Olbermann to rip Congressional Dems a new asshole in Special Comment!

[BlooInBloo]

This'll be a keeper!

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/keith-olbermann-plans-special-comment/

" The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions - Stop The War - have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans."

[Coexist]

1. nice to see someone still has some fight left

I'll tune in.

[Selatius]

2. Too bad that can't be said of Harry Reid the Gutless.

[Coexist]

4. its really sad - how many times I said, "Give em hell, Harry"

what the fuck happend?

[ShortnFiery]

6. Reid should NOT be majority leader - his wife is still Lobbying.

Reid's wife should stop lobbying (it is now LAW with incoming Senators) or he should RESIGN as Majority Leader. :grr:

[BlooInBloo]

3. This is one of those times being on the west coast kills me...

... I'll be seeing everyone talking about it loooong before I get the chance to actually watch it. :(

[IChing]

11. You must have cable vs satellite.

that is another advantage, I get the daily show at 8:00 on the west coast and Keith at 5:00 on satellite

[BlooInBloo]

12. Yup - no satellite.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Good! Let's hope they "catch a f**king clue"? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

7. Looks like the y might possibly have trouble getting the bill to pass the house.

Keep your fingers crossed.

[Major Hogwash]

8. Q: What size of mirror does Keith have in his dressing room?

A: Not big enough.

[me b zola]

9. KO warned them

KO stated in an earlier interview (I believe it was when he got his new contract) that his special comments were not going to be scheduled, but rather he would make them when he was outraged by conduct or statements of one or more elected officials. He also stated that he would not hold back from turning his scorn onto Dems if they earned it. And boy, have they earned it.

Good for you, Keef :thumbsup:

[Kagemusha]

10. Magic beans? Wow. That's cruel. And Reid deserves it.

All the leadership deserve it.

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. So, the Iraq war & it's continuation is the fault of the Dems now?

Bullshit.

[tavalon]

15. They bought it

with their capitulation.

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. Seems to me that the press is moving pretty quick to transfer ownership

of the Iraq war to the Dems now. I'm not buying it, it's still jr's war, and it's a god damn mess.

[tavalon]

24. I know that and you know that

but any good politician would know that this would get spun this way.

[Morgana LaFey]

19. It most certainly is. AND, not only that, they'll have even more of

it when any Dem President takes office in 2009. It will THOROUGHLY be a Dem war at that point, and that's what Bush fully intendsd (that is, IF he intends to leave office, a point I'm not at all sure about).

So get used to it.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Which is why the should've sent him the same bill over and over again.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. Go Olberman!

If Congressional Dems think that Republicans are the worst thing they have to face, they better brace themselves.

[133724]

17. K&R for the Left Coast

[BlooInBloo]

18. Woohoo!

[bigtree]

21. I don't understand why anyone would see the actions of the leadership as self-serving

Democrats haven't 'capitulated' on anything except, maybe, the failed effort to restrain Bush through this particular funding bill. They intend to come back in July and August-September and try and again get enough support to pass legislation to effectively challenge Bush. But the effort to restrain him through this particular funding legislation petered out before they made the compromise to free-up funds for the troops. I really don't see how anyone can claim that these legislators see this as some sort of political win for themselves.

[BlooInBloo]

22. Because of the typically-republican "one more Friedman Unit" thing.

[bigtree]

23. We could just concede that we expect Bush to provide for the soldiers

we haven't been able to bring home.

Better yet, we can just pretend that they don't have needs in Iraq while we are at this stalemate in support for legislation to move Bush off of his occupation. We can just close our eyes and go la la la, and drown out the reports of life-altering, life-threatening shortages in Iraq and Afghanistan and pretend that just wanting them out of Iraq is the same as providing for those needs. Then we're doing the "typically-republican" thing.

Some Democrats have obviously abandoned the effort to move Bush through this particular legislation, but it make no sense at all to pretend like that is the last crack at Bush they have or will take this year. It makes no sense at all to pretend that their position on Iraq is anything more than a follow-through on their promise they wouldn't hold up funds the troops need just to effect their politics.

There never was an actual way to move Bush with the partisan support our legislation received. Until the republicans decide it's in their interest to add their votes to these legislative rebukes they will never advance in a way that effectively confronts Bush. This effort to get that support failed. While we can, and have, passed partisan bills out of Congress, they have been ineffective in gathering enough support to cause Bush *to bring our troops home. Other proposals and initiatives have also failed to get enough support within the party to play out in a way which would move Bush. The soldiers are effectively stranded in Iraq while we are at this stalemate. There doesn't appear to be any opportunity to move the republicans we need to pass veto-proof legislation until they are forced to eat their words about a Sept. deadline to their obstinacy.

But, in the meantime, these needs of those already deployed shouldn't be held hostage to the failed legislative effort. Just digging in on the funding did not appear to be moving Bush. It doesn't make any sense to pretend that it was, or would anytime soon. In the meantime . . . our troops are still deployed and are being deployed without adequate supplies and equipment. The Democrats who support a compromise don't think it's a good idea to leave it up to Bush to provide for those troops that they failed to get out of Iraq with their legislative efforts. They're stepping up and making certain they have the necessary support for advancing those funds necessary to provide for these troops until they can gather enough support to move Bush legislatively.