Here's a link to the BBC story Olbermann mentions:

Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6223923.stm

Good lord! Why prolong, even excelerate such destructive policy?!

This is so wrong.

Uh-oh, Keith is pissed again.

"Good lord! Why prolong, even excelerate such destructive policy?!"

Because there really is no other option on the table.

Except for the very selfish and short-sighted public opinion of "bring 'em home", which just pleases the majority while creating a much larger problem.

Olbermann always irritated me even when I was cheering him. There's something so arrogant, so presumptuous about him. Now I know what it is: he's just a gasbag. It's the easiest thing in the world to find moral outrage and express it repeatedly to your supporters. There's no courage to be found in saying what the majority are saying. There's certainly no courage to be found in backing a rather ridiculous 'solution' without even analyzing the impact or attempting to determine what the proper course of action should be.

Hmm, good one from Keith once again. I especially enjoyed the point where he said "delusion".

TheTieThatBlinds: Your Post reminds me of something that Noam Chomsky once said in an interview, being asked what he says to being confronted with having no idea how to end bad things happening in the world. He said that saying something like this would be utterly stupid, simply denying the obvious - To end bad things from happening, you have to end contributing to bad things.

Make a war, get a war; prolong a war, find it prolonged.

There is courage to be found in saying what the majority is saying. But that depends on what they are saying, you're denial of that has some faint tastes of escapism. Of course everybody is entitled to find out for himself, but that is not the point here.

Its not that Keith Olberman would simply echo a public that feel that something is wrong. It is that he collects what they AND experts in America and all over the world have said. To reduce it on rhetorics or to cut it down on a personal level means thinking simplistic yourself.

I like Olbermann, but I wish he'd stop saying "Goodnight, and good luck" at the end of his tirades. Makes him look like a right poser.

I agree with theTie and Skore. Yes, he is a gasbag, but one I love to hear.

He is the Left O' Center O'Rielly. If we have to hear the static from the TV or Net at least we can feed on it gleefully and without rage.

Plus, rhetoric like this gives you liscense to call people "Chickenhawks," which is basically an indefensible assault.

GET SOME! and bring back the draft because that shit would be HILARIOUS!

god bless our troops, too. poor contractually-obligated bastards.

I don't see the gas bag quality. He's emphatic and dramatic in the delivery but when you consider the enormity of the things he is addressing, the stakes being played with, and the fact that the president is genuinely insane, how could he be anything but emphatic and demonstrative?

I mean really, if you want to talk about arogant gas bags, check out O'Reily or any of his ilk. Blowing hot air hurricanes with not a note of truth in what they say.

You have to shout to be heard when the wind is blowing so hard all around you.

"He said that saying something like this would be utterly stupid, simply denying the obvious - To end bad things from happening, you have to end contributing to bad things."

You know, it doesn't surprise me that Chomsky would say something like that. It's just the type of vacuous, empty, sophistic, self-satisfied statement I would expect from a hypocritical Ivory Tower-dwelling professional orator like him.

Disregarding the messenger, the message is pretty ridiculous. Something seeming obvious doesn't make it true - when confronted with sufficiently advanced technology it can seem 'obvious' to the uneducated observer that it is magic. That doesn't make it so.

And claiming that the best way to end conflict is to ignore all occurrences of it ... that defies any form of logic. One can state that if everybody followed that reasoning there would be no wars. But that's such a ridiculous requirement and we know it will never happen. It's like saying the best way to avoid partisan politics is not to vote for a party, or the best way to conquer the global AIDS pandemic is for you personally not to have sex. Real-world circumstances necessitate ideological compromise. Perhaps if Chomsky weren't a rich, comfortable white man whose life consists of being ferried from fawning crowd to fawning crowd and spouting Dalai Lama-esque slogans, he might have learned that.

We should certainly try to avoid war whenever possible but in the end warfare is just a tool. And contrary to all the t-shirts and bumper stickers, violence solves many things.

Referencing Chomsky's fatuous statement in this instance is particularly galling to me because it's basically throwing your hands up and ignoring the issue. But there is a problem that we need to address, and nobody is addressing it.

It doesn't matter how many eggheads pontificate about what shoulda and coulda. Iraq is a mess. Us leaving won't make it better. It's quite possible that us staying won't make it better, either - the only sensible plan seems to be to get UN presence in the area (it is, after all, the job and purpose of the UN to stabilize regions such as Iraq). But just closing your eyes and wishing for peace isn't going to make it happen.

"He's emphatic and dramatic in the delivery but when you consider the enormity of the things he is addressing, the stakes being played with, and the fact that the president is genuinely insane, how could he be anything but emphatic and demonstrative?"

I don't want to monopolize the conversation, but I just want to reiterate what I think is an important point.

Yes, Bush is insane. And incompetent. And a criminal. Etc. But you have to bear in mind that contrary to his idiotic ramblings about being 'the decider', he rarely if ever actually makes decisions. He's a politician. Like Olbermann (and, yes, O'Reilly), he'd love to be selling you back what you think.

So I imagine the only reason he'd be taking this gigantic boot in the ass and trying to send more troops is because the people running the war - the military commanders - need more troops. Most coverage of this issue actually mentions that military commanders are asking for this as part of a larger 'strategy package'.

I just can't get on board with popular opinion just because it's popular. And I don't think anyone can actually show how removing US troops from the area would be a good thing, except perhaps for US troops. And even that would be temporary. We are the strong arm of the UN - as years go by with that place getting worse and worse, who do you think will eventually have to go clean it up?

"And claiming that the best way to end conflict is to ignore all occurrences of it ... that defies any form of logic."

I don't see where you get that from. To end a conflict in which you are involved is not to ignore it. Just because one gets sucker-punched does not mean that one has to go beat up the person one thinks is responsible... or to go after the one you have a grudge with and who is unconnected with the sucker-punch in the first place.

This is what I figure sk0re's point is: That to end this war, you actually have to do something to end it and not just continue keeping things how they are.

Beside that, if this is truly a war, then who is the United States against, in Iraq? If you can't answer that, stop calling it a war.

I see the situation in Iraq as being this: The US puts out a bunch of metaphorical and literal fires, keeping the somewhat dismal status quo, and there is no real opportunity to get worse... but at the same time, there is no real opportunity to get better. The more troops you put in, the easier it gets to maintain that status quo, but I don't think you're going to stop hurting the country if you're still there. My impression is that a lot of guns and bombs are still aimed at US troops. Remove the troops, you remove the targets.

"And I don't think anyone can actually show how removing US troops from the area would be a good thing, except perhaps for US troops."

Immediately, you're absolutely right. However, let's assume the troops are pulled out. Later on I see the situation improving because a) it will right itself without undue outside influence, or b) it won't and there will be a sort of apocalyptic point from which they can start again. The US, I feel, is doing nothing but keeping Iraq on life support.

You want a stable Iraq? Let it stabilize itself, or wait until it destroys itself and pick up the pieces. You can't keep propping up a falling building and expect it to fix itself.

James

Ok, to be fair. I think that Keitch's sign-off is a bit fake and dismissive.

However, do not confuse Keith's gravitas as a typical gas bag.

Why be politically correct when the right thing is to feel the moral outrage to speak up, stand out and make yourself heard on real matters.

That's not just freedom of speech.

It's talking the talk regardless of hell's fury heaing your way.

It's talking the talk regardless of hell's fury heading your way.

As we all know, newscasters have tried to be veer away from criticsm of the rightwaing establishment for years while right wing pundits had a free pass to pass on falsehoods and distortions until this year i.e. Limbaughs universaaly condemned attack on Michael J Fox.

So Keith knows very well just how many enemies he's making and the shit storm hearding his way from the conservatives who still dominate much of public life.

I always perceived Chomsky as being idealistic, but never has it occurred to me that he has an ivory tower attitude. You can watch the bit with the quote on google video: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=676452061991429040&q=noam+chomsky (although you will probably find out that I horribly misquoted him).

I think there have to be two approaches at once when talking about Iraq:

The first one is to affirm that this war has been yet another showoff of the problematic position of the USA in world affairs, taking sides in a conflict that they have had no tie to before (other than a made up one, or one they caused themselves). Just like in South-America, Vietnam or South-Africa, the US knows exactly what to do to end a conflict or problematic situation. And ends up with more short- and long-term problems for them and the world than we could ever dream of.

The second is a pessimistic view on the current situation. This is what the Iraq study group has done and it shows that every option that prolongs the war, enhances the problems it causes and solves little of anything. They got in under bad presumptions, did a bad job and now can't quit. And the hate- and anti-western-stirring propaganda that was smaller in the Arab world before has a top story to point fingers at.

Yes the US creates wars for bad reasons, and the only solution it can think of when feeling the effects of it (like their involvement in the Afghanistan-Russia conflict on 911) is to create more of it. People are not terrorist by nature, ask yourself. People are narrow minded and/or with affections to criminal action at worst, but only opportunity makes the thief. And the US is doing a heck of a job creating opportunities.

Yes its idealistic to say that if nobody caused harm, nobody would be harmed. But its not only logical, its also a direction for your thoughts. If all you ever think of is how to make a compromise on something bad, you will never move. Because suddenly, everything seems to be a bad deal.

If you want to change, make a goal - not a goal impossible to reach at best (that would probably be fanatic), but a goal that is just realistic and keen enough to create the possibility for people to work on themselves and (thus) on humanity. Thats what dreams are for - you take your chance. Just that in reality, you spend a little more time thinking about them. Talking to other people. Getting experts in, even more people. Thats community and democracy, and thats how it should work.

"Something seeming obvious doesn't make it true - when confronted with sufficiently advanced technology it can seem 'obvious' to the uneducated observer that it is magic. That doesn't make it so."

No of course not. But that is only right on the assumption that the observer is uneducated. There is no naked logical tie that makes something advanced into something magical. This is a bad statement that proves nothing. It is solely based on a false or irrelevant first step and has no meaning whatsoever.

"And claiming that the best way to end conflict is to ignore all occurrences of it"

I have said nothing about ignoring the conflict. More than that, I think that prolonging the war would be a sign of ignoring obvious facts. Nothing disappears because you don't look at it. But I know whats best to end a fight - make a pause. Just stop, and if its only for a while. You can't possibly compute what it would be to end a war if you don't do it. Keeping a conflict hot means people will die.

Your statement would have been true if it was made in the first months of the conflict. But this war is not about solving a simple problem anymore. Its about two sides continuing to hit each other until one dies. Thats the downward spiral of force and violence - after some time, it feeds itself indefinitely.

"We should certainly try to avoid war whenever possible but in the end warfare is just a tool. And contrary to all the t-shirts and bumper stickers, violence solves many things."

Thats a 100% disagreement right here. Warfare is not a tool. Tools are for finding a solution to a problem. But solving a problem by killing a human is not helping anyone. This is, I think, where you contradict yourself. If there is a problematic human, who maybe even killed another human, you want to get rid of the problem by killing him. Sure, that solves this problem - he sure won't kill anyone else. But the deeper problem - why he killed, is something that you deny.

Another one of those crazy bumper stickers probably says that "the hardest and the right way are the same". And this is misunderstood in two ways. A) People think that since killing a human is very hard (well, not technically anymore), its a solution that falls into the category of "probably being right"; and that the hard way would always be to solve a problem by going the way that you have been going until now and which is getting harder and harder.

The hard way is to find the solution orthogonal to the one that has been proven wrong.

"Iraq is a mess. Us leaving won't make it better. It's quite possible that us staying won't make it better, either - the only sensible plan seems to be to get UN presence in the area (it is, after all, the job and purpose of the UN to stabilize regions such as Iraq)"

Wow, this one is just plain ignorant. First you go to the UN and say you want to go to war and they say that its not a good idea. Then you figure out that its a very very bad idea. And now you say that they are the solution to your problem?

The UN joining the conflict is only going to make the war better if they pressure for less violence (which is hardly possible) or if they enable negotiations with adjacent countries (which is unlikely if the US is still involved due to hurt feelings).

Your proposed arguments are consisting of illogical statements and deluded neo-con propaganda. If you would spend some time looking at the issues from a different perspective, not thinking in short-term and situational solutions, you will see that its quite hard to unwind the net of problems. But its more rewarding, since its a quest for truth - and that is the only way to find solutions.

The wars that are waged these days are the last desperate attempts to somehow break democracy here and there. Even if it is only at some place or for some time, there are still people who like short-term thinking and quick solutions to a problem. War creates a reality and morality distortion field that many still feel dragged to.

And thats the irony in saying that war could ever promote democracy. There is nothing so undemocratic as a war. Because in a war, people die.

thetiethatbinds, i assume you are not in favor of us staying permanently are you? so we must leave, the only question is when. do we wait till iraq turns into vietnam (in terms of scale)? even if we stay another decade i highly doubt we will have accomplished all the things that conservatives have said constitute 'victory'--stable democracy, pro-american, anti-iranian, etc. our goal was to topple saddam, weve done that. now all we are doing is arming one faction against another. the longer we stay the worse it will be when we finally do leave, we are exacerbating the situation. and us staying there isnt preventing ethnic cleansing.

our primary goal from this point forward should be to make sure the iraq war doesnt spark a regional sunni/shia conflict, as if saudi arabia intervenes on the sunni side in iraq and iran intervenes on the shia. i dont think our strategy is helping this, as we dont consider the sunnis to be legitimate.

and keith olbermann is definitely a gasbag, but there are worse things to be.

When the last note of "Taps" has faded and the last folded flag is handed to the sobbing loved-one this mess will be over. The death and agony is all part and parcel to this administration. No amount of voting or debate will change the outcome. Nor will any new plans change the opinion the American people finally have come to. The Iraq invasion was wrong. The Iraq plan has been flawed. Bush and his minions are liars, murderers and it is the fault of the American people who supported this horror for almost four years. To continue this mess is to devalue the lives of the service personnel and disregard reality to the extreme. There will be no punishment for Bush, et al. No trials. No loss of libety. No loss of tax payer funded benefits. No facing the American people as defendants for their war crimes. Nothing will change. And it will happen again in the future. We get the government we deserve. We deserve Bush right here, right now. We want the American dream, but we are afraid to fight for it. My kids asked me why I fought so hard for this country only to see it go down the drain. I told them we just got lazy. We let the government do everyting for us. Sorry about wandering off there. Hope for forgiveness from those we have trespassed against. EvW

The problem i see with this is olbermann is advocating a pull out of American troops, condemning the notion of meaningless, (US)human, sacrifice, while himself advocating for the sacrifice of Iraq to what ever further turmoil awaits them in the absence of Anglo-American(coalition) troops.

I find this piece frustrating for the reason that he does not attempt to even scratch the surface of what ramifications exist given a US troop withdrawal -- well, other than the potentially obvious: less US military casualties and less money being spent on Iraq.

I am sure no other country would fill the place of the US and British forces in Iraq ... so that leaves a beleaguered government that has been elected to fend for themselves. I don't see too many up sides in that over the long term.

And in my opinion this is the problem that got America into the 'terrorists' cross-hair in the first instance, a short-term, self-serving attitude to foreign policy. Given what is now reality, pulling US troops out is another example of this.

As for the Chomsky quote someone mentioned; its a truism, not really helpful though because there is allot of grey to it. In all but the simplest cases its difficult to qualify what is bad ... or in my opinion more accurately, what is more bad?

I don't know if a 'surge' will do any good, i am not a military strategist so i cannot recommend alternatives. But i do strongly believe that a pull-out would be a sad turn of events for particularly Iraq, but in the long-term even the US.

I guess you have to be explicit with your intention, if your intention is to stop US military personal from dieing then a troop withdrawal is a great option, but if you actually want to retrieve Iraq from chaos then i think we really need to be more creative in our debate, rather than a bipolar view -- occupation or retreat.

My own quotation contribution:

"Bury your heart U.S. of A. History rears up to spit in your face."

--Fugazi

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a continued occupation is going to have any effect except to fuel the fighting.

American forces are not seen as neutral players by anyone in Iraq. Ergo, they can never play the role of peace keepers, only combatants.

Regarding the idea that Bush is calling for this insane "surge" on behalf of his top Generals, I suggest you look a little closer.

Bush just got rid of his top generals, replacing them with officers who agree with him. The now outgoing commanders are opposed to the surge.

This has become one man's private war. The population, Congress, the military, no one is in favour of this adventure but by gawd the Decider has decided and he refuses to be wrong.

Olbermann in 08'! the only thing this war has accomplished, besides turning saddam into a beloved maytr, is creating more terrorists and hate for americans around the world. Would a pullout be the best thing for iraq? maybe. Could it get worse? Possibly, but atleast americans wouldnt be caught in the middle of the same thing thats going on now. If saddam was so strongly hated, why couldnt the MAJORITY aka shiites overthrow him themselves? Whys it our job? But if the troops want to die and murder that badly, its their decision.

Wow skOre Thanks alot for that link, i had never heard noam chomsky speak before, it was very enlightening. post more links to some of his stuff if you got it.

Curious how often it is that a "gasbag" is often the one to go around calling others "gasbag". Projection at work.

Oh, and Chomsky's comment was right on the mark.

Well, just go to this link and click the search button at the top - you will get plenty of more videos with Chomsky talking.

Which I would point at:

Noam Chomsky talking to an actual (giant) gasbag (William F. Buckley), which points out quite neatly that he is not even remotely having an ivory tower attitude: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-1214894113898255184&q=noam+chomsky

A really great (yet rather lengthy) lecture on distorted reality (in case you prefer seeing Chomsky being able to finish a sentence: http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=4054523048548733881&q=noam+chomsky

Another great one on the "myth of the liberal media": http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-150420992294819321&q=noam+chomsky

There are lots of lengthy videos especially on google video. I encourage you to watch some of them.

I just did re-watch some of them and really find that Chomsky has an incredible sensitivity to whomever he is talking to. (In the first video above even mind-boggling sensitivity - Mr. Buckley was quite obviously only interested in keeping the talk under control and using either his swaggering or his poor knowledge in his poor attempts, only to be saved by the clock in the end - check out the list of quotes on his wikipedia page if you want to get a neat definition of "deluded" or rather "neo-con idiot" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilliamF.Buckley%2C_Jr. )

If you are interested in people who tell the truth, just hearing Noam Chomsky starting to talk is a great relief. My theory about him is that he had a small share of people punching him out of discussions by trying to pull him into a field in which he is not secure in his knowledge and has consequently gotten rid of all of them. I have never seen him being unable to talk about any field of history. The way he handles the obvious rhetorics and tactics of his opponents is a shear pleasure if you know what a really bad discussion is like when you are talking to somebody who is rather interested in hearing himself "win" or maybe even just talk (opposed to having an actual discussion).

Yet in the second step, Mr. Chomskys brain is, fortunately, also able to parse this data and develop an idea of a pattern that he consequently explores. Reading some of his texts or listening to his speeches or videos, you will understand what I mean. Just the way he uses even the most obvious and available information to uncover flaws in the system of the controlled media is astonishing. Check out the second video for quite some good examples on this.