Olbermann covers Nuke Documents story

[Skinner]

Run time: 03:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8WkbHn3gtY   Posted on YouTube: April 17, 2015 By YouTube Member: YouTube Help Views on YouTube: 24989362   Posted on DU: November 04, 2006 By DU Member: Skinner Views on DU: 1114

 

[Fridays Child]

1. Hoekstra and Roberts argued that regular Americans NEEDED to see...

...those documents. But Andrew Card said he was "...concerned that the New York Times has advertised them to the world."

Concerned that the New York Times....???" WTF! Uh, Card, did your side want them seen or didn't they? If they didn't, then why did they put them on the freaking Internet, you prevaricating sack of maggot-infested feces?

[JackintheGreen]

2. To borrow a descriptive book title

A Confederacy of Dunces

Luckily the confederacy lost.

[elehhhhna]

5. GOOD POST JACK ! Welcome & GO CUBBIES!

[Gregorian]

3. They've done real harm to our national security.

That was stated without any doubt, during the interview.


The Decider? That sounds too much like The Dictator.



Thanks. I missed Keith's show on Friday. And an important one it was.

[Metta]

4. K & R. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

[brer cat]

6. Important post. Thanks from all who missed KO

K&R

[indepat]

7. 'pukes willingness to compromise national security for partisan gain is

well past criminal insanity and anyone who doesn't realize this is a god-damned fool.

[williesgirl]

8. Yet I've seen zero on this story on front page of wp.com Fri/Sat - recommended

[StraightDope]

9. I love their rationale for putting these docs on the web...

To mine eyes, it basically amounts to, "Let the Freeps comb through it. Maybe they'll be able to pull another Rathergate out of the mess."

What fucking kind of profoundly retarded mental midgets do they let out of their straitjackets across the aisle?

[HeeBGBz]

10. Check out this rationalization from one Bushbot on another forum

So did you hear about the Latest idiocy from the New York Times? They are trying to claim that releasing Saddam's documents somehow gave the Iranians nuclear technology. Of course, it's more accessible to the Iranians because the documents are in Arabic. Ummmm, hello? Iranians speak Farsi, not Arabic. (Farsi, like English and unlike Arabic, is an Indo-European language.) Now obviously, there are many Iranians who speak Arabic, but then again, there are many who speak English. However, the chances that the Iranians have learned anything new is pretty slim to none.

The main interesting point (see here) is that the documents show that Saddam was a year away from having nuclear weapons! Oh, so Saddam was "not a threat?" So Bush lied? Saddam wasn't looking for yellowcake? Okaaaaaay . . .

If he had his head any farther up Bush's ass, he'd be swingin on tonsils.