« Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday | Main | Allegiance to the Human Race »

Resign - Keith Olbermann's Special Comment

Keith calls on the President and Vice President to resign.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.


Quicktime Video 10.5 MB : 00:10:06
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Countdown w/Keith Olbermann



Blimey, he's pissed. I think Bush/Cheney can get away with doing anything and America will swallow it. Infact, much of it may not even notice or care, many will even support pardoning Libby (Fox news?).

And it will happen again with future regimes. Murdoch is a big part of the problem - I think his empire really ought to be dismantled.

We were going to make life difficult for him in the UK but then Blair/Brown got into bed with him.. Murdoch agreed to give Blair good press on the war in return.

What to do?


I believe you wanted to say Faux News...


What to do?

We wait, and then we VOTE.

I, for one, will vote with every ounce of my being. These assholes do not represent me or my values in any way whatsoever.


"Blimey, he's pissed. I think Bush/Cheney can get away with doing anything and America will swallow it."

While I'm sure insulting everybody makes you feel better, it might be more productive to ask what exactly people are expected to do about this. Presidents have the power to commute sentences and pardon people - Ford pardoned Nixon, for Christ's sake. It's no reflection whatsoever on the American people that a firmly entrenched, unpopular president uses his powers to bail out an old friend. It's shameful and ridiculous, but what in politics isn't?

If there's a huge number of Americans this pissed off about the government, why don't you do something to show it? Why don't you march on the capital? Get hundreds of thousands of people. Millions if that's what it takes, rock on up to the White House and scream "We've had enough! Get the fuck away from our democracy!".

Americans fought hard for their freedom from the British Monarcy, but today's modern Americans seem apathetic as the very rights their ancestors fought and died for are stripped away by what is in effect an elected monarch.

Your democracy is breaking, do something about it before your elected officials (all of them), either turn the US into a dictatorship through pure evil, or apathy to that evil.

Keith's words are always excellent, but words only go so far. Rebel. Rebel against your corrupt government in the same way you rebelled against a corrupt monarch all those years ago. I'm not inciting anarchy or violent overthrow, I'm asking why there's not acted expressions of outrage enmasse from the American public. Why aren't the streets of Washington DC filled to the brim with outraged citizens demanding their freedoms back?

With Cheney's refusal to comply with Congressional investigations, Bush's use of "executive" privilege" to override your counry's constitution, not to mention the media's complicity... bears the hallmarks of a dictatorship.

You should take to the streets to demand your country back.

Wes Clark Jr (son of General Wes Clark) is calling on people to meet up this Sunday with a sign or t-shirt that says "enough". It's an informal sort of thing. You can read more about it here:

meet up this Sunday with a sign or t-shirt that says "enough".

that will make a big difference

maybe add a bummer sticker to your SUV that say's "stop the war" will help too.

In Seattle, there have been many demonstrations asking/demanding for Bush to step down, resign, be impeached, and more, but they seem to have little-to-no effect. They get little media attention and probably never make it very far out of the city, and I seriously doubt it makes it all the way across the U.S. to D.C.

Some of these demonstrations are thousands strong, block traffic, and the whole nine yards. What more can people do short of raid the capitol?

"Raid the capitol"

Not a bad idea.

I'm asking why there's not acted expressions of outrage enmasse from the American public. Why aren't the streets of Washington DC filled to the brim with outraged citizens demanding their freedoms back?

I don't know. I see citizens of other countries marching in the streets and making demands on their governments and I wish we had such a healthy, vibrant and active democracy.

People I know have become inured to the outrages that seem to come almost on a monthly or weekly basis. One feels like a tiresome bore to complain or even mention the latest assault on decency by this administration and the Republican party that enables it. It becomes almost a joke that you have to laugh about because it is so tragically absurd.

We see out media playing along and abetting the government's cynical and corrupt game. We see the leaders of the opposition party gutless and impotent. And we are beaten down and daunted in the face of the massive, insidious, pervasive power of the corporatocracy and the stranglehold it has on our system of government and the fourth estate.

I want to build a Keith-edral and convert to Keith-tianity! Olbermann is the champion of what remains of the free press. Most people will be reluctant to kick Bush and Cheney out because of the "interruptions" it might cause for the war, but the war will still be going on come election time. Better sooner than later these dickheads get kicked out of office. Anyone would be better. However, one wonders if perhaps the American political system is beyond saving now...

I remember a good instructional joke from my earlier years. A man says to his co-worker "I think my wife is cheating on me.". The other man says "How do you know for sure?". The first guy says "Well, I watched her last night and she met this guy in a restaurant. They danced for a while, had a few drinks, and then got in his car and drove to his house." "And what happened next?", the first guy asks. "I watched through the window as they went up to his room, started kissing and then took off all of their clothes." The first man asks, "Yea, yea and what did they do next?". To which the second guy replies, "Well, then they turned out the lights for the next 2 hours so I don't know if they really did anything." This is not supposed to be a knee-slapper but if you are surprised by what Bush did, HAVE YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO ANYTHING BUSH HAS BEEN DOING OR SAYING OVER THE LAST 7 FRIGGINS YEARS (including when he was still running for office)? If you can actually be surprised by this than thank Darwin that we don't have large predators roming among us to eat the weak and stupid from our herd. You would have been a tiger's breakfast. I mean really? Why should this action be even mildly surprising? I would have been flabberghasted if he had not done something like this. It's time to stop showing our false shock and start showing some real outrage at actions like this; which while despicable are perfectly in keeping with this administrations character.

So, if your position is that this is perfectly in-keeping with the President's powers, which is is, I pose to you this question? Why in the hell is a man like this in the White House to begin with, let alone there by a pretty clear re-election in 1996? I have no regard for the man whatsoever but for Christ's sake, we could have prevented him from being there in the first place and we could have interrupted his reign of idiocy and national shame 4-years into it. We have done neither and I pitty the American people for their ignorance, irrational fear, and flat-out stupidity in allowing this to be the case.

I meant 2004, not 1996.

Olbermann is right.

Unfortunately, he's a sensationalist and easy to outrage. That isn't to say he shouldn't be outraged, but he could be a little bit more pragmatic when so much outrageous material demands his attention.

It's almost to the point where I don't even take him seriously when he speaks anymore. The amount of times he's said similar things with his familiar dose of gravitas and self-importance have got to be in the teens now, and a reaction from either the media or the administration have yet to be forthcoming.

Give up, Keith - sometimes just being right isn't enough. It certainly isn't in America.

TeaForTheTillerman - Apologies for my comments, I was feeling outraged and certainly didn't mean to insult anybody (other than Bush).

I like this group of people and spend more time reading everybody's comments on this blog than on any other. :-)

My sentiments are that America should protest en masse. But as Firi said, people are disillusioned that protests fail to attract much attention in the media.

I agree with yearzero, Olbermann needs to cool down - if he spits blood every week then any amount of outrage will be ineffectual. He needs to save it for 'special ocassions'.

I remember first seeing Olbermann, it felt like a breath of fresh air - but now he throws petrol on my fire. His brilliantly seething messages smash the outrage-o-meter and will fall largely on deaf ears.

Moreover I think all newsreaders need to, in the words of Michael Winner, "Calm Down Dear!".


I'm neither an american nor a lawyer, nor a politician.

But what would happen if Bush does resign now?

Would the 2008 elections be held right now? When the general public had not enough time to make a thorough choice?

I mean go to the polls and you will see that probably Clinton would win.

It seems like a 'good' plan to me - when you foresee that you could not win '08 with the dummies you sent into the race, you break on the decision earlier to cause confusion and use the uncertainty that is still prevailing. I don't think people like Kucinich would have a chance if there was a forced decision right now. First come, first serving.

Too good a plan indeed.

David asked"

"But what would happen if Bush does resign now?"

Chaney would finish his term. If Chaney resigned, Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) would finish the term.

I wonder if Keith got this mad about Cisneros being pardoned?

Andy, I don't understand your concern about Keith. Nearly no one else in the news media shows the journalistic obligation to discuss any of the major political scandals and betrayals of the American public that do now seem to be taking place "every week". We need to hear more from eloquent and outraged voices like his, not less.


I thought Nancy Pelosi would already be president by now, but the snowball effect will surprise you all on this Libby pardon (and yes that's coming) I still hold to my prediction: Pelosi presidency '08, due to the overthrow of Dick then George.


Kudos to Keith for having the guts to speak up for America. Just because we are not surprised doesn't mean we should not be outraged. The scary part is that once it is clear the Republicans have no shot at 2008 (which is coming soon) - then watch for what Bush/Cheney will do with absolutely nothing to lose. We need more of the media to help us fight these last 18 months.

Happy 4th!

Always swimming against this stream...

I found this 'Comment' moving. I may not still believe that the U.S. functions as a democracy, but I still respond to the ideals I learned to cherish at her knee. Keith O brought me to tears.

I wouldn't call it tough love to let uncle Sammy drink himself to death in the corner while we barbecue a couple burgers on the 4th of July. Uncle Sammy is drunk, he's got the keys, he's in the car, and he's racing down the street. It isn't tough love to turn back to the barby.

It's cowardly self-interested cynicism. Call that 'independence' -- cuz I don't!

I agree with yearzero, Olbermann needs to cool down - if he spits blood every week then any amount of outrage will be ineffectual. He needs to save it for 'special ocassions'.

Special Occasions:

Like the gutting of Habeas Corpus?

Like praising of an Arabian Horse show judge for 'doin’ a heckuva job' handling a national disaster?

Like the outing of a CIA agent?

Like turning a group of lying smear artists on your political opponents? (many instances)

Like conducting an unconstitutional wiretapping program that even John Ashcroft judges to be illegal?

Like silencing a Medicare actuary as to the real costs of your Pharmaceutical company giveaway program?

Like pulling people off the streets and taking them to other countries to torture them?

Like lying, week after week, month after month, year after year, about (1) why we are in a war in Iraq, (2) how that war is going, and (3) who we are fighting?

Like professing your confidence in an Attorney General who testifies before Congress and responds to questions like a buffoon and/or a mobster?

As Mark indicated, with this administration, ‘special occasions’ occur enough to spit blood pretty much every week.

Mark/Tim - Well yes, there are many outrages that deserve attention drawn to them, and it seems that more unravel on a regular basis. The amount of scandal is astounding.

My worry is whether Olbermann's vitriolic style is the most responsible or effective way of reporting the issues.

I want to puke when I see the right wing propagandists doing the same.

I've said before on another thread that the best antidote to bias is impartiality.

Some replied claiming that British press is biased. Of course it is. Murdoch.

The BBC recently investigated itself and found some bias.

Of course it did, and it had to. Impartiality, like perfection, is a goal to aim for rather than a tangible state.

Any half decent news organisation will recognise its positioning and self-correct.

Faux news resists this.

I hope everybody stateside has a nice holiday today. :-)


i think if more people rallied and protested at the white house/capital more stuff would be getting done.

I feel sorry for americans - how emasculating it must be to feel powerless in the face of such flagrant abuses of power. Weren't you the country of revolutionaries? Didn't you fight en masse at least twice (revolutionary and civil wars) for what was right by your own people? anarchy would be better (at least for a while) than what you have now. After tyrany comes revolution - why aren't you storming the gates of the capitol and burning the presidential flag, since it has been defiled so by the president. rise up and hang the bastards - don't let rhetoric about your fragile democracy (a lie told to you by the ruling elite of both parties) let you fail to actually regain it.

why aren't you storming the gates of the capitol and burning the presidential flag

There are, in fact, many Americans storming the gates. However, those who accuse the gate stormers of being unAmerican Jane Fonda wannabes control the main stream media and they attempt to suppress this type of action via blogs and in the public sphere with their loud voices.

Many Americans are just not all that worried about any of this.

Oh, and Tim. Brilliant response, as always.


I find it humourous that every time an Oberman comment gets posted here, at least one genius will start with the "he should cool down" "who will listen to this" etc.

It has become blazingly obvious that this tired meaningless and utterly pointless repeating of the "Keith is too angry' or 'Keith is too smug' meme is made by those who object but can't really respond to, has nothing worth saying, so they attempt to avoid subject by criticizing the voice or the voice or the clotes of the speaker.

And there is always at least one repug hack who tries to say this is OK because you think Clinton, bloody Clinton, all those years ago did something you don't agree with so it's OK for the repug scum to destroy the country in the name of patriotism.

Weak, empty, frankly stupid garbage non arguments from those who obviously hate America and every thing it ever represented.

Filthy traitors in the worst most culpable sense. Traitors and enemies of American democracy that wrap themselves in the flag, hide behind magnetic stickers and butt fuck Jesus, every time you mention the name. Thoughtless, careless, amoral scum with not a bleeding clue as to what you've done and what you continue to do and support.

Supporting a monsterously destructive war that can't be won but not joing yourselves, prefering to let the darkies and the poor fight for your 'freedoms' while pretending to be brave patriots with your stickers and camoflage clothing and Tee shirts with bold statements that you think make you look tough.

But like Cheney who said about his lack of service in Vietnam, "I had more important things to be doing." The overwhelming majority of you paper flag patriots have better things to be doing, I suppose.

If you aren't outraged at what has happened and is happening to your country and your future, then in deed, you are one with Americas' most dangerous enemies, quit pretending otherwise. The pretense has become as obvious as the lies that hold it together, to all but the practitioners, capable of only fooling themselves.

America the great has been shrunk to fit your TV screens. And many of you like it that way.

Independence NOW from King Georgie and the Dick!!!! Convict and Evict.

It's time for a new Continental Congress.

I'm quite surprised at the reaction to my comments on here - I'm accused of being disingenuous and harbouring some secret Republican agenda.

Well, if that's the case then I'm probably the only Republican in the UK.

...And the only Republican who supports impeaching Bush and Cheney... And an ICC war crimes tribunal for the American and British pre-war cabinet government ministers.

If I wasn't clear then let me say again I fully agree with Olbermann's comments. But it should not fall upon a news anchorman to make them! That's rotten.



It was always clear to me that it was the intensity of Keith's remarks that you took issue with, not the content.

I think that Keith's intensity is in line with the the views a lot of very angry Americans. A recently deceased colleague of mine, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and well-known to be a very conservative individual (he left MIT to come to a then-unheralded chemistry department in 1973, partly because he he didn't like the liberal atmosphere in Cambridge Mass), talked with me at a dinner party a couple of months before his death. He and I had never discussed politics before. His loathing of the Bush administration was palpable and I was amazed to hear him, of all people, hopiing for a Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. His case is far from unique. As a scientist, I have never seen the depth of emotion concerning politics at scientific meetings, in every day conversations, that I now see literally everywhere. Scientists are probably fairly described as a liberal group, but they are not wild-eyed radicals as a rule. The outrage I see absolutely dwarfs anything I have ever seen in the past 31 years of my professional life. Nevertheless, the corporate media describes people throughout America who are deeply alarmed at the direction this nation has taken as 'far-left', fringe Cassandras. The Democrats in Congress dither.

Keith Olbermann is one of the few people in the corporate media who speaks for us. We need more outraged 'blood-spitting' - not less.

I fully agree with Olbermann's comments. But it should not fall upon a news anchorman to make them! - Andy

Yes, but who else would say these things that need to be said, and express the outrage that fucking well needs to be expressed?

On a lighter note: Fine then, but let's start with what Jon Stewart et al have found it necessary to do, and then work our way up to the duties that fall to this news anchorman.

To Tim: Interesting post!

Tim - you're right, I wasn't clear enough. I started by taking issue at his vitriol rather than the principle itself, which is what I'm really against.

Society should not look to prominant television anchormen to carry out political debates on its behalf. In this specific case Olbermann may be well intellectually qualified to do so, but he should not whilst simultaneously delivering news to the country.

It's ultimately divisive and that cannot be good for democracy.

I guess we won't agree on this.

I found your story interesting though - but sadly not surprising. I just hope things start getting better next year.

I look forward to discussing other things with you in the future :-)

Frenetic - I love Jon Stewart, I think he's genius! :-)

Cheers Andy.

I'm sure in his day they thought Thomas Paine was too shrill, vitriolic and divisive.

Yes Andy, you can compare Olbermann's level of vitriol to that which comes from the far right. You can also compare pineapples and hand grenades. The important distinction is the content.

As you pointed out admiringly, our ancestors took up arms and fought a war of independence over issues such as this. How divisive and vitriolic was that?

I admire Olbermann and this particular "special comment" otherwise known as an "editorial", a perfectly respectable and long established form of journalism, precisely because he comes closest, short of going into a berzerk rampage, to doing justice to the outrage that is out here.


"TeaForTheTillerman - Apologies for my comments, I was feeling outraged and certainly didn't mean to insult anybody (other than Bush)."

You don't have to apologize to me - in addition to appreciating a forcefully-stated, if reasonably well-supported, argument your comment is probably the only other rational one on this page.

"My sentiments are that America should protest en masse. But as Firi said, people are disillusioned that protests fail to attract much attention in the media."

I would love to see more disenchantment with protesting, because it's time to grow up and realize it's pointless. The protest is meant to express frustration that a problem isn't being recognized, or that the protester is disenfranchised. But all of the problems people are protesting about are recognized, and nobody is disenfranchised. The problem is actually getting something done takes work and time and you may have to compromise. It's easier to buy a t-shirt and hold hands at a rally, or to get really outraged over an issue you refuse to rationally analyze.

"Keith Olbermann is one of the few people in the corporate media who speaks for us. "

I just have to call bullshit. With the exception of Fox News, everyone is speaking 'for you'. There is no media attempt to spin the war - if they even report on it, they only report negatives. You have stalwarts like "The Daily Show" and Olbermann and Michael Moore to recite your self-righteous outrage and mortification chapter and verse.

"Supporting a monsterously destructive war that can't be won but not joing yourselves"

You argument is both asinine and insulting - you cannot be seriously stating that one cannot support the troops without joining them, nor can you be ignorant to the fact that not everybody is capable of joining the military. To top it off you mix a fake concern for the troops with obvious contempt - nobody who claims an ongoing operation to be impossible is supporting the troops.

The reason you like this kind of grand theater is because you are a self-consciously dramatic person. You like issuing the pompous declarations of everything that offends you, or hearing someone else confirm how right you are.

When faced with one of your type I'm absolutely bemused: you're the type of person who cheered Jon Stewart going on Hannity & Colmes and (correctly) chastising them for contributing to partisan bickering and tit-for-tat journalism, and here you are applauding it because this time you agree? It's comical.

It's time to grow up past Olbermann. Reporters aren't meant to be spokesmen, anyway, they're meant to report the news. Do you not even realize that the fact that this man is on the air means he's part of the gigantic glossy-cover 'newsertainment' media mindset that you claim to despise?

Reporters aren't meant to be spokesmen, anyway, they're meant to report the news. Do you not even realize that the fact that this man is on the air means he's part of the gigantic glossy-cover 'newsertainment' media mindset that you claim to despise?

So this is why this Teabagthetillerman guy is always wrong on almost everything: he thinks that these types of news shows are news. He probably thinks Bill O is a real journalist. This stuff is op-ed and Olbermann just happens to read from a more well-written script than most of the others. I defy you do point out a more eloquently crafted op-ed piece on TV than any number of the ones Olbermann has delivered, all politics aside. My question is this: Where do people like teabagthetillerman get their news? I have listed where I go for my primary sources. I’d really like to know what these people call a good news source.

Everyone knows that Bush isn't about to resign but it's a nice thought.

I'm sick of being called a "filthy traitor" just because I don't have a shred of hope left in this country. The president dosn't give a damn what Keith, or anyone on this blog says, does or thinks.

This is not going to change.

That isn't to say the ideologues that want to scream into the void shouldn't do so, but it is to say exactly what they are accomplishing: nothing.

I'm advocating a kind of pragmatism regarding anger, really. Are you people actually surprised or outraged at this point, after almost eight years? And how many years under the other guy before that? And before him? And how many more just like them to come to do you think?

Anger, gravitas, and a shallow yearning for the past isn't going to fix anything. If you're still outraged at this point, you're either a young person unaware of how those in power abuse their subjects, or an old git hoping that we'll get another Kennedy.

We don't live in the age of dissent anymore, we live in the age of drive-thru liquour stores and Sean Hannity.

Give up.

Let's just agree to disagree on the Olbermann issue. I think there's a cultural issue at play - op-ed pieces have never been a feature on British TV news, and will never be.

It's not worth investing energy in debating - I'm sure we could all agree that there are more important things.

I think TeaForTheTillerman raised a good point concerning protest :-

I recall Alistair Campbell (Tony Blair's spin-doctor) saying that they analysed the protests in the UK (the largest in history) before the Iraq war and dismissed them as, "they will go home when they're tired and cold". He laughed at the style of protest that celebrities such as Bono and Bob Geldof have sold to young people.

"Buy a t-shirt! and a wristband! come to our pop concerts!"

The funny thing is that when lorry drivers barakaded the oil refineries, petrol supplies dwindled, queues grew, and it nearly brought down the government.


Keith for president!

Keith is my hero.....can we elect HIM to be the President????He's definitely smarter than the current occupant!

My belief is that even if blood were pouring into the gutters on Pennsylvania Ave in DC, it wouldn't make a difference to the men in power. There will be no violent revolution because we're already a police state. You didn't think 9-11 was all about quelling foreign terrorism did you?

Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my! They're coming to take me away!


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives