Jeremy Scahill & Keith Olbermann Thank George W Bush

[Joe234]

-


Jeremy Scahill & Keith Olbermann Thank George W Bush

[Joe234]

Thank you George Bush for being a dufus

[sgreger1]

Tom, I can't see the video at work. What kind of smartass comment is he making when he "thanks bush". What is he thanking him for?


/This should be good! lol

[Joe234]

Tom, I can't see the video at work. What kind of smartass comment is he making when he "thanks bush". What is he thanking him for?


/This should be good! lol

How's this?

Below is a complete transcript of the segment with Jeremy Scahill from the Wednesday, September 1, Countdown show on MSNBC:

KEITH OLBERMANN: But praising Mr. Bush was not enough for those war supporters, unrealistic even by Bill Kristol’s standards. Former Bush National Security Advisor Steven Hadley told the Wall Street Journal, quote, "I thought I owed it to the former President that somewhere out there, somebody gives him some credit and points out that he is the one actually that started withdrawing U.S. troops."

Okay, I’ll do it. I, Keith Olbermann, do hereby give former U.S. President George Walker Bush some credit for starting to withdraw U.S. troops, except for those who were withdrawn because they were already dead – 4,427 of them – for whose presence in that nation I also credit President Bush. So, thank you, Mr. Bush, for starting to withdraw those troops lucky enough not to die in your false war.

Thank you, Mr. Bush, for starting to withdraw those troops lucky enough to leave before they joined the ranks of the 31,000 whose bodies and lives and futures were shattered by your false war. Thank you for starting to withdraw after bankrupting our nation for your war after it became clear even Iraq would no longer let you stay, and just in time for America to try to accomplish something in Afghanistan, nine years after you let Osama bin Laden get away so you could fight the war for which America, we are told, should now thank you.

Adding his thanks tonight, the national security reporter for the Nation magazine, Jeremy Scahill, also the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Jeremy, thanks for your time tonight.

JEREMY SCAHILL, THE NATION: Thank you.

OLBEMRANN: All right, go ahead. Share your thanks to President Bush while we’re on this.

SCAHILL: Well, Keith, you know who should be thanking President Bush tonight? The Iranian government. They have a much greater influence in Iraq now than they ever have had. Russian and Chinese oil companies that have gotten a lot of the oil contracts there. Anyone who likes to kill Americans should thank President Bush. And also among those that should thank President Bush are the people in possession of the billions of missing dollars that went missing in George Bush`s Iraq.
The people who don’t have any obligation to thank President Bush are the families of the thousands of U.S. servicemen and women that died in that country, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died, the millions of Iraqis that are displaced as a result of this illegal, immoral war that unfortunately, Keith, and we have to say this, was supported by Hillary Clinton when she was a Senator, and Joe Biden when he was a Senator. So the blame should be shared across the board. But George Bush is number one responsible for this, and deserves no thanks from anyone except people what could be described as enemies of this country and of security in the world.

OLBERMANN: The former coalition spokesman, Dan Senor, said that the tone of the speech last night was fine. As I mentioned, Bill Kristol called the speech commendable, even impressive. Why are the others so insistent on the President praising Bush, without getting too deeply into the psychology of mass hypnosis and other things that might be relevant. Just the basics.
SCAHILL: Right, well, these people have a PhD in lying, and a master’s degree in manipulating intelligence. And it’s really sobering to see this kind of brass historical revisionism happening in real time. The idea that these people want to post some kind of false flag of victory on the corpses of all who have died in Iraq because of their decisions. These people destabilized Iraq. They destabilized the Middle East with their neocon vision of redrawing maps. And they didn’t even succeed in their own stated mission. This is a special kind of pathological sickness that these individuals collectively are plagued with.

OLBERMANN: The neocons lied about Iraq to get us in there, and now, as you point out, they’re lying about how we got out. Since they were not paying attention, we assume deliberately, it’s not that complicated, but can you explain the factors that actually led to the reduction of violence there, the ones that they erroneously credit to the surge?

SCAHILL: Right, pardon me for introducing a little bit of fact onto cable news over these 24 hours. But the reality is there was no success of the surge. The fact is that Bush’s policy in Iraq caused massive destabilization, led to a civil war that killed upwards of a million Iraqis. There were ethnic cleansing campaigns. When the surge troops went in there, Baghdad was a walled off city. The Sunnis had been pushed out and sided with the United States. Muqtada al-Sadr responded to the announced time table for withdrawal that the neocons so opposed by saying he considered it a truce with the Americans and pulled his forces off the streets. So the entire surge myth permeates to this day. And it’s actually one big lie.
OLBERMANN: The Hadley crediting of the Obama Iraq policies goes with it, arguing that Iraq was worth it. But he says that al-Qaeda in Iraq is, quote, "still capable of spectacular terrorist attacks." And he simply asserts that somehow those are not a strategic threat anymore. Iraq’s not a threat because the Republicans don’t have the White House? Is that what it boils down to?

SCAHILL: Well, let’s remember, and I’d like to remind Mr. Hadley, I’m sure he watches your show every night, Keith, that it was the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq that created an al-Qaeda presence in that country. It was their policies that destabilized that country and caused the deaths of so many Americans and so many Iraqi civilians. Steven Hadley probably sees Osama bin Laden at his corner store or hiding in his bathroom somewhere. So these people have zero credibility and have no business in public life anymore. They shouldn’t be able to leave their houses without being confronted with the death and destruction that their lies caused.

OLBERMANN: Jeremy Scahill of the Nation, as always, a pleasure. Thank you, Jeremy.
SCAHILL: Thank you.

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/bra...#ixzz0yQGTjtqa

[sgreger1]

Sorry joe, i ment to say your name and not tom, i dont know why i put his name in there for some reason.

Look, olberman as always is playing party politics. I dont completely disagree with what he is saying, but it wasnt just bush. People act like bush did this as some lone wolf or something. The dems were behind the war, they voted for it, they voted for years and years to fund it, to surge it etc etc. Even now that we are nearly 2 years into them having full controll, they are still supporting and funding the wars. They also voted for thr patriot act.


Its like if at a board meeting if everyone votes for something, then when it turns out to not be popular they blame the chairman. Even after the chairmen is gone and their guys are in charge, they will still vote for it and try to pretend like they are against it.


Joe, do you honestly believe bush single handedly sent us to war? Do you think the president has that power? Do you not know how congress works?

[Joe234]

Sorry joe, i ment to say your name and not tom, i dont know why i put his name in there for some reason.

Look, olberman as always is playing party politics. I dont completely disagree with what he is saying, but it wasnt just bush. People act like bush did this as some lone wolf or something. The dems were behind the war, they voted for it, they voted for years and years to fund it, to surge it etc etc. Even now that we are nearly 2 years into them having full controll, they are still supporting and funding the wars. They also voted for thr patriot act.


Its like if at a board meeting if everyone votes for something, then when it turns out to not be popular they blame the chairman. Even after the chairmen is gone and their guys are in charge, they will still vote for it and try to pretend like they are against it.


Joe, do you honestly believe bush single handedly sent us to war? Do you think the president has that power? Do you not know how congress works?

I agree. However the Commander in Chief does set policy and has veto power.

[elespectrol]

I agree that they did vote on these things, but when you mention the patriot act that's another story. The rep. Held the document back from the dems an dripped the couple hundred pages on evrybody about an hour before time to vote on it. Could you have read that much that fast? No!!! They did have rough idea of this , but basicaly the atmosphere mr bush created was... If you don't support this you are a terrorist ... If you don't support my war you are a terrorist. After the country got attacked the way it did , Americans in general wanted blood. Most not caring if it was realy the enemy, my mother still believes there are WMD'S. In Iraq and we jus haven't fond them. She's a political science major . Good ole GW and his cabinet did a great job of propaganda about the war. How can a politician vote against it .when most Americans at that time thought bin Ladin wa in Iraq , the had WMDS and Iraq plotted the attacks. a vote against propaganda like that would be the death of your career.

[sgreger1]

I agree. However the Commander in Chief does set policy and has veto power.

Lol, why would he veto it when war is what he wanted from the start? And the same can be said for the dems, Obama has to own everything that's happened since he's been in since he did not veto it. He cannot blame it on Bush. The dem controlled congress had their chance to led the patriot act expire, but they voted to renew it. The president then got it on his desk and didn't veto it.


All i'm saying is that I hope you hold the same line of thinking after Obama is out. That he was the one who signed off on things and that if he didn't veto it than he was for it. So anything that happens during his admin must be owned 100% by him as directly his fault for not stopping it. It cannot be blamed on Bush because as you said, the COC sets policy, the tone of the administration, and has veto power and even signing statements.

[sgreger1]

[QUOTE=elespectrol;325583]I agree that they did vote on these things, but when you mention the patriot act that's another story. The rep. Held the document back from the dems an dripped the couple hundred pages on evrybody about an hour before time to vote on it. Could you have read that much that fast? No!!! They did have rough idea of this , but basicaly the atmosphere mr bush created was... If you don't support this you are a terrorist ... QUOTE]



And that is exactly how it happened. But elespectrol, when the patriot act was set to expire last year, meaning the dems could have done absolutely nothing and it would have gone away, why did they vote to renew it? Obama was president and they had full control of the house AND senate. They chose to vote for it because they wanted it. How else could it be explained? No one was forcing them, they had complete power. Even their voter base wanted to let it expire but the dems wanted it so badly that they voted to renew it, and Obama signed it.


People, we must make these people own their decisions. We blame bush for what he did, but can we have the courage to blame the democrats for what they are doing, or are we going to allow them to run amok and act a fool, and just blame bush when it all goes to shit, as though they didn't have a choice or something?