Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
December 11, 2016 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Ooh, ‘La La Land’
‘The Field of Fight’

Truthdig Bazaar more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Olbermann: Bush Either ‘Pathological Presidential Liar’ or ‘Idiot-in-Chief’

Posted on Dec 7, 2007

Not one to mince words, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ripped into President Bush for beating the WWIII war drums about Iran months after the gist of the NIE report on Iran was known to the White House:  “It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: a critical juncture in our history and ... a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency, an unapologetic warmonger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.”

Watch it:

Excerpt via MSNBC:

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.


Square, Site wide

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.

Read more

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By ender, December 13, 2007 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

I simple peace of well known info finally dug throught my thick scull.  Osama’s family is so close to the Bush’s they probably swap spit and snort coke together, and it is common knowlege that the CIA trained Osama while he was helping to creat the Taliban to fight the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.  Since learning that a normally around the clock FBI office in a building near the Towers was empty on the morning of 9/11, then watching Bush again recently in Farenheit 911 calmly continue talking to a class full of elementary school kids in my home town after being told of the ‘attack’, it has all come together in a preponderance of evidence I can no longer ignore.

Osama Bin Laden was most probably working under the direct request of GWB.  He may have controlled ‘true believer jihadist’, but the chain of event that let all this happen point inexcorably to the participation of the American Government in the attack.

Report this

By cyrena, December 13, 2007 at 12:54 am Link to this comment

#119697 by ender

Ender, I know the feeling. It’s pretty awful. The worst. Attacked by our own government, like I used to read about as a kid…the stuff happened in Russia, because of the ‘communists’ they told us. That’s why so many people had to come HERE, to escape from those horrible regimes across the globe. And, I sure it was true at the time.

And now? That’s what we are.

The thing with believing that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 is an honest enough assumption, even for a smart person. I believed it as well, but I did immediately question – WHY? I really did need to understand, (for myself) the specifics of WHY a group of people from ANYWHERE, would want to attack us, and the idea of the religious extremism didn’t work with me. Sorry, I just couldn’t get there.

Still, if they DID this thing, (and I was willing to believe that for a brief time)they did for a brief time, if only because that’s all we were ever given as an explanation, and that explanation came so IMMEDIATELY when we were all still in shock. Then…WHY? What was the point? Blowback? Well, that could have been part of it. Political violence not unlike much of what has occurred in other areas where we’ve been without the permission or approval of those who live in those regions.

Besides, with further research, we know that bin Laden has in fact suggested such an operation at some point in time, though very long ago. Even with that though, bin Laden has said a lot of things, and I still just couldn’t get to the Islamic extremism part of it. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that there are NO extremist ideologies existing within the greater scope of Islam, but I’d be willing to say that they don’t come close to the quantity of scope of religious extremism here in the US with its multiple versions of Christianity. Now THOSE extremists are by FAR more frightening than a handful of Wahhbis doing a desert caravan across Arabia. 

So, the clues kicked in for me as soon as the shock wore off, and the ridiculousness of it all came to me. I know that commercial jetliners don’t bring down skyscraper buildings any more than a motorcycle traveling at 120 mpr is gonna bring down a 20x20 ft concrete barrier structure upon impact. Doesn’t happen, can’t happen, and won’t happen.

And, I know that 8 commercial airline pilots didn’t just give over their cockpits to a group of ANYBODY, wielding ANYTHING! And not a single one of them squawked the highjack code to ATC? Nope. Nope, and Nope again.

There airplane that allegedly hit the Pentagon didn’t vaporize into dust, (because they don’t do that) and the one that allegedly crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA, didn’t do it without leaving a single trace of itself either.
So, the official lie wants us to believe that it was a day to commemorate Houdini. His tricks were entertaining enough, but he never used them to wipe out thousands of people, and create never-ending world-wide chaos for the years after.

Now, somewhere around here, on one of these threads, Robert posted a link to the destroyed Air Traffic Control tapes. I’ve forgotten which one. I’ll start looking now, but if anyone can point me to it sooner, drop a note here.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 12, 2007 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

ender—your approach to 9/11 parallels my own.  I, for one, did not “want” to believe that any American could have been complicit—even after being confronted with hard evidence that the collapse of at least one of the buildings, WTC 7, can only be explained by controlled demolition.  (WTC 7 was not struck by a plain.  In a matter of seconds, it collapsed into its own footprint in precisely the manner in which a building collapses from controlled deposition.  Guiliani can be seen in a videotape taken on 9/11 stating that he was given 10 to 15 minutes advance notice to get out because the building was going to collapse.)

I thought, well, so what?  Who’s to say al Qaeda didn’t plant the charges that brought it down?  That thought was erased when Prof. Steven E. Jones noted that WTC 7, which housed branches of our intelligence agencies, was perhaps one of the most secure buildings in the U.S.  That pretty much eliminates the possibility that a team of al Qaeda nut cases got in to plant the devices.

Report this

By ender, December 12, 2007 at 7:52 am Link to this comment

I knew of the post Desert Storm think tank PNAC drive to set up a permanent presence in the mideast, and so was opposed to Bush’s first theft of the presidency, and knew what was going on when DickBush decided to virtually give up on bin Laden and go after Iraq.  Clinton played his part by keeping up the sanctions and further destroying Iraq’s infrastructue, to make them as pliable as possible.

Even then though, I believed that al Queada was responsible for 9/11, and Islamic terrorism was a real threat.  The thought that an American adminstration could have orchestrated the attack was just too horrific to contemplate.

I’m starting to doubt my own deductions.  I have finally started to enter the realm of horror I couldn’t imagine.  The more I see of the insanity and drive for power of this cabal, the more I’m afraid that 9/11 was most likely done by a CIA run bin Laden, and with the assistance of US controlled operatives.

This is too much.  Without armed insurrection, this nation may soon cease to exist as Democratic Republic of the People.  And Americans have become so complacent and coddled, they are probably incapable of the great acts of courage it would take to restore our Constitutional Gov’t.  The Democrats are little different from the Republicans, and I really believe that if Kucinich or Paul won the election, DickBush would declare an emergency and stop the transfer of power.

I believe that discussion happened on this board, but a military coup may be the only thing that can stop the administration from proceeding to bomb Iran, overthrow Chavez, and possibly launch preemptive nuclear strikes against Russia before it can rebuild it’s military, and China, if it threatens to intervene anywhere.

The Americans of the WWII era have come to be known as the Great Generation.

We may come to be known as the Last Generation.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 12, 2007 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

Paul, I left that out due to space limitations.  The Kafka-like military tribunal system was imposed on a detainee population, 55% of whom, per a Seton Hall study, had never committed a hostile act and only 8% of which were allegedly connected to al Qaeda.  The vast majority, 86%, were captured either by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance at a time when the US was offering huge bounties for “suspected” terrorists.  Per Mayer the JAG & CIA officers sent to Guantanamo to find out why no useful intelligence was being extracted returned, reporting that “more than half the detainees…didn’t belong there.”  There pleas were callously ignored.  A perplexed administration official questioned the logic:  “How could you deny the possibility that one or more people were locked up who shouldn’t be there?  There were old people, sick people—why do we want to keep them?”

Questing the utility of detaining the innocent makes sense only if one assumes that Addington and Gonzales possess the belie, however misguided, that there is utility in torture in terms of the “professed” goal of fighting the so-called war on terror.  But as the Mayer quote of the administration lawyer reveals, this isn’t about whether torture works.  It’s about power.  Indeed, the entire concept of a “war on terror” has nothing to do with protecting the American people.  Assuming the absence of official complicity, the logical response to 9/11 would have been to seek the assistance of the UN and World Court in bringing the perpetrators before the bar of justice.

There are many salient critiques demonstrating the very notion of a “war on terror” borders upon a meaningless oxymoron.  Gen. Wm. Odom noted, “Terrorism is not an eney.  It cannot be defeated.  It’s a tactic.  It’s about as sensible to say we decalre war on night attacks and expect we’re going to winn that war.”  Howard Zinn observed, “You cannot make war on terrorism, if war itself is terrorism.”  These miss the point.  The purpose of the phrase “war on terror” is Orwellian.  It conjures a perpetual war against a phantom menace who is everywhere and anywhere at all times.  War without end. 

To understand the Bush regime you have to consider anything they do or say in terms of capturing unlimited power.  That is why we have to take serious the ominous executive orders now in place that would permit the president to pull a Musharref in the event of a new terrorist incident on U.S. soil, not to mention the piecemeal destruction of civil liberties and the rule of law.  As Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration warns, people have to appreciate the level of Cheney’s ruthlessness.

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 12, 2007 at 2:00 am Link to this comment

In addition to what you stated, Ernest, I’ve read the US was also paying up to $25,000 for Afghanis to turn in members of the Taliban. In a country as poor as that what better way for Afghanis to settle old grudges & profit from it at the same time?

Probably, one reason they can’t let the prisoners go from Git-mo is they know they would likely go back to Afghanistan and exact revenge on those who sent them off to be tortured in various inhuman ways.

Still waters run deep. The Americans who have recognized the ‘clear & present danger’, represented to our democracy by this administration, and an increasing number of the military who feel they have been used & duped, are beginning to make the waters boil. Woe unto those who will be on the receiving end of wrathful America’s seriously armed civilian population. One reason the troops are probably still ‘out country’ is the consequences of them all returning to our shores (very pissed off) could be considerable. Adm. Fallon has already stated no intention to attack Iran on his watch, so look for him to be replaced very soon. It’s the MO of this administration in the past with any non-lackeys, right?

Report this

By cann4ing, December 11, 2007 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

Ender, the key players in the Iran-Contra Minority Report were Dick Cheney and his current chief of staff David Addington.  As revealed by the Jane Mayer “The New Yorker” piece, “The Hidden Power,” Addington was the chief architect of not only the more than 1000 presidential signing statements but the series of torture memos.  Addington is a layer who began his government legal career inside imperialism’s cover branch, resisting Congressional oversight at the William Casey-led CIA before moving on in 1987 to assist then Congressman Richard Cheney with the Minority Report—a report which assered that it was “Congress—not the President—[which] had overstepped its authority, by encroaching on the President’s foreign-policy powers.  The President, the report said, had been driven by ‘a legitimate frustration with abuses of power and irresolution of the legislative branch.”

In the wake of 9/11, Mayer informs us, Addington advanced a doctrine known as “The New Paradigm,” in which he asserted “that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it.  Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detentions and warrantless surveillance have been set aside”—a doctrine which Alberto Mora, the Navy’s general counsel, described as “an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the president’s Commander-in-Chief authority.”

Columbia law professor Scott Horton observed that Addington seeks “to overturn two centuries of of jurisprudence defining the limits of the executive branch” creating “war” as “a matter of dictatorial power.”  Within the framework of a perpetual war on terror that is endless, this amounts to the installation of the executive branch as permanent dictator.

It was Addington who came up with the Kafka-like military tribunals, not because he wanted to afford Guantanamo detainees anything resembling a trial but as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rasul v. Bush that Guantanamo was not beyond the reach of the law.  As noted by the Court in Hamdan, the detainee “will not be permitted to hear the testimony, see the witness’s face, or learn his name.  If the government has information developed by witnesses in Afghanistan or elsewhere, it can offer such evidence in transcript form or even summaries of transcripts.”  Translated from legalese, once designated an “enemy combatant” and accused can be convicted on “evidence” obtained by torture that the accused would neither see nor hear.  If the “evidence” were obtained by pulling out someone’s fingernails, it could be presented by way of a summary that edited out the screams. 

When JAG & CIA officers sent to find out why we weren’t getting actionable intelligence returned, reporting that most didn’t belong there they were stonewalled by Addington and Alberto Gonzales.  While one was perplexed, another administration lawyer told Mayer, “Torture isn’t important to Addington as a scientific matter, good or bad, or whether it works or not.  It’s about his philosophy of Presidential power.  He thinks if the President wants torture he should get torture.  He always argued for ‘maximum flexibility.’”

Report this

By ender, December 11, 2007 at 7:49 am Link to this comment


Cheney also served as ranking minority member of the Congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra - a scandal involving members of the Reagan Administration who helped to illegally sell arms to Iran, and then used the proceeds to fund, also illegally, the Contras, a guerrilla militia in Nicaragua resisting the elected Sandinista government.[22] In that role he supervised the production of a minority report which strongly rejected the majority finding[23] that a “cabal of zealots” in the administration who had “disdain for the law” had violated the statute.[24][25]

Report this

By ender, December 11, 2007 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

GWB’s biggest problem is the same as any recovering alcoholic that doesn’t ‘work the program’.  He’s a dry drunk that wants nothing better than to knock back a bottle of Jack while tootin’ up big rails of the finest Peruvian Snot Detergent.  As often diagnosed by psychologist, he’s also a sociopath, with almost 0 empathy, who’s internalized his reality to the point where that internal world is the real to him.  If not for the power of the bush familiy, MOMMA’S LITTLE COCAINE COWBOY would probably be in jail for committing some time of criminal act, just because he doesn’t have a conscience to tell him “NO”!

Now Darth Cheney is a completely different dark beast, and here is a little history in case you weren’t aware.  For more backgroung material, I’d recommend Boyd, the Air Force Pilot that Changed the Art of War.  Cheney’s just a sub character, but the book is damn good.

•  Cheney has lead a very interesting career, orchestrated from the beginning to put him into a position to be able to control the flow of Defense Department cash to his company, Haliburton, and to the defense companies that the Bush’s Family money is largely invested in.  As a Senator, and then as SecDef, Cheney was a mover and shaker in that arena.  As a Senator, he pushed for reform of Pentagon procurement that called for weapons creation to specification with selection based on test results from working prototypes conducted by the military, rather than having solutions forced on the military due to the revolving door of guaranteed high$$ jobs for Pentagon officials that bought what the defense industry told them to.
As a result of years of this, Cheney, eventually as Bush1’s secdef, managed to wrestle procurment authority from the Pentagon and Congress, to almost sole control of the Sec Def.
The results are war where there are more contractors on the ground than soldiers, and the contractors make much more money, and die less frequently.
Dick has made himself into the GOD OF WAR, AMERICAN STYLE.  Momma’s Little Cocaine Cowboy is just his hand puppet.
From Wikopedia, a few more tidbits about The Dick:
Among the many votes he cast during his tenure in the House, he voted in 1979 with the majority against making Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday a national holiday, and again voted with the majority in 1983 when the measure passed.
He voted against the creation of the U.S. Department of Education, citing his concern over budget deficits and expansion of the federal government. He also claimed the Department was an encroachment on states’ rights.[18]
He also voted against funding Head Start. As a vice presidential candidate in 2000, he reversed his position.[19]
In 1986, after President Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill to impose economic sanctions against South Africa for its official policy of apartheid, Cheney was one of 83 Representatives who voted against overriding the veto. In later years, Cheney articulated his opposition to “unilateral sanctions,” against many different countries, stating “they almost never work.”[20] He also opposed unilateral sanctions against Communist Cuba, and later in his career he would support multilateral sanctions against Iraq. In 1986, Cheney, along with 145 Republicans and 31 Democrats, voted against a non-binding Congressional resolution calling on the South African government to release Nelson Mandela from prison, after the majority Democrats defeated proposed amendments to the language that would have required Mandela to renounce violence sponsored by the African National Congress (ANC) and requiring the ANC to oust the Communist faction from leadership. The resolution was defeated. Appearing on CNN during the Presidential campaign in 2000, Cheney addressed criticism for this, saying he opposed the resolution because the ANC “at the time was viewed as a terrorist organization and had a number of interests that were fundamentally inimical to the United States.”[21]

Report this

By cann4ing, December 10, 2007 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

Paul:  Thank you.  I was able to link to the excerpt of the death bed confession that aired on NPR.

I think we have to view skeptically much of what E Howard Hunt says, especially his effort to implicate LBJ, though his involvement is certainly a “possibility.”  The transcript of Hunt v. Liberty Lobby reveals that Hunt is a perjurer.  Additionally, Hunt himself confessed in sworn testimony: Long after Kennedy’s death and at the behest of Charles Colson, Hunt forged State Department cables in order to implicate Kennedy in the assassination of former So. Vietnamese Pres. Ngo Dinh Diem.  Hunt accomplished this by drafting cables that could no longer be found in sequence in the State Department’s files because they had been transfered to the Kennedy library.  Hunt forwarded copies of the cables to Time & Life Magazines.

Lane’s central thesis is that the CIA killed Kennedy because Kennedy, in the wake of the Bay of Pigs, intended to dismantle the CIA following an expected 1964 electoral victory; had issued National Security Action memo 263 on 10/2/63 containing a blueprint for a total withdrawal from Vietnam and was looking for a rapproachment with Cuba.  The intent to dismantle the CIA was confirmed by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, the Joint Chief’s head of special operations 1955-1963 and is supported by Kennedy’s firing of Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence, Dep. Dir. Charles Cabell and Richard Bissell, Dep. Dir. of Plans.  Lane asserts Kennedy not only considered sending Wm. Atwood, U.S. Ambassador to Guinea to negotiate with Castro, but asked Atwood’s friend, French journalist Jean Daniel to convey to Castro that he, Kennedy, accepted that “the ‘economic colonization, humiliation, and exploitation’ visted upon Cuba were at least in part due to the policies of the United States….”  Kennedy asked Daniel to pass on to Castro that the “United States can coexist with a nation in the hemisphere that espouses a different economic system….It is the subservient relationship with the Soviet Union that creates the problem.”  This was followed by a Nov. 18, 1963 address in which Kennedy stated the U.S. would “not dictate to any nation how to organize its economic life.”

When Kennedy’s position was relayed, Castro not only told Daniel he believed Kennedy “still has the possibility of being, in the eyes of history, the greatest president of the United States, the leader who may at last understand that there can be coexistence between capitalists and socialists.”

There is a rather curious connection between the Kennedy assassination and Watergate that goes beyond the Lorenz identification of Watergate burglars Hunt & Sturgis.  The connection was made by none other than H.R. Haldeman in “The Ends of Power” (1978).  Seeking CIA protection from the escalating Watergate scandal, Nixon dispatched Haldeman to meet with Richard Helms.  When he met the usual CIA stonewalling, Haldeman told Helms that the “president asked me to tell you this entire affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs….”  Helms came unglued, gripping the arms of his chair and shouting there was no connection.  Haldeman, initially perplexted by Helm’s overreaction, observed:  “It seems that in all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs he was referring to the Kennedy assassination.”

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 9, 2007 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment

Here’s where I saw the JFK article, Ernest. It said the confession aired on NPR, so you might find something there:

I’ve seen the article the info you just posted came from also. There is another that includes a chart of all the CIA/Bush 41 tenacles & connections, and when I find where I put it I’ll post the link.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 9, 2007 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

Paul, I haven’t read Hunt’s death bed confession, but would love to in light of the content of Mark Lane’s “Plausible Denial,” which was based on Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby—a defamation action brought by Hunt because it had published an article by Victor Marchetti which implicated Hunt, the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans in the assassination of JFK.  Lane defendant the case in U.S. District Court in FL and received a favorable verdict, the jury foreperson stating they were convinced the CIA killed Kennedy and that Hunt was a part of it.

Lane included major portions of the transcripts in which he demolished Hunt’s claim that he was in Washington DC on the day of the assassination.  He also introduced the sworn testimony of Marita Lorenz, who had been Fidel Castro’s girlfriend until Frank Sturgis, who would later be convicted along with Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy, for his role in Watergate, convinced her to flee to the US where she was recruited into the CIA. 

Lorenz testified she, along with Sturgis, Jack Patrick Hemming, Orlando Bosch & Alexander Rorke, Jr. traveled by way of a two-car caravan, loaded with weapons, from Miami to Dallas in Nov. 1963 where Hunt showed up at their motel room and handed an envelope filled with cash to Sturges.  Hunt remained for about 45 minutes.  Within an hour of Hunt’s departure another individual arrived—Jack Ruby!  Lorenz was not aware of their target but was told it was a “big” operation and that she would act as a decoy.  She had second thoughts; persuaded Sturgis to take her to the airport and flew back to Miami.

Hunt’s lawyer, not having the sense to leave matters there, asked her if she later spoke to Sturgis about the assassination.  He did, telling her that she missed “the really big one.”

“We killed the president that day.  You could have been a part of it—you know, part of history.  You should have stayed.  It was safe.  Everything was covered in advance.  No arrests, no real newspaper investigation.  It was all covered, very professional.”

So, Paul, if you have a link to the Hunt death bed confession, please provide it.

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 9, 2007 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment

RE: #119085 by Ernest Canning on 12/09 at 9:47 am
(1285 comments total)

It even goes deeper (and farther back) than that, Ernest, but there are some people & things coming out now that few people realize. I’ve been researching, reading, and as you know, writing, about a number of these items for quite some time now, and it’s nice to see some other people are, or are becoming, ‘awake’. You’ve seen me posting links, and they are pertinent to issues to maintain our freedom, or even regaining it.

All I can say at the moment is if you AREN’T wearing a ‘tin foil hat’ you’re dreadfully out of fashion.

FYI, Ollie North was rather a late arrival on the fascisct scene. It goes even farther back than this, but one of the major ‘beginnings of the attempted end’ started with the JFK assassination. If you haven’t researched E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession concerning the event, and naming who the real culprits were, I would suggest it.

You might also want to see what is contained in this piece concerning what the neo-CONS are planning:  ( Z. Bzrezinski Feb 2007)
Here is another one listing the FEMA detention centers state by state. Concentration camps is probably a more correct label, and their current capacity is around 2 million:
They are controlled by the head of DHS, Michael Chertoff, who is in charge of numerous agencies in the government that employ literally hundreds of thousands, and this bastard has a dual Isreali/US citizenship. BTW, in Russian his name means “of the devil”, how appropriate, eh? He and bush are attempting to move complete control of the military under their civilian control:

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, December 9, 2007 at 9:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Watching major news networks, you’d think nothing else went on in the world other than The Battle Between The Candidates Today. Yet when you click on Most Popular news at news websites, the candidates are hardly visible. Corporate TV News is hellbent on making politicians celebrities with voters. Sorry K-Street, until politicians return to working For The People, they are anti-celebrities to me and mine.

And Mister Olbermann is right. You’d have to be incredibly dumb to want to be President of the United States for K-Street and spew their lies. Because eventually, We The People will hunt you down.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 9, 2007 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

Verne Arnold:  Thanks for the link.  While I was well aware of the disturbing links between the USA/PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, provisions in the last defense authorization bill and current executive orders (many classified), that would permit the administration to declare a national emergency, suspend the constitution, shut down Congress, and, of course, prevent the November 2008 elections from occuring, I had not been aware that the hard-right had been working on this as far back as Oliver North and the Iran/Contra hearings when questioning on the issue was prevented from airing in open session.

Amongst those now sounding the alarm is Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan administration, who contends that most Americans do not comprehend the level of Cheney’s ruthlessness; that he and the administration have no intention of surrendering power just because the Constitution calls for an end of their term.  To that I would add that we are dealing with people who could potentially face future war crimes prosecution if they even left office.

While this video provides an excellent linkage of the pieces of a potentially totalitarian puzzle, there is an added link—the lesson that is to be learned from history, where, as noted by Richard Evans in “The Coming of the Third Reich,” in the wake of the Reichstag fire, Hitler convinced the non-Nazi members of his cabinet to pass a decreee which suspended key articles of the Weimar constitution, “particularly those governing freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and assiciation.  It allowed for police to detain people in protective custody indefinitely and without a court order, in strict contrast to previous laws, which had set strict time limits before judicial intervention occurred.”

In the face of this clear and present danger to the very survival of our constitutional democracy, it is incumbent upon our elected representatives to initiate impeachment hearings now, not “after” Cheney launches an assault on Iran next April as a precursor to a “national emergency declaration” as suggested by Senator Biden.  Yet, the so-called Democratic “leadership” is so intent on trolling for corporate dollars needed for the next election, they are all but blinded to the danger.  Their ultimate fate could be the same as the sorry fate that awaited the Weimar Republic’s Social Democrats, many of whom found themselves in route to concentration camps after the Nazis, over their opposition, obtain the Enabling Act, which transferred all legislative power to Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

Ben Franklin’s words are as true today as when he uttered them more than 200 years ago.  “Those who trade Liberty for Security deserve neither.”

Report this

By Verne Arnold, December 8, 2007 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment

#119004 by Joe R. on 12/08 at 5:47 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Here’s the web address for that video…yes, scares the hell out of me…Thanks

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 8, 2007 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

When I clicked on the video on this link a minute ago it wouldn’t work, and automatically closed my server. Tried it again and it worked this time:

This has been happening a lot lately. When I am doing Google searches & research whenever I seem to be getting close to some revelation adverse to this administration I’ll click on a link and it either crashes my computer or freezes it up. It’s a brand new HP so my suspicians are growing, and works great whenever the subject matter is innocuous.

Anybody else having problems?

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 8, 2007 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment

Here’s a link to the video:

Report this

By Joe R., December 8, 2007 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush isn’t stupid but he sure is corrupt.  They are going to steal that oil and they will kill anyone who tries to stop them.  We better face the facts that the Congress is scared to death of this man.  His use of signing statements that circumvent the Congress and make them irrelevant set the real tone of what this sociopath is all about.  See “What we choose to ignore,” on You tube.  That will scare the hell out of ya.

Report this

By herbaddict, December 8, 2007 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

there is something very cathartic about listening to him rake Bush over the coals.

Report this

By vet240, December 8, 2007 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

I think bush is both the “Idiot-IN-Chief” and a pathological liar.

In a recent article in my home town paper Moan Charen an apparent “professional writer, submitted an article in which a she attacked Ron Paul and his followers as “Neo-fascists”.

The real message in her article was to sway any “soft” Republicans away from Paul back into the mainstream Republican party. To do so she stated that when Paul supporters used the phrase “Neo-Con” they were speaking in code. She said “Neo-con” was really code speak for “Jew”. She also spoke with disdain of Ron Paul referring to “Dark Forces” in our country.

She invited anyone who wanted to contact her, they could at . I went to that site and found it to be an agency representing many right-wing writers and entertainers. People like Robert Novack and Bill O’Reilly. I found her location to be ironic when considering the possibility of there being “Dark forces”

I would encourage everybody to go to the site mentioned and sound off to Mona Charen.

I would like to see Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul given as much monetary and voluntary support as possible. Lets get back to a time (did it ever exist?) when the government was representative of the people and not just hacks for the Military/Industrial complex, Multi-National corporations and big energy.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 8, 2007 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

Something strange has been happening with my local newspaper in the last week. We are actually getting several of the articles that are on the same topics posted on TD, some a day later, but actual news. Our papers have been so censored since 9-11 what we used to get in one days worth of news and number of pages we had been receiving now it takes a total of a week+ 5-6 days to make the same amount of pages now. Even most of the local news has disappeared so what we have been getting since 2002 can be read in about 10 minutes or less. But lately that has changed for the better. Can some of these repressed reporters actually growing some backbone and starting to do their jobs again? There may be hope yet for getting this information to the rest of the population, even though the number of people who do read has decreased drastically in the last few years. We can hope.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 8, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

Ernest, I did think of adding additional catagories, but it would become to depressing. This covers some of the main things wrong with Bush. If a full work up were ever to be done on him, the computer would have a meltdown trying to input all the information about his “defects” and cause a major power blackout similar to the one during his first term in the WH when the electric power grid went out for about half the country and parts of Canada. I was a lucky one that time, we still had power then. If it happens again, as I don’t know if the problem was ever fixed as Bush claimed it cost to much-about 4 billion dollars or what he admits to spending in just a week in Iraq, that he admits too as we all know he lies, it would cover the whole of North America.

Now that I have my stress out for the day on to other more informative information.

Report this

By Eric L. Prentis, December 8, 2007 at 10:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hurray for Keith Olbermann, his truth speaking about President Bush’s lies about Iran are brilliant, but, I fear he is one lone media voice in a mainstream media controlled by corporate America, i.e., the 32% who still support President Bush really need to hear Olbermann’s views, however, they never will. Olbermann’s conclusion is correct about President Bush, he should not be president.

Report this

By Mushin J. Schilling, December 8, 2007 at 10:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The video is no longer available on youTube, but I found it here (at least I think this is the one you allude to in your article)

Report this

By cann4ing, December 8, 2007 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

Great post, purplewolf.  That would make for an excellent new DSM IV criteria, someone suffering from “tri-polar” disorder.  But you left out the delusional aspect of his character in which he thinks he actually talks to his pal Jesus.  Qaudri-polar?

Report this

By Tex, December 8, 2007 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

Thank God that Keith Olbermann is around to point out just how much of an idiot bu$h is.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, December 8, 2007 at 3:21 am Link to this comment

The intelligence I refer to is innate….not military.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, December 8, 2007 at 3:18 am Link to this comment

#118832 by Ga on 12/07 at 9:19 pm
(120 comments total)

.....“that major policy decisions, including decisions of war and peace, are based on intelligence in the first place; that a decision to go to war is one made only after cool and careful rational deliberation; and that nations go to war for the reasons they announce to the world.”


Well, for all the good it will do, nicely said and point on.  Intelligence, if not applied, is wasted.  Of course intelligence of and by itself is not enough; there must be something else, a sense of ……what?  I no longer know.  No matter what one thinks of the opposition (enemy?) intelligence is not lacking in them; that’s why they are formidable.  Are we cowards?  Is that it?  Sorry for the circular rhetoric but I’m very tired……………………………

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 8, 2007 at 1:11 am Link to this comment

Re: #118832 by Ga on 12/07

Excellent point Ga, I agree.  This is exactly what I feel people either forget or are unaware of.  We could argue all day on this, that or the other thing but it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference in the end.  I know many at truthdig understand this but still so many more are only beginning to realize it. Which in many ways is understandable….awful….but realistically it’s a pretty hard fact to assimilate if in fact you hadn’t already known. I’m reposting that portion of your post.  Excellent.

From GA’s post:

“It deserves emphasis that this latest NIE tells us nothing—let me repeat that, nothing—that was not entirely obvious to a reasonably intelligent layperson who followed mainstream media reports about Iran for the last several years.


Let us start with the most crucial point. The reaction from all quarters to the NIE relies on several interrelated central assumptions, ones that are regarded as so unquestionably true that no one thinks they need to be stated: that major policy decisions, including decisions of war and peace, are based on intelligence in the first place; that a decision to go to war is one made only after cool and careful rational deliberation; and that nations go to war for the reasons they announce to the world.


Lack of intelligence? It’s in our Government as well as in our People.”

Report this

By mpgarr, December 8, 2007 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

I may be totally cynical regarding Bush—but I don’t think that he cares much if at all about whether he tells the truth or not—-he is kind of like the corporate CEO who gets a $100 million dollar bonus for gutting a corporation—laying waste to those who worked for the company—the towns it had operations and the like that are now suffering-as are those companies who were suppliers to that company and the like. In this case with Bush, Cheney and their ilk—they got theirs and the rest of us be damned.  They care not that they left a negative legacy upon this nation, they may even be glad they helped to undermine this nation in so mamy ways. They will live out their days in their rarified air—immune from all of the things they have wrought.

Report this

By purplewolf, December 7, 2007 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

Hi Cyrena and Ernest:
I commented in another TD post about the lying of the shrub: This is a multiple choice answer, we all know the question:




Take your pick or all of them. Not only do you have that one how about this one:

GW is tri-polar: 1/3 deliusional, 1/3 insane, 1/3 a sociopath. He could also be called paranoid and multiple personality disorder. But whatever it is he is clearly unfit to serve public office and Cheney is even more deluded. They both suffer from depraved indifference and need to go immediately.

Report this

By Ga, December 7, 2007 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

And,just who enables these liars of ours?

Played for Fools Yet Again: About that Iran “Intelligence” Report

Our political establishment, our media and, with only a handful of exceptions, all bloggers are akin to the tenth-generation products of a relentless experiment in genetic manipulation, one designed to select exclusively for gross stupidity and an unerring ability to miss every relevant point completely and utterly. We have generously been provided with “authoritative” takes on the Iran story from both right (broadly defined), courtesy of Instapundit, and left (broadly defined), courtesy of Digby.

It deserves emphasis that this latest NIE tells us nothing—let me repeat that, nothing—that was not entirely obvious to a reasonably intelligent layperson who followed mainstream media reports about Iran for the last several years.


Let us start with the most crucial point. The reaction from all quarters to the NIE relies on several interrelated central assumptions, ones that are regarded as so unquestionably true that no one thinks they need to be stated: that major policy decisions, including decisions of war and peace, are based on intelligence in the first place; that a decision to go to war is one made only after cool and careful rational deliberation; and that nations go to war for the reasons they announce to the world.


Lack of intelligence? It’s in our Government as well as in our People.

Report this

By Ga, December 7, 2007 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Oh yeah. And don’t forget this:

February 25, 2003
“It is important for the Iraqi leadership and Iraqi generals to clearly understand that if they take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held to account as war criminals.”

Report this

By Ga, December 7, 2007 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

I documented these Bush Quotes some time ago, same pattern:

September 12, 2002
“Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

January 28, 2002
“Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

October 7, 2002
“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.”

February 8, 2003
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons—the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.”

March 17, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

May 3, 2003
“We’ll find them. And it’s just going to be a matter of time to do so.”

May 6, 2003
“I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein—because he had a weapons program.”

June 9, 2003
“Iraq had a weapons program…Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we’ll find out they did have a weapons program.”

July 17, 2003
“We won’t be proven wrong. I believe that we will find the truth. And the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction.”

October 9, 2003

“I was not about to leave the security of the American people in the hands of a madman.”

Report this

By cyrena, December 7, 2007 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

#118746 by Ernest Canning
•  The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.  One can be both a pathological liar and an idiot-in-chief.

Ernest, You took the words out of my mouth, (or fingertips, or whatever). It’s more of the either/or syndrome, that we’ve all so casually (or maybe not so causally) fallen into. In this case of course, it’s BOTH (pathological liar/sociopath and total lack of any measure of intellectual capacity). But, the results of this can also depend on the ‘circumstance’ as Thomas Billis so excellently pointed out.

Regan really WAS NOT particularly smart, (even before the Alzheimer’s kicked in) He wasn’t particularly ‘social’ either, (neither the majority OR the common good was ever a priority for him). BUT, he was at least smart enough to pick some advisors of some intellect, (even if they weren’t particularly ‘moral’) and smart enough to listen to them. And, he had enough of the skill himself, (note his ‘actor’ qualifications) to fool most of the people, most of the time. At the end, many folks figured out that his “reganomics’ or ‘trickledown’ economy, only helped a few, since they never got around to ‘trickling’ any of it down. But, that’s for a different conversation.

Still, this goes back to the very basic and simple statement that was shared (among aware people) 8 years ago, in the 2000 election run-up. “A Bush/Cheney executive is a DANGER!” George Bush is dangerous because he is STUPID, and Dick Cheney is dangerous because he is NOT!” This did not specific that they were both sociopaths, but one understanding the basics, would have understood that.

Meantime, when I tried to access the video, I got a response that this video was no longer available. And yes, my reaction is one generated by paranoia. WHY is it no longer available? WHO took it down/off/made it unavailable? (and so rapidly)
I immediately checked my daily watch site, ( because they generally make Keith’s statements/addresses available on that site. BUT, it wasn’t there either.

So, does anyone know where there might still be a video of this still available/accessible? I (personally) have no problems with READING his words, since that’s generally my preferred way of absorbing this information/awareness. BUT, I’ve long ago had to accept that a rather huge portion of the American public is pretty much ‘put off’ by this concept of ‘reading’, which is why the video cultural has so taken over. Intellectually lazy people have become dependent on videos/movies/TV/etc to ‘enlighten’ them on the issues that concern them, (or SHOULD concern them) and so it’s become the only way they get their ‘news’.

Recognizing that, could that be the reason why this video was made to disappear so quickly?

I’ll keep reading, but if anyone knows where I can access the video to share with those who ‘don’t do reading’ I’d appreciate it.

Report this

By Ga, December 7, 2007 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

“Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War”

This video is more important than ever now. It documents that not only the President was a liar, but so too Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and a dozen “Right Wing” pundits such as Safire, Will and Kristol, as well as the criminally insane Richard Perle.

Report this

By Howard McPherson, December 7, 2007 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I will continue to believe anything President Bush wants me to believe. I know that just as he is listening in to my phone service, to asure quality, that the lies are for my benefit.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 7, 2007 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

lastdaywatcher, your continual quotes from the fairy tale repository, aka the Bible, are a bit tiresome.  You want to preach, go to church.

Report this

By QuyTran, December 7, 2007 at 5:26 pm Link to this comment

There’re absolutely no Pathological Liar and Idiot-In-Chief. He’s just Stupid and Impertinent by birth !

Report this

By Thomas Billis, December 7, 2007 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

Boy I cannot decide which one to vote for.Pathological liar or idiot in chief.There is such a good case to be made for both.I am leaning to idiot in chief but am open for other commenters to help me make up my mind.
Bush is the worst kind of idiot.It is one thing to be an idiot and know it and depend on smart people to help you make decisions and it is quite another thing to be an idiot and not know it and delude yourself into thinking you are smart and that everyone around you is an idiot.Ronald Reagan case in point was not too bright but he surrounded himself with incredibly competent people so that even in the second term when the Alzheimer’s was taking effect the Government was still in good hands.Yes I realize by making the above statement I will be hearing from irate Republicans who feel Reagan was descended from the God’s but the facts are the facts.

Report this

By mythbreaker, December 7, 2007 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you Mr. Olbermann, you’re a rare breed today.

NPR/PBS and the MSMedia monster made Bush our worst nightmare. They packaged the Ugliness and made it palatable.

These are sad and dangerous times in the once OK corral.

Report this

By Don Stivers, December 7, 2007 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

Well, so what?  Anything going to be done about this lying?  I don’t think so.  Our Congress is just going to procrastinate until the liars are out of office and then do NOTHING to punish these creeps.

And if we bomb Iran, I bet they have a container ship sitting out in the Atlantic waiting to fire a Tomahawk missile at the Capital Building.  It seems they would have the right to retaliate. Or shoot it at the White House or wherever. The idiots don’t care about the consequences.  If they don’t care they can’t think.

Report this

By Frostedflakes, December 7, 2007 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

If only our elected officials and the national media corps had the courage which Keith displays not only would Bush/Cheney be impeached,and indicted, but we would not be in the morass which is Iraq.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, December 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

December 07, 2007
by Indigent Riter

The People’s Lobbyist staunchly declared their stance from the steps of Congress today:

“All Three Branches of Government have failed. So now, the Fourth Branch must rise…‘We The People’ demand representatives either <u>stand</u> <u>up</u> NOW against this Administration or <u>step</u> <u>down</u> NOW so that real leaders can undo the damage of your neglect. Our silence may no longer be accepted as your support. From this moment on, The Fourth Branch withdraws ALL support from the persecutors that never shoulder accountability or fault. You are vampires of true American democracy and this violent bloodshed on truth shall not stand.”

(there exists no ‘people’s lobbyist’ so, we can dream of being represented or we begin demanding impeachment, recalls and resignations)

Report this
lastdaywatchers's avatar

By lastdaywatchers, December 7, 2007 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Here is a excerpt form the May 15th Prophecy
“It is only God faithfulness to his promise to Abraham,Issac and Jacob that Britain and the United State will not be invaded but because of the Lies of leadership he will send forth 144,000 to bare witness to the Truth because the leaders will be in bed with the lie of the Beast when he shall come to power.

Report this

By cann4ing, December 7, 2007 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.  One can be both a pathological liar and an idiot-in-chief.  That’s what really distinguishes Bush and Cheney.  They both lie, constantly.  Cheney, a masterful Orwellian sociopath, does so while lowering the tone of his voice to deliver his whoppers as if he were simply reading the ingredients of some unimportant recipe.  Bush will try to lie just as much, but when he does, he stumbles over his own tongue.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook