Olbermann: Spintel ('No Belief Whatsoever in the President')

[Hissyspit]

Run time: 06:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJRN4bv4cOA   Posted on YouTube: December 05, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 05, 2007 By DU Member: Hissyspit Views on DU: 1758

 
December 4, 2007 - Countdown w/ KEITH OLBERMANN

[whistle]

1. I will believe Bush and he walks out before the camereas holding his dick

...in his hand and claims to have found his WMD....Willy of Mass Deception! Then he can resign like Tricky Dick Nixon did back on August 8, 1974, and take his entire BushCo cabal with him.

[bjobotts]

2. There is no limit to the ridiculous spinning of this administration.

Complete lying and dangerously dysfunctional. WWIII? Somebody please get these people out of the WH.

[bdamomma]

5. it's amazing that there are so many of us commoners

who can see that this vile wicked administration we have pose a great danger to all of us, we have to get our message across.

Cheney and Bush must go, they are a threat and they are criminals.

[bjobotts]

3. What Hillary really said in 2006...So what do you think?

The Washington Post, January 20, 2006 (h/t sysprog):

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.

The senator's statements, in which she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.

"I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

Her National Security Director actually had the audacity to say this yesterday in response to the NIE story: "Senator Clinton has the strength and experience to conduct the kind of vigorous diplomacy needed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons." None of this should be surprising coming from someone who, as President, will almost certainly appoint someone like Ken Pollack as National Security Advisor and Michael O'Hanlon to run some Middle East desk in the State Department or some Pentagon bureau.

The IAEC has been saying this about Iran since 2003...and Cheney/Bush.Guiliani/Bolton/Lieberman etc all knew and still tried to get a war started.
IAEC also said no WMD before we invaded Iraq...And these same people accused them of lying and on the side of Sadam.
These are dangerous war mongers and I just don't trust Clinton not to be so ready to prove how tough she is that she becomes one too.
Kucinich/Edwards '08...the only real change is Kucinich.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. here: you may be interested in this too--

In today’s NPR debate, Sen. Obama criticized re-structuring our forces in Iraq to blunt Iran’s influence on the war:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.
A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran:

A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
12/4/2007 3:19:13 PM #

Fact Check: Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama on Iran’s nuclear threat
In January, Sen. Edwards emphasized the nuclear threat by Iran speaking to a conference in Israel:

Speaking by satellite to a conference in Israel, Edwards said stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.' 'All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,' Edwards told the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post.
In September 2004, Sen. Obama suggested to the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would use surgical missile strikes against Iran:

he United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said. 'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
12/4/2007 2:54:01 PM #

Sen. Obama Shifts On Iran Negotiations
Today at the NPR debate, Sen. Obama said he would lead high-level Presidential diplomatic efforts with Iran:

should have stopped the saber rattling- should never have started it- and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front- I’ve started that consistently since the beginning of this campaign and that is for the President to lead diplomatic efforts to try to the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization the prospect of overtime in exchange for behavior that is something that has to be perused.
But in an interview with Harretz Daily Newspaper in May 2007, Sen. Obama said he would only pursue ‘low-level talks’ with Iran and said high level talks would be inappropriate:

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran even without them freezing the enrichment, he said. However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on the enrichment issue.
12/4/2007 2:30:22 PM #

[jph wacheski]

6. U.S.A.

well that is just sad! "they stopped the program, therefor they could start it up again." the proof that Iran has stopped it's nuke program and we have known this for years,. is the proof we should bomb them! What a Chimp,. "I vetoed health care for poor kids,. because, poor kids first. " The truly sad part is however that the Cheney Junta will just go on like this was never reported,. and Iran will get bombed anyhow,. and the American people will cheer U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. !!! It is not hard to mislead a country of politically ignorant selfish patriots of nationalism,. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. ,. . . These Neo-Con-men have bankrupted America, morally and financially, the debt is so large now that every man woman and child owes 30k! The ship IS sinking!

[Jeroen]

7. Dangerous fool n/t