Keith Olberman the NEW Edward R. Murrow

[Bledsoe]

See video at:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/#storyContinued

Text below:

______________________




 MSNBC.com




A textbook definition of cowardice

Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview

SPECIAL COMMENT

By Keith Olbermann

Anchor, 'Countdown'

MSNBC



Updated: 8:01 a.m. CT Sept 26, 2006




The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."
Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit.
Nonetheless. The headline is this:
Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration did not try.
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.

But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except for this.
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton's.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don't even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth untold about this administration's negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company's crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush's new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, "All Monica All The Time"?
Who distracted whom?
This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.    
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book "1984."
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...  
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power... is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence.
He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn't work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

URL: '+url+'





URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/


© 2006 MSNBC.com

_________________
Greg Bledsoe
D. Gregory Bledsoe
Attorney at Law
1717 S. Cheyenne Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74119
918-599-8123
918-582-7830 fax

"Democratic government will be the more successful, the more the public opinion ruling it is enlightened and inspired by full and thorough discussion. The greatest danger threatening democratic institutions comes from those influences ... which tend to stifle or demoralize discussion."

Quotation on St. Louis' Keil Opera House by German-born
United States journalist and political leader Carl Schurz.

For more information on Carl Schurz see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz
Carl Schurz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[iplaw]

He should have stayed on ESPN...what a whiny, childish diatribe.  He had more viewers in the first 30 seconds of his ESPN show than the entirety of viewers that turn on his show in an entire month now.

Boo hoo for poor Bill Clinton running from that vast right wing conspiracy.  

The only thing more shameful than Clinton's purple-faced, hand-trembling meltdown on Sunday are his apologists who think he did a good job.  The only thing missing from that frothing speech was a big Dean style YEEEEAAWWWW at the end.

I used to respect Clinton for his decorum and suave persona...



This was my favorite quote:

quote:
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.

Ummmm... how about 5 years and no terrorist attacks on US soil...how else do you measure success but by ultimate results?

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

He should have stayed on ESPN...what a whiny, childish diatribe.  He had more viewers in the first 30 seconds of his ESPN show than the entirety of viewers that turn on his show in an entire month now.

Boo hoo for poor Bill Clinton running from that vast right wing conspiracy.  

The only thing more shameful than Clinton's purple-faced, hand-trembling meltdown on Sunday are his apologists who think he did a good job.  The only thing missing from that frothing speech was a big Dean style YEEEEAAWWWW at the end.

I used to respect Clinton for his decorum and suave persona...



This was my favorite quote:

quote:
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.

Ummmm... how about 5 years and no terrorist attacks on US soil...how else do you measure success but by ultimate results?

He called Chris Wallace on sandbagging him with a question that was off topic. Sound familiar?

Besides, Clinton is to politics what Elvis was to music. Too bad. Bush is to politics what Johnnie Rotten was to music. Get it?

KO rules. He's no Murrow, but at least a newsman who will point out the hypocrisy of the presiduncy.

[iplaw]

Please.  Wallace had the questions divided 50/50, it wasn't his fault Clinton had a Geritol/Life Alert moment and made an donkey of himself.  Of course, Dick Morris says that this is the real Bill Clinton.

Clinton's handler was clearly EMBARASSED by his behavior and was BEGGING the producer to stop the interview when Bubba flew off the handle.

I liked Clinton.  I think he did a pretty good job overall, but Olbermann is just a hack and this rant is pathetic.  Of course, Olbermann was as equally convinced that ROVE was the source of the Plame leak as well; quite the JOURNALIST!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8085423/

Olbermann is a joke and his lack of viewship proves it out.

[snopes]

Clinton also referenced Richard Clark's book about how he worked hard against terror. There are some pretty telling points in Dick's book that indeed, quite the opposite was the case.

Clinton made an donkey of himself in that interview; pointing and prodding, trying to physically intimidate Wallace.

[iplaw]

This is just a left/right smear article.  Left loves it, right hates it.  The amusing part is that the OP thinks it's legitimate JOURNALISTIC material as opposed to a partisan rant.  

He's the liberal version of a Sean Hannity without the viewship or following.  Neither are JOURNALISTS as JOURNALISTS do not express personal opinion.

[snopes]

I tend to agree iplaw. Frankly, I'm tired of the hacks for either side with their obviously biased views. It's my opinion that both sides tend to look at the people of this country as sheep that need to be herded for their own political gain. They try to diffuse the facts, which makes it difficult for the average American who use ten and twenty second sound bites to formulate their opinions. Wallace's questions weren't out of line, but Bill Clinton's reaction to those questions was. And to suggest that Keith Olberman might be the new Edward R. Murrow? Please, don't even go there.

[Conan71]

Also interesting to note is that Clinton has broken the un-written protocol of 200-plus years of the U.S. presidency: previous presidents don't criticize sitting presidents.

I'll admit there were things I admired about Clinton and some things I didn't like so well.

Interesting how the left shrieked for so long about mean-spirited and vitriolic right-wingers, KO's piece was as mean-spirited and vitriolic as any I've seen.

Personally, I don't think the presidency is shown the same respect it used to be shown by the media nor a public fueled up by pundits on Democratic and Republican payrolls- and yes, I'm defending both the Clinton and Bush White Houses here.

[NellieBly]

Maybe there is less respect for the President because Bush and Clinton have failed to earn it.

[iplaw]

The office deserves respect irrespective of who occupies it at the time.  Clinton was a good president and so is Bush.  The 24 hour news cycle has created a citizenry of hateful and cynical naysayers in America.  No one has a fair shot anymore because we do nothing but complain.  

When unemployment goes down we say the jobs created are sub-par.  When the jobs trend towards white collar we say the poor working are discriminated against.  When the US is attacked we say, why didn't you protect us?  When the government takes actions to protect us we ask why are you taking my rights?  When children are victimized by predators we say that the children need to be protected, but when we put them on webistes we complain that we have no compassion for the perpetrator.

We are a schizophrenic nation who doesn't know up from down anymore, but we're damn good at criticizing the other guy if he speaks up or takes action, just don't ask us to offer viable alternative.

What's funny is when CARTER has the gall to criticize ANY president living or dead!!!

[snopes]

An interesting article, from Dick Morris, I believe.

The real Clinton emerges

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace's interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace's face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator's space.

But beyond noting the ex-president's non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the "definition of 'is' is" could perform.

Clinton told Wallace, "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk Down." Nobody said there was. The point of citing Somalia in the run up to 9-11 is that bin Laden told Fortune Magazine in a 1999 interview that the precipitous American pullout after Black Hawk Down convinced him that Americans would not stand up to armed resistance.

Clinton said conservatives "were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day" after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military's request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, "I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden." But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

Clinton claims "the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin Laden was responsible [for the Cole bombing] while I was there." But he could replace or direct his employees as he felt. His helplessness was, as usual, self-imposed.

Why didn't the CIA and FBI realize the extent of bin Laden's involvement in terrorism? Because Clinton never took the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center sufficiently seriously. He never visited the site and his only public comment was to caution against "over-reaction." In his pre-9/11 memoirs, George Stephanopoulos confirms that he and others on the staff saw it as a "failed bombing" and noted that it was far from topic A at the White House. Rather than the full-court press that the first terror attack on American soil deserved, Clinton let the investigation be handled by the FBI on location in New York without making it the national emergency it actually was.

In my frequent phone and personal conversations with both Clintons in 1993, there was never a mention, not one, of the World Trade Center attack. It was never a subject of presidential focus.

Failure to grasp the import of the 1993 attack led to a delay in fingering bin Laden and understanding his danger. This, in turn, led to our failure to seize him when Sudan evicted him and also to our failure to carry through with the plot to kidnap him. And, it was responsible for the failure to "certify" him as the culprit until very late in the Clinton administration.

The former president says, "I worked hard to try to kill him." If so, why did he notify Pakistan of our cruise-missile strike in time for them to warn Osama and allow him to escape? Why did he refuse to allow us to fire cruise missiles to kill bin Laden when we had the best chance, by far, in 1999? The answer to the first question — incompetence; to the second — he was paralyzed by fear of civilian casualties and by accusations that he was wagging the dog. The 9/11 Commission report also attributes the 1999 failure to the fear that we would be labeled trigger-happy having just bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by mistake.

President Clinton assumes that criticism of his failure to kill bin Laden is a "nice little conservative hit job on me."  But he has it backwards. It is not because people are right-wingers that they criticize him over the failure to prevent 9/11. It was his failure to catch bin Laden that drove them to the right wing.

The ex-president is fully justified in laying eight months of the blame for the failure to kill or catch bin Laden at the doorstep of George W. Bush. But he should candidly acknowledge that eight years of blame fall on him.

One also has to wonder when the volcanic rage beneath the surface of this would-be statesman will cool. When will the chip on his shoulder finally disappear? When will he feel sufficiently secure in his own legacy and his own skin not to boil over repeatedly in private and occasionally even in public?

[iplaw]

I don't know if I have posted this, but it is a dead on reflection of modern American culture written almost 100 years ago:

But the new rebel is a sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything." -- G.K. Chesterton

[NellieBly]

Funny, I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter.

[iplaw]

Wow that piece by Dick Morris is interesting.  I wonder who would have more insight into what was really going on behind the scenes better than Morris?  He certainly doesn't seem to have much respect for the president he worked for.

[MichaelC]

Its not THAT Dick Morris.  It's this goon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris