Menu Bar
Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Olbermann unleashes on George W. Bush's outlook on Iraq, his comments on the Democratic Party, and his gross incompetence.
May 17, 2008 10:41 AM
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
Wow, that was fullof pent-up anger. Though, as he usually does, he makes a good point, and beats a dead horse so soundly, it will never wake up- like it ever will.
By: Makatsuta
George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
I don't believe in hell. Never liked the idea of it. And by most interpretations of many religions, I earned my ticket there the first time I intercepted one of my mom's Victoria's Secret catalogs. But George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell. He makes me crave justice for what he and his people have done. He makes me want to believe in hell, even though there's a possibility I might burn right next to him. At least then I could see him, and his puppet masters, pay for what they've done to this country, Iraq, and the world. Maybe every man, woman, and child that has ever been and will ever be fucked by this administration would get a chance for all eternity to repay the favor, maybe wearing that device from Se7en. Yeah, you know the one.
I've written my congressman, pleading for impeachment. I've begged my friends and neighbors to do the same. I've even paid for advertising to that end on a networking site. And I feel none of it matters because there's too little time left in this term now to get anything done; they'll walk away with impunity. So I'm left to pray that an ever loving god would love me enough to let me see justice served, fire and brimstone style, if nothing else.
I've written my congressman, pleading for impeachment. I've begged my friends and neighbors to do the same. I've even paid for advertising to that end on a networking site. And I feel none of it matters because there's too little time left in this term now to get anything done; they'll walk away with impunity. So I'm left to pray that an ever loving god would love me enough to let me see justice served, fire and brimstone style, if nothing else.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
Its easy to have this view if you look down on Arabs, or Pashtoons, or Pakistanis like they are cockroaches with no free will or ideology of their own, who can only respond to stimulation from white people or Jews, and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
By: poonhound
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
Help me understand what your point is. The last time I checked--and it's been a while, since it makes me sick--there are 30,000 Iraqi casualties. Is your point that each of them deserved to get that hot piece of shrapnel or bullet in them? That kid my buddy saw running around with smoke pluming out of his back because he had a bit of American-made white phosphorus lodged in him... We're holding him morally responsible for what, exactly?
Make no mistake, buddy, that I have no problem sending a round down range towards some Syrian/Iranian/Jordanian/Iraqi bomb tech. Or the financier, or the farmer's son they hired to lay the device. Yes, they're asking for it. What I'd ask, though, is how many of them would be in business--and it is a business--if we weren't in Iraq looking for WMD's. No, I'm sorry, liberating the Iraqis. Spreading Democracy. We're definitely there to spread democracy. And now, there's a market for bomb makers there because of it.
So is your point, under the pretext of enlightenment (and it is good that you know we're dealing with more than Arabs alone), that everyone over there deserves their fate? How about the American and coalition service members who have hooks for hands, or metal plates in their heads? What are they answering for?
I hope you respond to this; I really am curious to know where you were going with that.
Make no mistake, buddy, that I have no problem sending a round down range towards some Syrian/Iranian/Jordanian/Iraqi bomb tech. Or the financier, or the farmer's son they hired to lay the device. Yes, they're asking for it. What I'd ask, though, is how many of them would be in business--and it is a business--if we weren't in Iraq looking for WMD's. No, I'm sorry, liberating the Iraqis. Spreading Democracy. We're definitely there to spread democracy. And now, there's a market for bomb makers there because of it.
So is your point, under the pretext of enlightenment (and it is good that you know we're dealing with more than Arabs alone), that everyone over there deserves their fate? How about the American and coalition service members who have hooks for hands, or metal plates in their heads? What are they answering for?
I hope you respond to this; I really am curious to know where you were going with that.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
The vast majority of those iraqi casualties (I would argue that there are probably much more than 30,000) were killed by Arab terrorists in deliberate acts of murder, and those who were accidentally killed by shrapnel from American bombs or bullets were being victimized primarily by those terrorists who were hiding amongst them, and using them as human shields.
If an arab terrorist chooses to cross borders and enter Iraq, a country he has no business being in, in order to recruit amongst the local youth with propaganda and lies, in order to wage a jihad to kill american soldiers and to deliberately murder scores of innocents to create political and social chaos - that arab is completely morally responsible for those acts, not President Bush.
The fact that you completely ignore the victims of those terrorists in Iraq, and instead, rely on phony, discredited stories about supposed war crimes committed by American soldiers to explain the deaths of tens-of-thousands of innocents tells me that you cannot accept the notion that dark-skinned third worlders are capable of committing acts of intrinsic evil - only white people or jews can do that, which may in turn stimulate the swarthy revolutionary into a violent, misguided - yet completely understandandable - bloodlust for revenge, and thus the white people or jews are the ones responsible.
You can say that the war is not worth it, and that the sacrifices our side are making are foolhardy and will ultimately be fruitless, or that it wasn't wise to go in in the first place. But to say that Bush is the murderer when a member of Al-Qaeda detonates a chlorine-filled truck bomb in a crowded marketplace full of women and elderly, is simply assinine.
If Bush is a war criminal, does that mean our troops who have volunteered to obey orders in Iraq to patrol the streets and hunt down insurgents are also war criminals? (Or "cold blooded killers" as Keith Olberman calls them) What about the hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqi security forces who fight alongside our troops or even take orders from them? Are they collaborators to a genocide of their own people?
If an arab terrorist chooses to cross borders and enter Iraq, a country he has no business being in, in order to recruit amongst the local youth with propaganda and lies, in order to wage a jihad to kill american soldiers and to deliberately murder scores of innocents to create political and social chaos - that arab is completely morally responsible for those acts, not President Bush.
The fact that you completely ignore the victims of those terrorists in Iraq, and instead, rely on phony, discredited stories about supposed war crimes committed by American soldiers to explain the deaths of tens-of-thousands of innocents tells me that you cannot accept the notion that dark-skinned third worlders are capable of committing acts of intrinsic evil - only white people or jews can do that, which may in turn stimulate the swarthy revolutionary into a violent, misguided - yet completely understandandable - bloodlust for revenge, and thus the white people or jews are the ones responsible.
You can say that the war is not worth it, and that the sacrifices our side are making are foolhardy and will ultimately be fruitless, or that it wasn't wise to go in in the first place. But to say that Bush is the murderer when a member of Al-Qaeda detonates a chlorine-filled truck bomb in a crowded marketplace full of women and elderly, is simply assinine.
If Bush is a war criminal, does that mean our troops who have volunteered to obey orders in Iraq to patrol the streets and hunt down insurgents are also war criminals? (Or "cold blooded killers" as Keith Olberman calls them) What about the hundreds-of-thousands of Iraqi security forces who fight alongside our troops or even take orders from them? Are they collaborators to a genocide of their own people?
By: poonhound
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
I think you've got me all wrong, man. I'm not saying 30,000 people were slaughtered by American or Iraqi Coalition forces. I'm saying we shouldn't have gone there, at all, but because we did, we get to see those casualty numbers. Whether or not our soldiers take just actions (and they do, every day) is a moot point in an unjust war. Bush didn't have bad information before going. It's not like every analyst agreed there were WMD's in Iraq. In fact, most were saying the opposite. But, just as Olberman pointed out, Bush threw out any intelligence that did not point towards war. He scoffed at people who suggested the invasion would take more troops or cost more money than he wanted to hear, or that there was no immediate WMD threat to US interests. And by ignoring--even discrediting--the counsel of men like Blix and Shinseki, and then empowering incompetent sycophants like Bremer and Gonzales, the Bush administration directly caused the suffering of millions. Millions.
That's why I'm pissed off. Because we never should have been there. Al-Qaeda was not operating in Iraq before we threw the door wide open for them. Just read Osama Bin Laden's transcripts or papers, and you'll see that he makes no connection to Husein's regime. He had little respect for Husein. But now that we're there, Al-Qaeda draws in more recruits. Their resolve is refreshed. And because we disbanded the Iraqi army, they're better armed, thanks to stockpiles of Iraqi explosives.
All of this was avoidable. All of it is hateful. All of it should rest on the collective conscience of Bush and his administration.
That's why I'm pissed off. Because we never should have been there. Al-Qaeda was not operating in Iraq before we threw the door wide open for them. Just read Osama Bin Laden's transcripts or papers, and you'll see that he makes no connection to Husein's regime. He had little respect for Husein. But now that we're there, Al-Qaeda draws in more recruits. Their resolve is refreshed. And because we disbanded the Iraqi army, they're better armed, thanks to stockpiles of Iraqi explosives.
All of this was avoidable. All of it is hateful. All of it should rest on the collective conscience of Bush and his administration.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
If a bunker full of WMD's were found, it wouldn't make a lick of difference whether or not terrorists would come into the country to fight their bullshit "holy war." Therefore the war with Saddam, which lasted about 3 weeks is long over, and the fact that the terrorists we are fighting now were not in Iraq before we did, proves there is a different existential enemy willing to cross borders to wage jihad. Should we engage that enemy? It is a wholly different question then the debate over the immediate threat of Saddam.
That being said, its douchebags like this "spam vigillante" guy who makes the Michael Moore arguement, that the bloodthirsty murderers blowing up children are the "minutemen" or the "revolutionaries" fighting for justice that pisses me off.
How can you "support the troops" if you think they are Nazis plunging into poland, or redcoats trying to liquidate our founding fathers? Does that mean you actually advocate Al-qaeda, or the Mahdi army, or the "swords of righteousness" or whatever bullshit fascists defeating american troops (meaning kill them in battle) if indeed the troops are not withdrawing any time soon?
Like the Islamic terrorists themselves, you have to fool yourself into thinking there is no ideologically-motivated threat coming from the middle-east - that Muslims always must be the victims - and that Bush or Israel has some secret dastardly plan to control all the oil in order to justify blaming the violence and terrorism in Iraq on America. These conspiracy theories are nonsense and you know it.
That being said, its douchebags like this "spam vigillante" guy who makes the Michael Moore arguement, that the bloodthirsty murderers blowing up children are the "minutemen" or the "revolutionaries" fighting for justice that pisses me off.
How can you "support the troops" if you think they are Nazis plunging into poland, or redcoats trying to liquidate our founding fathers? Does that mean you actually advocate Al-qaeda, or the Mahdi army, or the "swords of righteousness" or whatever bullshit fascists defeating american troops (meaning kill them in battle) if indeed the troops are not withdrawing any time soon?
Like the Islamic terrorists themselves, you have to fool yourself into thinking there is no ideologically-motivated threat coming from the middle-east - that Muslims always must be the victims - and that Bush or Israel has some secret dastardly plan to control all the oil in order to justify blaming the violence and terrorism in Iraq on America. These conspiracy theories are nonsense and you know it.
By: poonhound
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
Ok, let's go through your last comment piece by piece, because so far, you've had a pretty annoying habit of putting words in my mouth. That, paired with some fallacies, and fallacious points warrant going through your argument like a teacher with a red pen.
If a bunker full of WMD's appeared, it might help justify our invasion, but we didn't. Again, that's my original point; that we shouldn't have gone in the first place. If you're confused, see my last comment. Those terrorists streaming in to the country? Are you surprised Iran would take advantage of a weakened Iraq--a formal, historical enemy--in order to shift the balance of power? And Al-Qaeda's MO has always been to establish themselves in countries with weak governments. I'm no international relations professor, or say... United States president, but I saw all this coming as soon as the order for de-Baathifcation came down, after the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Donald Rumsfeld predicted it. Back in the late nineties, when asked why we didn't invade Iraq after the Gulf war. He seemed to forget that point, this time around. And Bush said, before being elected in 2000, that we shouldn't try to be the world's police force. We shouldn't have gone, but when we did. We should have had a plan for this insurgency/terrorist inflow, but we didn't. We should have taken Patton's example, and considered the fact that those in the Iraqi government were often Baathists because they had little choice, but we didn't.
Next point: "minutemen." No, you're right, we shouldn't give the insurgents too much credit as 'patriots.' But to ignore the fact that they do feel justified in their actions, that many of them are frustrated young men and women who feel they have no other means of eliciting change, would be to inherently loose the counterinsurgency. You can't just focus on killing as many of them as you can, and expect to win. We tried that, in Vietnam, and what's the capitol of that country called, to this day? You need to find the weak points in their structure. You need to make it as hard as possible for the insurgent ideology to take root in as many people as possible. Then, you kill the idea. No, those fighting against us in Iraq are nowhere near as noble as our forefathers. But there are parallels, and therefore lessons to be learned, from studying our own history.
On to your next point: support the troops. Well, you'll have to ask the men and women I had under me how well I supported the troops in my eight years in the Army. But since I got out, last year, I've been supporting them by pushing for the new GI bill, volunteering at the VA, and supporting candidates that I believe will stop hyper-extending the military, so the troops don't have to worry about extended deployments, stop loss, and lack of rest with their families. What have you done lately to support the troops? Oh. Nice magnetic yellow ribbon. And here's where you put words in my mouth. I never suggested any connection or similarity to the Nazis. And no, I don't advocate [sic] Al-Qaeda. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and therefore taken focus away from hunting them down in Afghanistan while giving them a new area to expand into in Iraq. That brings me back to my original point; the Bush administration is to blame for that, and therefor the suffering that ensued.
You keep bringing up Israel, but I'm yet to mention them. I won't open that can of worms. You keep speaking in absolutes, where I have not. It's you that presented the false dilemma that either all Muslims are victikms, or they're all guilty. I have only said that there are some people who deserve to die over there, but many who don't. I sated earlier that I have no problem with putting down some bad guys. I just don't think that little girl I saw cut in half by an IED had much to answer for. And if it's not a conspiracy that brought us into this war, than, considering my above point that they should have, and did foresee the destruction that followed, it's idiocy, dereliction of duty, and neglect on the President's part that did. And that only strengthens my point that he and his staff should be impeached, and then punished.
Ball's in your court, son. Make it good, or I'm done.
If a bunker full of WMD's appeared, it might help justify our invasion, but we didn't. Again, that's my original point; that we shouldn't have gone in the first place. If you're confused, see my last comment. Those terrorists streaming in to the country? Are you surprised Iran would take advantage of a weakened Iraq--a formal, historical enemy--in order to shift the balance of power? And Al-Qaeda's MO has always been to establish themselves in countries with weak governments. I'm no international relations professor, or say... United States president, but I saw all this coming as soon as the order for de-Baathifcation came down, after the disbanding of the Iraqi army. Donald Rumsfeld predicted it. Back in the late nineties, when asked why we didn't invade Iraq after the Gulf war. He seemed to forget that point, this time around. And Bush said, before being elected in 2000, that we shouldn't try to be the world's police force. We shouldn't have gone, but when we did. We should have had a plan for this insurgency/terrorist inflow, but we didn't. We should have taken Patton's example, and considered the fact that those in the Iraqi government were often Baathists because they had little choice, but we didn't.
Next point: "minutemen." No, you're right, we shouldn't give the insurgents too much credit as 'patriots.' But to ignore the fact that they do feel justified in their actions, that many of them are frustrated young men and women who feel they have no other means of eliciting change, would be to inherently loose the counterinsurgency. You can't just focus on killing as many of them as you can, and expect to win. We tried that, in Vietnam, and what's the capitol of that country called, to this day? You need to find the weak points in their structure. You need to make it as hard as possible for the insurgent ideology to take root in as many people as possible. Then, you kill the idea. No, those fighting against us in Iraq are nowhere near as noble as our forefathers. But there are parallels, and therefore lessons to be learned, from studying our own history.
On to your next point: support the troops. Well, you'll have to ask the men and women I had under me how well I supported the troops in my eight years in the Army. But since I got out, last year, I've been supporting them by pushing for the new GI bill, volunteering at the VA, and supporting candidates that I believe will stop hyper-extending the military, so the troops don't have to worry about extended deployments, stop loss, and lack of rest with their families. What have you done lately to support the troops? Oh. Nice magnetic yellow ribbon. And here's where you put words in my mouth. I never suggested any connection or similarity to the Nazis. And no, I don't advocate [sic] Al-Qaeda. I wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and therefore taken focus away from hunting them down in Afghanistan while giving them a new area to expand into in Iraq. That brings me back to my original point; the Bush administration is to blame for that, and therefor the suffering that ensued.
You keep bringing up Israel, but I'm yet to mention them. I won't open that can of worms. You keep speaking in absolutes, where I have not. It's you that presented the false dilemma that either all Muslims are victikms, or they're all guilty. I have only said that there are some people who deserve to die over there, but many who don't. I sated earlier that I have no problem with putting down some bad guys. I just don't think that little girl I saw cut in half by an IED had much to answer for. And if it's not a conspiracy that brought us into this war, than, considering my above point that they should have, and did foresee the destruction that followed, it's idiocy, dereliction of duty, and neglect on the President's part that did. And that only strengthens my point that he and his staff should be impeached, and then punished.
Ball's in your court, son. Make it good, or I'm done.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
It's been a couple days... Nothing?
Quitter.
Quitter.
By: Oh-Deeh
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
Hmm. "Arab terrorists".
And which US President made it possible for these people to enter into Iraq? What actions gave them license to fight for a cause in that land?
Those that are native to Iraq have a reason to be upset with the occupation of their land?
Just asking. You tell me.
And which US President made it possible for these people to enter into Iraq? What actions gave them license to fight for a cause in that land?
Those that are native to Iraq have a reason to be upset with the occupation of their land?
Just asking. You tell me.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: George W. Bush makes me want to believe in hell.
Man, it sure feels good to crush those straw men underneath your oh-so-powerful fist, doesn't it?
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
i wish we could get this guy interiviewing bush and the other cronies like Paxman does in the UK. I like his style. I think it does bring home the dizzy craziness of the politicians who got involved with this "war". I hope one day there may be some justice. Im sure these war criminals will pay in this world hopefully or the next.
By: retroman
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
I'm sorry man, but Paxman is an ass. The last general elections, he interviewed George Gallowaywho had just won the constiuency and the first question he asked (with no congratulations on your win) was "how does it feel to have beaten the only black woman in a parliment ?" I couldn't believe what i was hearing. And Paxman just kept repeating that question over and over until Galloway said he was sick of this insane question. I mean really what does being black, or being a woman have to do with party politics ?
By: D3NIS
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
Breathtaking. This has needed to be said on the public airways for a long time.
By: stats1979
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
If you really want to know what it's like for soldiers fighting over there and how they feel about this "war" Might I suggest watching Ross Kemp in Afghanistan. He spent many months with regiment of soldiers in the thick of it. He was with them when they were under fire and he himself was nearly shot and killed and narrowly missed being hit with an RPG. It's a 5 part documentry and worth watching. Bush isn't the one over there fighting after all. You can see it on any decent TV streaming website such as surfthechannel.com, alluc.org or tv-links.cc
By: D3NIS
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
While I'm on the same side of the fence as Olbermann, every time I see these clips of him I can't help but feel that Republicans see this guy the same way democrats see Bill O'Reiley.
I don't think its necessary for the things he's talking about to be delivered in the manner they are- the anger and insulting tone, in my opinion, isn't going to accomplish anything extra that the facts wouldn't illustrate on their own. It just makes us look more partisan.
I don't think its necessary for the things he's talking about to be delivered in the manner they are- the anger and insulting tone, in my opinion, isn't going to accomplish anything extra that the facts wouldn't illustrate on their own. It just makes us look more partisan.
By: hypersapien
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
You have echoed my sentiment, albeit in a far better choce of words.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Olbermann on Bush's Iraq Outlook
Yeah. He's like Bill O'Reily, but with non-lame facts about real things on his side.
I think he'd do better to tone down the bluster and let his viewers have their own feelings. Maybe a little humor too.
Still, it needed to be said. Maybe less toxic next time.
I think he'd do better to tone down the bluster and let his viewers have their own feelings. Maybe a little humor too.
Still, it needed to be said. Maybe less toxic next time.
