Keith Olberman reviews the lack of credibility that has permeated the Commander in Chief on Iraq.Download (7699) | Play (6600) Download (2957) | Play (4384)
Keith: We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers. As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists. The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Transcripts below the fold
Olbermann: President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.
But in our third story on the Countdown tonight… too bad.
Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.
So, let's look at the record:
Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.
Now, he says it is vital for America.
He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.
He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.
He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.
He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.
He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.
He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.
Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.
Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.
He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.
We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.
As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',
The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.
The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
- He's already said he wasn't happy with the situation in Iraq.
- He's already said that the Iraqi Government has been "disarming the militias and death squads".
- He's already said we would focus on better training and equiping the Iraqi forces.
- He's already talked about sharing oil revenues and reforming de-baathification.
- He's already talked about reaching out to local Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE.
- He's already said he mourns the loss of every American soldier.
- The only thing he didn't say was "We're definately winning".
This "New Way Forward" is the same-old way forward plus another 21,500 troops. Only 11% of the country supports this. It's a losing strategy, just like the losing strategy he's been employing all along. He's completely ignored the Iraq Study Group and will completely ignore Congress. Last night I heard Sean Hannity proclaim...
If the American people were united behind this effort, there is no way we could fail.So basically it's our fault that George W. Bush is a total fuckup? It's our fault he started a War with an unarmed country under false pretenses? It's our fault he didn't listen to General Shinseki, didn't pay attention to the looting, didn't respond to the insurgency, didn't correct problems with the reconstruction, de-Baathified, disbanded the Iraqi Army without first disarming the Iraqi Army, failed to properly train and equip the new Iraqi Security Forces, and now can't even admit that Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War? No, sir - this is not our fault.
This is George W. Bush's fault and although he may claim "Where Mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" - he has failed to do the right thing and take full responsibility by stepping down as President (and taking Cheney with him) and allowing someone who knows what they're doing to take over.
That's taking responsibility, everything Bush has done to date - is far from it.
Vyan
No comments:
Post a Comment