Olbermann: Bush Extending 'Senseless' War to Aid 'War Profiteers' --1/3/2007

1. Olbermann: Bush Extending 'Senseless' War to Aid 'War Profiteers'
On Tuesday's Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann used his latest "Special Comment" attack on President Bush to accuse the President of extending the "senseless, endless" war in Iraq as part of an ulterior motive to transfer money to "war profiteers" because "you can't sell [the Army] any more [Humvees] until the first thousand have been destroyed." Olbermann: "The service men and women are ancillary to the equation. This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't it, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, complete with restaurants. At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir." After proclaiming that "this country has already lost in Iraq" because of its "crushing impact on our safety here," which has "fomented new terrorism," "stoked paranoia," and "pitted Americans one against another," Olbermann accused Bush of first sending troops to Iraq for the President's "lie," and now for his "ego." AUDIO&VIDEO [1]

2. Couric During Ford Funeral: Billy Graham 'Remarkably Partisan'
Billy Graham may seem like an American icon to some, but not to Katie Couric, who scorned him during live Ford memorial service coverage on CBS Tuesday morning. She complained about him for writing a "remarkably partisan" letter comforting Gerald Ford after he lost to her hero Jimmy Carter in 1976. Who is Couric to judge "remarkably partisan," since she leans exactly the other way when it comes to her hero, President Carter?

3. Rosie O'Donnell, Katie Couric, 'Supposed' Fans of Gun Control?
On the "Federal Page" in Tuesday's Washington Post, Jeffrey Birnbaum, who covers lobbying, suggests it's not "genuine" for the National Rifle Association to sound the alarm on threats to gun rights at the moment: "No one expects gun legislation to pass this year." But in dismissing the "not-so-imminent threat" (as the article's headline describes it), Birnbaum wen too far: "The document is filled with sinister-looking caricatures of supposed anti-gun figures such as filmmaker Michael Moore, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) and CBS News anchor Katie Couric." Supposed? Doesn't Birnbaum remember Rosie trying to wallop NRA spokesman Tom Selleck into submission? Obviously, he doesn't remember then-NBC host Katie Couric asking NRA chief Charlton Heston to admit to the need for gun control in a June 1998 interview.

4. Matthews Lists O'Reilly with Kim Jong-Il as Worst Despots of 2006
During the year-end awards edition of his weekly syndicated chat show, Chris Matthews asked his panel to vote on the "Dangerous Despot" of 2006, and then listed the nominees: North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, Venezuelan boss Hugo Chavez, Iran's nuclear-seeking threat Mahmoud Ahmedinejad -- and Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly. "How in the hell did this guy get in there?" Matthews asked in mock surprise as O'Reilly's face popped up next to America's worst enemies. "How did he get in there?" Later in the same discussion, BBC Washington Correspondent Katty Kay pointed out "there's a despot missing from this crowd, too, and that's [Russian President] Vladimir Putin," who is suspected of ordering the killings of political opponents. "We bumped him for O'Reilly," Matthews interjected, eliciting laughter from the rest of the panel. "What do you think?"

5. "Top Ten Things Heard Outside Saddam Hussein's Execution"
Letterman's "Top Ten Things Heard Outside Saddam Hussein's Execution."
Corrections: Due to a software processing error, the first word of the headline on the lead item in the January 2 CyberAlert was cut off. It should have read: "'Unpardonable' for Ford to Not Share Disagreement with Iraq War." The December 29 CyberAlert reported that on the December 28 NBC Nightly News, "Brian Williams trumpeted in his opening tease: 'The last word, President Gerald Ford opposed the war. Why did he keep it a secret until after his death?'" In fact, Campbell Brown anchored that night and said those words.

Olbermann: Bush Extending 'Senseless'
War to Aid 'War Profiteers'

This item, by Brad Wilmouth, was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog with accompanying video, of the last four minutes of Olbermann's eleven-minute diatribe, which will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert. In the meantime, to watch the Real or Windows Media video, or MP3 audio, go to: newsbusters.org [5] ]

After proclaiming that "this country has already lost in Iraq" because of its "crushing impact on our safety here," which has "fomented new terrorism," "stoked paranoia," and "pitted Americans one against another," Olbermann accused Bush of first sending troops to Iraq for the President's "lie," and now for his "ego." Olbermann: "First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush. Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego."

Olbermann had earlier belittled Senator McCain's support of deploying more troops by referring to him "inuring himself to the hypocrisy" of seeking votes from the "irrational right" who want the National Park Service to promote Creationism. The Countdown host also warned Democrats that even if they try to cut off funding of the war, that Bush, who is "gifted at letting American troops be killed and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage," might make up the difference by diverting money from funding "meant to protect the troops." Olbermann: "And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well. President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage....Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses now, and you cut off funding for this war, Mr. Bush will ignore you for as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there."

As Olbermann moved to accuse the President of the ulterior motives of trying to get the public to accept "endless war" and to help "war profiteers," he compared the administration's various rationales for the war to a "game of Colorforms." Olbermann: "That is what this 'sacrifice' has been for. To continue this senseless war. You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation, then of regional imperative, then of oil prices, and now in these new terms of 'sacrifice.' It's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir? This senseless, endless war."

Below is a complete transcript of Olbermann's eleven-minute "Special Comment" from the end of the January 2 Countdown on MSNBC:

"And finally tonight, a 'Special Comment' about 'sacrifice.' If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene? Would you at least protest? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them? What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?
"This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's, quote, 'new Iraq strategy,' unquote, and his impending speech to the nation, which, it quotes a senior American official as saying, will be about troop increases and 'sacrifice.' The President has delayed, dawdled, deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group. He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them. If the BBC is right -- and we can only pray it is not -- he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby ill-defined plan for 'sacrifice.'
Sacrifice! More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked. More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended. More American families will have to bear the unbearable and rationalize the unforgivable -- 'sacrifice' -- sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever. And more Americans -- more even than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, and not more -- will have to conclude this President does not have any idea what he's doing, and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.
"It must now be branded as propaganda -- for even the President cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone 'the decider.' But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklaszewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called 'surge and accelerate' -- as many as 20,000 additional troops -- for 'political purposes.' This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.
"This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush. If this is your intention, if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be 'sacrifice' -- sacrifice your intention, not more American lives! As Senator Biden of Delaware has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces face relative to those living in Baghdad -- friend and foe -- from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1. 'Sacrifice?' No. Drop in a bucket. The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets. They will not be there 'short-term,' Mr. Bush; for many it will mean a year or more in death's shadow. This is not temporary, Mr. Bush. For the Americans who will die because of you, it will be as permanent as it gets.
"The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen 'sacrifice' constitute a very thin gruel, indeed. The former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Senator McCain told him that the 'surge' would help the 'morale' of the troops already in Iraq. If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam, or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent to Iraq -- all that or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.
"Then there is the argument that to take any steps towards reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world. This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists. We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason. We have now shown them that we will continue to do so. We have shown them our stupidity.
"Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq '€" and now about 'sacrifice' -- is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion. Your most respected generals see no value in a 'surge' -- they could not possibly see it in this madness of 'sacrifice.' The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake. Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake. And you threw their wisdom back until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying 'best two out of three, best three out of five, hundredth one counts.' Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and moreover, they do not want you to do this. Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us. Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!
"To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship, those bonded still to this President and to this administration and now bonded to this 'sacrifice,' proceed at your own peril. John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds -- he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy and the tragedy of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist now courting the votes of those who support a government that tells visitors to the Grand Canyon that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood. That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself. Or maybe it is obvious to him and he no longer cares.
"But to the rest of you in the Republican Party: We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country's most precious assets, the lives of its citizens who are in harm's way. If you do not, you are not serving this nation's interests, nor your own indeed. Last November should have told you this. The opening of the new Congress tomorrow and Thursday should tell you this again. Next time, those missing Republicans on Capitol Hill will be you.
"And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well. President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage. The equation is simple. The country does not want more troops in Iraq. It wants fewer. Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work. Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses now, and you cut off funding for this war, Mr. Bush will ignore you for as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.
"Because that's what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush? That is what this 'sacrifice' has been for. To continue this senseless war. You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation, then of regional imperative, then of oil prices, and now in these new terms of 'sacrifice.' It's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir? This senseless, endless war. But it has not been senseless in two ways, at least. It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, has it not, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. It has gotten many of us used to the idea, the virtual 'white noise' of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague 'sacrifice' for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in the terms of the very important-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase 'the war on terror.'
"And the war in Iraq's second accomplishment -- your second accomplishment, sir -- is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers. Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more until the first thousand have been destroyed, can you? The service men and women are ancillary to the equation. This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't it, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, complete with restaurants. At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir. And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.
"You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don't fight them there we will fight them here, as if the corollary were somehow that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here. And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the good, on the premise that we need to be ready to 'fight them here' anyway and always. In point of fact, even if the civil war in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat '€" not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.
"But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir. Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here. You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists. You have already stoked paranoia. You have already pitted Americans, one against the other. We will have to live with it. We will have to live with what, of the fabric of our nation you have already 'sacrificed.' The only object still admissible in this debate is the quickest and safest exit for our people there. But you -- and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone -- still insist otherwise. And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, sir, so that you can say you did not lose in Iraq. Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable. But it is all too easily understood now. First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush. Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.
"If what is reported is true, if your decision is made and the 'sacrifice' is ordered, take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning, Gerald Ford: Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision. Atone. Sacrifice, Mr. Bush? No, sir, this is not 'sacrifice.' This has now become 'human sacrifice.' And it must stop. And you can stop it. Next week, make us all look wrong. Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop. And you, sir, must stop it. From Washington, I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

Couric During Ford Funeral: Billy Graham
'Remarkably Partisan'

Billy Graham may seem like an American icon to some, but not to Katie Couric, who scorned him during live Ford memorial service coverage on CBS Tuesday morning. She complained about him for writing a "remarkably partisan" letter comforting Gerald Ford after he lost to her hero Jimmy Carter in 1976. Who is Couric to judge "remarkably partisan," since she leans exactly the other way when it comes to her hero, President Carter?

[This item is adopted from a posting by Tim Graham on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [6] ]

At about 10:40am EST, Couric talked with liberal Carter-boosting historian Douglas Brinkley about Ford's religious faith, which brought out this exchange about Ford's relationship with the evangelist:

Brinkley: "He was a man of deep, deep religious faith. Many people associate Jimmy Carter with born-again Christianity, but he was a very churchgoing man, Gerald Ford, and he developed a great friendship with the Rev. Billy Graham. One of the interesting new documents to come to light are the correspondence between Billy Graham and Gerald Ford. In fact, when Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, Graham wrote an extraordinary letter to Gerald Ford saying that during the election, I prayed constantly for you, and for some mysterious reason, unknown to us, Mr. Carter won. And he went on to say that he just can't figure out why God did that to us, that I wanted you, Gerry -- a very nice letter. It meant a lot to President Ford to receive that."
Couric: "Of course, Billy Graham became very close to Jimmy Carter and has been close to every President. But that was a remarkably partisan letter from someone who-" [awkward pause]
Brinkley: "Tells you how close-"
Couric: "-prides himself on being nonpartisan and a friend to all Presidents."

Rosie O'Donnell, Katie Couric, 'Supposed'
Fans of Gun Control?

On the "Federal Page" in Tuesday's Washington Post, Jeffrey Birnbaum, who covers lobbying, suggests it's not "genuine" for the National Rifle Association to sound the alarm on threats to gun rights at the moment: "No one expects gun legislation to pass this year." But in dismissing the "not-so-imminent threat" (as the article's headline describes it), Birnbaum wen too far: "The document is filled with sinister-looking caricatures of supposed anti-gun figures such as filmmaker Michael Moore, comedian Rosie O'Donnell, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R) and CBS News anchor Katie Couric."

Supposed? Doesn't Birnbaum remember Rosie trying to wallop NRA spokesman Tom Selleck into submission? Obviously, he doesn't remember then-NBC host Katie Couric asking NRA chief Charlton Heston to admit to the need for gun control in a June 1998 interview.

[This item, by Tim Graham, was posted Tuesday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [7] ]
For Birnbaum's January 2 article, "NRA Sounds Alarm of Not-So-Imminent Threat," go to: www.washingtonpost.com [8]

Couric's demands to NRA chief Charlton Heston to admit to the need for gun control, in a June 1998 interview on Today:

-- "Speaking of gun safety and children Mr. Heston, as you well know and in fact as everyone in this country knows there has been a spate of school shootings recently that have been quite disturbing to all Americans. Given the fact that these seem to be happening with greater frequency has it caused you to rethink your philosophy about children and guns and the accessibility of guns for children?"

-- "But Mr. Heston, don't you think that if deep, if children are deeply disturbed, there might be another way for them to deal with conflict if guns were not so readily available to them?"

-- "Getting back to kids and guns, if you will indulge me for a moment. You cannot think of any other position the NRA could take in terms of trying to decrease the number of school shootings? You feel like this is not your bailiwick, this is not your problem?"
Charlton Heston: "Not at all. As I told you the NRA spends more money, more time..."
Couric, cutting him off: "Other than education."
Heston: "Well what would you suppose? What would you suggest?"
Couric: "I don't know, perhaps greater restrictions."

For more, check the June 9, 1998 CyberAlert: www.mrc.org [9]

Matthews Lists O'Reilly with Kim Jong-Il
as Worst Despots of 2006

During the year-end awards edition of his weekly syndicated chat show, Chris Matthews asked his panel to vote on the "Dangerous Despot" of 2006, and then listed the nominees: North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, Venezuelan boss Hugo Chavez, Iran's nuclear-seeking threat Mahmoud Ahmedinejad -- and Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly.

"How in the hell did this guy get in there?" Matthews asked in mock surprise as O'Reilly's face popped up next to America's worst enemies. "How did he get in there?"

Later in the same discussion, BBC Washington Correspondent Katty Kay pointed out "there's a despot missing from this crowd, too, and that's [Russian President] Vladimir Putin," who is suspected of ordering the killings of political opponents. "We bumped him for O'Reilly," Matthews interjected, eliciting laughter from the rest of the panel. "What do you think?"

[This item, by Rich Noyes, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [10] ]

(The exchange brings to mind a nasty incident from the fall of 1998, in which ABC News posed the following question on their Web site: "If there were an Ig-Nobel Peace Prize, who would win it?" ABC gave the following options: "Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein, and Linda Tripp." How helpful of ABC to join in the character assassination of a whistle-blower by lumping her in with three of the worst mass murderers on the planet. See: www.mrc.org [11] )

That wasn't the only shot at Fox News on the December 24 Chris Matthews Show. Earlier, in Matthews' "Take the Lead" award, he nominated Bill Clinton, whom he approvingly described as "credited by many Democrats, at least, of jump-starting their fall campaign by really blasting Chris Wallace on Fox News. I remember that one, when he said, 'Get that smirk off your face.'"

MSNBC Chief Washington Correspondent Norah O'Donnell agreed with Matthews: "President Clinton, by taking on Wallace from Fox News, really put the backbone back in the Democratic party, and that's what I heard from Democrats. While even they were hopeful they would win in the November elections, they looked to Clinton -- 'Finally, we feel like we can fight back' -- and we saw more Democrats after that. He set the tone for Democrats."

None of the panelists stuck up for their fellow journalist Wallace, a former NBC News White House correspondent and ABC News anchor. Matthews seemed to blame Wallace, not Clinton's thin skin, for the entire matter, as he later observed, "Did you see Chris Wallace picked a fight with Teddy [Kennedy] the other day, so this is an ongoing thing here."

But at least Wallace wasn't named a "Dangerous Despot," as Matthews did with Bill O'Reilly. Here's the entire exchange from that portion of the show, which ended with Dan Rather bizarrely suggesting that the polonium-poisoned ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko may not have been murdered. "It's possible the man wasn't poisoned," Rather weirdly insisted. "We don't know for a fact it was murder."

Here's the transcript:

Chris Matthews: "Next up, 'Desperate Despots.' 2006 was a big year in America's rogues gallery. North Korea's Kim Jong-Il launched a nuclear test. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez called President Bush 'the Devil' at the UN. Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rode a wave of Muslim anger over Danish cartoons to international celebrity. How in the hell did this guy get in there? Bill O'Reilly -- how did he get in there? Dan, I think we were thinking of you, maybe, here."
Dan Rather: "I don't know why you would do that."
Matthews: "Does Bill O'Reilly belong on this list? What about Ahmadinejad. People tell me that it was written that Time magazine almost made this guy man of the year he was so big this year."
Rather: "He'd get my vote in this category, by the way, because Iran has become so important to our own future."
Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune): "It's not because you are a good guy, but because you move the news and Ahmadinejad did move the news this past year and I think is going to be a pivotal figure over this next year."
Katty Kay (BBC Washington Correspondent): "But there's a despot missing from this crowd, too, and that's Vladimir Putin, and if you're looking at what's happening over the past few weeks-"

Matthews, interrupting: "We bumped him for O'Reilly. What do you think?" (Laughter)
Kay: "I'm not going to comment on O'Reilly, but I would on Putin. We have to watch Putin very carefully over the next few months because he is taking in power in Moscow and he is spreading that abroad, attacking his enemies abroad as much as he is at home."
Matthews: "What if we come to realize that he did do it, that he did poison the guy with nuclear, radioactivity?"
Kay: "We don't know exactly if he did it. But we do know that he is consolidating power in a way that's-"
Rather (interrupting): "Two quick points need to be made. Number one, it's possible the man wasn't poisoned. I'm not -- who knows. It's possible that there was some leakage of this very toxic material. So we don't know for a fact it was murder.
"Back to Putin, I think spot on. We're going to talk a lot about the presidential elections in this country in 2008, but does Putin decide that he's going to stay on? And, if he does, then what happens? If you want to pinpoint where world peace may be decided, it may be on their presidential maneuverings, rather than our presidential election in 2008. It could very well be."

"Top Ten Things Heard Outside Saddam
Hussein's Execution"

From the January 2 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Things Heard Outside Saddam Hussein's Execution." Late Show home page: www.cbs.com [12]

10. "Would it have killed him to wear a tie?"

9. "You know he left his entire estate to the Boys and Girls Club of New Jersey"

8. "$4 for a goat dog"

7. "I loved it when Chemical Ali sang 'Wind Beneath My Wings'"

6. "Not what I had in mind"

5. "Let's start the wave"

4. "Is it too soon to start hitting on his wives?"

3. "Ryan Seacrest did a nice job on the countdown"

2. "Uday and Qusay wanted to be here, but they were too busing rotting in Hell"

1. "He dropped faster than Bush's poll numbers"

# Matt Lauer is scheduled to be a guest on Wednesday's Late Show.

-- Brent Baker