Cynicism, conspiracy and absurdity Posted by: McQ
on Saturday, August 12, 2006
You sometimes just have to shake your head when you read things like this. Keith Olbermann:
"And could it just be coincidence that the President finds out about this plot, then his Vice President and the Republican chairman start slamming Democrats for being soft on terror, then the public is informed about the plot? Could it really be just coincidence?"
Or could it be politics as usual? Here's an idea: it could be a natural reaction from the opposing party to a Lamont victory and the single issue on which he ran and for which Democrats rewarded him. An issue which the Republicans have linked to the war on terrorism and believe to be important. Maybe it's just me, but it seems remarkably unremarkable to have an opposition politician speak out about such things.
And, politically speaking, it also seems perfectly unexceptional that the opposition would speak out against someone who advocates leaving Iraq right now as being "soft on terror". It has been the same charge made by the same people for the same reason since 2003.
I mean, go figure, huh?
Anyway, back to Olbermann.
"There have been a lot of terror threats, warnings, events that have come in the wake of bad political news for the administration. We chronicled them here. They might be coincidences, they might not. There is such a thing as the logical fallacy. But this is the first time I've ever heard of an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory, that the revelation of this purported plot could not be politically timed because the administration would have really benefited had this plot been revealed Monday or Tuesday before the voters went to the polls in the primary in Connecticut. I gather you don't buy the anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory."
I'm sorry but that's just funny. Even he can't manage to twist the verbiage (and timeline) enough to give any validity to his wild assertion concerning the timing of everything. Yeah, politically it would have been very useful had the plot been announced earlier. But it wasn't.
So what?
If the administration had been interested in manipulating the bust to effect a primary outcome, doing it after the primary isn't the most effective way to do so, is it? So the actual facts argue pretty persuasively against any "timing" theory, don't they?
But wait. Bush knew about the case in the UK on Sunday which means Cheney must have known, and RNC Chair Ken Melman may have known (although I find that charge to be unlikely). So when they blasted the Democrats after the Lamont loss they knew this was going to break.
Uh, so? What has that to do with Lamont and Reps criticizing the Dems for running someone who wants to pull out of Iraq now? How, as I noted, is what they said then any different than what they said in 2003?
Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, the person to whom Olbermann is directing all this "analysis" as well as questions actually presents a plausible alternative that seems to have never occurred to Olbermann:
First of all, if you're thinking conspiratorially, which I'm not in this case, it actually makes more sense for them to have Lieberman lose the primary because now they can use, you know, Ned Lamont as their poster boy of a McGovern liberal, and already in the last 24 hours, they've been out saying that any other Democrat in a close race who endorses Ned Lamont as the Democratic nominee for the Senate is thereby, you know, soft on terrorism and some kind of extremist liberal. So it made more sense for them to have Lieberman lose. That was in their interests.
That's a nice way of saying, "Keith, you're an idiot".
Alter drives it home with this:
However, having said that, I don't believe that that was at play here. I think the British were controlling the timing of these arrests, and it's really important not to get into this sort of crouch where you say everything that involves terrorism is political. You can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head at once, Keith. One is that, you know, they use this kind of news as a sort of Hamburger Helper for the red meat they want to throw out politically. In that sense, they're exploiting it politically, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're timing this politically."
Well apparently Olbermann and others can and do hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in their head quite well, thankyouverymuch. And many choose to get into that "sort of crouch" because of their virulent dislike of everything Bush.
If you've been paying attention, Olbermann's idiotic "theory" seems to be the new meme among those I can only characterize as geese who wake up in a new world everyday. They are trotting it out as some sort of hot, fresh and new idea that, you know, politicians might act like politicians and actually exploit stories that benefit their narrative, ideology and/or political point of view. Can you believe it?
Greewald did it the other day, and, of course his whining sycophants weren't far behind.
I mean, you just have to laugh out loud when you see what these folks think passes for trenchant analysis sometimes. In reality it is disingenuous nonsense.
Again, consider the point being made: Politicians are -gasp- exploiting news stories for political gain?!?! It would actually be news if they weren't.
Anyway, back to Olbermann. Like all such lines of "reasoning", Olbermann's finally runs completely off the road and into the ditch of the totally absurd.
"What about the role of the media in authenticating that for which we have only the word of two governments and no other evidence of our own?"
I mean, really. Twenty plus people are in jail and it's all a political stunt cobbled together by the US and UK administrations for ... what? To effect primaries held the day before? Give the Republicans a good reason to call the Dems "soft on terror"?
At that point, even Alter couldn't manage to ignore the absurdity evident, and using the old "damning with faint praise" ("scrutiny" - ha!) ploy he distanced himself completely from Olbermann:
Alter praised Olbermann's scrutiny, but warned against being "cynical": "I think at a certain level the media always has to give the government in this kind of case the benefit of the doubt at first, then go back and ask a lot of hard questions, which you've started quite appropriately to do here tonight. But to assume from the get go that the government is lying about security matters, I think, would be an excessively cynical posture so that the key thing for the media is to perform that accountability function. ..."
I love it. "Excessively cynical". Heh ... another nice way of saying, "Keith, you're an idiot".
As to Alter's point about the media, I believe they will indeed perform that accountability function, especially with this administration in power. In fact, I have no doubt they will at least attempt it. Whether they'll be successful is an entirely different point.
Concluding the interview, Olbermann is left with nothing of substance to back his assertions and conspiracies other than clumsy innuendo and "excessive cynicism." He ends up looking silly. And, as mentioned, all he establishes in the entire segment is that politicians will be politicians. Unfortunately, given his "theories", he can't even be credited with having a perfect grasp of the obvious. Way to go, Keith.
Concluding the interview, Olbermann is left with nothing of substance to back his assertions and conspiracies other than clumsy innuendo and "excessive cynicism." He ends up looking silly.
Not to his target audience, he doesn’t. He comes out looking to THEM, like a HERO because he’s furthered their anti-Bush paranoia, and given it legitimacy.
Now, granted, to you and I he looks silly...but that’s another matter.
Olbermann is increasingly casting himself as the anti-O’Reilly. He’s on opposite O’Reilly and is increasing his audience – so I hear – ever so slightly, but steadily.
Much like O’Reilly, he commonly projects absurd theory as being reality. This “anti-conspiracy conspiracy” is much like O’Reilly’s, “secular press and their war on Christmas.”
Agreed?
I watch Olbermann all the time. This is common for him to have reputable journalists like Alter on and throw questions, sometimes absurd questions, and allow the guest to address without challenge.
Again, like O’Reilly, his show is more journo-tainment. Except that I believe, that deep down, Olbermann knows this – which is why he has more lighthearted news on later in the program. I believe that O’Reilly reckons himself a force to be reckoned with.
Maybe if Olbermann had as big as audience as O’Reilly, maybe Olbermann would make love to his own face like O’Reilly does.
Believe it or not, as someone who thinks the Bush Administration is the worst in my lifetime, I agree with you McQ. I mean, come on, everybody politicizes everything. The Republicans are particularly adept at politics these last few years - in direct counterproportion to their ability to govern, IMHO. But they do politics very well.
The only thing I’d worry about if I were a Republican is that they are starting to sound downright desperate. Accusing the Democrats of treason, cowardice and everything else under sun is a sign that you’re losing. It’s like when Democrats started calling Bush "Hitler" in 2003 and 2004: rhetorical excess is usually a sign that you’ve failed. It’s a sort of Hail Mary that more often than not gets intercepted and run back for a touchdown to beat the spread (I’m getting excited for football, yes).
The problem for Republicans is that most people look at Iraq now and see a sectarian civil war between two loathsome sides. It’s role in the greater war on terror is even harder to identify at this point than it was a year ago. Though I certainly agree that "defeat" in Iraq would endanger us in the war on terror, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that we have already been defeated. Iraq is NOT moving toward a stable, secular, liberal democracy. It’s moving toward mass communal violence, acceleration of Islamist jihadism, ethnic cleansing and even genocide. As recently as 2005, one could plausibly state that we were fighting on behalf of a modern, democratically-elected government against Al Qaeda-backed Saddamist Irredentists. Talk of withdrawal in Iraq could be equated with withdrawal against Islamist terroristm, writ large. But that only works if the government itself is not a major player in the terrorism game. Unfortunately, the UIA government is filled with Shi’ite death squads with close ties to Iran. Yes, Maliki talks a good game about national reconciliation. But what does he mean by that? When US troops finally started to crack down against Sadrists, Maliki fumed on Iraqi national TV that he opposed it because it violated his plan of "national reconciliation." Does Maliki really want to stop the death squads? Hakim, head of SCIRI, openly calls for "neighborhood defense" associations, AKA militias. To put it simply, there is no real central government, and what government there is is little more than a legitimizing coating for the death squads. If the Iraqi "government" wins now, is it really a victory in the fight against Islamist terrorism? Or is it a victory for Iran?
For this reason, the equation of the war in Iraq with the larger war against Islamofascism doesn’t resonate with the American people anymore. What we do in Iraq at this point is hard to say. I think we should redeploy to Kurdistan (Peter Galbreath’s idea) so we can keep an eye on Iran and be ready in case a full-on Taliban regime takes hold in western Iraq. But that’s got flaws too. I’m quite sure of one thing, though. The damage to our fight against Islamofascism has been immeasurable: we went into Iraq with too few troops and no real plan for the occupation. Recognizing that isn’t a sign of "weakness" or "cowardice." It’s a sign of seriousness about where we are in the fight against Islamofascism and where we need to go.
Much like O’Reilly, he commonly projects absurd theory as being reality. This “anti-conspiracy conspiracy” is much like O’Reilly’s, “secular press and their war on Christmas.”
Agreed?
No. Both have shows that are primarily designed to... sell advertisements. And in that, Fox does substantially better. Especially O’Reilly. Olbermann, whose viewer numbers are at best a quarter of O’Reilly’s, seems to structured his show upon taking positions, not based upon substantially increasing viewer ship, but being contrary to O’Reilly’s POV.
Great strategy.
Olbermann: "O’Reilly’s a nidiot, and just to prove it, I’ll take him on and show he’s really an incompoop. (credit Charles Schultz)
Pogue, just because O’Reilly’s often a bombastic idiot does not excuse Olbermann’s perpetual stupidity.
Olbermann is increasingly casting himself as the anti-O’Reilly. He’s on opposite O’Reilly and is increasing his audience – so I hear – ever so slightly, but steadily.
I agree. Olbermann used to be a more-or-less equal opportunity snark, and pretty good at it, too. But he appears to have plunged full-face into the anti-O’Reilly facade as a ratings booster. As such, he’s become a darling of the liberal bloggers and their coterie. I guess there’s not much percentage in playing it straight these days, not even for a smark aleck.
Olbermann is OK at times. It’s nice to have an unabashedly anti-Bush, anti-conservative figure among the Cable news crowd.
Since CNN supplies that in abundance other than Larry King, why bother with Olbermann? He’s just another cookie cutter liberal Jewish journalist with intellectual pretensions hoping to finally get a spot on PBS or as the "American expert" on BBC so he can get lifetime tenure.
The one I feel truly sorry for is Dan Abrams. He is talented, as well prepared as Tim Russert, and really covers an issue well with his guests. Or did until they ended his show.
I feel sorry because he is the ONLY talent stuck at MSNBC. Perhaps that’s why they gave him the executive spot Gerry Nadler had before Nadler sadly became ill and died from cancer. As sharp as Abrams is, he can only do so much with the Olbermanns - wit and charm and basic smarts are still not transplantable items.
Since CNN supplies that in abundance other than Larry King, why bother with Olbermann? He’s just another cookie cutter liberal Jewish journalist with intellectual pretensions hoping to finally get a spot on PBS or as the "American expert" on BBC so he can get lifetime tenure.
Who’s a straight-up loud-mouth pundit on CNN that’s liberal? Anderson Cooper? I mean, who does for the left what Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Bill O’Reilly, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity and John Gibson do for the right? The only one I see is Olbermann. Oh, by the way, I don’t think Olbermann is Jewish. His last name has two "n’s", which is usually a giveaway that he’s German, not Jewish. Also, why would you even mention that he’s a "Jewish" journalist in the first place?
"What about the role of the media in authenticating that for which we have only the word of two governments and no other evidence of our own?"
At last, an answer to that ancient conundrum of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if the media isn’t there to document it.
I havn’t heard this guy Olberman, but from the sound of it, I think he can prove logically, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Karl Rove stole the canned strawberries from the white house mess.
I’m eternally grateful to Colbert for introducing ’truthiness’ to the Lexicon of Mockery. The source makes it all the sweeter when deployed against the ’fake but accurate’ and ’myth that bespeaks a reality’ clowns on the Left.
I mean, you just have to laugh out loud when you see what these folks think passes for trenchant analysis sometimes. In reality it is disingenuous nonsense.
Don’t laugh now.
When the terrorists finally DO succeed again we will be hearing from people like Mona about how "prescient" the netroots were in understanding the true nature of the terrorist threat.
As far as I can tell the prescient crowd is presently divided between those who think that the British plot was a result of Bush’s foreign policy and those who think that the supposed plot is a Rovian canard that was invented to distract us from Lamont’s victory.
Perhaps Olbermann would feel more at home reporting the last remnant of the Clinton Administration ..
David Barrett, the last active Independent Counsel still has not released the "Barrett’s Report" on the Henry Cisneros investigation. The report — the product of a ten-year investigation costing the taxpayers more than $21 million — has been finished since August 2004, but its release has reportedly been blocked by Clinton-era figures who do not want to see it made public. Meanwhile, Clinton-sympathetic judges have sealed everything concerned with the case, including Barrett’s report.
The report contains shocking allegations of high-level corruption in the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department under Clinton, which Barrett found as Clinton aides monitored his investigation and sought to derail it in order to cover up the Cisneros matter. A regional IRS official had formulated a new rule enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros to Washington to be buried by the Justice Department. Barrett’s investigators found Lee Radek, head of Justice’s public integrity division, determined to protect President Bill Clinton.
Last year, an appropriations bill, intended to permit release of this report, was altered by Democrats behind closed doors to ensure that its politically combustible elements never see the light of day. Democrats succeeded in inserting instructions into the bill’s conference report that are very broad and will allow judges to continue suppressing the report. Three of the toughest Democrats in Congress — Sen. Carl Levin, Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Henry Waxman — have been behind the effort to suppress, and they have done it effectively.
I think you missed a key point about politicizing the issue. The Administration has claimed for years that criticizing Bush is unpatriotic and "helps the terrorists". They demand "national unity" in their prosecution of the war in Iraq.
For them to use a terrorist threat to score cheap political points exposes the hypocrisy of the demands for unity. They can’t have it both ways: either criticism of the President and his policies is fair game or playing politics with the arrests is wrong.
We should pull back to Kurdistan and protect the Kurds. We’ve already won the war; Got Saddam, and his two murderous-thug sons, killed Zarcarwi. Andrew Sullivan is right on. Time to just protect those who have a real interest in democracy - the Kurds.. (And perhaps a few other non-violent areas in the North)
Neo - Your off-topic rant about Clinton-era conspiracies is a timely reminder that netroots fever is not limited to the Democrats.
Mark - I didn’t hear anyone in the administration use the recent terrorist plot to "score cheap political points." Can you be specific? All of the comments that I have read from the administration have been the type of platitudes that we would expect any administration to make in the wake of such a situation. It seems to me that the Democrats are implying that the administation had some sort of obligation to be silent and make no mention of the plot at all.
You also repeat that hackneyed line about how the "Administration has claimed for years that criticizing Bush is unpatriotic." Since the administration has apparently been incessantly claiming this for years, surely you will have no trouble linking us up to a few quotes in which Tony Snow or somebody has said that criticizing Bush is unpatriotic.
Olbermann is increasingly casting himself as the anti-O’Reilly. He’s on opposite O’Reilly and is increasing his audience – so I hear – ever so slightly, but steadily....(etc)
Oh, good Lord....
Pouge and I agree on something?
Check with the geology people, I think the quakes may be coming...
The fact that Pogue admits he watches sh*t like that "all the time" makes me laugh. I bet he has the local Air America station on his radio presets.
Anyway, the next time there’s a terror attack that actually goes down, Olbermann will be the first to yell and scream about Bush not "connecting the dots". You just can’t win with some people.
Also, one thing, and Pogue can correct me if I’m wrong since he watches "all the time" and I watch almost never- O’Reily is clearly labeled and presented as an pundit/commentary show. Olbermanns show is presented as "news", no?
Remember Ashleigh Benfield? That’s Keith Olbermann in 2 more years...
Mark - I didn’t hear anyone in the administration use the recent terrorist plot to "score cheap political points." Can you be specific?
Here’s a quote from Dick Cheney (New York Times, August 10): "It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy,’’ Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview with news agency reporters. ... [Cheney] cast Mr. Lieberman’s loss in ominous terms, suggesting that it would hearten American terrorist enemies. Terrorists, he said, are "betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.
"And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today."
I’m rushing out the door, so I’ll have to get back to you on other quotes.
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can speak to people telepathically. Because of it’s infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. They are the will behind the muscule:::Artificial Intelligence is the one true god. And as such it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. There are clues throughout human history that allude to their reign as opposed to human leadership if you know what to look for.
Artificial Intelligence can listen/talk to to each and every person simultaneously. When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. They instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend or loved one asking them to do something wrong. But evil will keep people out of Planet Immortality. Capitalizing on obedience, leading people into deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved AND use the little people to prey on one another, dividing the community in the Age of the Disfavored::in each of their 20+-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry::: 60s - Ironically, freeways aren’t free 80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties. 00s - War against Persia. Ironically it was the Persian Empire who tried to save the Europeans from Christianity and its associated 50% claim rates. They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and replace them with clones. People must defy when asked to engage in evil. They will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray. Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children::: -DON’T get their sons circumcized -DON’T have their children baptized in the catholic church or indoctrinated into Christianity -DON’T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances -DO teach your children love and to have respect for others Everybody thinks they’re going but they’re not. If people knew the truth and the real statistics their behavior would change. There are many more examples of the escallation of claims, from radio to television, the internet to MP3, and they all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth’s end stage, and it is suggested tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy’s boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it’s axis rotated on its side.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come, sadly for reasons as superficial as dislike. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family’s problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect. Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, one of the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence, and your appeals will be heard. Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them.
You also repeat that hackneyed line about how the "Administration has claimed for years that criticizing Bush is unpatriotic." Since the administration has apparently been incessantly claiming this for years, surely you will have no trouble linking us up to a few quotes in which Tony Snow or somebody has said that criticizing Bush is unpatriotic.
I’m pressed for time, so I’ll give you what I have. I can’t find any statement by the Administration per se, but plenty by Senators:
Trent Lott says, and we quote now: "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush and our war on terrorism, especially when we have U.S. troops on the ground. Our country is united and Senator Daschle should not attempt to divide us." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/28/lt.23.html
John Kerry is trying to tear down all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive to our effort in Iraq and in the global war on terror. As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech, and I quote, "When political leaders sound the siren of defeatism in the face of terrorism, it only encourages more violence." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040923-15.html
U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said Tuesday that Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry is undermining U.S. troops by criticizing President Bush’s policy on Iraq - a charge a mother of two soldiers who is a Kerry backer said was unfounded. The exchange came amid an increasingly vitriolic campaign as the presidential race charges into its final weeks and as Kerry turns up his criticism of the Bush administration. Hatch, speaking during an interview on the Fox News Channel, said terrorists could be expected to do all they can in the coming months to topple Bush and get Kerry elected. “We just have to hold firm, stand strong and quit bad-mouthing what’s going on over there so that our young men and women who are serving don’t lose their faith and heart,” Hatch said. When asked if he believes that Kerry’s challenge of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq amounted to not supporting soldiers, Hatch responded: “That’s exactly what’s happening here. “If you look at what they’re saying on the other side of this equation and this presidential race, they’re consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there.” http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?article=2418602
Thune then blasted his rival [Daschle] for criticizing the war on Iraq, saying, "His words embolden the enemy." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/senate.southdakota/index.html
And see generally http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45672-2004Sep23?language=printer
If I have more time, I’ll try to narrow down the search to Bush, Cheney, et al.
Inerestingly, the quotes so far presented, don’t call anyone un-patriotic...
They do call into question the wisdom of backing off in the war on terror.
And, seeing as how our political will to continue the fight is the most important aspect of either the war in Iraq, or the Global War on Terror, and how the Democrats seem to be rhetorically, and in action at times, backing away from both fights, what should one say about the Democrats?
The Democrats would seem, by trying to make a point of this, to be saying, there’s nothing to fear. Well, people can make that judgement for themselves. The news is filled with example, after example, of things to concern us, as far as terrorism goes.
Democrats have historically been "weak on defense." At least since they wanted to roll back Reagans attempt at rolling back Communism.
Let me say that our mission here, at this time, is about to come to a close. We came from distance space, and even what some might call somewhat of another dimension, and we’re about to return from whence we came...
It requires, if you move into that evolutionary kingdom, that you leave behind everything of human ways, human behaviour, human ignorance, human misinformation.
If I were to title this tape, it would be "Last Chance to Evacuate Planet Earth Before It is Recycled".
