Commentary: Olberman Rips Bush

[Tanuki Racoon]

Damn, I've seen Keith Olbermann go off on Bush and his cronies before, but he just tore

Bush a new one... This is awesome.

http://tinyurl.com/5htb6k

By the end he's getting close to that Howard Beal (from the movie "Network")

The very end is classic actually....

[Acer]

Olbermann is an American hero. More should listen to him than listen to our idiot monkey president and his controllers.

Oh yeah and thanks for sharing this one I missed it on tv.

[Tanuki Racoon]

I miss a lot of his stuff and a friend pointed me here. WOW. YAY!

I have posted it my blog here on AD along with a short comment also.

[Cole Parker]

Wow! I've never seen anything like that in my life!

C

[DesDownunder]

As the Australian government (under our now defeated Prime Minister John Howard) was compliant in Bush's attack on Iraq, I feel I can join with you in my amazement at Olbermann's address.

This is the stuff from which, historical moments are made.

I am not certain that anyone could still make such a statement in Australia without being charged under one of the ant-terrorism laws that Howard passed to "protect" Australian's freedom, except the freedom to speak out as Olbermann has.

In any case it does not matter here, as our press will more than likely not even recognize that Olbermann's speech is relevant to Australia's involvement in US policies in Iraq and will therefore most likely not even report it.

But be warned my American friends, our own newly elected Labor (similar to your Democrats) government is disappointing in many of its policies or lack thereof.

Olbermann's address is indeed awesome, as Wibby says.

[Tanuki Racoon]

Wow! I've never seen anything like that in my life!

If you believe in this video, share it.

[Abraxas]

Bravo!

It's too bad the rest of the US press corps seems to be lap dogs to the white house and the republican party machine.

It's long overdue that the press begin calling this president, and his incompetent administration, to account for their mis-deeds and lies.

We need more journalists like Olberman who call them like they see them.

Well said!

Rick

[Nickolas James]

Sorry if this offends anyone, but Keith Olberman's comments were nothing more than an attempt to grandstand against the President. He doesn't stand for anything but his own ratings, and I'm not impressed by him or his empty words. If anything, he disgusts me with his leftist, anti-republican all the time rhetoric. I personally can't stand republicans either, but Olberman lacks the integrity to call his own pathetic party out onto the carpet on a number of issues. He's nothing more than a left wing version of Rush Limbaugh, but with a much smaller audience.

[Anthony]

I don't think that could be broadcast in the UK though Blair and Brown are just as culpable as Bush. For British ears I think it is too ott and might cause people (like Nikolas James) to react against it.

There is little doubt that the war was wrong;

that Bush and Blair manipulated the intelligence to secure the go-ahead; that before the war there were no terrorists in Iraq (Saddam Hussein was himself at war with the religious Al Quaeda);

that the war was carried on with little attempt to avoid harming the civilian population;

that neither government has ever been brought to admit these true statements.

In the UK this government, which was elected as 'the left' and is supported by the unions, has pursued the most right wing social policies, putting more people in prison and doing less to rehabilitate them; has taken away the laws that used to protect our freedom; has increased taxes on the poor and reduced taxes on the rich so that the gap between rich and poor is greater than it was fifty years ago; is now targeting to reduce the proportion of children brought up in poverty by 2012 (NB they have been in power for eleven years so does anyone think this is their top priority).

I could go on but what's the point. During Thatcher's rule I despaired but she was a true Tory. During Blair and Brown's rule I felt and feel betrayed because they continue to act like Thatcher.

How can the government of a prosperous country like ours tolerate 30% of children being brought up in poverty - by the government's own standards of poverty?

Love,

Anthony

[Acer]

Sorry if this offends anyone, but Keith Olberman's comments were nothing more than an attempt to grandstand against the President. He doesn't stand for anything but his own ratings, and I'm not impressed by him or his empty words. If anything, he disgusts me with his leftist, anti-republican all the time rhetoric. I personally can't stand republicans either, but Olberman lacks the integrity to call his own pathetic party out onto the carpet on a number of issues. He's nothing more than a left wing version of Rush Limbaugh, but with a much smaller audience.

Yes, yes, anyone who says anything against Bush is grandstanding. Of course oh wise one. Obviously you've never heard of Olberman before and know nothing of the man. He hits Dems who do stupid things too. If anything, your lies about Olberman disgust me, and I'm not sorry if that offends you. Go kiss some more Israeli buttocks and write some more really badly done porn and tell some more lies about your supposed private life and justify your religious confusion in more public blogs at GA.

[Nickolas James]

I don't think that could be broadcast in the UK though Blair and Brown are just as culpable as Bush. For British ears I think it is too ott and might cause people (like Nikolas James) to react against it.

There is little doubt that the war was wrong;

that Bush and Blair manipulated the intelligence to secure the go-ahead; that before the war there were no terrorists in Iraq (Saddam Hussein was himself at war with the religious Al Quaeda);

that the war was carried on with little attempt to avoid harming the civilian population;

that neither government has ever been brought to admit these true statements.

In the UK this government, which was elected as 'the left' and is supported by the unions, has pursued the most right wing social policies, putting more people in prison and doing less to rehabilitate them; has taken away the laws that used to protect our freedom; has increased taxes on the poor and reduced taxes on the rich so that the gap between rich and poor is greater than it was fifty years ago; is now targeting to reduce the proportion of children brought up in poverty by 2012 (NB they have been in power for eleven years so does anyone think this is their top priority).

I could go on but what's the point. During Thatcher's rule I despaired but she was a true Tory. During Blair and Brown's rule I felt and feel betrayed because they continue to act like Thatcher.

How can the government of a prosperous country like ours tolerate 30% of children being brought up in poverty - by the government's own standards of poverty?

Love,

Anthony

Personally, I'm against the war. I think it was stupid and reckless of not just George Bush, but of the Senators, who happen to include John McCain and Hillary Clinton, who authorized George Bush to take us into Iraq. All of them should be arrested for treason at the most, and at the very least, should be removed from office forcibly and forced to repay their salaries from the years 2002-present.

However, I'm disputing the statements highlighted in red. Unless you're able to provide some irrefutable, documented proof by a credible source or agency, I don't believe that George Bush or Tony Blair willfully manipulated intellegence to take us to war. What you're accusing them of is an international war crime, and punishable by death.

The fact is, if you do some research, you'll see that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were on the same trail Bush was on. They openly stated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the policy of the Clinton administration was regime change in Iraq. Right or wrong, that was the policy. Bush just adopted that policy and then carried it out.

As far as Saddam goes, he was a sponser of terrorism. Look it up....he was paying cash rewards to the families of any suicide bomber that would go to Israel and act as martyrs. That fact alone makes him a terrorist. Does that mean we should have gone into Iraq? No. If anything, Israel should have been given the authorization to take care of the problem themselves, but the UN is an anti-sematic organization and they blamed Israel indirectly for the terror attacks that they were enduring. Of course, later it was discovered that the UN was taking bribes from Saddam in the Oil for Food scandal, but that's getting off topic.

Anyway, sorry to disagree (again), but the facts are what they are. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but the evidence was what it was. Now that we know it was wrong, we should leave.

[Cole Parker]

It's discussions like this, presenting us with well-spoken but different sides of an argument, cogently presented, than make this forum such a compellng place to vist..

C

[Tanuki Racoon]

I don't believe that George Bush willfully manipulated intellegence to take us to war. What you're accusing them of is an international war crime, and punishable by death.

I do. And in fact I propose that very thing. The sooner, the better. High Treason IS a capital crime.

As far as Saddam goes, he was a sponser of terrorism. Look it up....he was paying cash rewards to the families of any suicide bomber that would go to Israel and act as martyrs. That fact alone makes him a terrorist.

I only partially object to our first stated mission which was to remove Saddam Poopyhead from power. When that was done, we should have organized an ORDERLY withdrawal over time. (No sane person advocates a quick, hasty withdrawal. That will create a worse mess than we already have.)

Israel should have been given the authorization to take care of the problem themselves, but the UN is an anti-sematic organization and they blamed Israel indirectly for the terror attacks that they were enduring.

While I don't object to Israel having the right to do this it's better if they didn't. Too many Arab nations would gang up on them. Much better for the US to do it. In theory.

Of course, later it was discovered that the UN was taking bribes from Saddam in the Oil for Food scandal, but that's getting off topic.

Off topic, certainly. True? Absolutely. The UN is not what it should be. UNICEF a good idea, most of the rest, not so much.

Anyway, sorry to disagree (again), but the facts are what they are. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but the evidence was what it was. Now that we know it was wrong, we should leave.

In a planned, orderly exit over about six months.

[Nickolas James]

I do. And in fact I propose that very thing. The sooner, the better. High Treason IS a capital crime.

Again, there has to be irrefutable evidence that such a crime took place. Do you know where to find it? If so, let Obama's people know, because he's already said that as soon as he's sworn in, he plans to investigate what criminal activity the Bush administration may or may not have taken part in.

I only partially object to our first stated mission which was to remove Saddam Poopyhead from power. When that was done, we should have organized an ORDERLY withdrawal over time. (No sane person advocates a quick, hasty withdrawal. That will create a worse mess than we already have.)

I completely disagree with it, mainly because life was better in Iraq, and in the entire middle east, before we removed Saddam. He kept the warring factions in check.

While I don't object to Israel having the right to do this it's better if they didn't. Too many Arab nations would gang up on them. Much better for the US to do it. In theory.

Theory is one thing, practice is quite another. In theory, removing Saddam was a good idea and everyone was behind it, but in practice, it was a pretty retarded thing for the Bush Administration to do.

Off topic, certainly. True? Absolutely. The UN is not what it should be. UNICEF a good idea, most of the rest, not so much.

I personally don't see why the UN is allowed to meet in NYC, and why the US continues to be a part of that rogue organization. I mean, how in the hell did they come to the conclusion that China should be on the human rights commission??

In a planned, orderly exit over about six months.

With all due respect, it won't matter if it's 6 months, a year or three weeks. Once we leave, all hell's going to break loose. We've barely got a handle on the situation as it is, and I don't think it's fair for our troops to be stuck there, dealing with the chaos. At some point, the Iraqi people are going to have to decide how they want to live...either in a warzone, or in a prosperous nation that's a respectable member of the world community. We can't do it for them for the next hundred years, no matter how badly McCain and Hillary want us to stay.

[JamesSavik]

I might add at this point- It was in Saddam's best interest to maintain at least the illusion that he still had chemical weapons because the threat of his use of those weapons that kept his population from rebelling. After two losing wars and the absolute waste of a generation and the wealth of one of the worlds great nations, Saddam wasn't exactly Mr. Popular. Everybody wanted him dead- his own people, the Iranians, the Kurds, the Syrians, the Saudis, the Russians, the Kuwatis, the Israelis and the Egyptians. That's just a list of the MAJOR players. When you add the disaffected Generals, angry families of the disapeered, survivors of Saddams torture chambers: the number of people that wanted Saddam dead was a cast of millions.

If telling the CIA that Saddam still had nerve gas would put the noose around Saddam's neck, there were plenty of people who were ready and willing to do so whether or not it was true.

[Cole Parker]

Damn, Nicholas, you're one of the youngest ones here, and I'm one of the oldest, and you make more sense that most of these guys. I have trouble finding fault with almost anything you're saying. Right on!

No one's brought it up, so I'll throw my oar in on an issue that's part and parcel of this. It was absolutely nuts to go into Iraq with the stated purpose of forming a democracy there. You cannot force a goverment on a people, or a governing plhilosophy. They have to elect it for themselves. Iraq is still, like Afganistan, basically a tribal nation. That's what they understand and support. They are a bit advanced beyond Afganistan in how they treat Iraqi women, but are still far behind where much of the modern world is even on that issue. We cannot foist a democracy on such a nation. It isn't ready for it.

So fighting a war there for that purpose is senseless. And we should have known that going in. My view is that Bush's main objective was to take Sadaam our because he had the temerity to insult his father. Not oil, not balance of power in the region, not WMDs, family insult. And he's reduced this nation dramatically because of that hubris.

We shouldn't have gone in, we shouldn't have stayed, and we're paying the price with young American lives.

C

[The Pecman]

Just to add my two cents: I'll never understand why we have people running the U.S. who feel they have to be "the policemen of the world." My feeling is, we have no right to interfere in another country's affairs. More importantly, we have far bigger problems here in the U.S. that we should solve first -- cleaning up New Orleans, improving education, helping the poor, lowering income taxes, keeping down gas prices, etc. Tons of stuff we should be doing instead of fighting a war in a place that doesn't really want us.

I could totally see supporting Iraq with aid, sending them supplies, money, Red Cross medicine, and so on. But not thousands of soliders. That area has had wars for at least two thousand years that we know of, and you can't force the people in those countries to settle their differences like this. It's a no-win situation.

[Nickolas James]

Damn, Nicholas, you're one of the youngest ones here, and I'm one of the oldest, and you make more sense that most of these guys. I have trouble finding fault with almost anything you're saying. Right on!

Thanks Cole! I really got interested in politics when the 2004 election was going on and George Bush and John Kerry both said that they were against gay marriage. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have to live with me and don't exactly hold all of my political views (my dad for one) who wish I had never found that out. Somtimes I can come on too strong, though, so if you ever feel the need to slap me around, don't hesitate. I won't get mad

No one's brought it up, so I'll throw my oar in on an issue that's part and parcel of this. It was absolutely nuts to go into Iraq with the stated purpose of forming a democracy there. You cannot force a goverment on a people, or a governing plhilosophy. They have to elect it for themselves. Iraq is still, like Afganistan, basically a tribal nation. That's what they understand and support. They are a bit advanced beyond Afganistan in how they treat Iraqi women, but are still far behind where much of the modern world is even on that issue. We cannot foist a democracy on such a nation. It isn't ready for it.

Exactly! Iraq is a nation of muslims, and even those who aren't muslim have a different culture that we don't understand. It's inconcievable here in the US and in other Western nations that we would ever force our women to wear burkas, or to follow sharia law. But just because we don't want it for ourselves doesn't mean we have the right to force our ideals on others. Because in the end, aren't we doing the same thing over there that Osama Bin Laden wants to do here?

So fighting a war there for that purpose is senseless. And we should have known that going in. My view is that Bush's main objective was to take Sadaam our because he had the temerity to insult his father. Not oil, not balance of power in the region, not WMDs, family insult. And he's reduced this nation dramatically because of that hubris.

I believe that Saddam tried to assasinate the old President Bush. At least that's what I've heard. Either way, I'll repeat the statement that he was carrying forward the policies of the Clinton administration, but he was foolish to do so.

Just to add my two cents: I'll never understand why we have people running the U.S. who feel they have to be "the policemen of the world." My feeling is, we have no right to interfere in another country's affairs. More imporantly, we have far bigger problems here in the U.S. that we should solve first -- cleaning up New Orleans, improving education, helping the poor, lowering income taxes, keeping down gas prices, etc. Tons of stuff we should be doing instead of fighting a war in a place that doesn't really want us.

I think it all started after World War 2, when we went to Korea to fight communism. Then it was Viet Nam. Then it was Grenada. Then it was something down in South America. Then it was Iraq the first time, and now it's Iraq all over again. We were drawn into WW2 by the Japanese, and I'll concede that we were drawn into Afganistan by the attacks of 9/11. I think people were just so emotional after 9/11 (for a good reason) that they were willing to let our government do whatever, whenever to whomever. Now everyone regrets it.

I could totally see supporting Iraq with aid, sending them supplies, money, Red Cross medicine, and so on. But not thousands of soliders. That area has had wars for at least two thousand years that we know of, and you can't force the people in those countries to settle their differences like this. It's a no-win situation.

I could see it up to a point, but we should also set a limit on that aid, and in return, they can repay the US with oil.

Edit:

I did some research. It costs between 2 and 4 billion dollars to build a new refinery and get it online. With all of the money we've spent in Iraq, we could have built several hundred new refineries in the US, which would go a long way in reducing gas prices.

[Guest Fritz]

I probably shouldn?t wade into this because I suspect I?ll make some people very angry, but the underlying implications of the Olbermann piece need to be addressed. Understand, it is not that I am deliberately trying to make people angry, but I don?t think many people have thought through the implications of endorsing pieces like this.

It makes no difference to me whether any individual agrees or disagrees with President Bush or his policies and actions. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion on that, but as Sen. Moynihan used to say, he is not entitled to his own facts and there have been some comments on this thread that show a woeful ignorance of the facts. Comments about lies, cherry picking intelligence, and illegal war fall into that category. But even deeper is what Olbermann?s piece represents.

If one examines the Olbermann special comment, he takes a few facts, adds a bunch of easily documented lies, and then spins them into a highly inflammatory rant which can only be described as hate speech. Really, how else can you describe what Mr. Olbermann did? Take the first section in which he was addressing Bush?s response to the question, ?If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what?s the worst that could happen, what?s the doomsday scenario?? Bush replied, ?Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.

?The biggest issue we face is, it?s bigger than Iraq, it?s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.?

In response to that question and answer Mr. Olbermann said the following. ?Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could, quote, ?eventually lead to another attack on the United States.?

Now it is obvious, if one examines Bush?s answer to the question, that he did not predict that if the Democrats were elected that another attack on the United States would follow. Bush was asked for a worst case scenario and he answered without making any predictions. To say otherwise is simply dishonest. And I could go on and take apart the rest of Olbermann?s special comment, but the rest is predicated upon the same type of reasoning and logic.

All this gets us to the point I wish to address. I am appalled that people seem to feel that the type of hate speech, as practiced by Mr. Olbermann, is acceptable. By approving of Mr. Olbermann?s comments you are saying that it is acceptable to lie about people you disagree with or disapprove of. You are saying that it is acceptable to try to inflame people to hatred through those lies. Is that how you wish to be known?

Over the years many people and groups of people have used similar tactics to accomplish their ends. Some examples of this would be Hitler?s blaming of the Jews which led to the Holocaust, or the KKK and their hate speech which led to lynching of Blacks in the South not all that many years ago, or bin Laden?s speeches and actions against the West, or even Fred Phelps? speeches and actions against the gay community.

Frankly I am shocked that anyone within the gay community, or who claims to support it, would continence such a flagrant example of hate speech because that type of speech has been repeatedly used against the gay community.

As I said at the beginning I?ve probably pissed a bunch of people off, but it is my hope that when they cool down they will actually think about what I?ve said and examine their moral values. If you disapprove of the tactics of Fred Phelps, you should disapprove of anyone using those same tactics. It is never acceptable to lie about people no matter how much you dislike them or disagree with them. When you lie about someone, or continence lies against someone, it tells people much more about you than your lies tell us about your enemy. It is quite obvious what type of person Mr. Olbermann is. Don?t be the same.

[Tanuki Racoon]

Fritz, I disagree with a lot of what you said because you called Mr. O a liar. He didn't lie. Anywhere. Maybe you don't agree with his views or how he puts it but that isn't the same as lying. Your opinion, though, and I will tolerate whatever opinion you wish to have even if it's the wrong one.

It is quite obvious what type of person Mr. Olbermann is. Don?t be the same.

It's obvious to me he perceptive and intelligent. So you don't wish me to be the same. Too bad. I'd much rather be an O than a Bush. In fact, I'd pretty much rather be anyone than Bush. In my life I've never had such a hatred of an "elected" official. He's evil. To the core. Just a bad man.

And the golf thing pretty much sums up Bush's views. Not a lie. Fact.

[Cole Parker]

I think it would be easy for this discussion to escalate into something no one wants. Maybe we've exhausted the intellectual rhetoric and should move on. The impassioned rhetoric can quickly become spiteful. That's not what we're here for.

C

[Graeme]

If one examines the Olbermann special comment, he takes a few facts, adds a bunch of easily documented lies, and then spins them into a highly inflammatory rant which can only be described as hate speech. Really, how else can you describe what Mr. Olbermann did? Take the first section in which he was addressing Bush?s response to the question, ?If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what?s the worst that could happen, what?s the doomsday scenario?? Bush replied, ?Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.

?The biggest issue we face is, it?s bigger than Iraq, it?s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.?

In response to that question and answer Mr. Olbermann said the following. ?Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could, quote, ?eventually lead to another attack on the United States.?

Now it is obvious, if one examines Bush?s answer to the question, that he did not predict that if the Democrats were elected that another attack on the United States would follow. Bush was asked for a worst case scenario and he answered without making any predictions. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

I saw the same thing and had the same reaction. That particular attack was unwarranted -- a classic example of spin at work. What Mr. Olbermann tried to make it sound what President Bush said is not what he said. On this particular point, I have to agree with you.

And I could go on and take apart the rest of Olbermann?s special comment, but the rest is predicated upon the same type of reasoning and logic.

However, I'm not sure I can agree with this statement. After that opening, I was critical of what I heard, but there is too much perceived truth in the allegations, even if there are spun to meet Mr. Olbermann's goals. The spin in the other issues are not taking things wildly out of context, like the first example was.

I will be fair to President Bush, though. He said that he gave up golf after a particular incident, but there were photographs of him playing golf weeks later. I think it that that is likely to be a simple misremembering of dates and events, rather than deliberate lies, which is the impression Mr. Olbermann tried to give.

[Nickolas James]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call anyone a liar, but I will say that Keith Olberman is a manipulator. He plays on the emotions of people who don't want to see through his distortions, but that's his job. Rush limbaugh and Shawn Hannity do it too. Is it wrong? Maybe, but that's what they get paid to do.

What makes it so sickening to me in Olberman's case is the fact that he invokes the memories of the lost troops to get his point across, but at the same time, he takes a shot at them by indirectly calling them murderers. Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity call for the war to continue for whatever reason, but neither of them have ever served in the armed services. That puts them on the same level as that lowlife Olberman, as far as I'm concered. Instead of taking what they say so seriously, why not examine all of the facts and come to logical conclusions?

Fact: Olberman is employed by MSNBC, an ultra left wing network that is dedicated to socialist causes such as national health care, gun control, welfare dependence and income redistribution.

Fact: Hannity is employed by Fox, an ultra right wing network that is dedicated to draconian causes such as restriction of reproductive rights, the prohibition of gay rights, the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and powerful anti drug laws.

Fact: Ben and Jerry's Everything 2wisted is a rich and creamy treat with big hunks of white chocolate, dark chocolate and peanutbutter cups.

Fact: We all have our own positions and convictions. We're a community, though, and should strive to respect everyone's opinion, regardless of how misguided we might think it is.

Fact: I should really take my own advice sometimes

[Graeme]

I think it would be easy for this discussion to escalate into something no one wants. Maybe we've exhausted the intellectual rhetoric and should move on. The impassioned rhetoric can quickly become spiteful. That's not what we're here for.

C

Sorry, Cole, we cross posted :)

I think there is intellectual rhetoric still possible with this thread, but only as an analysis of how Mr. Olbermann used his information. Since much of it was done to present a picture using pieces of information that suited the end goal he wanted to produce, it is useful, as authors, to analyse the techniques as many of them will be applicable to our own writing.

[Guest Fritz]

Writes By Myself. I find it interesting that you do not consider it a lie when Mr. Olbermann said the following. ?Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could, quote, ?eventually lead to another attack on the United States.? He took what Pres. Bush said which was, ?Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.

?The biggest issue we face is, it?s bigger than Iraq, it?s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.?

No place did I see where Pres. Bush said anything about it being a prediction so at the least it is a willful distortion of what Pres. Bush said.

Let?s check another of Mr. Olbermann?s statements for honesty and accuracy. A little later in his rant he said the following. ?You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons. You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, and damn fast. You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how ?intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment.?

That is factually inaccurate and I find it tough sledding to think Mr. Olbermann was not aware of that. For example, Pres. Clinton said the following long before Bush was elected. "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton

Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff

February 17, 1998

Or if you don?t like that quote, try the following one. ?America is threatened by an "unholy axis":

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

President Clinton

State of the Union address

January 27, 1998

As long as I?m quoting Pres. Clinton, I think this one is very appropriate. "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton

During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"

July 22, 2003

Now you are asking me to believe that an ?intelligent and perceptive? man is so ill informed about a subject on which he has expounded--at great length on a number of occasions--is totally unaware of the fact that the Clinton administration repeatedly said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. If the preceding quotes are insufficient, here are some more. "No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State

Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University

February 18, 1998

?BILL MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

BILL MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

JOE WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech, as he did in the State of the Union Address, is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true.?

Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign

During an interview with Bill Moyers

February 28, 2003

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the simple fact is that the intelligence communities of not only the United States, but Great Britain, Egypt, Jordan, France, Russia, Germany, and a bunch more that I don?t remember all believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction long before the 2000 election when Bush was in no position to force anything on them and I cannot believe that Mr. Olbermann, who works in and is part of the news media, is totally unaware of that information. If you choose to believe that he knew nothing of any of that then you are forced to believe that he is the most ill informed person in the news media, and if he is that uninformed he should not be speaking on a subject he knows nothing about. Remember, those same arguments about weapons of mass destruction were put forward to help gain passage of Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I could supply many more quotations so to say that Pres. Bush threw out every piece of evidence is stretching things past belief. Since I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Olbermann is that ill informed, that leaves only the belief that he is lying or is totally incompetent.

I could go on for pages more, but I doubt that I will change your mind. If you choose to be like Mr. Olbermann, that is your right just as it is Mr. Olbermann's right to say whatever he wishes whether it is truthful or not. That is all I have to say on the subject.