Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Peace Surge - video and transcript

  1. #1

    Peace Surge - video and transcript

    [url]http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/02/olbermann-special-comment-on-sacrifice/[/url]




    Keith Olbermann stepped up and slapped Bush's plan to use the word "sacrifice" as an excuse to send more troops to Iraq. Bush needs a new catch phrase to try and deceive the nation with, but Republican talking points won't work on the people anymore. They are fed up with Bush and this war and sending more troops to die is not an answer. John McCain and Lieberman will now wear the McCain Doctrine around their necks—as Bill Kristol drools with glee as he'll finally get his wish.

    Video-WMP Video-QT (big file)

    Olbermann: If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene? Would you at least protest? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

    Rough transcripts below the fold


    Finally tonight, a Special Comment about "Sacrifice."

    If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

    Would you at least protest?

    What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

    What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

    This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's "new Iraq strategy" and his impending speech to the nation, which it quotes a senior American official, will be about troop increases and "sacrifice."

    The President has delayed, dawdled, and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group.

    He has seemingly heard out everybody… and listened to none of them.

    If the BBC is right — and we can only pray it is not — he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree, cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for "sacrifice."

    Sacrifice!

    More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.

    More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.

    More American families will have to bear the unbearable, and rationalize the unforgivable — "sacrifice" — sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever.

    And more Americans — more even than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, not more — will have to conclude the President does not have any idea what he's doing - and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.

    It must now be branded as propaganda — for even the President cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone "the decider."

    But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklaszewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called "surge and accelerate" — as many as 20-thousand additional troops — for "political purposes"…

    This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.

    This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.

    If this is your intention — if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be "sacrifice" — sacrifice your intention, not more American lives!

    As Senator Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces, face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1.

    "Sacrifice?"

    No.

    A drop in the bucket.

    The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.

    They will not be there "short-term," Mr. Bush; for many it will mean a year or more in death's shadow.

    This is not temporary, Mr. Bush.

    For the Americans who will die because of you… it will be as permanent as it gets.

    The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen "sacrifice," constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.

    The former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, says Senator McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.

    If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam… or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent… or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.

    Then there is the argument that to take any steps towards reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world.

    This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.

    We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed, for no good reason.

    We have now shown them that we will continue to do so.

    We have shown them our stupidity.

    Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq — and now about "sacrifice" — is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.

    Your most respected generals see no value in a "surge" — they could not possibly see it in this madness of "sacrifice."

    The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.

    Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.

    And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying "best two out of three… best three out of five… Hundredth one counts."

    Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and more over, they do not want you to do this.

    Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.

    Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!

    To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship — those bonded still, to this President and this Administration — and now bonded to this "sacrifice" — proceed at your own peril.

    John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds — he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.

    That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational Right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.

    Or, maybe it is obvious to him — and he simply no longer cares.

    But to the rest of you in the Republican Party.

    We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country's most precious assets — the lives of its citizens who are in harm's way.

    If you do not, you are not serving this nation's interests — nor your own.

    Last November should have told you this.

    The opening of the new Congress tomorrow and Thursday, should tell you this.

    Next time, those missing Republicans, will be you.

    And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.

    President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.

    The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

    It wants fewer.

    Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

    Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war… Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.

    Because that's what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?

    That is what this "sacrifice" has been for.

    To continue this senseless, endless war.

    You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation… then of regional imperative… then of oil prices… and now in these new terms of "sacrifice" — it's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir?

    This senseless, endless war.

    But it has not been senseless in two ways.

    It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

    It has gotten many of us, used to the idea — the virtual "white noise" — of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague "sacrifice" for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important sounding, but ultimately meaningless phrase, "the war on terror."

    And the war's second accomplishment — your second accomplishment, sir - is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

    Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more, until the first thousand have been destroyed.

    The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.

    This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a 125-million dollar courtroom complex at Gitmo complete with restaurants.

    At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

    And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

    You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don't fight them there we will fight them here — as if the corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.

    And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better, on the premise that we need to be ready to "fight them here," anyway, and always.

    In point of fact even if the Civil War in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat — not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.

    But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.

    Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here.

    You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.

    You have already stoked paranoia.

    You have already pitted Americans, one against the other.

    We… will have to live with it.

    We… will have to live with what — of the fabric of our nation — you have already "sacrificed."

    The only object still admissible in this debate, is the quickest and safest exit for our people there.

    But you — and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone – still insist otherwise.

    And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, Sir, so that you can say you did not "lose in Iraq."

    Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable.

    But it is all too easily understood now.

    First, we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

    Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.

    If what is reported is true — if your decision is made and the "sacrifice" is ordered — take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning — Gerald Ford: Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation, ahead of some kind of misguided vision.

    Atone.

    Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?

    No, sir, this is not "sacrifice." This has now become "human sacrifice."

    And it must stop.

    And you can stop it.

    Next week, make us all look wrong.

    Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.

    And you must stop it.

    Newt Gingrich's head will certainly explode over this one. If you missed Newt's silly attempt to attack Keith because he has the audacity to think, click here. (h/t kevin2)

    You can always ask Gen. Casey about his feelings on troop levels…

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    hmmm....it was on Olberman's show correct?.......that basically means no one saw it :yes: :yes:

    no one cares what the former WNBA announcer has to say and the ratings prove it.... :yes: :yes:

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]hmmm....it was on Olberman's show correct?.......that basically means no one saw it :yes: :yes:

    no one cares what the former WNBA announcer has to say and the ratings prove it.... :yes: :yes:[/QUOTE]

    To the contrary, it is all over the web now. When I last checked a few hours ago, it was not even on the MSNBC site.

    KO's ratings are not judged by the tv alone. Netroots baby. That is how 35-0 happened to the republicans. I can see from your response that a lot of you republicans are still underestimating the web.

    Well next election, we will even be more sophisticated in our mission.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]To the contrary, it is all over the web now. When I last checked a few hours ago, it was not even on the MSNBC site.

    KO's ratings are not judged by the tv alone. Netroots baby. That is how 35-0 happened to the republicans. I can see from your response that a lot of you republicans are still underestimating the web.

    Well next election, we will even be more sophisticated in our mission.[/QUOTE]


    oh- thanks for setting me straight-

    of the 116-million who voted in the '04 Presidential election most are now sitting in front of there computers watching Olbermann on a website called Crooks and Liars... :rolleyes:

    they are also writing to their representative crying for reparations.. ;)

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]oh- thanks for setting me straight-

    of [B]the 116-million who voted in the '04 Presidential election [/B] most are now sitting in front of there computers watching Olbermann on a website called Crooks and Liars... :rolleyes:

    they are also writing to their representative crying for reparations.. ;)[/QUOTE]

    Looks like a lot of them have changed their minds since then (35-0)

    I also wrote to congress and said not to fund the new "troop surge"

  6. #6
    For me, it is very simple:

    If everything Olberman (and his Progressive ilk) say is correct, then the new Democratic Congress has no other choice but to either defund the war (the war, not the cost of bringing them home, so don't bother with that excuse) or to pass legislation ordering President Bush to end the conflict and bring our troops home by whatever date they (the lawmakers) feel is appropriate.

    Bush veto'ing such legislation is not a legitimate excuse. Morally, they must still try.

    Political Suicide is not a legitimate excuse. Morally, they must still try.

    Either they truly believe this War is wrong, and our actions meaingless, and our sacrifice empty (all direct quotes from Liberal/Democrats) or they do not.

    If they do, they have the power to try and end the War as soon as they take office and start session.

    If they do not......well, I suppose that will be obvious pretty quickly.

    Excuses for inaction are no longer legitimate options. And the people know it. After all, the War was the issue the Democrats won on. If they fail to act on the one big issue the People voted them in on, they too will be out.....just in time for 2008.

    What I don't understand, given all the words said here since well before the War started......is why our Liberal and Democratic and Progressive friends here disagree so strongly with this statement. For folks screaming about ending this War, they sure don't seem to want their party to try doing just that. Odd. But I suppose not unexpected.
    Last edited by Warfish; 01-03-2007 at 12:14 PM.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish]For me, it is very simple:

    If everything Olberman (and his Progressive ilk) say is correct, then the new Democratic Congress has no other choice but to either defund the war (the war, not the cost of bringing them home, so don't bother with that excuse) or to pass legislation ordering President Bush to end the conflict and bring our troops home by whatever date they (the lawmakers) feel is appropriate.

    Bush veto'ing such legislation is not a legitimate excuse. Morally, they must still try.

    Political Suicide is not a legitimate excuse. Morally, they must still try.

    Either they truly believe this War is wrong, and our actions meaingless, and our sacrifice empty (all direct quotes from Liberal/Democrats) or they do not.

    If they do, they have the power to try and end the War as soon as they take office and start session.

    If they do not......well, I suppose that will be obvious pretty quickly.

    Excuses for inaction are no longer legitimate options. And the people know it. After all, the War was the issue the Democrats won on. If they fail to act on the one big issue the People voted them in on, they too will be out.....just in time for 2008.

    What I don't understand, given all the words said here since well before the War started......is why our Liberal and Democratic and Progressive friends here disagree so strongly with this statement. For folks screaming about ending this War, they sure don't seem to want their party to try doing just that. Odd. But I suppose not unexpected.[/QUOTE]


    I want them to bring the troops home with all respect being due to the Iraqi people for the damage that we have done. If defunding the war is the only means that Bush will move on, so be it.

    It is Bush that is asking for a troop surge and not the democrats. In his WSJ link that I posted earlier today, it looks as though he wants to blame the democrats for his failures in Iraq. He does not want to work in a bi-partisan manner. he still wants to dictate as if the "do nothing" congress was still in charge.

    The war is clearly wrong and the American people have told Bush so with the lastest election. We are tired of his lies.

    [I]
    And the war's second accomplishment — your second accomplishment, sir - is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

    Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more, until the first thousand have been destroyed.

    The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.

    This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a 125-million dollar courtroom complex at Gitmo complete with restaurants.

    At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

    And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. [/I]

    How can one argue this point from KO? These charges are nearly indefensible.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I want them to bring the troops home with all respect being due to the Iraqi people for the damage that we have done. If defunding the war is the only means that Bush will move on, so be it.

    It is Bush that is asking for a troop surge and not the democrats. In his WSJ link that I posted earlier today, it looks as though he wants to blame the democrats for his failures in Iraq. He does not want to work in a bi-partisan manner. he still wants to dictate as if the "do nothing" congress was still in charge.

    The war is clearly wrong and the American people have told Bush so with the lastest election. We are tired of his lies.[/quote]

    Fine. Even if one feels that way.....why no screaming demand for the Dem controlled Congress to end the War (or try) by any and all means neccessary? Why do Liberals/Democrats/Progressives all but run from suggeting such things, and scream when I do and make excuse after excuse about how bad it would be to even try?

    Seems they really like the War....as a Political tool to wield against Bush, and by extention, against the Right.

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg][I]
    And the war's second accomplishment — your second accomplishment, sir - is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

    Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more, until the first thousand have been destroyed.

    The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.

    This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a 125-million dollar courtroom complex at Gitmo complete with restaurants.

    At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

    And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. [/I]

    How can one argue this point from KO? These charges are nearly indefensible.[/QUOTE]

    If true, yes. War for no reason but to have a few companies profit is wrong.

    But I'm not seeing a whole lot of proof for any of these kinds of claims. I see alot of tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory and fear-talk (ooooo, big scary corporations!) but damn little actual evidence of anything liek War Profiteering as Olby states.

    But I guess, in today's world, proof really isn't needed anymore. Just believing and FEELING something to be true, makes it so in so many minds these days.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Fine. Even if one feels that way.....why no screaming demand for the Dem controlled Congress to end the War (or try) by any and all means neccessary? Why do Liberals/Democrats/Progressives all but run from suggeting such things, and scream when I do and make excuse after excuse about how bad it would be to even try?

    Seems they really like the War....as a Political tool to wield against Bush, and by extention, against the Right.



    If true, yes. War for no reason but to have a few companies profit is wrong.

    But I'm not seeing a whole lot of proof for any of these kinds of claims. I see alot of tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory and fear-talk (ooooo, big scary corporations!) but damn little actual evidence of anything liek War Profiteering as Olby states.

    But I guess, in today's world, proof really isn't needed anymore. Just believing and FEELING something to be true, makes it so in so many minds these days.[/QUOTE]

    I disagree with your last guy. Halliburton and Cheney have made a ton of dollars.....Have you seen how many times Halliburton has had a stock split over the past few years?

    [url]http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm[/url]

    The other point is that the democrats don't take over until tomorrow so until some time passes (a month or so) it is difficult for me to judge what they are doing or how well they are doing.

  10. #10
    maybe we should see what this congress does before screaming about it. They haven't even sat yet.

    meanwhile Warfish I have to wonder why aren't you screaming about our incompetant President? He's been in office for 6 years maybe he could have stopped the war or never started it? is he blameless in this whole ordeal? if not why aren't you holding him publically accountable?

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I disagree with your last guy. Halliburton and Cheney have made a ton of dollars.....Have you seen how many times Halliburton has had a stock split over the past few years?

    [url]http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm[/url]

    The other point is that the democrats don't take over until tomorrow so until some time passes (a month or so) it is difficult for me to judge what they are doing or how well they are doing.[/QUOTE]

    Proving Profit is easy. Alot of companies, of all stripes, have made profits during the War.

    When I say Proof, you have to have proof of willfull misconduct/corruption, i.e. proof Bush and Co. either went to War to make money, or keep the War going to make money.

    Proof of Profit is meaningless. Halliburton, like all Companies, are there to make a profit. Isn't yours?

    And of course, no one can judge the new COngress till after they take office, obviously.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Proving Profit is easy. Alot of companies, of all stripes, have made profits during the War.

    When I say Proof, you have to have proof of willfull misconduct/corruption, i.e. proof Bush and Co. either went to War to make money, or keep the War going to make money.

    Proof of Profit is meaningless. Halliburton, like all Companies, are there to make a profit. Isn't yours?

    And of course, no one can judge the new COngress till after they take office, obviously.[/QUOTE]

    C'mon man, it is quite clear that the relationship between Cheney and Halliburton and those enormous profits have something in common...

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]C'mon man, it is quite clear that the relationship between Cheney and Halliburton and those enormous profits have something in common...[/QUOTE]

    Circumstantial Evidence is not, nor has it ever been, "Quite Clear". It is what it is, circumstantial.

    Or do you have something else?

  14. #14
    hey i got an idea

    how about we hold the chuckleheads that voted for the worst president in the history of America TWICE accountable?

    how about that?

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Circumstantial Evidence is not, nor has it ever been, "Quite Clear". It is what it is, circumstantial.

    Or do you have something else?[/QUOTE]

    Dude, it was clear enough to the voters in the last election

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=bitonti]maybe we should see what this congress does before screaming about it. They haven't even sat yet. [/QUOTE]

    This is a big change in direction for you Bit. Till now you have been very aggressive in both defending, and predicting, Congressional inaction on the War, placing all blame and responsabillity on Bush alone. Good to see you change to a more logical position.

    [QUOTE=bitonti]meanwhile Warfish I have to wonder why aren't you screaming about our incompetant President? [/QUOTE]

    I am on record supporting the War in Concept (Get Saddam Out, Get Freedom In, Teach Iraqi's to Defend their own Freedom).

    I am also on record being very critical of the tactics, policies and decisions of the Occupation. Of course, we all know the PResident does not formulate Millitary strategy personally, he relies on his Commanders and Generals and Advisors. And clearly, all have failed in handfling of the occupation and reformation.

    [QUOTE=bitonti]He's been in office for 6 years maybe he could have stopped the war or never started it? [/QUOTE]

    He supports the War Bit. He isn't against it Bit. So why would you expect him to stop it? You're argument is illogical...it's the Dems who feel the War is wrong on all fronts, and the Dems who ran on a platform of ending it. Bush (and the right) either ran on the status quo, or on additional warfare to "finish the mission".

    [QUOTE=bitonti]is he blameless in this whole ordeal? [/QUOTE]

    No, he is very much responsable for the War. He is, after all, the man at the top. His legacy as President will be defined by the War, and it's effects, both here and abroad.

    [QUOTE=bitonti]if not why aren't you holding him publically accountable?[/QUOTE]

    Like saying I support the War in Concept, but am critical of the specific tactics and decisions made in the occupation? What are you looking for Bit?

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=bitonti]hey i got an idea

    how about we hold the chuckleheads that voted for the worst president in the history of America TWICE accountable?

    how about that?[/QUOTE]

    How do you mean? What, specificly, are you proposing for the Millions who voted for Bush over the two elections Bit, as a way to make them "accountable"?

    And as a reminder Bit, I did not vote for him either time.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Dude, it was clear enough to the voters in the last election[/QUOTE]

    The only thing made clear is that the War Effort was very unpopular at that time. Any other assumption is just that, an unsupported assumption.

  19. #19
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bitonti]hey i got an idea

    how about we hold the chuckleheads that voted for the worst president in the history of America TWICE accountable?

    how about that?[/QUOTE]

    It's true, we all have to live with the Carter and Clinton voters among us
    despite their faults.

    However, if we had to squeeze a nickel out of most of em we couldnt get it.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]hey i got an idea

    how about we hold the chuckleheads that voted for the worst president in the history of America TWICE accountable?

    how about that?[/QUOTE]


    sorry dipsh!t- I wasn't old enough to vote when the leftist loving jimmah carter was elected to office...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us