Thursday, January 11, 2007


Why Not Give Bush The Benefit Of The Doubt?


Tonight, Keith Olbermann, as he so frequently does, succintly put together the case as to why the President LONG AGO lost ANY credibility he might have in presenting ANY case for future plans in Iraq. Here is the transcript from Olbermann:
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 would 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.
So, tell me again why I'm supposed to give this President the benefit of the doubt on this new plan that essentially rejects the findings of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and military experts?

Posted by FleshPresser at 12:34 AM /

2 Comments

  • Anonymous Mike McGann posted at 5:33 PM  
    I'm amazed to see there are still a few people — beyond Fox News Channel — who keep defending Bush. Most sensible people have gotten off the bandwagon.

    How many times has this guy lied to the American people?

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 6:28 PM  
    You won't find the defenders here, Mike. What's sad is that last night I listened to his address to the nation - I purposefully listened on radio in my car, so as not to judge him based on his appearance, as it so often comes off as so oafish.

    I TRIED listening to the President as though he were a Democratic president - or at least a President that I supported and admired.

    I TRIED listening to him objectively. Let's hear the man out, I thought to myself.

    But it didn't work. And I'm afraid it didn't work for a majority of Americans, either. Polls of the American attitude in the coming days will tell the story, but I'm afraid this President has lost all credibility with a vast majority of those for whom he governs.

    For an AMAZING President, the work ahead would be difficult. For Bush, it will be impossible.

  • Post a Comment

    « Home