Finding Colbert
It has been getting harder and harder to find Colbert's speach on a Google search. Not only that, but You Tube and iFilm have both yanked the video. Alot of the links on people's blogs dont work either.
Credit to Crooks and Liars who found the Google link.
Yea, funny, Google is making it harder to find, and people are voluntarily pulling it from their sites (iFilm comes out and says it, the others mostly just redirect), but they still carry it. To completely remove it from their video file would be pretty messed up. Kind of like what they are doing in China. We need to watch them carefully before they start using filters on us. Maybe they already are, which is what this is starting to look like.
So thanks Crooks and Liars and here is the direct link.
It is a must view for all Americans. I don't think we have seen this level of criticism in history, and we are not likely to see it again soon.
Beside that, it is hilarious. It gets better each time I watch it.
Credit to Crooks and Liars who found the Google link.
Yea, funny, Google is making it harder to find, and people are voluntarily pulling it from their sites (iFilm comes out and says it, the others mostly just redirect), but they still carry it. To completely remove it from their video file would be pretty messed up. Kind of like what they are doing in China. We need to watch them carefully before they start using filters on us. Maybe they already are, which is what this is starting to look like.
So thanks Crooks and Liars and here is the direct link.
It is a must view for all Americans. I don't think we have seen this level of criticism in history, and we are not likely to see it again soon.
Beside that, it is hilarious. It gets better each time I watch it.
posted by Praguetwin at
11:12 PM
16 Comments:
Colbert showed the Helen Thomas video on his show the other night. Great stuff watching the mighty Bush press secretary being taken down by an 85 year old lady who keeps asking "Why did you go to war in Iraq?"
Which brings up a good point: why did we go to war in Iraq?
Especially considering a resurgent taliban seems to be making Afghanistan a dicey place again.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 4:23 AM
Yes every American should watch this film so that they can see the hate filled classless "comedian" who bombed. This is very much akin to having that paragon of objective documentary film making M. Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC. Every American should watch it that they know whom the enemy is.
Could you imagine the out roar and total conniption the media would have had had Clinton been in office and the MC had made jest of "Executive Seaman” Total media bias
By
Anonymous, at 7:03 AM
RBE We went to war with Iraq because the WORLD consensus was that Saddam Hussein had WMD... did you forget that your buddy Clinton also attacked Iraq over the same issue?
By
Anonymous, at 7:06 AM
Yes every American should watch this film so that they can see the hate filled classless "comedian" who bombed.
Yes, he bombed, because he told the truth so well. (See the post before this one.)
If WMD is the reason, why haven't we invaded Pakistan, N. Korea, and India?
Oh yea, because they have perfect human rights records. ;-)
This is getting old Arch. I do hope someday you will see the light.
RBE,
The Taliban is indeed regrouping and gaining, not loosing, stregth.
One of the saddest things to watch is President Karzai plead with the United States and world community for additional troops, and then hear the dispariging comments from Iraqi leaders.
You realize how we have taken our eye off the prize, and what that means for the future of Afghanistan, thke Taliban, and Al-Queda.
But this is to be expected. The threat must remain to justify running huge budget deficits to fight these wars, to justify increased wire-tapping, and to justify swollen defense budgets for years to come.
By
Praguetwin, at 11:12 AM
arch stanton - it's so funny how Bush cultists (and from what I can see from your comments, that's what you are) love to bring up Clinton when they're trying to defend Bush's Iraq war. I guess you do that because the war can't be defended on its own merits.
Was Saddam a threat to United States interests? Sure - so is Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, China, Vietnam, and a host of other countries who have in one way or another impeded our interests around the globe. yet we are not (and cannot) take all of these countries out.
Was Saddam the only murderous dictator to hold power and slaughter his own people? Nope - take a look at the above list of countries and you'll find that in each one a murderous regime has at one time or another slaughtered its own people. If we knocked out Saddam because he was killing his own people, we better get going knocking out every regime on the above list.
Did Saddam have the capability to attack the U.S. directly with a nuclear weapon or even have the capability to make a nuclear weapon? Nope - the CIA knew this certainly, but the Bush administration, which had decided to invade Iran even before 9/11, didn't want to hear that evidence, so they conveniently ignored it (and thus we heard about the Saddam/Niger connection, the aluminum tubes, and the famous "We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud" speech.) And Tyler Drumheller, former chief of the CIA European Division has revealed that the U.S. had a mole in Saddam's gov't who told the CIA that while Saddam wanted nuclear weapons, he was years away from being able to produce them. But again, because this important piece of intelligence didn't support the administration's plan for war, they ignored it, listening instead to people like "Curveball" and Ahmad Chalabi - both of whom have been exposed as frauds.
Are we better off now that Saddam is gone? Nope - Iran is better off, certainly, now that its primary geopolitical competitor is in the middle of a civil war, but we certainly are not better off. As Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) said on This Week with George Stephanopolous, "The Iraq war has destabilized the region, things are not getting better there, they're getting worse..." A policy of containment on Saddam would certainly have worked better than this pre-emptive strike that has bogged us down in Iraq for the forseeable future, cost thousands of American lives, billions of dollars ($400 billion and counting - sure would be nice to use that money to pay off the deficit, wouldn't it?)and diverted necessary resources from the battle against Al Qaeda.
Did we attack Irag after the mission in Afghanistan had been competed? Nope - a resurgent Taliban is running many parts of the country outside of Kabul because the United States has a limited presence in the country, the Afghan government is weaker than the tribal warlords in the country, and the promised rebilding of the country was never completed so many Afghans have turned to poppy growing to support themselves. The upsurge in violence in Afghanistan, while in no way near the levels of the Iraq violence, is scary enough to make me wonder in just how many years the Taliban will be running all of the country again unless we step in.
Did Saddam have ties to Al Qaeda? Nope - despite Cheney's wet dream fantasies about Mohammed Atta meeting Saddam spies in Prague, sane, reality-based people from the intelligence community all dispute any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission also found that there was no established relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Saddam was secular. Bin Laden hates secularists and sees them as as big a threat to Islam as the U.S. Saddam saw Al Qaeda as a threat to his own regime as well. Taking out Saddam was not going to put any crimp in Al Qaeda's organizational capabilities (as we have seen post-Mission Accomplished), yet the administration definitely attempted to conflate the idea that Saddam helped fund and/or was behind the 9/11 attacks in order to garner support for the Iraq war.
Can we deal with Iran as well now as we could have had we not attacked Saddam and gotten bogged down in the middle of a civil war? Nope - with our military and resources stretched so thin, Iran knows the possibility of a U.S. military strike against them is nearly negligible. Even if we did attack (and from what you hear, there are people in the administration who think this is a good idea), all we could possibly do is try and hit the weapons sites with planes and missles, a military strike that would probably do the United States more harm than good in the long run because the same people would be running the Iran gov't. So by taking out Saddam, we have strengthened Iran, have tied our own hands in how we can deal with Iran, and have weakened our own credibility by fucking up the post-Mission Accomplished phase of the occupation. It's one thing to be a occupying power, it's another thing to be a second-rate occupying power. The evidence from Iraq shows this occupation in Iraq (which is what Hagel called it) is quite second rate - full of corruption, incompetency, broken promises, bad planning, etc.
Ultimately we need to ask ourselves, what were the reasons we invaded iraq, were they good ones, and have the results been helpful to us or not? The answers are almost all negative. I am not against the use of American military power in the pursuit of Amercian policy goals or interests. I supported the first Persian Gulf War. I supported the Afghanistan invasion. I support the war on terror and believe Al Qaeda and Qaeda splinter groups are a huge danger to both the interests of the United States and the people of the Western world. I am concerned that a 7/7-like attack is coming here in the New York City subways or a 3/11 Madrid-like attack is coming on commuter trains. I am concerned that Qaeda terorrists are going to strap bombs to themselves and blow up hundreds of people in Grand Central Station or Penn Station during rush hour. I am concerned that Al Qaeda will get their hands on a nuclear weapon and use it against either the United States (or more likely because the logistics are easier) one of our allies abroad. I am concerned about nuclear proliferation, I am concerned about Al Qaeda infiltrators in the Pakistani gov't, I am concerned the Taliban will retake Afghanistan, I am concerned that the chaos in Iraq will spill over the borders into the rest of the region.
All of these concerns I have mentioned have not been assuaged by the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has not made the United States safer. The war has made us less safe and anybody who beleives differently is frankly drinking too much Rumsfeld kool aid. Many on the right have acknowledged how badly misguided this war has been, how badly mishandled, how badly planned, and how badly it will no doubt end. Pat Buchanan was against the war from the beginning (for many of the reasons I have mentioned above), William Buckley and George Will were both leery of the war beforehand and now believe it was a huge mistake, and Francis Fukayama believes the Iraq war was misguided and counterproductive to American interests.
In fact, Fukayama believes the entire "war on terror" may be the wrong way to go about defeating radical Islam. Fukayama instead says:
"'[W]ar' is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a 'long, twilight struggle' whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world."
If we're looking to win a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world, the Iraq war has not been the way to go about it. And frankly this is my biggest problem with the Bush administration's approach to the post-9/11 world. It's all about being tough and using military action and swinging their penises around and showing everybody what cowboys they are (although judging from the results, pretty incompetent cowboys.) But they have no other tools in their foregin policy arsenal other than the cowboy thing. And as Chuck Hagel says:
"The complexities of the 21 st century demand strategic, over-the-horizon American thinking, diplomacy and leadership. That will require creative diplomacy and a recognition of the varied perspectives and values of other countries. We can help countries reach their destination but it must be on their terms and their way, or it will fail and create a deep and dangerous anti-Americanism throughout the world."
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 3:38 PM
I just wanted to copy this last line from Hagel...
"...We can help countries reach their destination but it must be on their terms and their way, or it will fail and create a deep and dangerous anti-Americanism throughout the world."
RBE,
Hell of an effort. You should publish that. I would caution with talking about $400 billion paying of the Debt. However, having said that, that $400 billion is acounting for aobut 12% of the deficit spending since Bush took over. Since 2002, the US has been deficit spending well over a half a trillion dollars per year, adding in the first 6 years of the Bush administration about 3 trillion dollars, over a third of the Public debt which now stands at 8.35 trillion dollars.
$400 billion would help. It could eliminate 6 months of deficit spending, but it would do little to pay off the public debt.
Other than that, a very fine effort.
My hat is off to you sir.
Oh, and by the way I've checked out Hagel, and he is a class act and very bright and seems to be honest and straitforward. Check out his voting record.It would be hard for me to vote for him.
By
Praguetwin, at 3:56 PM
PT As I have told you on numerous occasions the reason we have not invaded Pakistan India and N. Korea is because they have not attacked or invaded their neighbors at any given time in their recent past. What is getting old is your inability or unwillingnes to see the distinction.
RBE Since this is the first time I have brought this glaring fact up with you, you get a pass today on your psychobabble.
The only reason I brought Clinton up is to query as to whether or not you supported his actions as they pertained to Clinton. Did you?
By
Anonymous, at 4:52 PM
Arch,
What about Pakistan and Kashmir? What about the Korean war? Had they not proved they were will to engage in war?
I wasn't aware that was the test. So it is 1. has WMD, and 2. Has attacked someone "at any given time in their recent past."
I really think we will need to clarify that second one. What is "recent past". 10 years? 20? 50? What is the cutoff. And while we are on the subject, since Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 250 years, are they going to qualify for invation by these standards?
Ask yourself that.
And psychobabble? Come on, lets keep it civil. A lot of though went into that comment.
By
Praguetwin, at 8:54 PM
After being called a "Bush Cultist" the accusation of engaging in psychobabble is mild.
By
Anonymous, at 1:13 AM
After being called a "Bush Cultist" the accusation of engaging in psychobabble is mild.
By
Anonymous, at 1:14 AM
praguetwin, thanks for the kind words. I really feel strongly about this issue.
I like Hagel a lot. Despite his voting record, I think he would make a fine president. I might not support many of his policies, but what I really respect about him is he tells you what they are - unlike the current administration, which engages in P.R. bullshit, obfuscation, and propaganda. But Hagel will never get out of the primary. He's running at less than 2% support within the GOP. If you get a chance,check out the NY Times magazine article about him a couple of months back though. He really comes across as a responsible adult (unlike so many in both parties these days.)
arch stanton, I despise Clinton. I don't like his "Third Way" policies, which seemed to pay lip service to both right and left principles and really just be expedient ways to take and maintain power. I felt his Iraq policy was a cynical attempt to appear tough.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 2:49 PM
RBE
Thanks for that acknowledgment regarding Clinton. It goes a long way to your credibility as a thinker.
By
Anonymous, at 5:15 PM
That is pretty much my take on Hagel. He seems like an adult, but it would still be tough for me to vote for him.
Like you said though, moot point. He is going nowhere. Like Bruce Babbit. Say what you really think: get ostracized by your party.
The sad state of American politics. What do you think about Bayh?
By
Praguetwin, at 10:30 PM
arch stanton - I really thought I had made my contempt for Clinton clear before. Sorry, maybe I did it on another blog. But believe me, it's real.
I'll tell you this - watching Hillary trying to triangulate the '08 elections makes me want to triangulate her. And the same goes for so many of the old Clinton consultants (e.g., James Carville, Paul Begala, Dick Morris, et al.) I can't stomach political consultants in general, but the ones I named above are particularly odious.
praguetwin, I saw Bayh and Hagel on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer a few weeks ago. Bayh did not impress me much. Everything that came out of his mouth sounded like a practiced talking point. When he got to talking about iran, he made a point of sounding tough, but frankly it came across as phony consultant-speak. Hagel, on the other hand, impressed me. I've told you before why, so I won't repeat it.
I won't say that I would never vote for Bayh, but I would say that as of now I'm not a fan. I think if I was looking for a moderate for '08 I would probably support Mark Warner. But I haven't decided yet.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 12:29 AM
I saw that show too, and had the same impression. I'm not saying I'm a fan, be he has a chance for just the reason you said: everything is well rehearsed. He has played his cards well for a presidential bid. That is until they discover he is a cyborg.
By
Praguetwin, at 4:46 PM
You know what? That's it exactly. Bayh is a political cyborg. Perfect description for him.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 10:03 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home