September 6, 2007
KeithO calls out George Bush -- so does Andrew Greeley
Charles Gibson, Brian Williams
and Katie Couric simply don't measure up. They choose to play it
'corporate safe' and 'establishment safe' -- that is, if they wish to
remain in their respective positions. Leave it to Keith Olbermann to
complete the simple equation that 2 + 2 = 4.in the following 'comment'
while
these three offer solemn tones, distinguished demeanor, forlorn
attempts at hipness, a lethal dose of professional self-preservation
but little or no reality and all when our nation is begging for a
coming to the fore of those who will call bullshit when they see, feel,
hear and smell it. When the king has no clothes but such cannot
or will not be offered, then it is time for any so-called media kings
and queens to close up shop and move on to
another type of enterprise. For the aforementioned trio, it is past
time. They earn their negative credibility quotient day after day after
day...with their silence.
Special Comment
Keith Olbermann
September 4, 2007
And so he is back from his
annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle
it was. But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered,
unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush
has consented.
As he deceived the troops at
Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of
them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home, Mr.
Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already
proved that he had been lying, is lying and will be lying about Iraq.
He presumably did not know that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper's book “Dead Certain."
“I'm playing for
October-November," Mr. Bush said to Draper. That, evidently, is the
time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan, which is “to
get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be
comfortable about sustaining a presence."
Comfortable, that is, with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, “stay... longer."
And there it is. We've caught
you. Your goal is not to bring some troops home, maybe, if we let you
have your way now. Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual
withdrawal. You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word,
playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into
this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq
for another year, and another, and another, and anon.
Everything you said about
Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the
purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal: perpetuating
this war indefinitely.
War today, war tomorrow, war forever!
Olbermann finishes with:
...This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country in the next 500 days.
Not while you are playing.
Go here for the comment in its entirety and the video of it.
Piggybacking on to the previous, here is Andrew Greeley with a recent take. His first paragraph sums it all up but Greeley is being far too kind with his words "at this stage...":
True or false: Can Bush tell difference?
Andrew Greeley
September 5, 2007
Is President Bush able to
distinguish truth from falsehood? Is he too caught up in the
double-talk generated by his spin masters to grasp the difference?
After reading his talk to the VFW last week, I think that at this stage
of his presidency he is utterly incapable of honest communication with
the rest of the country.
Objectively, his claim
that the United States can win in Iraq, his comment that the Iraqi
prime minister is a good guy and his history of the Vietnam War go far
beyond the boundaries of truth. Granted, the speech was ground out by
one of the spin masters (perhaps trained in dishonesty by Karl Rove),
the president ultimately is responsible for it. It follows logically
from all the falsehoods going back to weapons of mass destruction. It
is contradicted by the intelligence estimate released the same day by
the director of National Intelligence. The killing continues, the Iraq
government is not improving, the war continues.
And, one would add, Americans continue to die.
Why does the president
continue to deny the obvious, even when his own intelligence agency
affirms it? Because some conservatives insist the United States could
have won the Vietnam War if it hadn't ''lost its nerve''? There is no
serious support for this folklore. The only similarity is both wars
were foolish wars for which there was no good reason, the United States
was doomed to defeat from the beginning, and if someone had not pulled
the plug, we'd still be fighting in Vietnam, just as we are still
fighting -- perhaps forever -- in Iraq.
Go here for the remainder.
top
RSS feed
|