Browsed by
Category: Viral

Olbermann on Bush, Cheney, and the Iran NIE

Olbermann on Bush, Cheney, and the Iran NIE

I had already begun composing my post on the NIE and the question of when the executive branch was actually aware of this information a couple of days ago, but I became so angry that it was counterproductive. I picked it up again this morning, and was a couple of paragraphs into it when I got a link from OpEd News to the Keith Olbermann special commentary (I so wish that we had something more than network television). Chuck Adkins provided a transcript of the comments (via MSNBC). I’ve corrected the transcript a bit.

My commentary couldn’t be any better than this, folks. Please watch it – and link to it.

[youtube width=”400″ height=”330″]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79bxVgzgKkQ[/youtube]

Transcript:

Finally, as promised, a Special Comment about the President’s cataclysmic deceptions about Iran.

There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight.

We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole — or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked — at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so — whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.

A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief.

It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency, an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

After Ms. Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear now.

In August the President was told by his hand-picked Majordomo of Intelligence Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might, in essence, be crap.

Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad:

“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War Three, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”

And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.

Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans? Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used to scare us about Iraq?

In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.

A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.

Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush. The Chicken Little of Presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror.

And the mind reels at the thought of a vice president fully briefed on the revised intel as long as two weeks ago — briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago — a vice president who never bothered to mention it to his boss.

It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan’s presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller.

Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable – that Dick Cheney is either this president’s evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is.

What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and this gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a Congressional investigation — or a criminal one?

Mr. Bush — if you can still hear us — if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you’re the Remington Steele — you must disenthrall yourself.

Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts have become optional, the intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store.

The problem is, Sir, your assistant is robbing you — and your country — blind.

Not merely in monetary terms Mr. Bush, but more importantly, of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, Law, Moral Force.

Mr. Cheney has helped, Sir, to make your Administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860’s and 1870’s and 1880’s — the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland…

Presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush, Presidents who will be remembered only as functions of those who opposed them — the opponents whom history proved right.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland… Bush.

Would that we could let this President off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron, but a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake-oil salesman.

The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post’s website, and it is staggering.

March 31st: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon…”

June 5th: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons…”

June 19th: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon…”

July 12th: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons…”

August 6th: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon…”

Notice a pattern?

Trying to develop, build or pursue.. a nuclear weapon.

Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror — but there may not even be a tree there…

McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

August 9th: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program…”

August 28th: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons…”

October 4th: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon…”

October 17th: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the **capacity**, the **knowledge**, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”

Before August 9th, it is: Trying to develop, build or pursue.. a nuclear weapon.

After August 9th, it’s: Desire, pursuit, want… knowledge, technology, know-how… to enrich uranium.

And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003, and you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th, and that term “suspending” is just a coincidence?

And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week.

Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be… legally true — something like “what the definition of “is” is — but with the subject matter being not interns, but the threat of nuclear war.

Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial… but ethically, it is a LIE.

It is indefensible!

You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.

You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

And moreover, you must have realized that John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board are now also bald-faced liars.

We are to believe that the intel community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you… look bad?

And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?

You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August, but you also knew it was ALL… accurate.

And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside, while you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of — as you phrased it on August 28th: a quote “nuclear holocaust” — as you phrased it on October 17th, quote: “World War Three”!

My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase “George Bush has no business being president.”

Well, guess what?

Tonight, hanged by your own word and convicted by your own deliberate lies, you, sir, have no business… being president.

Good night, and good luck.

8 Random Facts about VirusHead

8 Random Facts about VirusHead

Mama Christy tagged me for an 8 Random Things about me meme (I can refuse her nothing).

Here are the rules.

  1. Each player starts with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
  2. People who are tagged need to write a post on their own blog (about their eight things) and post these rules.
  3. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
  4. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

OK, on to the eight random things about VirusHead:

  1. I harbor a secret hope that sometime in my lifetime we will see a Pope named Hilarius II. Little things like that keep me going.
  2. I still don’t salute the flag, even though I haven’t been a Jehovah’s Witness for many, many years. It’s a creepy nationalistic ritual, and I think things are always very bad when flags become too important.
  3. I despise ants. When I was five, I climbed a fire-ant hill in Houston Texas and was swarmed. My wise mother bought me special ant-stomping shoes. They worked very, very well. Nowadays, I pick them up between my fingers and squish them until they die. I am now so sensitive to the toxin that I have a little sphere-shaped hole in my toe from when I was bitten in graduate school.
  4. I adore Chocolate Malted Ovaltine – hot or cold. When I was pregnant with Ben, it was the only real craving that I had. I drank quite a lot of it. Really. A lot of it. About a gallon a day.
  5. That reminds me.. I don’t eat or drink “diet” anything. I use butter and sugar and whole milk. If I can’t have whole milk, I’d rather just have something else than mess around with skim or even 2%. I don’t eat a lot, but what I eat has a minimum of chemicals (you know, unless I’ve just got to have some Funyons: moderation in all things). I am very suspicious of fat-free dairy products, sugar free cookies, diet soda, and so on. I’ve never seen anybody lose weight by eating or drinking any of this stuff.
  6. I can no longer hit E above C when I sing, unless it is in a Bee Gees falsetto. Wah.
  7. I’m not a joiner. I’m not a team player. I’m not with the program. I’m not progressing our goals. It would never occur to me to take prisoners in the first place. And I really detest sloppy, euphemistic language, no matter how guilty I might be of using it myself.
  8. I really, really wish that we had a good climbable maple tree in our yard, but we don’t. It’s oaks and more oaks, with old dry pines and one fig tree. I miss having a good perch in the trees.

Anyone that wants to participate is hereby invited. Here are some people that might have fun doing this, but no worries if you don’t feel like participating.

Which historical lunatic are you?

Which historical lunatic are you?

This quiz has some great possibilities… comment and tell me your own historical lunatic!

I'm Joshua Abraham Norton, the first and only Emperor of the United States of America!
Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.

You are Joshua Abraham Norton, first and only Emperor of the United States of America!

Born in England sometime in the second decade of the nineteenth century, you carved a notable business career, in South Africa and later San Francisco, until an entry into the rice market wiped out your fortune in 1854. After this, you became quite different. The first sign of this came on September 17, 1859, when you expressed your dissatisfaction with the political situation in America by declaring yourself Norton I, Emperor of the USA. You remained as such, unchallenged, for twenty-one years.

Within a month you had decreed the dissolution of Congress. When this was largely ignored, you summoned all interested parties to discuss the matter in a music hall, and then summoned the army to quell the rebellious leaders in Washington. This did not work. Magnanimously, you decreed (eventually) that Congress could remain for the time being. However, you disbanded both major political parties in 1869, as well as instituting a fine of $25 for using the abominable nickname “Frisco” for your home city.

Your days consisted of parading around your domain – the San Francisco streets – in a uniform of royal blue with gold epaulettes. This was set off by a beaver hat and umbrella. You dispensed philosophy and inspected the state of sidewalks and the police with equal aplomb. You were a great ally of the maligned Chinese of the city, and once dispersed a riot by standing between the Chinese and their would-be assailants and reciting the Lord’s Prayer quietly, head bowed.

Once arrested, you were swiftly pardoned by the Police Chief with all apologies, after which all policemen were ordered to salute you on the street. Your renown grew. Proprietors of respectable establishments fixed brass plaques to their walls proclaiming your patronage; musical and theatrical performances invariably reserved seats for you and your two dogs. (As an aside, you were a good friend of Mark Twain, who wrote an epitaph for one of your faithful hounds, Bummer.) The Census of 1870 listed your occupation as “Emperor”.

The Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, upon noticing the slightly delapidated state of your attire, replaced it at their own expense. You responded graciously by granting a patent of nobility to each member. Your death, collapsing on the street on January 8, 1880, made front page news under the headline “Le Roi est Mort”. Aside from what you had on your person, your possessions amounted to a single sovereign, a collection of walking sticks, an old sabre, your correspondence with Queen Victoria and 1,098,235 shares of stock in a worthless gold mine. Your funeral cortege was of 30,000 people and over two miles long.

The burial was marked by a total eclipse of the sun.

What a character!

Political Compass

Political Compass

Here is a more detailed and nuanced political quiz from Political Compass (thanks to Jamie). It puts me about where I would expect.

I still haven’t seen the quiz I’d like to see, though… these are still too abstract, with not enough substantial choices for answers. Where’s the ranking of answers? Agree/disagree isn’t enough.

I’m thinking about designing my own when I have more time.

Political Compass Quiz

Political Quizzes

Political Quizzes

I’m finding that the political quizzes are too simplistic. There are not enough questions, and the ones they have are poorly worded or don’t provide enough choices for an answer. I’m not really convinced that any I’ve seen or taken really represents my own views, although it’s ok for a broad-strokes picture.

Unfortunately, the simplified differences on viewpoint are part of what undermines the political debate in the public sphere.

Maybe I should write one. It would be based on real-life scenarios, and then you have to put five or six answers in order of preference, not just choose yes or no or pick one from three or something like that.

If anyone knows of more sophisticated quizzes, please comment.


You Are a New School Democrat


You like partying and politics – and are likely to be young and affluent. You’re less religious, traditional, and uptight than most Democrats. Smoking pot, homosexuality, and gambling are all okay in your book. You prefer that the government help people take care of themselves.

Political Quiz.net

Progressive/Conservative Score: 9 – Moderate Progressive
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist Score: 10 – Social Capitalist
Libertarian/Authoritarian Score: 3 – Libertarian-leaning
Pacifist/Militarist Score: 2 – Pacifist
You are a: Democrat

Which 08 candidate is closest to you?

Barack Obama – 96%
Chris Dodd – 90%
John Edwards – 90%
Mike Gravel – 88%
Joe Biden – 83%
Dennis Kucinich – 79%
Hillary Clinton – 77%
Bill Richardson – 77%


Your Political Profile:


Overall: 20% Conservative, 80% Liberal

Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

5 Questions about VirusHead

5 Questions about VirusHead

Lin at Telling It Like It Is has shot me right in the head with what she’s calling a 357 magnum meme. Assembled over at Home with Heather, this one asks some basic questions about blogging. Far be it from me to refuse such a sweet request from a fellow former JW… so…

1. How long have you been blogging?

I started blogging four years ago (November 2003). I actually had a couple of other blogs – one at Blogger and one somewhere else that I’ve forgotten – but this is really the only one that counts. My domain – woo-hoo!

2. What inspired you to start a blog and who are your mentors?

There wasn’t any one reason that I started blogging. I wanted to bookmark things that I enjoyed, mark life events, comment on politics and culture and so on. My first posts were a couple of poems, a celebration of the birth of my nephew, a collection of funny religion products like the Huggy Jesus, an ex-JW take on Michael Jackson, thoughts about Bush’s campaign discourse, and wondering if snipers had “nests” before Oswald. So it’s always been an eclectic blog.

Mentors? None, really, not for blogging. I’ve enjoyed many different kinds of blogs, but I just do my thang. Where I’ve needed the most help is for design and coding issues, and fortunately other bloggers are very generous with information and assistance – too many to name.

3. Are you trying to make money online, or just doing it for fun?

Neither. Once or twice a year, I get enough commission from Amazon to get myself a book. Not for the money, then. On the other hand, it’s not just for fun. There are a lot of different reasons that I blog. It’s a ritual that helps me stay grounded and in touch with myself and the worlds that I inhabit (and that surround me). It’s a personal journal – although somewhat censored – about important events and thoughts. It functions as outreach to other former JWs and people who are dealing with various issues having to do with Jehovah’ Witnesses – and that is very healing to me, too. It allows me to have the feeling of having some small voice with regard to what has happened and is happening in the United States, and to support activism, however small.

4. Tell me 3 things you LOVE about being online.

Three things? I love meeting and communicating with people I would never have known otherwise. There are at least a dozen people that I’ve met through this blog that I consider to be good friends, notwithstanding the fact that in most cases we never have met off-line.

I love reading other blogs, and I feel strongly that blogging has encouraged a wide variety of people to do more writing… and thinking. This encourages me and contributes to a feeling of hope about the future. Even when I vehemently disagree with someone’s thoughts, the very fact that they are writing means that they will do more writing. The more you write, the more you think, and the better you become at both.

I love the social aspect of the internet. I’m a little isolated these days, working part-time as a consultant, being a mom, and now without my own car again. One of my last close girlfriends here just moved out of state. Through the blog, Facebook, Care2, MySpace, and so on, I feel like I’m keeping up – at least a bit – with friends, old and new, and they each have extremely fun things to do beyond social networking. I digg Digg. I love to StumbleUpon things. I love to find things on YouTube (see Salvadore Dali on What’s Your Line – of course he’s an artist, but also an author, and according to him, an athlete too (hee-hee).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXT2E9Ccc8A[/youtube]

5. Tell me 3 things you STRUGGLE with in the online world.

The main thing I struggle with is having time to do all things I love to do. I sometimes have trouble with just playing around instead of writing something substantial in the blog.

I also get overwhelmed by how much information there really is – news items, blog posts, political actions, petitions, votes, bookmarking, weighing different viewpoints and perspectives. Sometimes I have trouble keeping up – even with just the things that really matter to me.

Last, as you may have seen in posts before, I struggle with being fair, ethical, compassionate, caring. It’s a high value for me, but it is sometimes very difficult to hold myself to my own high standards.

Ok, so that’s how it goes.

Now, as far as tagging five more bloggers, I’ve become a bit hesitant. On the one hand, a link from this blog to another blog is almost always a good thing – it gives you another little bit of reputation at Technorati and it might bring more readers to your blog to see all the other cool stuff you’re writing.

On the other hand, some people are tired of the memes, have too much else to write about, and so on.

So we’ll do a win-win. I’ll tag 10 people from 9 blogs – only people I’d really be interested in knowing more about and who haven’t already answered these kinds of questions as far as I can tell (that lets you out, Todd, and Jolly Roger, it’s up to you). “The tagged” are then completely free, with total diplomatic immunity, to participate or not. No worries.

Now, just because I haven’t named you doesn’t mean you can’t participate!