Keith Olbermann: Mission Accomplished?
Posted by Joe Rivett on 10.05.2009
Keith Olbermann ends his show the same stupid way every single day...
When there is absolutely nothing to watch at 9 or 11 eastern, I like to catch the beginning of the Rachel Maddow show. The problem is that I get to MSNBC around 8:58 and have to endure Keith Olbermann's rant about it being two thousand three hundred and some odd days since the previous president declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq. As someone that works in the Mental Health field I have some advice for Olbermann: GET OVER IT! Furthermore, Bush never declared Mission Accomplished. You can read the text of his actual speech HERE
Yes, I know there was a sign that stated Mission Accomplished. Bush did not order that banner placed there and he even later regretted that it was displayed. When you read more of the text, clearly Bush is not saying that everything is over, but he was addressing a carrier that was deployed for a very long time to troops that did a great job:
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.
Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return home. And that is your direction tonight. After service in the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of war — after 100,000 miles, on the longest carrier deployment in recent history — you are homeward bound. Some of you will see new family members for the first time — 150 babies were born while their fathers were on the Lincoln. Your families are proud of you, and your nation will welcome you.
Anyone that has read my column over the last five years knows I'm no fan of George W Bush and no fan of the Iraq War. However, Olbermann would be better off rallying his viewers against those in Congress that are CURRENTLY funding the war or maybe make sure Obama keeps his promises concerning Iraq troop pullout dates. I do not expect Olbermann to pretend he's independent like O'Reilly but I do not expect him to carry out a lie for over 2,000 days. How many days has it been since Obama declared "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is wrong? How many days has it been since Gitmo was supposed to be closed? How many days has it been since health care reform has not happened? Maybe then I'll watch your show Keith.
P.S. Would it kill you to put anyone on with an opposing viewpoint?
amen...keith should have stuck with hosting sportscenter, i thought he was much better there.
Posted By: hartfan (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 07:34 PM
Olbermann is just a dope who thinks he smarter then everyone and if you disagree with him or his man crush Obama are racist idiots to him.
Posted By: Guest#2720 (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 07:50 PM
I like Keith's humor but he's made his whole career off of Bush. MSNBC is left-wing, yes, but they don't try to be fair-and-balanced. Chris Matthews is crazy, Keith is liberal, and Rachel is more like us.
Posted By: Kevin (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 08:01 PM
Yes, its a bit embarrassing when liberals go on about the "Mission Accomplished" thing along with the other hundred urban legends concerning the Bush administration, let alone when one of them does it nightly for 5 years. Squirm!
Posted By: C (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 08:14 PM
Olbermann does it as a reminder to us all that there are soldiers still fighting the wrong fight. He has said this repeatedly, and made a point to address why he still does it after Obama got into office. And, he does go after the issues you brought up.
As far as opposing viewpoints, they're afraid to go on Countdown. Keith does not pull punches. And seeing what Rachel Maddow did in calling out Tom Ridge, they won't go onto her show I'm guessing.
Of course, if you watched the show, you'd know this.
Posted By: CMatt666 (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 08:45 PM
"P.S. Would it kill you to put anyone on with an opposing viewpoint?"
Like O'Reilly or Hannity, where they find someone with an opposing view point who is so crazy that he makes the host look good or someone so timid that they can be shouted over to also make the host look good? I don't like Olbermann but at least he doesn't waste waste air time setting up a ruse that we all see through anyway. He's pretty up front that he's a liberal troll.
Posted By: Guest#1501 (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 08:47 PM
well he was president, he should have ordered them to take it down. He abused his position with worst decisions.
Posted By: jay (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 08:55 PM
Bill O'Reilly is about as independent as Dick Cheney. Or a pre-Civil War slave.
Posted By: Ryan Bates (Registered) on October 05, 2009 at 09:01 PM
Maybe it's just me, but at this point, I do think it's a reminder about Congress not stopping the Iraq war. He has to point out that it was the previous president's war, because IT IS. By continuously reminding us it's W's war, Keith is, to me, reminding us that Obama has not yet stopped it. Congress still fights for it. Yet it's been THIS long, and was enacted by THAT president.
I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. But I think he's doing exactly what you want him to do.
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 09:54 PM
"Would it kill you to put anyone on with an opposing viewpoint?"
Lol yeah, it probably would actually.
Posted By: Guest#8179 (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Rush, Glenn Beck & Obermann should be sent on a rocket ship directly to the sun......
then maybe we could have some intellectual discussions
Posted By: Guest#0847 (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 10:40 PM
I think your missing the point. Keith Olberman is definitely an obnoxious prick. MSNBC does not have a great viewer ship (check their ratings)and few take that man seriously. I don't find his fans passionate or capable of causing real damage. Imagine what a protest ran by Olberman would accomplish.
But I think what you are trying to do is actually compare some of the crazy things Olberman does and says to some of the Fox News entertainers. I think that the damage being done by some of the fox news trio of Beck (don't think I need to mention some of the looney things he has said) Hannity (always has been a wind bag but was at least initially attempted to have fair arguements when colmes was on the air), and Van Susteren whose personal relationship with sarah palin is nonprofessional at best dangerous at worst. O'Reilly and myself agree on very few things but at least he's adamant about keeping a professional dialog most of the time. These are some of the men that you should be pointing out. They all have over double and some case triple the ratings as Olberman or any MSNBC or CNN news show.
And besides the point, the Mission Accomplished sign shortly after the war began was a huge distraction in Bush's second term. Even if he didn't mention it in his speech or even to his best knowledge not to know of the sign, it still demonstrates how unprepared the administration was for the occupation of the country. To them the mission was simple, remove Saddam at the top. Which was barely in the question of whether or not we could do it. No matter who was in charge of the sign, it was still going to come from members of the Bush circle. It was a political stunt that went horribly wrong and should always be remembered as so. History must be taught correctly.
Posted By: jeremy mcgovern (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 10:46 PM
olberman is just butthurt because his audience is 1/3 that of O'Reilly's.
Posted By: FoxFan (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 10:47 PM
"Bush did not order that banner placed there and he even later regretted that it was displayed."
Bush didn't literally hang the banner himself, but the White House ordered and hung the banner.
"Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months."
That alone would be enough to back up Olbermann's statement, but Bush also said...
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
Nearly 99-percent of coalition casualties came after that declaration.
"How many days has it been since Gitmo was supposed to be closed?"
From Poltifact: Two days after he took office, [Obama] vowed to close it within a year — by Jan. 22, 2010.
I think you're putting too much stock in his sign-off and not crediting him enough for the things you're complaining about.
You'll notice he doesn't use the number of days since Obama declared DADT wrong, but he does use the number of people dismissed.
Keith has a number of douchey moments - allegedly stalking Rebecca Lobo for one - but it's completely valid to wonder why we're still there.
Obama still has eight months to fulfill his promise to reduce troop levels. If he doesn't, then we'll test Olbermann's hypocrisy level.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on October 05, 2009 at 11:09 PM
Good little blurb here. There are two main points, one minor and one major:
1. RE: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. A Bush trademark, or at least a notable recurring pattern, was the hugely impressive background imagery utilized during a number of his speeches. Three easily come to mind: Mission Accomplished, his mount Rushmore speech where the camera positioned to catch his profile with our forefathers, and his speech in New Orleans post Katrina (which drew a fair amount of criticism for constructing/mobilizing a very expensive lighting rig to visually enhance the president's address. The critics of course argued that such massive resources should be contributed to the rescue and relief effort instead of furthering a President's political capital). My point is that Bush engaged (effectively, and even brilliantly) in these visual speech enhancements throughout his presidency, and this observation was made in a fair number of texts and articles I read during my undergrad years (B.A. Political Science). It seems a bit silly to say (or imply) that he had no hand in it (he flew on to the carrier on a JET as opposed to a helicopter pretty much because he felt like it/wanted the photo op for political capital, he certainly could have requested that the banner be taken down). Mission Accomplished bought him a fair amount of political capital among the conservative base, and probably had a positive effect on the 2004 election. It seems silly to disconnect Bush from it years later. It was a political move that had positive short term affects, but has become a negative long term talking point.
2: Your major point is spot on, regardless of the motives behind displaying mission accomplished. For critics of Bush, at best, it was negligence. At worst, it was willful misinformation. Regardless, the Critics who bitched and moaned are now in a position to do something about it...and yet they are still just bitching and moaning for the most part. Keith O absolutely should be holding our public officials' feet to the fire until they make good on what was promised to us, instead of continuing to bitch about the happenings of a former president. Be PROACTIVE!
Good blurb.
Posted By: Shadowhendrix (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Rivett,
This is the second time in as many posts that I agree with you- what the fuck?
Has somebody stolen Rivett's password and username?
Look, as the offical speaker on behalf of the conservatives I would agree to get rid of O'Reliey if the libes dumb Olberdouche.
Fun Fact- and this is true- Keith has a spastic bladder and has to shit quite often...it's true, look it up.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Olbermann was attending Cornell when he was 16. So yeah, he is smarter than everyone else
Posted By: wemedge (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Someone should count the days since April 19th 2007 when Harry Reid declared "the war is lost"
Posted By: Frank Anthony (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 02:08 AM
JD,
Not disputing your facts in this particular case because I really don't know if they are correct or not, but Time and politifact are two left-wing sources. They are not non-partisan.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 09:54 AM
"Yes, I know there was a sign that stated Mission Accomplished. Bush did not order that banner placed there and he even later regretted that it was displayed."
Had the sign, placed without Bush's direct order or approval [snicker], said something to the effect "America Sucks", I think he would have waited for it to be removed. Is this what we want, Joe? We're going to lower the standards of common sense even further and declare that a leader who wants to make a statement without being held accountable need only have a giant banner behind them? The words have to escape the person's lips publicly in order to count?
Joe, I could have agreed with the idea that Olbermann is beating a dead horse, but your rewriting and defense of what happened actually creates a need to revisit it and set the record straight as Dunn has. My old boss used to proclaim "I never said that" every time he was proven wrong, which was frequently. I don't want those words to be an escape hatch for our nation's highest official, whoever he happens to be.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Could you be more specific on how politi-fact is partisan?
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Hmmm 19 comments.....OMG I JUST FOUND THE 19 PEOPLE THAT WATCH MSNBC!
Posted By: sigh (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Da Man,
I don't know a whole lot about Politifact, but I know they won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting this year ( http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2009-National-Reporting ).
In terms of columnists whose work is separate from the Politifact initiative, you are correct; 43% 'progressive' and 29% 'conservative', according to wiki. But I fail to see evidence that Politifact itself is anything other than non-partisan. I would love to see this evidence though, so if you have the opportunity today I would appreciate if you directed me toward it.
Beyond Politifact, what makes for a "non-partisan" source of information anyway? If you're applying the strictest definition of this term, my hunch is that we would be hard pressed to find one we could all agree on, so we will have to work with the information we have.
Lastly, Dunn only used Politifact for a date Obama said something. I think I will take him (Dunn, not Obama) at his word and my memory for that one.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Grant,
Pee comes from your bladder; poop comes from your bowel.
Posted By: Scotty H (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Look, as the offical speaker on behalf of the conservatives I would agree to get rid of O'Reliey if the libes dumb Olberdouche.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 11:34 PM
No dice. O'Rielly isnt even close to the same level. Hannity for Olbermann.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 02:38 PM
No dice. O'Rielly isnt even close to the same level. Hannity for Olbermann.
Posted By: AdamS (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 02:38 PM
----------------------------------------
Here's a better deal. You can have Hannity AND O'Reilly AND keep Olbermann on the air so we can continue to laugh at his idiocy.
Posted By: sigh (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 04:29 PM
Da Man,
Not sure Time and Polifact are "left wing sources." It seems as if EVERYTHING is a left wing source these days. Pretty convenient for the right wing, don't you think?
Anyway, that point aside, I refer you to two different books:
1. God's Politics by Jim Wallis, an evangelical who supported Bush.
2. What Happened by Scott McClelan, who as we all know, was Bush's Press Secretary through most of the Iraq B.S.
Both of these books have stipulated that the White House specifically ordered the banner to be put up, and that the Bush PR machine was maniacal about "stagecraft."
And surely, Wallis and McClellan can't be dismissed off hand as "left wing sources."
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 06:01 PM
You're wrong Crow,
And I do respect you...so don't get shitty.
The banner was to celebrate the aricraft carriers mission acomplishment, Bush was surprise visit.
The PR team might have said keep it up- but it link it to the total war operation is retarded...
Again- Missions are successful everyday in war, operations take years.
So even if you want to get technical, mission accomplished! is true...even if that mission was to simply land the plane with Bush successfully.
And Bush never said "We are done with Iraq...", he said "We still got work to do."
Who cares at this point?
And why does Bush matter- how long do we have to hear his name used as a counterarguement.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 06:34 PM
If Keith O has to go, then so does Bill O. They are both equally insufferable at this point, and to have one taken away would just elevate the other to even higher levels of ridiculousness.
Posted By: Cactus (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 07:24 PM
"And why does Bush matter- how long do we have to hear his name used as a counterarguement."
What's that quote? Those who don't give a shit about the past should be forced to repeat it?
Posted By: Guest#5004 (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 07:54 PM
Olbermamnn is just a clown, he's barely able to get a point out from the arrogant smirk on his face. He hammers this point over and over again. I find it disrespectful to out troops. The banner was there to pronounce thier mission done. They went did thier tour and the president went commend them for it. PR stunt maybe, but no worse that what Olbermann does every night. He can't get past what Bush did during the war, but he doesn't hae the guts to say a peep about how horrible Obama has been since president. You might not agree with o'Riely, Beck or Hannity, but I've heard each of them say fight to win or send them home
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 07:55 PM
"I find it disrespectful to out troops. The banner was there to pronounce thier mission done. They went did thier tour and the president went commend them for it."
And then promptly turned around and ignored the multiple tours following that one. Today's veterans are forced to bear a heavier burden than ever before, being redeployed over the last six years at a rate we've never seen which is what's leading to things like the Army seeing a record high in suicides due to combat stress. And that's all well and good because "we don't need a draft." We'll just work the ones we have until they can't work anymore which has seemed to be the idea through two administrations.
I find the backdoor draft we have in place far more disrespectful in that people talk about how much they care for our troops but then continually send us off to die a slow death be it in the field or through PTSD-related incidents. But yeah, just keep congratulating us and talking about how much you respect what we do so you can act like you're actually doing something for us.
Posted By: Guest#6128 (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I think making sure that people remember what's important as far as not starting stupid wars for nefarious means and then pretending they're going great to sell the public on a continuing line of BS- which Mr. Cheney is still trying to do, is a great idea and although tedious, slapstick and pedantic- is still useful. Keith has never made any real claims at being unbiased unlike his "independent" competitors, so, I'm cool with it.
Posted By: The Weesel (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 10:21 PM
To Mr Murioc...
"The banner was to celebrate the aricraft carriers mission acomplishment, Bush was surprise visit.
The PR team might have said keep it up- but it link it to the total war operation is retarded..."
You don't think that, in PR terms, this was a deliberate piece of misrepresentation? That's the whole point of a PR job....
"Fun Fact- and this is true- Keith has a spastic bladder and has to shit quite often...it's true, look it up."
Really, we're going there. We're making fun of people because of their physical disabilities. I could get into the technicalities of how it's neither spastic nor his bladder, but really. You're the kid laughing at the physically disabled. Nobody likes that kid.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 10:57 PM
well he was president, he should have ordered them to take it down. He abused his position with worst decisions.
Posted By: jay (Guest) on October 05, 2009 at 08:55 PM
"How many days has it been since Gitmo was supposed to be closed?"
From Poltifact: Two days after he took office, [Obama] vowed to close it within a year — by Jan. 22, 2010.
Jay- Bush abused his position? Obama has been in office for 9 months, amidst an economic meltdown, caused by the poor decisions of both parties, and is going overseas to pitch for Chicago getting the Olympics? Then his wife talks about sacrifices she had to make….BOO HOO….what about the sacrifices the troops make every single day fighting? As for Afghanistan, what the Bamster gonna do? Is he going to sacrifice the troops well being and not send anymore despite calls for troop increases, just to appease his base for 2012? Tough decisions for him….I say screw the base and send what the top military officials ask, whether it’s troops, better armor, better vehicles, anything they need.
JD Dunn- So we will see January 22, 2010 come and go with out closure of Gitmo…no one wants them and we cannot set them free to potentially carry out 9/11 part deux”…what’s a liberal president to do? WWBCD? What would Bill Clinton Do? Probably ignore intelligence briefings that would have possibly stopped the WTC from getting bombed (1993) and the USS Cole (2000) sunk while he was HHIC (Head Honky in Charge).
BTW, way to go ‘bama…way to blow off the Dalai Lama to appease Communist Red China…considering the own our asses already!
Posted By: Libs lie... (Guest) on October 06, 2009 at 11:49 PM
I love Keith, but watching MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News is a waste of time.
I watch PBS. Less shouting and pontificating to gain viewers; more discussion and reporting to inform the public.
Posted By: DocSarpolis (Guest) on October 07, 2009 at 01:06 AM
When Olbermann does his "How dare you?" segments, maybe for fun he could use "Little Jabroni" instead of "sir".
Posted By: Guest#2952 (Guest) on October 07, 2009 at 01:09 AM
Grant,
How am I wrong? I just pointed to two books, one written by a strong Bush supporter, the other by a former Bush cabinet-level official.
Perhaps your "wrong-o-meter" needs to be adjusted...
Posted By: Crow21 (Guest) on October 07, 2009 at 02:42 AM
is it just me or what I was listening to some of keith olbermann's pass news and his tone, his reaction doesn't change. I don't care if he is telling the news, talking with someone else or talking about someone else, it has the same sound to a point you don't even hear him anymore after a few words.
Posted By: Maxine (Guest) on October 10, 2009 at 07:25 PM
STAY CURRENT