Tonight I watched one of Keith Olbermann’s trademark rants against George Bush. It went on for 15 minutes of vituperative outrage, generally surrounding Bush’s politico interview, and his decision to give up golf while the Iraq War was going on…
The first thing you have to say is that it’s completely impressive that Olbermann gets to hold forth with such fury, it’s a proof that we still have a democracy, even on commercial TV. Good for him. He’s surely ignored a lot of responsible people telling him to Cool it. The second thing is that Olbermann’s analysis is a little cheap. He blames Bush for the Iraq War. Good, so do I. He says that Bush is a nincompoomp. Agreed. There are suggestions that Bush is doing it for business interests. There is anger that Bush overruled the "realists." If you’re going to talk about realists, you have to talk about neocons, and you have to talk about ideas. This war was built on bad ideas. Yes George Bush showed the worst judgment in American history, but he is a nincompoop, he doesn’t have time to read books. Guys who read books came up with this war and he was swayed by their arguments post-9/11. Of course it’s his fault, but it’s also the fault of the guys who read and wrote books. Blame the intellectual agents of this horror, or you are going to have more like it.
Olbermann also gives a pass to the Congress, saying it was misled by mendacious Bush-fed intelligence. But Congress voted for this war; the Congress showed a disastrous lack of judgment when handed obviously-shaky intelligence. Barack Obama was a state senator then, in Chicago, and he knew it was a bad war, Lincoln Chafee knew it when he did the minimum and went to see the CIA guys. The weird thing about Olbermann’s rant is that it’s so focused on George Bush, and so trembling with operatic outrage, that it creates an odd sympathy for its nincompoop target. I’m glad MSNBC is airing this stuff. I just wish Olbermann was smarter.
"I just wish Olbermann was smarter."
Olbermann is plenty smart. He is so smart that he dodges the Israel Lobby topic and it's connection to the Iraq War every night. It's far easier to throw rocks at the stupid President and his evil VP Cheney. If Olbermann threw rocks at Eliot Abrams and the rest of the gang of Israeli-firsters, Olbermann would find himself out of NBC and into a job as a sportscaster in Topeka.
If Olbermann had balls, he would have Phil or Jim Lobe on his show for 15 minutes.
Instead, Olbermann has some Euro-fag writer from Newsweek named Richard Wolff on every night. The two rip Bush for 10 minutes and giggle like school girls… a total circle jerk … It's fucking pathetic.
Bush gave up playing golf for the duration of the Iraq War but he didn't give up sending other people's kids to die in the war and he certainly didn't give up keeping his own girls home so they could go on drinking in Georgetown, getting arrested and get married. I agree it would not have been smart to send the president's daughters to fight in Iraq (it would have taken a company to protect them) but couldn't they do something? Be nurses' assistants, folding bandages, or putting cool washcloths on the brows of amputees at Bethesda? Do they have to just stand around looking vapid?
Very well stated, Patrick.
One thing further you might have added, however, and I don't know this for a fact because I mostly avoid the talking heads like the useless plague they are. But I'm guessing Olbermann probably cheerleads like crazy when he beholds Hillary because it maintains the media pretense that there actually are foreign policy differences between the GOP and Dems when the fact is they are all owned lock stock and barrel by AIPAC and the rest of The Lobby. The selection of foreign policy options offered up by the Republicrats is reminiscent of John Belushi's offering of soft drinks on Saturday Night Live…Pepsi..Pepsi..or Pepsi.
The fact that Hillary is outbidding McBush to annihilate Iran is not a problem to Olbermann because Iran is deemed to threaten Israel and Americans are so dumbed down by the propaganda barrage that they don't even bother to wonder why they should even care.
Good response, Patrick. I completely agree with you. That Olbermann left out Wolfowitz and Feith was telling.
Very telling.
He also left out:
Charles Krauthammer
Irv Lewis Libby
Eric Edelman
David Wurmser
William Kristol
Robert Kagan
Michael Ledeen
Richard Perle
Lieberman
Norman Podhoretz
to name a few partnering ideologically all along with Wolfowitz and Feith.
Along with directly attacking Darth Chaney & Bush, it would be
nice if Olbermann attacked their fellow neocons (chickenhawks all) who all believe American boys and girls are totally expendable (along with how many civilian Arabs?) for the sake of–their own good health?
"No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days on the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods…In Iraq, combat units take over an area of operations and patrol it daily, making soldiers face the prospect of death from an IED or small arms fire or mortar fire each day. Day in and day out for a full year, with only a single two-week break, they confront the prospect of death, losing limbs or eyes, or suffering serious wounds." [Odom, "'Supporting the Troops' Means Withdrawing Them," Neiman Watchdog, 5 July 2007]
Under principles of international law applied from Nuremberg to Rwanda, propagandists who contribute to war crimes or encourage crimes against humanity can be put in the dock alongside the actual killers.
as long as one attacks bush or cheney or rumsfeld but ignores the real war criminals the real power, one can rant and rave all day.
why i dont waste my time with these sorts. the real criminals are untouched. the soft targets are.
Olbermann's letting Hillary and most of congress off the hook, also AIPAC & all the Clean Break type warmongers. Bush & Chaney couldn't have got us into this mess without them. America's certified neocons were not the only people eager to expend American military blood on the battlefield during the 1990s, witness the now infamous question by Madeleine Albirght to Colin Powell in 1993: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, all signed on in 1996 to write the policy paper — "A Clean Break: A Strategy for Securing the Realm"– for Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Perle, Feith and Wurmser recommended that Israel find pretexts for waging wars of aggression that would roll back its Arab neighbors. The centerpiece of their recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step into remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. [ See James Bamford, A Pretext for War, p. 262]
Arguably, such behavior constituted treason. According to James Bamford: "It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisers to a foreign government. More unsettling still was the fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the American public." [Ibid, p. 263]
I think we've had a repeat of history. Mix the political (financial and media power) clout of American Jews, with personal vanity. This is a formula for American Policy as it has evolved. Truman and Bush each had their "Dewey" to contend with to get and keep power, and they've each had to entertain their special envoys. Truman was told he was Cyrus the Great reincarnated. He believed it, besides he knew who had the real political power. Now, much later, how can you blame doofus Shrub, who believes he's the last dyke against neo-Hitler forces ,
John of Arc, the Crusader, and oh by the way, black gold is the name of my family's game?
Phil,
You are wrong about this:
"If you're going to talk about realists, you have to talk about neocons, and you have to talk about ideas."
In fact – too much chatter about the neocons and others has already served to skew responsibility and accoutability away from Bush
Bush hired all those advisors with his eyes wide open – He was very well aware mant dumped on his Dad when he worked on his Dad's campaign.
Bush is being clever – He is using them more (or as much) as they are using him.
But many in the chattering class have a felt psychological need to believe Bush is dumb.
This has been going on too long – Blaming the neocons is overrated and overdone.
Comment, perhaps. I don't see much in Shrub's personal history to make it likely he was not seduced like a moron girl to have sex with all the guys, but, say it's true, what you say, that Shrub chose with his eyes wide open, decent brain going full swirl, what do you come up with? What else besides, Shrub was mad because Sadsack tried to kill his daddy, the usual interests Ike warned us about, an extra dose of Bush oil interests, and Israel as our uber alles partner in the region?
Are you implying what we see before our eyes is the best attempt by the most loyal to serve American interests in the best interests of all Americans?
Please clarify.
I can't stand Olberman and find his robotic hysterics painful to watch. Yes it is a good thing that he gets to do his thing. Still, his pathos makes me cringe. Compare him to the evil grand wizard of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, and it's just no contest. I hate Limbaugh from the bottom of my heart, but he is intelligent, comes across as an authentic character, and puts on an very good show. Strip Olberman of his outrage and oily Weltschmerz, and all that's left is faceless tele-prompter tv.
Charles Keating,
Part of the whole blame the neocon theses rests on the false premise of Bush's dumbness..
We do not know the President personally, but we've talked to people that do and no one thinks Bush is dumb. Willfully ignorant? Sometimes.
Rather – almost everyone who knows Bush personally will tell you that he is personally smart, clever, and has immense political cunning.
We heard this from people who know him when he was working on his Dad's campaign in 92.
Bush was well aware of how his Dad's coalition fractured and he made his own hires with this in mind.
It was clear before he became President that Bush wanted to invade Iraq – He let it slip during the debate, but he told many people the same thing.
He hired neocon advisors with this in mind and he uses them to deflect blame.
Whatever! This is all Bush's fault and you seem to be letting him off the hook here. I say let's not let him get away and have him arrested before he runs to Paraguay.