Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Shirley Sherrod

This is arguably Olbermann's best special comment ever.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"Fired up? Fired up?! Anyone? Anyone?"

Olbermann Advice to Obama: Don't Accept McChrystal's Resignation

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While I understand Olbermann's logic, unfortunately logic is most likely the last thing that will be used in the political and media spin of this situation.

My take:

Either A) President Obama will accept the resignation and the "Obama doesn't listen to his commanders" meme will ring for days, or B) the President will shelve McChrystal's resignation and the "weak leadership" meme will echo throughout Wingnuttia. "Obama can't even control his generals!" A no-win situation. Thanks, Stanley.

Keith's Baaa-aaaack!

After being away for three weeks due to the death of his father, Keith Olbermann was back with a vengeance with a special comment on the Republican's Party's failure to stop health care and their suicide run if they continue to appeal to the fringiest of the fringe.

Welcome back, Keith.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Olbermann's Special Comment: Bush Guilty Of Torture

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

There is nothing but to agree with the assessment that at the very least, investigations must take place into the interrogation activities under George Bush's watch. It must also be an independent investigation to dissuade Republican cries of a partisan witch hunt. There must be accountability. Bush has said time and time again, "The United States does not torture." It's time for him to back that up.

Olbermann's First Special Comment on Palin - Terrorist Ties

I called it!

9/11™

This was brewing inside Keith Olbermann since the final day of Republican Convention. I had commented on the politicization and fear mongering of 9/11 at the RNC the next day, but as usual KO does it so much better.



Meanwhile, it seems that White House aides today have been repeating the fact that the US has not been attacked since 9/11, a total of 2,557 days. But as Keith so aptly put it, "Does 'then' not count?" I'd also like to add that I'm guessing they aren't counting the anthrax attacks - but maybe that's because it wasn't done by an Islamic extremist Middle Easterner.

The Sacrifice of the Worst President Ever

...Golf.

Yeah, poor George gave up his golf game to show his "solidarity" with the families of the fallen US soldiers in Iraq.

Golf. He didn't think it was a good idea to have some mom who'd lost her son watching him play golf during wartime. It sends the wrong signal. So he gave it up. Or was it the bad knee and calf injury that caused him to stop playing? Hmmm....

Classic Keith. This one is for the ages.

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Ferraro Uproar

No comment necessary.




Update: From Andrew Sullivan -

Ferraro's original gaffe was an accident. The compounding of it is a strategy. A reader comments:

...Throwing the kitchen sink apparently means turning the Democratic Party into an all out race versus gender war, ultimately allowing Bill and Hillary to either emerge on top or for Obama to be so badly damaged that the Superdelegates will fear he's lost the white vote in the general election. That's exactly the game the Clinton's have set in motion here.

Olbermann's Special Comment: Of FISA and the Telecoms

Our stalwart Commander in Chief wants the FISA bill as soon as possible to protect us from the evildoers. That is of course only if it includes retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. Otherwise, he'll veto it. Boy, I'm sure glad he's watching over us, aren't you?

This is probably the best Special Comment I've seen from Keith Olbermann.

The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call going through room 641-A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month.

Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason… but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible.

The Politics of Fear

The Trouble with Rudy Giuliani

Haven't we had enough of fear tactics used as political tactics? Haven't we suffered though enough of the deception and lies and fear mongering? Apparently not enough for Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Here are some of Mr. Giuliani's lastest comments from his appearance at the Lincoln Day Dinner in New Hampshire on April 24th, 2007:

"We're going to win that war whether there's a Republican president or a Democratic president or any other president," he said. "The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we're going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer."

"If [a Democrat] gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense," he said."We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

Do any of these hacks really believe the puke that comes out of their mouths? Hasn't the Republican Party beaten this dead horse to the bone? The thought that Giuliani would have the audacity to play the fear card after New York City was attacked on his watch the first time in 1993, for which he did next to nothing to improve the communications of emergency personnel, and then insisted on having the NYC's emergency control center moved to that very World Trade Center building after the 1993 attack is beyond me. Of course, after 9/11 the building came down along with our communications.

I'd continue on a rant because I'm so livid about this, but Keith Olbermann did it for me on April 25th's edition of Countdown.
Here is part of the transcript:

OLBERMANN: This is not the mere politicizing of the war in Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic 'softness' from a delusional vice president. This is casualties on a partisan basis, of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it, and to hell with everybody else. And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment.

Even to grant that that formula, whether posed by Republican or Democrat, is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most un-American electioneering in our history, even if it is somehow acceptable to assign 'casualties' to one party and 'safety' to the other, even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party's property and the other's liability, on what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?

Which party held the presidency on September 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani? Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani? Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani? Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted, the postponement of our elections, and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani? Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in that same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani? Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani? Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik's organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani? Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani? Which party rode roughshod over Americans' rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani? Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani? Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani? Drop this argument, sir! You will lose it!

If this is where Giuliani is headed, it is only because he cannot speak on any other issue. As a Republican who is pro choice (unless he flip flops), pro gun control (unless he flip flops) , pro gay rights (unless he flip flops) and on his third marriage (the second of which fell apart while he had his mistress staying in the mayor's residence under the same roof as his wife!), he doesn't have a conservative leg to stand on. And because of this he resorts to fear mongering as a smoke screen.

Shame on you, you filthy, lying, egotistical, son-of-a-bitch.

OBAMA, CLINTON CRITICIZE GIULANI'S 9/11 REMARKS

Keith Olbermann: Surge

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Countdown after Bush's speech to the nation regarding his proposed "surge".

"Who is left to go and fight, sir? Who are you going to send to interrupt the flow from Iran and Syria, Laura and Barney?"

"You speak of mistakes and of the responsibility resting with you. But you do not admit to making those mistakes."

"I read this list last night, before the President's speech, and it bears repetition, because its shape and texture are perceptible only in such a context.
Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital.
He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Last night he promised to embed them, in Iraqi units.
He told us about WMD. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubes. Yellow-cake.
He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a material threat. Because of 9/11. Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaeda. Terrorism in General. To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases. Because this was a guy who tried to kill his Dad.
Because 439 words in to the speech last night, he trotted out 9/11 again.
In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. To get Muqtada Al-Sadr.To get Bin Laden.
He sent in fewer troops than the Generals told him to.
He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government "De-Baathified."
He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.
He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. Gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
He and his government told us "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.
He has insisted it's up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.
He has trumpeted the turning points: The fall of Baghdad; the death of Uday and Qusay; the capture of Saddam; A provisional government; a charter; a constitution; the trial of Saddam; elections; purple fingers; another government; the death of Saddam.
He has assured us: we would be greeted as liberators with flowers; as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about "stay the course." We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And last night, that to gain Iraqis' trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.
He told us the enemy was Al-Qaeda, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.
The war would pay for itself. It would cost 1.7 billion dollars. 100 billion. 400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night's speech alone cost another six billion.
And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people."

Keith Olbermann: Sacrifice

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the possible "surge and accelerate" that Bush plans to unveil next week.

"Mr. Bush, you do not own this country."