Finally, as promised, a Special Comment about the President’s cataclysmic deception about Iran. — There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr.. Bush has left us with tonight.
We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole — or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked — at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so — whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.
A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency: an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.
After Ms Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear.
In August the President was told by his hand-picked Major Domo of intelligence Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might be, in essence, crap.
Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad:
“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War Three, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”
And as he said that, Mr.. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.
Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans?
Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used, to scare us about Iraq?
In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.
A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.
Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush.
The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror.
What is the evidence Iran had a nuke weapons program?
I don't trust Ahmadinejad or his government to tell the truth, anymore than i trust the Bush Administration or the intelligence agencies, so i don't know Iran didn't have a nookyoular weapons program that they can restart anytime, as the NIE claims- but what is the evidence they had one that they halted- Tom Murphy, you got anything?
This NIE doesn't provide any evidence, but concludes Iran had a weapons program that was halted. This is the same bunch of intel agencies that gave us the bogus report on Iraq, and claimed in 05 that Iran was working on nuke weapons. People are getting excited and claiming this NIE is proof that Iran's not a threat, thus giving credibility to these intel agencies; we need to keep pressuring our government to be open and accountable.
The Constitution does not oblige the People to trust government, instead it implies we should NOT trust. It gives the Feds limited powers, and puts checks and balances on those powers.
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 295 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 748 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 11:34:39 AM
All Iran has to do is reprice their bourse to sell oil for only dollars, let Exxon, Shell, Fina, BP, etc. privatize their oil wells, and, voila, we will be selling them F-18's, Chinooks, Blackhawks, and cruise missiles. Nookyoular? What nookyoular? (With apologies to Mel Brooks when he has 'Igor' say, "Hump? What hump?")
by
JackN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 1:58:25 PM
Keith Olbermann's Special Comment just tears into this pernicious Bush cabals mendacity. His latest excoriation is the most damming yet of this usurping, maniacal machinator-in-chief's bellicosity.
Olbermann is indeed a true patriot.
by
Munich (0 articles, 47 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 676 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 11:55:49 AM
Your statement is so correct, CharlieL. NBC/CNBC/MSNBC, what is the point here? Big media, info control, manipulation of power and screwing of the American public who are the Salt of The Earth. I hate it that I can't watch Keith Olbermann except on my old computer. He is a brave man who is only being seen by a small percent of the population. Why is MSNBC being anal about sharing his extraordinary courage and intelligence? How long must we wait, NBC?
by
zephyr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 3:16:41 PM
NBC is owned by General Electric. If KO were really to be brave he'd do a report on the amount of money GE makes from its war-profiteering. He'd investigate 9/11, election fraud and give Sible Edmonds a format.
But I suppose I should be thankful for the small window KO does keep open - but to my liking it's not enough.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 1059 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 3:37:34 PM
Olbermann has a forum where if he wanted to, could expose much more than just the lies this prevaricating cabal continues feeding us on a daily basis. I am amazed though that GE, which donated vast sums of money to the Bush Cheney campaign and who continues to profit handsomely from this illegal Iraq war, has given Olbermann this much latitude. His latest Special Comment is a scathing indictment of this evil administration, which actually gave me Goosebumps.
by
Munich (0 articles, 47 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 676 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 4:37:52 PM
OR what if they LIED, like was done in other reports???
Even with intrusive IAEA safeguards inspections at Natanz, there is a serious risk that Iran could use its enrichmenttechnology in covert activities. Of specific proliferation concern are the uranium centrifuges discovered attanz, which are capable of enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Iran claims its heavy water plant is for peaceful purposes. In June, 2003, Iran informed the IAEA that it is pursuing a heavy water research reactor that could produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
We know that Iran does NOT have these weapons, because if Iran DID have these weapons, They would have been sent over to vaporize Israel.
Now, we do NOT have the entire text of the findings, because the report in its entirety is classified... All that we have to go on, is the interpretation of what is in the report... Right now, we have had so many interpretations of so many reports that have been so COMPLETELY WRONG...
I don't buy the analysis that Iran is not in pursuit of weapons (they are living on a sea of oil, yet they need nuclear plants for power?) However, at the same time, I don't buy the idea that Iran is a threat... Israel would have taken steps otherwise...
Keith O is really a loud mouth with lots of drama... sort of reminds me of what Rush Limbaugh would sound like if he hated bush...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 434 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 5:47:16 PM
Iran is using more and more electricity, currently obtained from its oil reserves. They wish to sell more oil rather than see it used for domestic consumption, especially as the price of said commodity is skyrocketing. Amadhinajad has stated this several times in the past and his claim of building nuclear generating plant for this purpose makes perfect sense.
That you do not trust Iran is not the issue, I do not trust them either, nor do I trust Pakistan, Columbia, Saudi Arabia and a dozen or so of our allies. But saber rattling is never , ever a solution to a lack of trust it only widens the gulf.
Your opinion of Keith Obermann would be far less silly had you bothered to include any fact in your comparison to Limbaugh, facts such as noting how Rush lies and distorts constantly and showing where Keith does the same. Well can you Pilgrim?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, December 8, 2007 at 2:11:46 PM
Keith Olbermann is hardly a "loud mouth." He's a perspicacious individual who happens to love his country and who is sick and dam tired, as are so many other Americans, of the tyranny this pernicious Bush junta has wrought upon our country. Are you not yet sick of the hubris and mendacity Mr. Scheetz?
As far as Rush Limbaugh's concerned, he is nothing more than an over paid, feckless dolt who continues to divide our country with his boisterous blatherings, and myopic points of view! He wouldn't know tyranny Mr. Scheetz if it came up and bit him in lame arse! He also couldn't hold a candle to Keith Olbermann, who happens to be a true patriot!
It's quite sad you would even consider using Olbermann's name in the same sentence with Limbaugh's.
And yes, Iran is sitting on a bed of oil. Quite fascinating isn't it! However, have you not heard of "Peak Oil" Mr. Scheetz? And please, do tell us when the last time Iran attacked anyone?
by
Munich (0 articles, 47 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 676 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 8:58:02 PM
Could we ever believe that we the people here in america put this imbecile as president of this great country. f dont know if George Bush plays stupid , or is he born stupid. i do know that we the people made a very huge big mistake. you would think that all american people would have waken up the second time he ran for president. (WHAT IN HELL WERE ALL AMERICANS THINKING.) If they could think? FACT IS that most citizens of america dont care about there country or them selves. I SAID ALONG TIME AGO THAT THIS WILL BE THE DOWN FALL OF AMERICA. IT IS NOW HAPPING. if we as a population would care then we would over throw this government and the TYRANTS. we have a dictator in the white house. if we dont act and i mean act fast Bush and Cheney will attack IRAN before he leaves office. ( Bush the puppet and Darth Vader Cheney need to be Impeached and brought up and tried in a criminal court on war crimes. ) they both are criminals. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN AMERICANS AND OUR ALLIES TRUST THESE TWO TYRANTS. WE HAVE TWO LUNITICS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. like a time bomb they are ready to go off.
by
vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 141 comments)
on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 10:11:09 PM
Keep in mind Scott that Keith Olbermann is in-fact a journalist and a darn good one at that, who is providing a great service to this country by exploiting the falsehoods which this nefarious administration continues to spoon feed us on a daily basis. Lies and deceit "sir" which are tearing at the very fabric of our Nation.
Perhaps Scott if your hero Bill O', had the testicle fortitude to call this prevaricating cardboard cowboy out on the carpet like Olbermann has, then maybe our country wouldn't be in the sad shapes it's in! Do you comprehend what I'm saying Scott, "sir"? I didn't think so!
by
Munich (0 articles, 47 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 676 comments)
on Saturday, December 8, 2007 at 12:15:08 AM
I know that Olbermann is poor excuse for a journalist; it's simply a case of Olbermann opening his pie-hole and mouthing Media Matters website like a robot. Yes, I do comprehend.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 394 comments)
on Saturday, December 8, 2007 at 12:19:35 AM
I believe that when Mr. Olbermann was plying his considerable journalistic talent on grown men chasing a ball around a field, our nitwit in chief was scamming his first millions with the Texas Rangers major league baseball team. I'd say that long experience would give Keith Olbermann considerable standing to comment on he who is described as transcendantly stupid. I'd say that it is considerably more standing than someone who is sipping Bill O'Reilly's koolaid.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 897 comments)
on Saturday, December 8, 2007 at 9:16:38 AM
Reporting about people playing ball games - and bullying your co-workers in the process - does not give Olby the qualifications to pontificate about politics. And somebody who apparently worships at the altar of Keith is going to squawk at me about drinking kool-aid?? That's rich.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 394 comments)
on Saturday, December 8, 2007 at 11:41:05 PM
Your just all pissed off because there is finally someone with a national audience exposing the decades of lies your political heros have spun. Is it just that you cannot stand seeing and hearing how gullible you have been and how unsound your politics is that makes you both rude and silly?
Gee the nuisance of that free speech stuff.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Sunday, December 9, 2007 at 10:03:07 AM
I'm just pointing out the fraudulent nature of his so-called journalism, his paper-thin credentials, his refusal to address Dem scandals and his cowardice of not debating anybody.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 394 comments)
on Sunday, December 9, 2007 at 4:36:30 PM
At least Keith can listen to a dissenting viewpoint without cutting off their mic. Just because he was a sportscaster doesn't mean he doesn't understand history or issues, as evidenced by his intelligent questions. We liberals can be proficient in more than one subject. And Keith starts with the facts and draws conclusions in his comments, Rush starts from an incorrect assumption: "all liberals are liars," and bends the facts to support his hallucination.
by
Pleru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 8:07:35 AM
Olbernmann doesn't cut off dissenting people's mics because he never lets dissenters on his show to begin with. I'm not talking about when his cast of regular yes-men periodically disagree with one of his points. I'm talking about the fact that people who fundamentally disagree with his basic assertions 99.9% of the time never even get on his show.
by
Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 394 comments)
on Monday, December 10, 2007 at 12:24:56 PM
the fans of Keith really do get upset when someone criticizes him....
Rush Limbaugh has been going since the mid 80's... He has 15,000,000 listeners MORE than his closest competitor... Now, Ardee asked me to explain how Oberman lies like Limbaugh lies...
Well, I hate to disappoint you, but Limbaugh does NOT lie like you suggest... He merely selectively tells the truth... LIKE OBERMAN, Limbaugh only tells the side of the story that makes his case.. this is NOT specifically lying, but it gets damn close, and don't you dare suggest that Oberman is pure as the driven snow, because he colors the truth every bit as well as Limbaugh does...
for example.. when "reporting" about a poll regarding people's view of safety since 9-11
Olberman reported as 55% of people think we are as safe or less safe since 9-11...
Limbaugh would report it as 74% of people think we are as safe or MORE safe since 9-11...
a REPORTER would report it as 42% more safe, 32% as safe, 23% less safe
Which is the most accurate? Limbaugh or Oberman? Answer? NEITHER... they are BOTH full of crap!
LOL, now you can tell me to go F... myself, because that will be the long and short of the thought that will go into the next post regarding my comment...
Ciao, CZ
by
steve scheetz (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 434 comments)
on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 at 1:52:20 PM
