In his Countdown interview with Scott McClellan, Keith Olberman gives his stamp of approval to this new history of the Bush administration as told by Bush's ex-White House spokesman. He called it "actual poetry" even though the main thrust of the work seems to say that Bush never lied on purpose and all he wanted was to bring "freedom" to Iraq. Does that sound like the last 5 years to you?

::::::::

by Scott Creighton

In the much anticipated Countdown interview with Scott McClellan, Keith Olberman, the progressive lefts chosen one, coos over McClellan’s version white-washed White House, just like the complicit enablers McClellan talks about in his book. Can we really be as stupid they think we are?

“To that point, there is, I think, actual poetry in here, and I don‘t mean to vainly flatter you here. But let me read something else: “Although I didn‘t realize it at the time, we launched our campaign to sell the war, what drove Bush toward military confrontation more than anything else was an ambitious and idealistic post -9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom.” Keith Olberman discussing McClellan’s new book on Countdown.

That’s right: it was all about “the spread of freedom”. Not oil, not an imperial Pax Americana, but the deep-seated desire to spread “freedom” through-out the Middle East.

Now this is coming from the “progressive” messiah, Keith Olberman, who has recently called Bush a liar, war criminal, a war profiteer, and quite literally a traitor to this country. And now, since the man who’s job it was to lie on a daily basis for this administration, comes forward with this book that says absolutely nothing new, except that Bush really wanted in his heart of hearts to simply bring “freedom” to the Middle East, Olberman reads it; parrots it; and puts his “progressive” stamp of approval on it. Just like the current administration wanted.

McClellan: ” Well certainly he saw it as an opportunity to look at the war on terror in broad way and to try to implement this idealistic vision that he had of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.”

“Democracy in the Middle East”? Is that what the Hydrocarbon Law is in Iraq? Is that what all those billions of dollars that went missing is for? Democracy? Is it the kind of “democracy” that we experienced in Nov. 2000? How about Nov. 2004? Is that what “Shock and Awe” is? Democracy?

Why didn’t Olberman pounce on these statements from McClellan?

McClellan:“But in terms of the coercive democracy, that was-and you bring up a very good point about the oxymoron there-but that was always the strategy for going into Iraq in first place.  And I think that is what really drove the president‘s motivation to push ahead and rush into this.”

And that is ALWAYS McClellan’s message: everywhere he goes. To retell the given myth from this administration; though it may have been handled sloppily, this administration had the best INTENTIONS at heart: to bring freedom and democracy to the people of the Middle East (by killing hundreds of thousands of them, forcing them from their homes, walling them off from other sections of Iraq and controlling their everyday movements, restricting their electricity and basic human rights, by signing over huge amounts of oil revenue to Exxon Mobil and BP and other multinational oil companies, and by putting black bags over their heads and shipping them off to Gitmo and other black-sites, where they disappear without legal representation for years.)

And then, the money-shot.

Olberman lobes his final question to McClellan about what happened when Bush ALMOST picked a democrat to head the Department of Homeland Security.

“And I sat there and I had this little flutter in my heart, and I thought, he‘s actually going to do what Roosevelt did in the Second World War, to some degree what Lincoln did during the Civil War, he‘s going to put a Democrat in the cabinet….

…Would something like that have made that bipartisan dream a reality? ”

The “bipartisan dream”? Is that OUR dream? and did Keith just lump together Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush on national television?

Funny how that comes up right before this election when McCain is expected to pick Lieberman as his Vice Presidential running mate: that “bipartisan dream” we all share.

As it turns out, Lieberman (and not Norm Mineta, as McClellan says) was the consideration, before they figured Lieberman would be better as the new Vice-Cheney in the White House in 2009.

Remarkably, Olberman, in a follow up With John Dean had these things to say:

“Because impeachment would be the logical follow up here, but, obviously, the clock on impeachment is running down if it hasn‘t run down already…”

Obviously? But, the impeachment of Clinton took less time than is remaining in the term of this president.

And the articles of impeachment are already written for both Cheney and Bush (and Cheney’s is already in the hands of the House Judiciary subcommittee.

So what exactly makes this “obvious” to Mr. Olberman?

Dean says “As far as impeachment, I think we are too far down the road.” 

Too far ‘down the road” for accountability? For the rule of law? Too far down the road for the Constitution to matter?

These are just fascinating statements coming from the progressive guru of main stream media.

Oh wait… main stream media… now I get it.

MSNBC is partly owned by GE… a defense contractor. Ahhh, now I get it.

Olberman’s slip is showing. I’ll never watch his show again.

Authors Website: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/

Authors Bio:
Attended J.M.U. and V.C.U. in the '80s and '90's. Worked as a builder and installer of film, stage, and theme park sets and attractions. Currently works as a designer and draftsman for residential and commercial projects. Wrote "Prescription for a Free Iraq" in late 2006 as well as the "Petition to Replace Pelosi as Speaker of the House" in December of 2007.