by Scott Creighton

In the much anticipated Countdown interview with Scott McClellan, Keith Olberman, the progressive lefts chosen one, coos over McClellan’s version white-washed White House, just like the complicit enablers McClellan talks about in his book. Can we really be as stupid they think we are?

“To that point, there is, I think, actual poetry in here, and I don‘t mean to vainly flatter you here. But let me read something else: “Although I didn‘t realize it at the time, we launched our campaign to sell the war, what drove Bush toward military confrontation more than anything else was an ambitious and idealistic post -9/11 vision of transforming the Middle East through the spread of freedom.” Keith Olberman discussing McClellan’s new book on Countdown.

That’s right: it was all about “the spread of freedom”. Not oil, not an imperial Pax Americana, but the deep-seated desire to spread “freedom” through-out the Middle East.

Now this is coming from the “progressive” messiah, Keith Olberman, who has recently called Bush a liar, war criminal, a war profiteer, and quite literally a traitor to this country. And now, since the man who’s job it was to lie on a daily basis for this administration, comes forward with this book that says absolutely nothing new, except that Bush really wanted in his heart of hearts to simply bring “freedom” to the Middle East, Olberman reads it; parrots it; and puts his “progressive” stamp of approval on it. Just like the current administration wanted.

McClellan: ” Well certainly he saw it as an opportunity to look at the war on terror in broad way and to try to implement this idealistic vision that he had of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.”

“Democracy in the Middle East”? Is that what the Hydrocarbon Law is in Iraq? Is that what all those billions of dollars that went missing is for? Democracy? Is it the kind of “democracy” that we experienced in Nov. 2000? How about Nov. 2004? Is that what “Shock and Awe” is? Democracy?

Why didn’t Olberman pounce on these statements from McClellan?

McClellan:“But in terms of the coercive democracy, that was-and you bring up a very good point about the oxymoron there-but that was always the strategy for going into Iraq in first place. And I think that is what really drove the president‘s motivation to push ahead and rush into this.”

And that is ALWAYS McClellan’s message: everywhere he goes. To retell the given myth from this administration; though it may have been handled sloppily, this administration had the best INTENTIONS at heart: to bring freedom and democracy to the people of the Middle East (by killing hundreds of thousands of them, forcing them from their homes, walling them off from other sections of Iraq and controlling their everyday movements, restricting their electricity and basic human rights, by signing over huge amounts of oil revenue to Exxon Mobil and BP and other multinational oil companies, and by putting black bags over their heads and shipping them off to Gitmo and other black-sites, where they disappear without legal representation for years.)

And then, the money-shot.

Olberman lobes his final question to McClellan about what happened when Bush ALMOST picked a democrat to head the Department of Homeland Security.

“And I sat there and I had this little flutter in my heart, and I thought, he‘s actually going to do what Roosevelt did in the Second World War, to some degree what Lincoln did during the Civil War, he‘s going to put a Democrat in the cabinet….

…Would something like that have made that bipartisan dream a reality? ”

The “bipartisan dream”? Is that OUR dream? and did Keith just lump together Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush on national television?

Next Page 1 | 2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).