Olbermann does his thing, dissecting the Bush story for its sophisticated spin and dazzling stupidity.... Here's the transcript...
Late-breaking news tonight on why a suspension may not be the final punishment for Don Imus, coming up.
First, stunning words of far greater consequence, spoken amid far less accountability, that are literally life or death for thousands of Americans, not from a radio host, but from a president.
Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN, the last time President Bush addressed the American Legion, last August, his remarks kicked off a preelection propaganda campaign so destructive, it ultimately cost his party control of Congress.
When he addressed the American Legion again this morning, Mr. Bush tried to foist blame for his administration having extended tours of duty for thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq onto Democrats in Congress, because they have refused to rubber-stamp his failed plan for that conflict.
What it might cost him this time, perhaps any credibility he has left.
The president‘s remarks at once familiar, while finding new ways to mislead.
We begin tonight with the familiar, the 9/11 drumbeat about...
... Iraq, the bread and butter of Bush administration rhetoric, despite report after report that continue to say that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: If we retreat, we‘re to retreat from Iraq, what‘s interesting and different about this war is that the enemy would follow us here, and that‘s why it‘s important to succeed in Iraq.
I made a decision to remove a dictator, a tyrant, who was a threat to the United States, a threat to the free world, and a threat to the Iraqi people, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Does that imply Mr. Bush has done literally nothing else to secure the U.S.? What about the Homeland Security Department he created, or the many civil liberties Americans have sacrificed in the name of purportedly keeping this nation safe from something other than the Bush administration?
As for the alleged threats posed by Saddam‘s Iraq, no-fly zones and sanctions had been containing them, back before the American Legion today, Mr. Bush, trying to contain the PR damage of a military stretched the breaking point by blaming Democrats now using the power of the purse for the Pentagon‘s many woes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Some of our forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended, because other units are not ready to take their places. In a letter to Congress, the Army chief of staff, Pete Schoomaker, recently warned, “Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families.”
Bottom line is this. Congress‘s failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: So a lack of funding, which would happen, mind, you, only if the president vetoes that bill, what would be his own decision in doing, lest we forget, would mean troops would have to stay longer in Iraq, despite the purported unavailability of greenbacks to keep them there. By the same token, according to Bush logic, even more troops would have to go to the front even sooner than anticipated, presumably paying their own freight.
It is that kind of logic that got the Bush administration into this predicament in the first place, justifying the invasion, and now the escalation that keeps us there, always a house of cards that collapses upon close inspection. Case in the point, the administration‘s benchmarks for Iraq, that might exist in the abstract, but never seem to be enforced.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: And now it‘s time for these Iraqis, the Iraqi government, to stand up and start making some, making some strong political moves. And they‘re beginning to. I speak to the prime minister quite often, and remind him that here at home, we expect them to do hard work. We want to help, but we expect them to do some hard work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: For all of the president‘s bluster today, that is all Congress is really asking for from Iraq and the administration itself, accountability. Yet the White House is refusing even to negotiate with lawmakers, Mr. Bush inviting Democrats to meet with him, but only so he can tell them how wrong they are. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino asked today why Democrats should want to attend that meeting. Her answer, quote, “Maybe they need to hear again from the president about why he thinks it is foolish to set arbitrary timetables for withdrawal,” Majority Leader Harry Reid of the Senate saying today that most of America agrees with him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: American troops are putting their lives at risk every single day, but Iraqi leaders are not willing to take the political risk of governing their own country. That must change. That‘s what Congress is demanding. That‘s what the American people, by a large majority, demand. And the president should be leading us in that direction, not threatening to veto funding for our troops unless we rubber-stamp his flawed plan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Let‘s turn now to our own Howard Fineman, senior Washington correspondent for “Newsweek” magazine.
Howard, good evening.
HOWARD FINEMAN, SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, “NEWSWEEK” MAGAZINE:
Good evening, Keith.
OLBERMANN: This appears to be quite a gambit that the White House is taking here, blaming Democrats for extended tours of duty, for early callups to Iraq because the money might not be there. Is there not a risk for the White House in this, since, on the face of it, this does not appear to actually make any sense?
FINEMAN: Well, every time I think they can‘t pile more chips on one number, they keep finding more to put there. I talked to some White House people who claim that if they ask the question right—that is, in a way favorable to them—the American people support them on the narrow question of funding for the troops.
But that‘s like asking a question you already know the answer to, if you shape it in a way, saying, Do you support the troops? Everybody in America supports the troops.
I think that the president and his advisers really have no other idea, either substantively or politically, of how to proceed. They began this process not long after 9/11, with the speech George Bush gave at the State of the Union and elsewhere.
The speech he gave to the American Legion today was practically a carbon copy, except for a few updated assertions about what‘s happening in Iraq. The president said there‘s no civil war there, that, as you heard him say, that the government is making progress, the civil government is making progress there. Most of what we‘re told by people on the ground there, by journalists and others, is just the opposite.
OLBERMANN: Is there any implication, if we‘re now into reruns there, if this is in fact a duplicate of a speech from, say, last August or last September, before the campaign that went so poorly for the president and for his party, is there any indication that it‘s going to continue? Are we going to see another series of speeches from Vice President Cheney hitting this idea again, even though it failed so miserably for them last time politically?
FINEMAN: I think the answer is yes. I think the president indicated in his speech today, he‘s going to make a series of speeches of this kind on the bet that the American people will side with him on that question of funding.
But as you pointed out, it‘s the president who‘s stopping the funding, by refusing to accept any conditions. As I watch the Democrats in Congress and Bush posture on this, it‘s like they‘re both playing North Korea. I mean, they—everybody wants there to be no conditions, or all conditions. They won‘t sit down with each other. To me, this is the ultimate expression of the divisive kind of politics that we‘ve had here in the last decade.
They‘re alternative universes that barely touch. The president is deeply dug in on his, and the Democrats are becoming more emboldened, both by the polls and by the obvious, at best, mixed news out of Iraq.
OLBERMANN: What explains the 9/11 drumbeat, which was kind of stilled for a while after the election, when now we have report after report definitively, this latest one from the Pentagon, saying no such link existed? If the rhetoric only is meant to appeal to a segment of the population the administration has no chance of losing anyway, however small that might be, why go back to this one?
FINEMAN: You know, I think you‘re talking about the link between al Qaeda and Saddam.
OLBERMANN: Yes.
FINEMAN: I think we‘re dealing with psychology as much as politics here, Keith. I know that sounds strange, but I think the president and his closest advisers are—they think they see the world for what it is. But most of the American people see it otherwise, and most, I must say, of the rest of the world sees it otherwise, that rather than make us safer—this is what the American people say in polls, that rather than make us safer, the half a trillion dollars we‘ve spend in Iraq has made us less safe by stirring a hornet‘s nest there and around the world.
And that‘s a fundamental disagreement. The president doesn‘t see it, won‘t see it, Karl Rove doesn‘t see it, won‘t see it, Dick Cheney doesn‘t see it, won‘t see it. And that‘s the sort of bunker mentality that they‘re in right now.
OLBERMANN: And lastly, Howard, these poll numbers, approval for Congress is never very high, but during the Democrats‘ first 100 days in office, it rose 15 percent. It was 25 percent approval, it‘s now 40 percent, it‘s the highest level for the lawmakers in a year. How would the White House respond to that? What kind of interpretation could they put on that?
FINEMAN: Well, they‘re not bothering. I mean, they think they can win this confrontation. I think they‘re wrong. I think the Democrats I spoke to today on the Hill, they‘re quite confident of their position politically, morally, substantively. And they‘re going to press ahead. And we‘ve got a big confrontation coming that‘s going to continue for weeks and weeks on end.
Ultimately, will there be a deal? I think there has to be. But both sides think they have the upper hand here. It‘s a very unusual situation, where they both think they‘re going to win a standoff. If I have to bet, I would say the Democrats win ultimately, and that‘s what the ‘08 election‘s going to be about.
OLBERMANN: Howard Fineman of MSNBC and “Newsweek.” As always, sir, great thanks.
FINEMAN: Thank you, Keith.
OLBERMANN: The president gets an earful about the troops from a governor and from veterans. Is Mr. Bush to blame for the hardships now faced by the military? The governor of Ohio thinks so.
And the Rutgers players agree to reserve judgment and meet with Don Imus, but others are not reserving judgment, and that may mean a suspension is not all he is facing tonight. There are late-breaking details coming together on this story. We‘ll bring them to you as they come together.
You are watching COUNTDOWN on MSNBC.
No comments:
Post a Comment