Olbermann on war crimes by W's cabal

This one's a little old, but it still merits a mention. Just under a few weeks ago, Keith Olbermann unleashed a tirade against the Bush administration for its conduct in Iraq. After thinking about it, Olbermann clarified his remarks backed up his proverbial bus, and ran over Bush and his war-making cabal again, calling some of them (including Bush, and presumably, Dick Cheney) "cold blooded killers." I won't apologize for agreeing with him.

Bush and many in his cabinet (but not all, as Olbermann rightfully points out) almost certainly deserve to be tried for war crimes. It's a pretty sticky issue that many would take offense to - so be it. But, any American who can possibly even try to evaluate and analyze the War in Iraq objectively would almost certainly come to the conclusion that if Bush were the leader of another country, invading a neighbor, the U.S. would most likely be up in arms, beating the drums of righteous indignation, calling for a war crimes trial. Oh wait, haven't we already done that? Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein are two recent examples that come to mind, specifically Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, an invasion we went to war over. Desert Storm was a farce in many (but not all) ways. We certainly weren't liberating a democracy, that's for sure. But, I digress.

Anyway, it's important to note that neither Olbermann nor probably the overwhelming majority of liberals (including me) lump our troops under the statement or thoughts behind his label "cold blooded killers." Olbermann in the footage above rightly classifies them as the heroes they truly are, and on this Memorial Day, it's worth mentioning again that we can and must give them the resources they will need, for the rest of their lives, to confront, combat and conquer the physical and emotional obstacles that await them once they return home from battle.

This administration and those who support it make great sport of constantly repeating, over and over, the slogan of this war by many on the home front: Support the Troops. Well, Supporting the Troops is going to take a lot more than putting a ribbon on your car in the coming years. Yet, thus far, this administration has done little more than just that for returning troops, and for many troops in the field, some of whom have had to go without adequate body armor, etc.

At the end of his Special Comment, Olbermann takes one final swipe at two of his critics by saying, "Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin, why do you hate our troops?" I don't know what he's specifically referring to there, but that's bound to stoke the flames of partisan bickering in the weeks and months to come, which will surprise no one. But, in the end, Olbermann is spot on for calling out this administration for its massive, criminal negligence in not giving our troops what they need.

Olbermann truly is a voice in the wilderness - an island of reality in a sea of diarrhea that passes for what many call our "free press," which should be called what it really is - our corporate media. Frankly, it's a miracle that NBC lets him air his show at all. Make no mistake - it's only because there's money to be made, not because of his political views.

Graham & Webb cross swords

Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Jim Webb (D-VA) squared off on Meet the Press this past Sunday, and it was as heated of an exchange as I've seen on that program in quite a while.

Needless to say, Graham made a fool of himself going up against Webb. However, I have to admit, I had thoughts of CNN's old show, Crossfire, when I watched this - just people trying to talk over one another. Very annoying.

Anyway, I can see why Republicans fear Webb - they have good reason to. He uses logic and doesn't talk in political soundbites, unlike Bush sycophant Graham, who uttered this laugh out loud phrase during their exchange, in his annoying southern twang:

History will judge us, ma freend, not when we left but what we left behind.

Hey Senator Graham, I believe history has already rendered its verdict, and that's that we never should have invaded Iraq in the first place. There's no easy way out now. But, It amazes me that there are still people like Graham who still insist that We can win in Iraq. Let 'em win.

As if the only reason we're not winning this war is Congressional Democrats (and an overwhelming majority of the American people) who want our troops home, NOW. I can just about guarantee that this war will somehow be blamed on Democrats when the presidential campaign begins in earnest next spring. In fact, you can put fat cash down on it, because I guarantee that's exactly what the GOP is going to do.

Graham's Let 'em win blarney is little more than political posturing to the far-right war mongers in the Republican Party. There is not a military expert or general alive who believes we can win there. The only generals who are saying we can win are the ones who are on the ground over there now. And what else would you expect those generals to say? "I know you put me in charge over here, but we have no chance in winning." Of course they aren't going to say that.

Graham embarrasses himself even further with these whoppers:

"I've been to Iraq seven times" (To which Webb replied, "No, you've been to the dog-and-pony show.") Well said, Senator Webb.

"It's not about winning an election." Really, Senator Graham? That could be the most blatant lie I've heard in 2007 on MTP. Wait, has Cheney been on this year?

The only, and I mean the only reason Republican senators are running for cover now is because there's an election in less than 18 months, and the GOP is hoping to retain control of the White House. If it were 2005 right now, Republicans would be in lockstep with Bush's disastrous Iraq policy.

I'd also like to point out that Webb has about 1000 percent more credibility than Graham does on military issues; Webb has actually served in combat and knows the cost of war. Graham's experience? Being recalled to active duty during Desert Storm and serving in... South Carolina. (Graham did serve on active duty in the 1980s.) Wait, another war-mongering Republican who has spent time in the Air National Guard? Hmmm - sounds familiar.

I love Senator Webb because he's not afraid of a street fight with Republicans over military issues. There aren't enough Democrats like him. However, toward the end of the duo's appearance on MTP last Sunday, Webb put his hand on Graham's shoulder and called him "my friend." He's not your friend, senator. That won't win you any points with Democrats who want to see the party toughen up to take on these Republican bullies.

I hardly watch the news on television anymore, because of full of politicians on both sides of the aisle spewing forth sewage, b.s. and lies, and Graham is the best example I've seen in the past week. Wait, there are others, too, and I'll get to them later today.

All we've ever heard from this president and Republican leaders is "give this surge a chance to work." And in six months, we'll be hearing it again.

It's been four-and-a-half years - the Iraqis have had enough time.

Bad Iraq news continues; Look! Over here! A Gore speech from '92

[Click for larger image]

It's interesting that the right-wing smear machine is already gearing up for Al Gore's potential candidacy. Of course, GOP shill Matt Drudge leads the way. The screen capture above is from The Drudge Report this past Tuesday. Of course, he's highlighting an Al Gore speech from 1992, part of which is below.

This speech is interesting to watch. Our country's past with Iraq and Saddam Hussein is a complicated one, and by complicated I don't mean that President Clinton is completely innocent, but he's far from the guiltiest, either.

What I found particularly poignant was Gore's Cliff-Note-tour of our country's involvement with Iraq in the 1980s. I won't get into it too much more in this piece, other than to say I've read the exact same things Gore speaks of in this video clip, lest anyone think Gore was merely spouting campaign rhetoric (the video dates from 1992).

Richard Clarke, who worked counter-terrorism under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Dubya, discussed in detail how Saddam brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqis during that decade, all of which were under Republican, um, "leadership" in the White House. These facts often don't fit into the well-worn rhetoric of Republicans - that Saddam was a "brutal dictator" who "murdered his own people." Clarke details all of this and more in his stunning tome Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, a book I highly recommend.

Sidney Blumenthal also covers our relations with Iraq in the 1980s (but less than Clarke) in his outstanding book, The Clinton Wars. Blumenthal served as President's Clinton senior political advisor during his second term.

The bottom line here is that America (Read: Ronald Reagan, and later, Bush Sr.) didn't feel the need to do anything about Iraq until the flow of oil was threatened by Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. I can still remember, with my own two ears, Bush Sr. on television declaring that "We are going to war to defend our way of life." Seems patently absurd now, doesn't it? If it doesn't, it should.

If you read about Kuwait, it's anything but a democracy, too.

Now that the neocons' grand experiment has failed MISERABLY in Iraq, setting our foreign policy back 25 years, people like Drudge are busy digging up video tape from 15 years ago in a lame, half-baked attempt to smear a undeclared candidate for president INSTEAD OF rightfully criticizing Bush's Iraq policy of perpetual war.

It's easy for someone like Drudge to dig up old video of Gore, ignoring the events of the past 15 years. What it does NOT take into consideration is what happened following Desert Storm; sanctions, no-fly zones and close monitoring during the 1990s had Saddam mostly boxed in - he had no nuclear program, and, we now know, no WMDs.

Over 3,500 hundred Dead Americans later, to say nothing of the $500+ billion in American dollars spent in Iraq, but Drudge chooses to not talk about that; instead, a Gore speech from 15 years ago takes priority.

What a pathetic canard, even for Drudge.