is such a farce that an independent report this week called for disbanding Iraq's national police force which is rife with sectarian Shiite bias. The Democrats, meanwhile, couldn't put a coherent policy plan together about how to deal with the Iraq war if their lives depended on it. Maybe that's the problem: their lives don't depend on it. They might be singing a different tune if they were all forced to live in the middle of Baghdad for a month or so. In the meantime, they just cobble together whatever they think might make their base happy while blaming those nasty Republicans for not being able to get anything done. (And those Republicans are nasty, but at least they know how to put up a real fight when they go after something they want.)

Dana Milbank, in what is perhaps a precursor to what will surely be the reactions from both parties to the WH/Petraeus report next week, shows how Democrats and Republicans are using the independent commission's report to try and sell the same old schtick about the war. No one, it seems, has any new ideas.

Madeleine Albright seems to think that if only Bush would admit his mistakes, some major corner would be turned for US allies to come in and save the day. It's long past time for that to mean anything and Bush won't do it anyway, so what's the point?

As for what Olbermann and Alter were talking about, here is the WaPo story about how the surge numbers have been manipulated.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."

"spaghetti".

There you have it.

I'm sorry, but aren't we talking about dead people here?

Related:
Most of world wants U.S. out of Iraq in a year: poll

New Twist In Saga Over ‘Petraeus Report’: There Will Be No Report
 

Friday Fun: Rats, Sinking Ship Edition

Newsweek:

Aug. 31, 2007 - That scampering sound you hear is the feet of senior White House officials running for the exits. The summer has left President Bush without three of his closest Texas aides: counselor Dan Bartlett, political guru Karl Rove and longtime lawyer Alberto Gonzales. Now Bush is losing one of the few outsiders who helped improve (a little) the atmosphere of his second term: press secretary Tony Snow.

"You can't pay me enough to do this damn job anymore!" Snow was heard saying.

Meanwhile: Heartbroken Bush Runs After Departing Rove's Car

"Why can't I go with him?" Bush tearfully asked advisers as the longtime Republican strategist's sedan disappeared over the horizon. "When is he coming back?"

White House staff were deeply moved by the scene, saying that despite their best efforts, no one was able to explain to the president that he would no longer be able to remain at his chief adviser's side. Onlookers were clearly choked up as a tearful Rove, trying to close the car door behind him, told Bush in a stern, commanding tone to back away.

"Go on…you hear me? Get out of here, I say!" Rove said. "I don't love you anymore, understand? Now get! Get!"

And: Va. Senator Warner Will Not Seek Sixth Term

Don't let the war hit you on the way out, Warner.

Finally, Larry 'I am not gay, I did not play, I will now pay' Craig is heading back to Brokeback Boise, Idaho to hang up his spurs.

Asked Friday at the White House if the senator should resign, President Bush said nothing and walked off stage.

Way to stand by your man there, dubya!

Craig, forever memorialized by Keith O:



The day isn't over yet. Who knows which rat might be next? Run Dick, run!
 

Video: Olbermann on Gonzales' Credibility

Impeach the lying bastard and get it over with.
 

Video: Go to Iraq and fight, Mr President

transcript

Excerpt:

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.
[...]
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.

Amen to that.
 

Video: Olbermann on Bush's Urge to Surge

The transcript is available here.

And while the media reports that Republicans are revolting (in more ways than one), they're still supporting Bush's surge by doing things like successfully filibustering the Dems' attempt to have "longer troop rests between combat deployments".

The Senate voted 56-41 to cut off debate on an amendment to the annual defense policy bill by Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) that would have mandated that troops be granted home leave between deployments of at least as long as their previous combat tours. Already stretched National Guard and Reserve units would have been granted three-year breaks between assignments.

Just keep wearing out those soldiers, Republicans. But don't be surprised when they refuse to support you in next year's elections.

And this is the reality about the Dems' weak efforts to end this illegal war:

The Senate's failure to break the filibuster, however, signaled that Democratic efforts to mandate troop withdrawals almost certainly will fail in the face of Republican parliamentary roadblocks.

They might as well spend the summer on the beach for all the good they're doing:

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said today that despite growing Republican discontent with the Iraq war, convincing GOP members to support withdrawal legislation remains a daunting challenge that so far has netted few results.
[...]
Durbin also conceded that the Democrats, with a bare majority in the Senate, won't be able to placate liberal Democratic calls for a specific end date, including a funding cut off.

"Obviously there are folks who want the war to end today, and all the troops to be home tomorrow. And even though I think that is a worthy goal, it is not a realistic goal," said Durbin. A major redeployment of troops will have to be done gradually and in a responsible manner, he noted. "We also understand that just leaving cold turkey, with everything gone, could have the whole region descend into chaos," Durbin said.

Nice GOP talking point there, Dick.

And then he decided it was a good idea to attack John Edwards while he had a captive audience:

Durbin, an early booster of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, singled out former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) for helping to fuel unrealistic anti-war expectations for congressional action. Edwards has chastized his fellow Democratic candidates who are currently serving in the Senate, for not pushing hard enough to end the war.

"I recall when John voted for this war. So it's understandable that he feels badly about that decision and wants to see something done to undo the harm that has happened," said Durbin. "But it has to be done in a sensible way."

I'm no fan of Edwards, but that is a very low blow coming from someone with Durbin's position. Apparently Durbin seems to think that Americans are just plain stupid and have all been influenced by Edwards' opposition to this nightmare of a war. I'm sure Edwards will be pleased to hear he has so much power.

Maybe Durbin should just quit his job as majority whip and go out on the campaign trail with Obama full time. This is what happens when politics is electioneering 24/7, 365 days a year. Politicians seem to forget that they actually have important work to do on behalf of the country they're supposed to be serving and which is currently involved in two wars that aren't getting any better.

Blogging for The Guardian, Roy Greenslade notes several questions that US journalists are failing to ask about the situation in Iraq according to author Robert Dreyfuss with this one being key:

Dreyfuss concludes: "The dénouement of America's failed occupation of Iraq could be bloody indeed. But not enough reporters and news analysts are looking at the other possibility: In the wake of an orderly withdrawal over, say, the next year, might not Iraq's nationalists join forces against the separatists and struggle to create a new center in Iraqi politics? As Zbigniew Brzezinski says: 'The only Iraqis who want us to stay are the ones who will have to leave when we leave'."

The Democrats and Republicans need to stop parroting Bush talking points and get down to the nitty gritty of examining the entire situation in Iraq from a new perspective. By refusing to do so, they continue to support the carnage in Iraq while giving their incompetent commander-in-chief free reign over a war he has absolutely no idea how to manage.
 

Video: Joe Wilson Speaks to Keith Olbermann About Libby's Pardon

Wilson calls the administration "corrupt to the core".

You can read Patrick Fitzgerald's statement here.

And here's John Dean's analysis of some of the legal questions:


 

Video: More Olbermann

This is, in fact, a comment about… betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history—whether executive or legislative, state or national—have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear:

Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

* The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
* The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
* The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
* The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.
You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the “beginning of the end” of Mr. Bush’s “carte blanche” in Iraq, about how this is a “first step.”
Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning... is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.
Because this “first step”… is a step right off a cliff.

Read on...

Video: Olbermann - Iraqus Interruptus

Olbermann: Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

Iraq funding compromise. The Democrats get benchmarks, the president has the right to waive the benchmarks. What the hell kind of benchmarks are they if the president can just waive them?
[...]
And you thought that big statue of Saddam Hussein fell over quickly and symbolically and with surreptitious help.

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN, right up there with the fall of Baghdad itself, you can now add the fall of the Democratic Congress, agreeing to fund the conflict in Iraq without any timelines for withdrawal, with mere benchmark, which the president can waive, Democrats in the White House reaching a so-called bipartisan agreement to keep funding the war through September without holding President Bush accountable.

After weeks of refusing to back down to the White House, today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pretty much did just that, only days after rejecting a measure put forward by Republican John Warner as too weak, today Mr. Reid accepting an agreement that looks remarkably like the Warner war supplemental funding bill.

The agreement would fund the Iraq War through September, requiring President Bush to give Congress reports on Iraq‘s progress. As for benchmarks, yes, there are benchmarks. And the president has the ability to waive the benchmarks, the only possible fly in that ointment, emphasis on the word “possible,” Speaker of the House Pelosi saying earlier this evening she would not be likely to vote for anything that does not have timetables in it, adding she would wait to see what the final draft of the legislation actually says.

Friday Fun

Hugh Muir in The Guardian: The A-Z of Tony Blair

R is for regions. Blair ceded power to Scotland, Wales, London and created mayors in many regions. Voters in Hartlepool were so grateful that they elected a monkey.

Yes, really.

X is for Camp X-Ray, the Cuban facility used by the US to humiliate al-Qaida suspects. Blair faced legal action because British subjects were mistreated there. Many felt they could just as easily be mistreated here.

Bonus Friday Fun: Cowboys for Social Responsibility presents excerpts from the Ponoka News Police Blotter (not to be missed).

One more bonus: Olbermann on Gonzo-Gate