Keith Olbermann: Special Comment; Democratic Compromise

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well said Keith, I couldn't agree more.

Video Here:

Transcript here:

This is, in fact, a comment about… betrayal.

Few men or women elected in our history-whether executive or legislative, state or national-have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear: Get us out of Iraq.

Yet after six months of preparation and execution-half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

* The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president-if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history-who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats "give the troops their money";

* The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;

* The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

* The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions-Stop The War-have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.

You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the "beginning of the end" of Mr. Bush's "carte blanche" in Iraq, about how this is a "first step."

Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.

Because this "first step"… is a step right off a cliff.

And this President!

How shameful it would be to watch an adult hold his breath, and threaten to continue to do so, until he turned blue.

But how horrifying it is to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so, until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm's way, are bled white.

You lead this country, sir?

You claim to defend it?

And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness–your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs–you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats don't give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands.

How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic.

Any other president from any other moment in the panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally-first, last and always-that the troops would not suffer.

A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he has already, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing brigades into a ‘second surge,' but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe-even if the only safety to be found, is in getting them the hell out of there.

Well, any true President would have done that, sir.

You instead, used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.

Not that these Democrats, who had this country's support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not since earned all the blame they can carry home.

"We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame," Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. "My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in, a little later…"

That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it?

Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit.

The Democrats have merely streamlined the process.

Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it, with impugnity.

And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening? See they not, that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself?

Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, is ancient history now.

The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided… tomorrow.

The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President's dishonest construction "fund-the-troops-or-they-will-be-in-jeopardy," the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as closed to practical politics.

Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to-for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops-denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal president.

For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us.

* Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats… have failed us. They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen War of Lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible.

* Mr. Bush and his government… have failed us. They have behaved venomously and without dignity-of course.

That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted.

We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here.

With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have (so far at least) failed us.

They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come.

Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating process–indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice–has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone.

The electorate figured this out, six months ago.

The President and the Republicans have not-doubtless will not.

The Democrats will figure it out, during the Memorial Day recess, when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay there-and permanently.

Because, on the subject of Iraq the people have been ahead of the media….

Ahead of the government…

Ahead of the politicians…

For the last year, or two years, or maybe three.

Our politics… is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question.

Mr. Bush has failed.

Mr. Warner has failed.

Mr. Reid has failed.

So. Who among us will stop this war-this War of Lies? To he or she, fall the figurative keys to the nation.

To all the others-presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party-there is only blame… for this shameful, and bi-partisan, betrayal.

[Zguy28]

Against the war is he? I never would've guessed.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Against the war is he? I never would've guessed.

It's nice to see that he's consistent and doesn't simply pander to a particular party, because he lays one on the Dems in this piece.

[Koolblue13]

Olbermann has blasted the Admin several times and with authority. I enjoy the way he does it as well. Here are a couple of youtube clips.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kB8BsRFg5TM

this is him on the republican party

[War Paint]

Keith Olbermann is a douche bag.

[EersSkins05]

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of that commentary. You would think that a party that had received such a mandate from the people would stop being such

[Zen-like Todd]

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of that commentary. You would think that a party that had received such a mandate from the people would stop being such

Don't assume that wresting control of Congress is the same as a mandate for leaving Iraq. I for one, voted for a Democrat last fall, but I think hastily pulling out of Iraq is a recipe for catastrophe (and lest you all feel the need to knee jerk that we already have on one our hands, that doesn't mean we need to make it worse....).

[Koolblue13]

Keith Olbermann is a douche bottle.

It's not really a bag.

[Henry]

The situation in Iraq won't change until Bush leaves office. The message the American public sent was to the Presidential hopefuls. Not the second-term President.

[EersSkins05]

Don't assume that wresting control of Congress is the same as a mandate for leaving Iraq. I for one, voted for a Democrat last fall, but I think hastily pulling out of Iraq is a recipe for catastrophe (and lest you all feel the need to knee jerk that we already have on one our hands, that doesn't mean we need to make it worse....).

It certainly wasn't a vote to maintain the status quo, which is what is happening now after that half-assed attempt to set a time-table.

While I agree that there was no one single solution dictated by the American public, it was certainly clear that a change was necessary. And we're no closer to that now than when GWB had his rubber stamp cronies in DC.

[Destino]

Keith Olbermann is a left wing Sean Hannity, and I don't think that's a bad thing. People clearly are interested in watching/listening to partisan talking heads these days and some of these guys do have some measure of talent in that regard. I'd love to see them debate something.

[Sarge]

What's wrong Keith? Just because you fell for the Dems BS and kissed their asses on national TV, now your mad?

Maybe if you weren't so warped in your views and such a partisan hack, you wouldn't be sitting there looking like an ass now

Oh, BTW Keith, 2000 votes for control of the Senate is not a "mandate"

[81artmonk]

here are a few problems I see.

1. 06 wasn't a manddate from the people. If so, than explian how congress has a lower approval rating than the president?

2 I agree with one thing, if the democrats were'nt the spinless wimps they are, they would have voted to not fund the troops and forced us to bring them home. Why ****foot around with all this useless powerless drivle, only to trun around and eventually do it.

3. I know I will sound crazy, but I think down the line Bush jr. will be seen as one of our greatest presidents in regard to what he tried to do with the middle east.

4. Here is a fact. We can't leave now. even if we wanted to. We are now fighting terrorists there and leaving would create a major clusterf*** of a mess. Don't think that if we aren't keeping them occupied there that they would'nt come here and do thier dirty work.

[Henry]

1. 06 wasn't a manddate from the people. If so, than explian how congress has a lower approval rating than the president?

My guess is it has something to do with not standing up to the President. I think I read that somewhere ...

[Koolblue13]

here are a few problems I see.

1. 06 wasn't a manddate from the people. If so, than explian how congress has a lower approval rating than the president?

2 I agree with one thing, if the democrats were'nt the spinless wimps they are, they would have voted to not fund the troops and forced us to bring them home.

3. I know I will sound crazy, but I think down the line Bush jr. will be seen as one of our greatest presidents in regard to what he tried to do with the middle east.

4. Here is a fact. We can't leave now. even if we wanted to. We are now fighting terrorists there and leaving would create a major clusterf*** of a mess. Don't think that if we aren't keeping them occupied there that they would'nt come here and do thier dirty work.

we wouldn't want to create a mess over in the ME would we.

Your crazy.

[DCsportsfan53]

My guess is it has something to do with not standing up to the President. I think I read that somewhere ...

:laugh:

I was going to comment on that but you beat me to it. Have to say, I'm awfully dissapointed in the Dems, too, though Olberman does overly dramaticize it. Also, I'm not sure I'm in the "get out as soon as possible at all costs" crowd, honestly. Did Bush back us into one hell of a ****ed corner? Absolutely. However, to just leave now and watch Iraq crumble and turn to full fledged civil war would be irresponsible, imo, on a human level and as far as America's long term interests are concerned. I'll never forgive the Dems for allowing Bush to take us into this horrifically stupid war in the first place. So far as I'm concerned, any Dem who approved that war is unelectable as POTUS because he/she has already proved lacking in character and guts.

[Koolblue13]

:laugh:

I was going to comment on that but you beat me to it. Have to say, I'm awfully dissapointed in the Dems, too, though Olberman does overly dramaticize it. Also, I'm not sure I'm in the "get out as soon as possible at all costs" crowd, honestly. Did Bush back us into one hell of a ****ed corner? Absolutely. However, to just leave now and watch Iraq crumble and turn to full fledged civil war would be irresponsible, imo, on a human level and as far as America's long term interests are concerned. I'll never forgive the Dems for allowing Bush to take us into this horrifically stupid war in the first place. So far as I'm concerned, any Dem who approved that war is unelectable as POTUS because he/she has already proved lacking in character and guts.

Although I agree with the last part of this, if i'm not mistakin, didn't we go into war with over a 70% approval from the nation?

[Thanos]

Keith Olberman sadly is a lone voice full of Hannity types you'se tongues are so brown from butt-kissing its not even funny.

Few pundits on either side give much room for an alternative voice.Democracy died a long time ago.

[DCsportsfan53]

Although I agree with the last part of this, if i'm not mistakin, didn't we go into war with over a 70% approval from the nation?

Bush played the heart strings of America in the aftermath of 911 and used scare tactics to get that. The representatives in Congress should've known better, I don't blame the American people given the circumstances. However, I think those in Congress did know better and failed in their duty for a mixture of political and lack of spine reasons. They failed us, big time. I don't buy that they were tricked by Bush. They had access to too much information and too many different sources to just blindly rubber stamp it and blame it on Bush later. The dems in office at the time failed to do their job.

[DCsportsfan53]

Keith Olbermann is a left wing Sean Hannity, and I don't think that's a bad thing. People clearly are interested in watching/listening to partisan talking heads these days and some of these guys do have some measure of talent in that regard. I'd love to see them debate something.

I disagree. Olbermann may be overly dramatic about things but he will not hesitate to take either side to task, as demonstrated by this article. The same can NEVER be said of Hannity's ilk.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I disagree. Olbermann may be overly dramatic about things but he will not hesitate to take either side to task, as demonstrated by this article. The same can NEVER be said of Hannity's ilk.

Indeed, I think its hillarious that people are calling Olbermann a partisan hack when this piece is not about Bush and the Reps but instead is an absolute roast of the Dems failure. So if he's a partisan hack, then someone needs to explain which party he's defending here. :laugh: Oy vey.

[Slateman]

Didn't read the transcript past the first paragraph, but let me guess how it went.

blah blah blah

Dems have no spines

blah blah blah

random stat that I've bent to fit my arguement

blah blah blah

Bush sucks

Blah blah blah

Why couldn't he just stay at Sportscenter?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why couldn't he just stay at Sportscenter?

And why couldn't O'Reilly stay on A Current Affair.

[alexey]

3. I know I will sound crazy, but I think down the line Bush jr. will be seen as one of our greatest presidents in regard to what he tried to do with the middle east.

This will not happen because he "tried to do" it. It will only happen if what he "tried to do" actually comes about. Otherwise the history will NOT be kind to George W. Bush. (it will not be kind to him either way actually, but at least if Iraq works out it will be something like "yes he was incompetent, but at least the Iraq thing turned out alright eventually")

4. Here is a fact. We can't leave now. even if we wanted to. We are now fighting terrorists there and leaving would create a major clusterf*** of a mess. Don't think that if we aren't keeping them occupied there that they would'nt come here and do thier dirty work.

I do agree with the "long-term" argument, but not this one. I'm sorry to be this harsh, but this argument is absolutely rediculous. I cannot believe there are people who lack critical thinking and reasoning ability to the point where they actually fall for this argument.

Fighting in Iraq does not make protecting our homeland any easier. We have to protect it just as vigorously.

The War in Iraq increases the number of Americans who die at hands of terrorists. As simple as that.

Perhaps you're saying that terrorists do not need to come to US to killl Americans anymore, they can do it in their own back yard... and that's a good thing somehow???

[Destino]

I disagree. Olbermann may be overly dramatic about things but he will not hesitate to take either side to task, as demonstrated by this article. The same can NEVER be said of Hannity's ilk.

Hannity has been after republicans that support the immigration bill and those supporting leaving Iraq. I would haven't agree that it's less common for Hannity to say anything bad about the GOP. You should hear him complaining that it is UNFAIR for the media to ask Rudy about abortion. lol