From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
last night's special comments...
Published on May 24, 2007 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
Last night, Keith Olbermann gave one of his special comments. This time, he was not primarily focused on the President or Vice President and their failed Iraq policy, but rather the Democratic Congress folding to the President after recieving a clear mandate last fall from the voters. For those who claim that "all we do is bash the President" should read this. And those who have read some of my past articles and comments on other blogs know that I have been critical of the leadership and called for Harry Reid to resign months ago.

The entire government has failed us on Iraq

For the president, and the 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
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Countdown
Updated: 9:56 p.m. ET May 23, 2007

A Special Comment about the Democrats’ deal with President Bush to continue financing this unspeakable war in Iraq—and to do so on his terms:


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.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on May 24, 2007
go away sheepboy


that's funny...are you forgetting who's blog you are typing on?

I am done here


it's hard to be done when ya never got started.

have a nice day, and thank you for your comments MM  
on May 24, 2007
Keith Olbermann has responded to accusations of bias by saying, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American."


Seems the only ones that are afraid of being called what they are, are liberals. I am an american as well. But I am also a conservative, and not afraid to admit it. He hides his liberalism behind his shame in it apparently.
on May 24, 2007
Seems the only ones that are afraid of being called what they are, are liberals.


no, there are plenty of liberals out there. al franken identifies himself as a liberal. as do many others.

and you are not a conservative. you are a neoconservative. real conservatives don't support interventionist policies or nation building. real conservatives actually support the military, they don't drain and weaken it with a foolish interventionist policy. c'mon guy, admit what you are sparky.

you got a lot of nerve neocon. you can't even admit what you are and accuse anyone against this war to be a "liberal."

but feel free to spew the rhetoric of neoconservatism. it only helps the anti war movement. a movement that isn't "liberal" or anything. it is made up of liberals, independents, moderates and real conservatives. everyone except the neocons and parts of the religious right.

the anti-war is a patriotic pro-american movement by americans who love america more than they love any politician with an ill conceived agenda.

deal with it.
on May 24, 2007
no, there are plenty of liberals out there. al franken identifies himself as a liberal. as do many others.

and you are not a conservative. you are a neoconservative


First, I did mention Franken elsewhere. I dont like the guy, and think he is a total drip, but I respect his honesty. Your point, and point taken (should have said the most common idealogy that does not..... but then that detracts from a solid sentence, n'est pas?)

Second, NO. I am a conservative. If you want to call Goldwater a neo, then I guess you can call me one. But I am not neo anything. I am a conservative. Ala Reagan and Goldwater. I have not BBQed bush for the simple fact I dont have to when I dont agree with him. There are so many that are anxious to do that for me.

But surprise, perusing my comments and articles, you will find some not so nice depictions of some of Bush's policies. Because I do not agree with them. I am who I am. You can call me what you want, as is your right, but that does not make it so. Calling an egg a tree does not make it so.

I stand by my statement, my labeling of myself (and of the others), and my convictions. I am neo nothing. I am a conservative.

And for the record, I do have a lot of nerve. I call an egg an egg. Not a tree.
on May 24, 2007
the anti-war is a patriotic pro-american movement by americans who love america more than they love any politician with an ill conceived agenda.


Not quite.  True patriots don't burn an effigy of American troops, nor do they constantly slander their own country.  I know the whole "anti-war" movement isn't like this, but it is their base.


on May 24, 2007
Not quite. True patriots don't burn an effigy of American troops, nor do they constantly slander their own country. I know the whole "anti-war" movement isn't like this, but it is their base.


Nail on the head award, ID. I don't like the war in IRAQ, and I think it was ill advised (the war in Afghanistan's another story entirely). But I won't be part of the anti-war movement because these loons do NOT represent me and I don't want to even IMPLY that they do.
on May 24, 2007
after recieving a clear mandate last fall from the voters.

'Scuse me? If the premise is wrong, everything that follows is wrong. That was about as much a "clear mandate" as Bush defeating Gore or Kerry. I don't recall all the libs jumping on board because of those "clear mandates."
on May 24, 2007
Second, NO. I am a conservative. If you want to call Goldwater a neo, then I guess you can call me one


so, you are now pro legalized abortion and pro gay rights / marriage?

Goldwater was. Neoconservatives aren't.

on May 24, 2007
I know the whole "anti-war" movement isn't like this, but it is their base


no it's not. it's your spin.
on May 24, 2007
'Scuse me? If the premise is wrong, everything that follows is wrong.


that's right daiwa. the premise of invading iraq was wrong. and so has everything else since then been.
on May 24, 2007
so, you are now pro legalized abortion and pro gay rights / marriage?

Goldwater was. Neoconservatives aren't.


No to the first as my faith and conscious do not allow me to be (you are new, so I will allow that you have not read my disagreement with killing a child. Which is no one's right).

yes to the second (Ibid. if you have read me in the past).

I dont have to be in favor of killing children to be a conservative.
on May 24, 2007
that's right daiwa. the premise of invading iraq was wrong. and so has everything else since then been.


Speaking of "spin." Good non-response.   
on May 24, 2007
I dont have to be in favor of killing children to be a conservative.


but a goldwater conservative you are not. you are a neoconservative.

goldwater hated the religious right hijacking the party. he was against using religious beliefs in a political policy or agenda.
on May 24, 2007
but a goldwater conservative you are not. you are a neoconservative.

goldwater hated the religious right hijacking the party. he was against using religious beliefs in a political policy or agenda.


And you are wrong again. I dont have to support all the planks (and I doubt anyone does) of any faction to be in that faction. Except for perhaps the loony left that requires blind obedience.

If you check, I am not a religious right, I am a conservative. And I am sorry you cannot tell the difference. As while on that one issue, my views do merge with the religious right, you can check with my blog, or anyone here, and know that I am not a part of it, nor do I follow it lock step. But more importantly, I dont think they have hijacked anything (again you are following the lies of the handlers).

Where the religious right and the mainstream conservatives have intersected, have not those agendas been advanced? But saying that it is because of the religious right is akin to saying that piracy (again) is the solution for global warming. I defy you to point to any religious right objective that has been met by Bush or any (considering Carter is a member of it - if you look at his religion) president, that is not also sheparded by others outside of that faction.

So if you are going to call me a Bible thumper (besides being woefully ignorant of me or my writings or my positions), then there is nothing I can do to educate you.

The sad part is, I am an anathema to the religious right. And other than those that are tolerant of others and their beliefs (like KFC), they would love nothing better than to see me silenced and 're-educated'.

I would suggest you stop parroting the mantras you have been fed (as you have been fed a lot - and they do detract from your debating skills) and start looking at that which you would condemn as blasphemers. By your definition, the only way I can be a conservative, is to be a kerry or kennedyite. Hardly representative of my faith (altho they are welcome to practice it in my opinion).

Simply put, I will not be a hypocrite like kerry and kennedy to satisfy your definition of a conservative. But then I have wasted enough electrons on trying to educate you on what a conservative is. And I doubt any more will change your erroneous misconception as you have no idea of what you are talking about.
on May 24, 2007
you are remindin me of that old song,,,"rubberband man" cause yer such a good spinner   
3 Pages1 2 3