Take the ten minutes to watch Keith Olbermann eviscerate the Bush administration. This may well go down as one of THE memorable commentaries of the Bush era of disingenuousness and attack politics.
Clock with an eggtimer how long it takes the Daily Show or Colbert to have him on as a guest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9g8fzNSOrY
PAD
• 
No bet, Peter! However quick I suspect it’ll be, it’ll be faster still. I saw “Of COURSE it’s acceptable to think!”
Olberman had a killer commentary on 9/11 as well.
Forgot the URL (it’s linked to my name above though).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdD6op0l2jk
I don’t know if it’s my computer or just a bad YouTube recording, but I can’t hear a word he says no matter how high I turn up the volume.
I didn’t think his 9/11 commentary was “killer,” though. His basic argument was that the “terrorists have won” because there hasn’t been any construction at the WTC site, which is the kind of naive and reductive statement people were making shortly after the attacks when emotion held sway over logic and reason, and it marred an otherwise intelligent editorial.
It’s a staggering piece of commentary, as good as anything I’ve seen on television in years. Stewart and Colbert have done fine stuff, but none of it has the sense of pure rage that this does. But he doesn’t managed to fly off the handle. Furious, but in control and with plenty of examples to back up his arguments. It’s a hard trick to manage, but I think he succeeded.
Sadly, I suspect too many conservatives will simply write him off as being a Clinton apologist and ignore the other points he’s making about the failures of the Bush administration.
Olbermann’s been at it all month.
Hopefully he goes off on the Republicans in Congress next for their up and coming attempts to retroactively approve of all the šhìŧ Bush has been doing lately, such as torture and illegal wiretapping.
Is this the ‘President Bush owes us an apology’ commentary? If so, you can actually read the text at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14912584/
You can also access the video there, as well as some of Keith’s other commentaries. I’m not sure he’ll ever be as good as Murrow, but at least if you set your standards that high, you’re striving for something that will hopefully have a bit of substance, and I certainly have to give him a lot of credit for trying.
Yep, Olbermann’s been going off lately. Of course, neocons are spinning it as his being crazy and/or angry, thinking in their haze that Bill O’Reilly is a master debater (drop one syllable and they’ve got it right, though 🙂 )…
You can troll the Crooks and Liars archives to see all 3 (I think three) Special Commentaries Keith has made this month…(I only point there because I prefer to see my eviscerations in Quicktime rather than YouTube…)
Keith was on Stewart month’s back, just as his feud with ORielly was getting rolling. These days, he and TDS sorta feed on each other.
I’d rather like to see him on Real Time with Bill Maher.
Craig: It’s important to remember that no matter how much praise they get, Stewart and Colbert, at the end of the day, are commedians hosting comedy shows. And they have to service the laugh. Olbermann doesn’t have that directive.
Ten bucks says Bush watched a tape of this… for one minute. Then he switched to cartoons.
Olberman wasn’t just spot on, he was brilliant in his eviceration of this slime filled adminstration.
One small point: Olbermann quotes the famous epigram “I do not agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it.” and attributes it, as most people do, to Voltaire.
It is not, in fact a quote from Voltaire, but rather from a ore recent author, who actually said “As Voltaire might have said, ‘I do not agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it’.”
Posted by Aaron Thall at September 29, 2006 05:56 PM
Ten bucks says Bush watched a tape of this… for one minute. Then he switched to cartoons.
Are you saying cartoons are only suitable for people of Bush’s intelligence?
You need to say something a little less inflamatory like ” … and then, Bush popped in his DVD of SMURF cartoons.”
My apologies to any Smurf fans out there.
It is not, in fact a quote from Voltaire, but rather from a ore recent author, who actually said “As Voltaire might have said, ‘I do not agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death your right to say it’.”
Just for another point of view on this, here’s what the Wiki entry for Voltaire says:
“The quote I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it is commonly misattributed to Voltaire, but is actually a summary of his attitudes, based on statements he made in Essay on Tolerance, by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G. Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906)).”
I think, in general, the idea behind the phrase being attributed to Votaire is in the right place, even if the exact words did not come from him.
For the record, I think Bush is a RELATIVELY smart man. Unfortunately, he belongs in the Princess Bride. He has all the foresight of Vizzini, all the strategic ability of Inigo, and the communication skills of Fezzik, where after he speaks one is left scratching the head and thinking “What the hëll did I just hear?”
Bush must be color blind, for all he sees are black and white. We’re in the white hats, they’re in the black. He needs a Villian so he can show off the white hat. He needs to keep reminding us of the Villain so he can remind us of the white hat. Americans aren’t stupid. I don’t think there’s anyone above a certain age that will EVER forget that the Villains are out there. Trouble is, the Villains are here, too. Unfortunately, several of them are the ones in charge.
I don’t think that angry is at all inappropriate right now. When the media and people like Condi Rice started trying to belittle Clinton by saying that his interview was “combative,” I thought, “Of *course* it was combative, of course it was angry. It *should* have been angry, he had the right to be angry.” I think we’re at the point where anger is the logical response.
It’s like a child complaining that you’re yelling at him whenever you take a stern tone, as if yelling means you’re automatically wrong.
Sean, what is it that makes you think that Bush is a relatively smart man? I’m not trying to be confrontational or sarcastic here; I’m really interested to know.
And for those Bush supporters who thought Clinton was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed to be an unreasonable question from Chris Wallace, I presume you feel that George G.W. Bush was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed was an unreasonable question from Dan Rather on the CBS News some years ago? After all, fair is fair. Unless of course you want me to find some hairs for you to split.
Brilliant comment indeed.
It is sad to see how cons and media group tactics are all about the same in every part of the world. Bush’s friends in my country, who got out of power after beign caught blatantly lying to the public to instrumentalize 3-11 tragedy for political gain are now trying to rewrite the story too.
Conservative radio hosts even go so far as to label the whole train bomb attack as part of a conspiracy between islamist and basque terrorist, spanish national police and teh socialist party. It doesnt matter is a lunacy, everytime they say that aloud a small percentage of people think “uh…theres some logic in that”. Thats the whole mechanism of lying; you just need to have a tribune from where to speak and some people will believe you, no matter what nonsense you babble.
There are actually two things that make me think Bush is relatively smart. First, he managed to use his (admittedly sizable) assets to get into the highest seat of power. Now, I’m sure he had more handlers than a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day balloon, but for all that, he IS the President. (As a sort of related aside, anybody hear Bob Newhart’s bit on if they had to package Lincoln like any of the current politicians? Howlingly funny.)
The second thing is Bush knows how to play to the room like nobody’s business. He also seems to know enough to never show all his cards, he keeps everything very close. Apparently, he learned from his father’s “Read my lips!” He’s sort of like the faith healer that can read a room and give the audience what it wants.
But not necessarily what it needs.
As I mentioned on my blog when I was talking about this, I think it’s wonderful that he’s starting to end his special comments with “good night and good luck.” It’s as if even he is reluctantly conceding that he’s the closest thing we have these days to Murrow’s successor.
This is totally off topic, but what did the punisher do to you?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3841/751/1600/Punisher38.jpg
This is totally off topic, but what did the punisher do to you?
He gave me a “Forbidden Error 403!” 🙂
I love it when people either attack Bill or Keith while supporting the other. They are pretty much both doing the exact same thing from opposite sides of the spectrum. They are both over the top pompous jerks. Admittedly I like Keith more than Bill because he can be funny when he is not in full on attack dog jáçkášš mode. However, it does not really matter because all these guys do is preach to their choirs.
Clock with an eggtimer how long it takes the Daily Show or Colbert to have him on as a guest.
He was on The Colbert Report back in March, but has not actually ever been on The Daily Show.
“I think it’s wonderful that he’s starting to end his special comments with “good night and good luck.”
Actually he’s been using the phrase (to end each broadcast, not just the special commentary) for quite a while now…
Nice piece. I thought the American media was meant to be so supine that nothing like that would ever be allowed on air.
There’s one little thing that peeves me whenever there are links like this on peterdavid.net though. Whenever I follow the link the address bar always stays as peterdavid.net. This happens on pieces like this I’d want to email over to mates, it happens on links you’re trying to promote like jkwoodward.com the other day. Even more annoying, if I follow linkis on their page I still see it as yours, and then I really have no idea what I’m looking at.
I think the problem is that the other pages are all opening as frames within an invisible peterdavid.net frame page.
Oh, Kim, I don’t see Bush has having the good taste to enjoy something like Avatar, Robot Chicken, or even Gargoyles…
No, he strikes me more as the kind to look at “Bobobo-Bobo-Bobo” and say “That makes total sense!”
I’d be interested to see how Bush will react to reporter’s questions in the future. Clinton, while angry, showed he knew what his administration was doing. I doubt Bush Jr. will be able to defend himself as well as Clinton.
To Nick Eden, about the links.
Try either right clicking on PAD’s link and opening it in a new window, or cutting and pasting the URL into a new browser (and into your emails to your friends). Should work.
And for those Bush supporters who thought Clinton was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed to be an unreasonable question from Chris Wallace, I presume you feel that George G.W. Bush was being unreasonably combative when faced with what he believed was an unreasonable question from Dan Rather on the CBS News some years ago?
Absolutely. When politicians react the way Bush 1 and Clinton did it’s because they are trying to shut down the questioner and cow any future interviewers. Sadly, it works. Clinton usually gets fluff pieces anyway from his interviewers and I doubt any will DARE to do otherwise now (and risk getting hammered by partisans).
It IS fun though to see the mask slip off these guys and have them reveal their true personalities, not the ones they display for the rubes.
Try either right clicking on PAD’s link and opening it in a new window, or cutting and pasting the URL into a new browser (and into your emails to your friends). Should work.
My head knows that. My heart though? There are three zillion pages on the world wide web. Every other link on the web, you click on it, you go to that page, in it’s own right, not wrapped up in another. They don’t force you to go back a layer and faff about with right mouse options instead of left. There are internet standards out there, and the fact that this one site out of the three zillion doesn’t stick to them makes me think it’s lazy programming, not user error.
The transcript is actually here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15013772/
Look for it around 3/4 of the way down.
I watch and like Olbermann and I saw both the commentaries that have been mentioned here. Not really home runs in my book.
I like Olbermann a lot when he seems to be doing stuff on the fly, but his commentaries come off as feeling stiff and scripted. He comes off as someone reading talking points and trying to look outraged rather then someone actually outraged and saying what they feel. The bit he does with turning from the main shot and looking into a different camera just long enough to say something even more heated doesn’t really help that feeling.
I may agree with some or most of what Keith says, but his commentaries are only going to be remembered as “one of THE memorable commentaries of the Bush era of disingenuousness and attack politics” by the people who are 100% anti-Bush. Me? I thought they were only a second base runs at best.
Holy poop on a stick.
I haven’t been able to watch television since the lock step came in during W’s Iraq invasion. I was so disgusted, I’ve been playing dvd after dvd since and getting my news from AP.
Even though I think it’s years late, I may be temtped to reevaluate my stance in light of Mr. Olbermann’s commentary and comments that he’s been speaking up for a while now. People who speak the truth in high position need to supported. And people who lie need to be condemmed. I’m glad to see someone condemm lies as effectively as Olbermann.
Brian
Posted by: Nick Eden at September 30, 2006 10:08 AM
My head knows that. My heart though? There are three zillion pages on the world wide web. Every other link on the web, you click on it, you go to that page, in it’s own right, not wrapped up in another. They don’t force you to go back a layer and faff about with right mouse options instead of left. There are internet standards out there, and the fact that this one site out of the three zillion doesn’t stick to them makes me think it’s lazy programming, not user error.
Well, you’re right and you’re wrong. You’re not guilty of user error, but you are in error. It’s just a different kind of error: the erroneous assumption that somebody here owes you something, even though you’re just one person amongst billions and you aren’t paying anything to participate here. I imagine it takes a lot of work to run this site. I know it takes one hëll of a lot of gall to refer to anyone involved with it as “lazy.”
In a world where some people don’t have access to clean water, food, shelter, medicine, let alone technology, it seems awfully small and petty to be griping about having to make a few extra clicks at a Web site.
For the record, I think Bush is a RELATIVELY smart man. Unfortunately, he belongs in the Princess Bride. He has all the foresight of Vizzini, all the strategic ability of Inigo, and the communication skills of Fezzik, where after he speaks one is left scratching the head and thinking “What the hëll did I just hear?”
I would also say he has the bravery of Prince Humperdinck and the honesty of Count Rugen. 🙂
One of the saddest things in all of this is that Chris Wallace was a good journalist when he was with NBC.
All I can say to Keith is YOU GO, BOY! We need a lot more like himif we hope to save this country from the scumsuckers who are destroying it. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; we’ve had revolutions over less than this.
Miles
I wanted to take some time to think about Olbermann’s commentary, and everyone’s comments in this thread, before posting myself. I’ve done so and am ready to stick my head in the lion’s mouth. I say that because I know that even though my liberal credentials and my track record of being anti-Bush are pretty well established, I’m probably gonna get pilloried and labeled a “neocon” or a “Bushie” for going against the crowd.
I thought Olbermann’s commentary was nothing more than “partisan hackery,” to borrow a term from John Stewart. It amuses me to no end that he and Bill O’Reilly are feuding, because those two are flip sides of the same coin. Oh, sure, one’s liberal and one’s conservative, but they engage in the same logical fallacies and rhetorical nonsense. I can throw a spitwad at you, or I can throw it at a person next to you — but either way, it’s still a spitwad.
I truly loathe Fox News. It is more nakedly biased than the supposedly liberal news outlets. Nevertheless, I agree with Bill Mulligan: Clinton was grandstanding. Chris Wallace’s question was legitimate and worded fairly: “Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?” Now, if he had asked, “Why didn’t you do more to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida,” I’d say Clinton would have every right to be angry. But the question was worded fairly.
The idea that Clinton was showing “courage,” as Olbermann put it, is laughable. As Bill Mulligan so aptly put it, Clinton was trying to cow all journalists into avoiding that legitimate question in the future.
Like many of you, I believe the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were an unconscionable abuse of the political process. Nevertheless, I believe it is equally unconscionable to paint Clinton as a pure victim. The former president new dámņ well what kind of political environment that existed when he was in office. He was well aware — or at least, he should have been aware — of the fact that our society had long ago wrongheadedly blurred the lines between the public and the private, and that his personal behavior could well become fodder for his enemies if he got caught with his pants down (literally). Apparently, he didn’t give a šhìŧ.
Yeah, yeah, I know everyone likes to say, “Don’t blame the victim.” But for crying out loud, if I knowingly go into one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in my area in the middle of the night and get stabbed, people have a right to question my judgment. Yeah, the guy who stabbed me is a criminal who deserves to be punished, but that doesn’t mean my choices don’t warrant scrutiny as well.
Clinton is a narcissist of the highest order, and he loves the spotlight. He could have taken the high road, and pointed out that terrorism wasn’t foremost on anyone’s list of concerns in the U.S. until after September 11, 2001. Instead, he too engaged in partisan hackery.
The real failure leading up to 9/11 was a problem that neither Bush nor Clinton invented. It was a failure to communicate on the part of the various federal agencies that are tasked with protecting us. Yeah, I know, it’s not nearly as sexy to blame it on the kinds of organizational problems that affect ANY large institution, particularly governments, but there you go.
I’m not saying George W. Bush didn’t miss opportunities. But frankly, just killing Osama bin Laden wouldn’t have been enough in my estimation. We’ve killed a number of Al Qaida leaders, and they keep filling the empty positions. And while bin Laden’s money IS critical to Al Qaida, I’m sure he’s made arrangements to make that money available to the group even after his death.
Olbermann’s outrage rings hollow to me.
I agree with him that the Bush administration has been particularly dishonest with us. And I do not believe we have been well-served by his binary thinking, where everything is either “yes or no,” “right or wrong,” “good or bad.” His inability to reflect, to acknowledge his mistakes, to change course, has led to a disastrous and unnecessary engagement in Iraq.
Nevertheless, I don’t give a rat’s ášš who was president in the months leading up to September 11, 2001. It wouldn’t have mattered. The organizational inertia within our government, and our collective apathy as a nation, would have made it impossible to address the problem the way it needed to be addressed.
I mean, could anyone honestly believe that Clinton or Bush could have mustered up the support needed to invade Afghanistan before September 11, 2001?
You know what makes me sad about all this? That a dissenting opinion from anyone in the media is so noteworthy. For the most part, “newspeople” in this country have been so cowed into lockstep position with the current administration that you can just about see the end of a report being like a political ad. “I’m so-and-so in power, and I approved this news report.”
I think it’s sad that Olberman seems to stand out so much.
ooooo. A cable TV news commentator. Big friggin’ whoop. See one lefty cable news commentator you’ve seen them all. You see one leftist newsguy, you’ve seen them all.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at September 30, 2006 05:22 PM
You know what makes me sad about all this? That a dissenting opinion from anyone in the media is so noteworthy. For the most part, “newspeople” in this country have been so cowed into lockstep position with the current administration that you can just about see the end of a report being like a political ad. “I’m so-and-so in power, and I approved this news report.”
I don’t think it is that noteworthy anymore, Sean. I agree that the press was in large part far too easy on the Bush administration for much of his tenure, particularly in the days leading up to the Iraq Debacle. But they found their voice again some months ago. Just a couple of weeks ago I saw Tim Russert asking Ðìçk Cheney some really tough questions on “Meet the Press,” and hitting him with uncomfortable facts whenever he tried to be evasive. Hëll, even conservative commentators are critical of the Bush administration these days.
I think it’s sad it took so long, but it did happen. Olbermann is in no way noteworthy for speaking out — it’s been done. And I don’t think he’s comparable to Murrow, either. Murrow was instrumental in bringing down McCarthy. The Iraq Debacle dragged down Bush’s approval ratings, and Olbermann is simply going after easy pickin’s. Moreover, I don’t remember reading about Murrow ever being nearly as partisan as Olbermann.
Bill Myers, thank you for trying to point out both sides of the argument here; I’d much rather here from somebody who doesn’t automatically take his place on the left or the right without pointing out the obvious, which is that there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
I despise the current adminstration and just about everything they’ve done since 9/11. They told us that we had to invade Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction and sent Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell out into the field to make their case. When it turned out that they were wrong, their defense was, ‘Hey, the rest of the world had the same intelligence, so don’t blame us!’ neglecting to mention that it was the United States that led the charge. Nt to mention the fact that they showed the flawed intelligence to Congress in order to support the war, and now they pillory the Democratic congressmen for supporting them! Talk about a ‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ scenario.
The reason I bring all this up is because after 9/11, Bush was more than happy to fill the airwaves with macho sound bites about catching and/or killing Bin Laden. Remember the ‘Dead or alive’ comments? He was so resolute about it that one almost believed he was going to strap on his six guns and hop on a plane to track down the big guy himself. And night after night, we were repeatedly told, WE WILL CATCH BIN LADEN! That’s why it’s so disingenuous for the White House to be deflecting the issue by saying that Bin Laden isn’t the main issue; gosh, what happened to that ‘dead or alive’ talk that got him back into office in 2004? And as a total non-sequitur or a potentially great drinking game, has anybody ever noticed that Condi Rice’s forehead wrinkles whenever she’s not telling the entire truth? Sorry, that’s just something that’s been driving me crazy for years.
Having said all that, the fact that the Bush adminstration has seemingly done sweet FA to capture Bin Laden does not suddenly make me think that Bill Clinton was the greatest president since sliced bread. I think his arrogance bordering on contempt for the American people was reprehensible, and if there’s any justice in this world, his tombstone should simply be engraved with the word ‘Is.’
But do I now retroactively hold Clinton responsible for not capturing and/or killing Bin Laden? If the current, post-9/11 adminstration hasn’t been able to do much more than posture, I’m not going to pillory the pre-9/11 anminstration for not doing an even more effective job, especially knowing that the Senate would have resisted him every step of the way shouting ‘Wag the dog!’ all the while.
I have never agreed with Clinton or his wife about the vast right wing conspiracy theory that they’ve been espousing for years, but if there was a shred of truth to that theory, wasn’t Bill making a bone-headed move by appearing in the center of the enemy camp so to speak? I’m sorry, but Clinton is a much smarter guy than that. Everything I’ve seen about the man would suggest that he saw that question coming about ten miles away, and probably spent days practicing his rightous indignation in front of the the mirror. That doesn’t change the reality of the situation. Fox News thought they’d ask a tough question and make the former president squirm. Clinton knew they were going to ask and had his response ready. Soldiers are dying in Iraq every day, based on a lie concocted by the present adminstration, more people than actually died on 9/11. And Bin Laden is still out there somewhere, hooked up to an aging dialysis machine somewhere, but still very much alive. In my opinion, there’s more than enough blame to go around.
Bravo to Olbermann for the courage to speak out as he has been. The real question now, I suppose, would be is if this will have any real impact.
Slightly off topic, I found an interesting web site. Ever want to compose a speech for Bush? Well, at http://www.actofme.co.uk/bush_speech/bushspeechwriter.html you can have that chance – even if it won’t ever make the 4pm news conference. 🙂
Something just hit me, rereading PAD’s original post on this thread. He called Olbermann’s speech “one of THE memorable commentaries of the Bush era of disingenuousness and attack politics.”
It was a commentary.
Made by a commentator.
My question is this. Are there any real journalists left in TV news? It just seems like more often than not, you have people who don’t so much tell you what happened as much as they tell you why it’s good or bad. I could be just looking at this pessimistically(I’ve been in that kind of mood all day) but right now, I just don’t know.
I didn’t see Bill’s post right before mine until a little while ago. He’s right on target, especially with it not mattering who was president. The terrorists weren’t attacking Bush. They didn’t all of a sudden see that Comedy Central show and say, “Let’s get this guy!” They attacked New York. Mistakes were made by a LOT of people. Don’t place blame, just learn and move forward. On the same foot, though, while everyone is learning, if you’re responsible for something, don’t be afraid to TAKE the responsibility for it.
Having finally watched the entire interview (it’s available at foxnews.com), I understand why Clinton was outraged.
It wasn’t the question – he seemed prepared for that sort of thing to happen.
It’s that one of the ground rules for the interview, announced by Wallace at the beginning, was that half of the interview would be about the charity effort that Clinton was in town to espouse, and the other half would be “open”.
It might be reasonable to expect that, when the questions started off about the charity effort, they might continue along that line until about the halfway point.
However, in the event, Wallace asked three or four questions about the charity, then jumped immediately on the bin Laden question. And I agree that it was more than somewhat ingenuous of Wallace to try to claim that he only asked the question because it was “e-mailed in by the viewers.” Who runs your show, anyway, Wallace – the news division, or some yutz in Missouri who’s barely figured out how to work his Hotmail account? Are we really supposed to expect that you have so little journalistic instinct that you have to poll your viewers to figure out what to ask an ex-President??
Bill–your entire argument falls apart because a fast check of two on-line transcripts from two different sources doesn’t support your claim. Wallace did NOT say, “Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?” He said, according to the transcripts, “but the question is, why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?”
You said it yourself, Bill You said, “Now, if he had asked, “Why didn’t you do more to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida,” I’d say Clinton would have every right to be angry. But the question was worded fairly.” But it WASN’T worded fairly, it was worded EXACTLY along the lines of what YOU said Clinton would have “every right to be angry” about.
So I’m really not understanding where you’re coming from on this.
PAD
“The former president new dámņ well what kind of political environment that existed when he was in office. He was well aware — or at least, he should have been aware — of the fact that our society had long ago wrongheadedly blurred the lines between the public and the private, and that his personal behavior could well become fodder for his enemies if he got caught with his pants down (literally). Apparently, he didn’t give a šhìŧ.”
e
I have read Bill Myers posts for a long time. As well as his civil and respected rivalry with Bill Mulligan. In this day and age of acidic name calling debate, I find this forum refreshing. I must however take issue with the above quote. Simply stating the nature of the “neighborhood” of the political environment as “bad” does a disservice to the civil debates you have had in this forum.
That bad neighborhood is responsible for the partisan rancor in this county today. Getting in the mud with name calling a patriotism-questioning arguments has been business as usual for the Republicans since the election of 1988. It detracts from the real issue of stopping terrorists who want to kill us and any peace process. It is killing our democracy and it has to stop.
The reality is as much as there is “a lot of blame to go around” and that only a fool would call President Clinton a paragon of virtue, I vividly remember more discussions and stories on the Clinton Administration’s response to Al Queda in their last 8 months in office, that in G.W.’s first eight.
I do however remember hearing more talk about Iraq’s threat in his first eight months of the Bush Administration than I did about the treat of Al Queda.
I dream of the day that Republicans and Democrats can ethically debate the issues as “the two Bills” have, but unfortunately I fear that dream may not come true anytime soon.
Captain Naraht
Hmm, my last comment didn’t go through but I got a message that said it would later…I’ll wait to repost.
Bill Myers, PAD’s correct that Wallace’s question was indeed worded the way you thought would make it an unfair one. I don’t see it that way…and neither did Clinton:
WALLACE: I asked a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?
CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked why didn’t you do anything about the Cole. I want to know how many you asked why did you fire Ðìçk Clarke.
(For the record, Wallace asked Donald Rumsfeld almost the same question. To Clinton it was “Hindsight is 20 20 . . . but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?” To Rumsfeld it was “I understand this is 20/20 hindsight, it’s more than an individual manhunt. I mean — what you ended up doing in the end was going after al Qaeda where it lived. . . . pre-9/11 should you have been thinking more about that?” followed later by “What do you make of his [Richard Clarke’s] basic charge that pre-9/11 that this government, the Bush administration largely ignored the threat from al Qaeda?” and “Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority.”)
But that’s Bill. Jesus. Hillary may not get the nomination but she is SO manifestly better qualified for the Presidency than Bill ever could be.
Dang it, how is it that one comment gets posted and the next doesn’t? I’m going to have 3 or 4 of the same ones show up at once and look like an even bigger idiot than I already am.
(Yes, yes, I know it said DON’T REPOST. Yeah, like I’m going to listen…)
Posted by: Peter David at September 30, 2006 11:42 PM
Bill–your entire argument falls apart because a fast check of two on-line transcripts from two different sources doesn’t support your claim. Wallace did NOT say, “Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida?” He said, according to the transcripts, “but the question is, why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?”
You said it yourself, Bill You said, “Now, if he had asked, “Why didn’t you do more to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida,” I’d say Clinton would have every right to be angry. But the question was worded fairly.” But it WASN’T worded fairly, it was worded EXACTLY along the lines of what YOU said Clinton would have “every right to be angry” about.
So I’m really not understanding where you’re coming from on this.
Actually, I don’t think it should be too hard to understand where I was coming from. I was basing my argument on what I believed to be an accurate quote. I hadn’t seen the actual interview and was relying on a quote from a Yahoo! News article. In fact, I copied and pasted the exact quote into my post. Of course, now I can’t find the dámņ article to save my life, so I hope people will take me at my word that it does exist.
Anyway, after reading your post I decided to look for the source material and found it on YouTube. I watched the actual interview and lo and behold, the article from which I copied the quote was dead wrong. The transcripts you cited are in fact correct. Wallace’s question was loaded and decidedly unfair, and Clinton had every right to be angry.
So, yeah, that portion of my argument goes out the window.
I think it is a bit imprecise to say that my entire argument falls apart, though. I still maintain that it was irresponsible of Clinton to have had an affair while in office, given the prevailing cultural winds. And I also maintain that the failure to prevent 9/11 had more to do with federal agencies failing to play well together than it did with the actions of any president, past or present. I think those aspects of my argument hold up pretty well.
Olbermann made some good points, and I would agree that George W. Bush has failed to stand up and take responsibility for the numerous mistakes he has made since September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, Olbermann couldn’t leave it there, and had to devolve into partisan hackery. He had to take a side in the “which president was to blame for 9/11” debate. It’s a debate that is about as meaningful as arguing over whether Montgomery Scott or Geordi La Forge is the better engineer. The failure to prevent 9/11 was the result of a number of missteps at a number of levels over a number of years, coupled with a failure on the part of the entire nation to realize just how grave the threat truly is.
And, therefore, I believe Olbermann falls far short being in the same league as Murrow. I believe Olbermann is in the same league as Bill O’Reilly. They’re both partisan hacks.