Who's Spreading Fear In The USA?
Why, the guy who gave the State of the Union address, of course. Keith Olbermann parses George Bush's promotion of his agenda through terrorism fairy tales. Here's just one of them, from the most recent State of the Union:
"We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented," Mr. Bush noted, "but here is some of what we do know: we stopped an Al-Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast."This would, of course, sir, be the purported plot to knock down the 73-story building in Los Angeles, the one once known as the Library Tower — the one you personally revealed so breathlessly, a year ago next month.
It was embarrassing enough that you mistakenly referred to the structure as the Liberty Tower. But within hours, it was also revealed, that authorities in Los Angeles had had no idea you were going to make any of the details — whether serious or fanciful — public.
Who terrorized Southern California that day, Mr. Bush?
A year ago next month, the Los Angeles Times quoted a source — identified only by the labyrinthine description "a U-S official familiar with the operational aspects of the war on terrorism" — who insisted that the purported "Library Tower plot" was one of many Al-Qaeda operations that had not gotten very far past the conceptual stage.
The former staff director of counter-terrorism for the National Security Council — now NBC and MSNBC News Analyst Roger Cressey — puts it a little more bluntly.
In our conversation, he classified the "Library Tower story" into a category he called the "What-Ifs" — as in the old Saturday Night Live sketches that tested the range of comic absurdity:
– What If… Superman Had Worked For The Nazis?
– What if… Spartacus Had A Piper Cub, during the battle against the Romans in 70 B-C?
More ominously, the L.A. Times source who debunked the Library Tower story said that those who could correctly measure the flimsiness of the scheme, quote, "feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan than that of the President."
But Mr. Bush, you're the decider.
And you decided that the Library Story should be scored as one for you.
And you continued with a second dubious claim of counter-terror success. "We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States," you said.
Well, sir, you've apparently stumped the intelligence community completely with this one.
In his article, Mr. Swanson suggests that in the last week there has been no reporting — even hinting — at what exactly you were talking about.
He hypothesizes that either you were claiming credit for a ring broken up in 1995, or that this was just the Library Tower story, quote, "by another name."
Another CIA source suggests to NBC News that since the Southeast Asian cell dreamed of a series of attacks on the same day, you declared the Library Tower one threat thwarted, and all their other ideas, a second threat thwarted.
Our colleague Mr. Cressey sums it up: this "Southeast Asian cell" was indeed the tale of the Library Tower, simply repeated.
Repeated, Mr. Bush, in consecutive sentences in the State of the Union, in your constitutionally mandated status report on the condition and safety of the nation.
More fairytales told by Mr. Bush at the above link.
Posted by aalkon at February 1, 2007 10:22 AM
Comments
> But Mr. Bush, you're the
Amy, he's a HEN... A clucking, feathered hen... A busty, bitter schoolmarm of a man. I'll never understand your fascination.
Posted by: Crid at January 31, 2007 10:12 AM
More fairy tales from King George? What do you expect from a man who claims to get advice from an imaginary friend in the Kingdumb of Heaven? Remember the words of Jesus in Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Posted by: Bill Henry at February 1, 2007 2:45 AM
Given how many lies he's been caught at it is a miracle that so many peolpe still trust him.
Posted by: lujlp at February 1, 2007 2:48 AM
Given how many lies he's been caught at it is a miracle that so many peolpe still trust him.
Not to mention that he's always getting clobbered in the ratings by O'Reilly!
Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 1, 2007 3:16 AM
To slightly change the topic.
Yesterday in Federal Court the opening proceedings for Case 06-2095 - the ACLU vs. the NSA in Cincinnatti, OH. The government is appealing the ACLU's victory (last year) in a Federal Court (Eastern District of Michigan) where it was illegal for warrantless wiretapping of phones by the NSA.
The government's arguement is very Kafkaesque. They will not provide details for the ACLU's arguement. Also, if they will not provide any details... they do not exist. So there cannot be any abuse of civil liberties. Right out of the pages from The Trial.
Posted by: Joe at February 1, 2007 4:41 AM
[Item! Ever wonder why America didn't trust Gavin Newsom to casually reconfigure the most inimate bonds in human life, specifically marriage (and implicitly, parenthood)? Well, now we can say for sure! It involves political intrigue! Betrayal of friendship! Drug abuse! A child under age three! Divorce! A hot young blond with a prissy, pretentiously hypenated name! Compassionate Dems once again demonstrate failures of the most obvious intimacy.
(I love how that headline concentrates on the tender feelings of the Mayor, who is, after all, the bad guy in this story. Unless you want to get all Howard Jones on my ass and say that no one ever is to blame. But that song don't play so well when there are little children involved.)
Thanks for permitting this intrusion. We now return to your regularly-scheduled blog comment, already in progress...]
Olbermann sux.
Posted by: Crid at February 1, 2007 4:53 AM
Hey, Jim, I think luljp is referring to Bush, not to Keith, who is a vehicle of honesty and, erm, objectivity. (I love him, but I also was glad Chris Matthews called him out on that during the midterm elections "Come on, Keith, you're not being fair.") And he's catching up to Bill O'Reilly. A month ago, oh, I can't remember now, but he was close for the age range of 25-54, but don't quote me on that. I'm sorry, that fact is so vague, it's not even a fact, but the point is, luljp was not talking about my favorite news guy Keith, and he's not getting "clobbered" by Bill O'Reilly.
Posted by: Brenda at February 1, 2007 4:54 AM
Olbermann is a caricature of a liberal, a poseur, and a man given to geekshow performance to keep his face before the public. His appeal is only to the most base of human interests. On the upside, he has one of the smallest audiences on cable tv, proving once again that market forces work.
Posted by: Casca at February 1, 2007 8:36 AM
Whatever you think about Olbermann...he's right.
He gets clobbered in the ratings by the liar O'Reilly because people are still into simplistic, phony populist, mob mentality goading versus the facts.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 1, 2007 10:15 AM
Item! Ever wonder why America didn't trust Gavin Newsom to casually reconfigure the most inimate bonds in human life, specifically marriage
Because of an affair that he was having that wasn't public at the time? What do I win?
Posted by: justin case at February 1, 2007 10:53 AM
What does O'Reilly have to do with this? You want to compare and contrast? Olbermann is insanely hateful, while O'Reilly is merely a demagogue.
Posted by: Casca at February 1, 2007 11:01 AM
Olbermann is insanely hateful, while O'Reilly is merely a demagogue
To-MAY-to, To-MAH-to
Posted by: justin case at February 1, 2007 11:23 AM
Marriage is the most intimate bond of human life?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 1, 2007 11:34 AM
"Intimate bonds" - I think I saw those for sale at Sexcetera.
Posted by: justin case at February 1, 2007 11:38 AM
> that wasn't public at the time?
No, because there's more to life than those of flighty compassion are likely to consider. When people are ready to throw so much treasure overboard, they're probably not sailing on very sturdy ships anyway.
Mr. Metaphor thanks you for reading this blog comment.
Posted by: Crid at February 1, 2007 12:12 PM
Casca, are you sure you're not referng to Rush?
Oh, wait a minute, you didnt list rug addicted - never mind.
Posted by: ujlp at February 1, 2007 1:10 PM
ujlp, try to follow the conversation.
Posted by: Casca at February 1, 2007 9:01 PM
"Hey, Jim, I think luljp is referring to Bush, not to Keith, who is a vehicle of honesty and, erm, objectivity."
1) Ya think?, and 2) Ha ha.
"Whatever you think about Olbermann...he's right."
I think he's wrong, so you just put me in a logic loop like that floaty robot thing on Star Trek.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at February 2, 2007 2:58 AM
It's cute how Oldermann's so *offended* by O'Reilly. Peasy-podsy.
Posted by: Crid at February 2, 2007 4:53 AM
Totally cute.
Posted by: Brenda at February 3, 2007 8:15 AM
Leave a comment