See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Great Keith Olberman rant - Slams Rumsfeld but good :)
Source:
youtube
URL Source: http://utube
Published: Sep 1, 2006
Author: Keith Oberman
Post Date: 2006-09-01 18:01:02 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 711
Comments: 72
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull, Everybody here, This is a must watch! (#0)
bump
bump Wow.. He looked like he started to get a little heated there in the middle. Loved the full ERMurrow quote too.
"Persecution, whenever it occurs, establishes only the power and cunning of the persecutor, not the truth and worth of his belief." -- H. M. Kallen (1882-1974)
yes, me too.
Good rant, I fully concur with him. Rummy should have smelled the coffee and resigned a long time ago.
I'd say that rant made Beckett Saunders, putupjob, and footloose so angry they beat their wife and kids. Oberman has just been moved to the top of their extermination lists.
How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments. Benjamin Franklin
MSNBC just played a "replay" of this... /chuckle
If you can watch MSNBC, Olberman is blasting Rumsfeld again tonight...
I would hope that everyone would not accept the tone of this mans "dissent" and equate it with fact. It is burdened with errors that the writers well know, making it shallow intellectually at best. Knowingly omitting well known facts, trying to stifle others, and worst of all maligning others for doing the very same thing he is doing is rather arrogant. Again, disregard the tone, that is his weapon, not what he has to say. Read a transcript of his rant and you will feel quite differently.
Do you have an example of this please so we know what sort of error you speak of? His comments actually seem understated and give Rummy far more leeway then many of us here would give him. It is hard to know what you are getting at without an example, thanks.
Mike.. If you did not "catch" the errors then you were not paying attention, or you are short handed in history. May I suggest you read a transcript and find the errors yourself, it will perhaps broaden your history background which seems to be sorely lacking.
I am quite fine on history. But history is much like politics, not only is it distorted by the victor writing the history books, but everyone has an opinion about it. I am well aware there are original historical sources and secondary historical sources as well. I merely asked you a question meant to ascertain where you are coming from in regards to your comment. I know quite a bit about the events before, after and during the Great Patriotic War/WW II. You need not worry about that.
Olberman ping
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers Mike... Traanslation, brief and simple...You indeed are short handed on history. I might suggest you in particular disregard the tone and sift thru the written transcript. By the way, the gentleman reminded me very much of the delivery of Hitler. Like Hitler the people understood nothing but were aroused by the tone of the speech. Think about it, are you in that group???
~Sir Winston Churchill He actually reminded me of Edward R. Morrow. Murrow produced a series of TV news reports that helped lead to the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy. This guy has his finger on the pulse of the Bush government and describes it well. If anything, he was too kind about depicting it. And Bush resembles exactly who and what Sir Winston Churchill was talking about in the above quote from him./t well.
Agreed... Now, what about the gross error at the beginning concerning the 1930s????
In the 1935 general election Winston Churchill accused Chamberlain of being excessively tight with defense spending, and the Labour Party attacked him as a warmonger in turn. Chamberlain is also perhaps the most disliked British Prime Minister of the last century because of his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany regarding the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich in 1938. So I'm not sure what you are getting at. I give Chamberlain credit for his policy that would serve to be vital to Britain during wartime called 'Rationalisation.' This was where the government would buy old factories and mines in a gradual way as the depression hit Britain hard. Then they were destroyed and newer and better factories were built in their place. They were not meant by him to be used when Britain was in a state of depression. He actually was preparing Britain for the time when Britain would emerge out of bad economic times. By 1938 he had put Britain in the best position for rearmament because of this policy. Because of him, Britain had the most efficient factories in the world with the newest technology. This meant that Britain was able to produce the best weaponry the fastest, and they had the best technology available. But something tells me you are not talking about this, so you will have to be more specific as to what you refer to.
that's good advice especially since i tend to miss a lot of the content in video. one thing i did notice was Olberman's referring to the US as a democracy, but i'm sure the errors you caught were much more egregious. what is the main disinfo that you're referring to, Cyni?
A transcript of his "speech" will read totally different than what his "tone" delivered. I remember listening to Hitler during the 1930s, you did not have to understand German to gather the tone of what he was saying. His audiences were entralled. If you read William L. Shirer he tells you he was there, understood German and came away amazed that the people loved the "tone" of his delivery, knew nothing of the content. More than once Shirer says he was appalled that people could not grasp what Hitler was saying, rather they were in a frenzy over theatrics. Do you recall Oberman mentioning the 1930s, very briefly???? What did he leave out???
i don't know. (blush) tell me.
Drat... Do you recall something to the effect that England knew in the 30s that Hitler was not a threat??? That was what Chamberlain kept saying. Oberman very nicely left out "WHO" was working feverishly to help rearm Germany, who allowed thousands of Germans to train for years in their country. Chamberlain knew who and never mentioned them, so do the writers for Oberman. Dredging up memories of Hitler is always a winner when you want to excite an audience. Just never mention the other evil people that ensured his survival. The chief of the German General staff, General Hans von Seeckt, drew up the German battle plan for the next invasion of France, in 1919, three months after the end of WW1. Russia helped them to rearm, Hitler was the evil man that happened along to bring fruition. Oberman condemns England, never mentions Russia.
Cynicom posted on 2006-09-01 21:52:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply What's your take on the assertations that Prescott Bush, Harriman, etc, and the New York Banking scene of the 1930's were, to some significant degree, financing the third reich?
All guilty.... They provided the money. It was used to pay Russia to allow Germany to violate the treaty and train troops there beginning in 1922 or therebouts. When Bush was paid off and the government seized the bank, Bush had one share and was paid a million dollars or such.
ahhh....
Didn't he die a few years back kinda young? He looked to be in great shape & health and I remember it took me by surprise. He was a wonderful historian. LOved his appearances on C-Span with Brian Lamb.
The quotes from Murrow are from Rutherford institue. Murrow had background with communists also that Ovberman never mentioned. Even the owner Paley of CBS new got sick of Murrow.
Oberman never mentions that Murrow was a champion for Alger Hiss....Sins of omissions.
Oh. I didn't know that either. The transcript: Keith Olberman on Rummy's Speech Published: Aug 31, 2006 The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet. Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis--and the sober contemplation--of every American. For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve. Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq. It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong. In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril--with a growing evil--powerful and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the "secret information." It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's -- questioning their intellect and their morality. That government was England's, in the 1930's. It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England. It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords. It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions -- its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed. The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth. Most relevant of all -- it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused. That critic's name was Winston Churchill. Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill. History -- and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England -- have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty -- and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts. Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy. Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards. His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain. But back to today's Omniscient ones. That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And, as such, all voices count -- not just his. Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience -- about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago -- we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego. But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have -- inadvertently or intentionally -- profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes? In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America? The confusion we -- as its citizens-- must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart -- that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too. The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought. And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism." As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed. Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral." Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. "We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular." And so good night, and good luck.
"Persecution, whenever it occurs, establishes only the power and cunning of the persecutor, not the truth and worth of his belief." -- H. M. Kallen (1882-1974)
I defy anyone to read this script and then say they have same feelings they had from listening to the tape. With his tone, Oberman, knew what he was doing. He conned people. Just as Hitler did, no difference.
Cloaking himself in Murrow rhetoric is akin to a street walker wearing coveralls.
He wasn't going to get it on the air w/o those coveralls.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers Shirer died few years ago. He was my favorite historian. He warned people about Hitler, no one paid attention. I cannot recall if he did or did not speak of connivance of Russia. That fails me.
You get an A+...You are exactly right. Realize he had a lot of help writing this rant.
His last book was the Greatest Generation?, a theme Tom Brokow also finished his career with.
Growing up we had a copy on one of the bookshelves at home; I remember reading it.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers Nothing could rival his "Third Reich" work. That was thing I learned from his book. Pay attention to what the speaker is saying, not "how" he is saying it. Big difference and I never forgot it. I watched Bobby Kennedy at a whistlestop campaign trip.. Afterwards I asked a very enthused lady what he had to say as she was leaving. Her answer, "I dont know what he said but he said it well"... Kennedy became senator from NY.
I was drawn to this thread while reading another poster's email to me at home. I have read the entire thread and my comment is merely, "Age brings history, if you retain your memory!" You and I have lived long enough to know who Edward R. Murrow REALLY was ... and anyone quoting that man's words is not to be believed on any level.
Murrow had an FBI file.
Reminds me somehow of that fun saying "Tell it to the Marines!"; it's all in the delivery, and timing. Maybe we need to generate some new phrases, for our dubious future.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers As a test, if you listened to the tape, and then read the transcript, did you have the same reaction??????
i can see that one is at a major disadvantage from having failed history in high school. ;)
No, of course not! The words are strong and clear. He was flippant and sarcastic. It was a beautiful twist on Rumsfeld's failed attempt to make us all enablers to the terrorists, blind to the enormous evil war machine in the middle-east. It might have worked 4 years ago, but 4 years ago they had the support of most Americans.
"If there’s another 9/11 or a major war in the Middle-East involving a U.S. attack on Iran, I have no doubt that there will be, the day after or within days an equivalent of a Reichstag fire decree that will involve massive detentions in this country." - Daniel Ellsberg Author, Pentagon Papers
Comments (42 - 72) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: christine (#1)
#3. To: jessejane (#2)
Loved the full ERMurrow quote too.
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
+ 
+ 
= 
#5. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
#6. To: christine (#1)
#7. To: All (#6)
#8. To: christine (#1)
(Edited)
This is a must watch!
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)
"It is burdened with errors that the writers well know, making it shallow intellectually at best."
+ + =
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
Do you have an example of this please so we know what sort of error you speak of?
#11. To: Cynicom (#10)
+ + =
#12. To: justlurking (#0)
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
I am well aware there are original historical sources and secondary historical sources as well. I merely asked you a question meant to ascertain where you are coming from in regards to your comment. I know quite a bit about the events before, after and during the Great Patriotic War/WW II. You need not worry about that.
#14. To: Cynicom (#13)
The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
+ + =
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#14)
If anything, he was too kind about depicting it.
#16. To: Cynicom (#15)
+ + =
#17. To: Cynicom (#13)
I might suggest you in particular disregard the tone and sift thru the written transcript.
#18. To: christine (#17)
what is the main disinfo that you're referring to, Cyni?
#19. To: Cynicom (#18)
#20. To: christine (#19)
i don't know. (blush) tell me.
#21. To: Cynicom, christine (#20)
Dredging up memories of Hitler is always a winner when you want to excite an audience. Just never mention the other evil people that ensured his survival. The chief of the German General staff, General Hans von Seeckt, drew up the German battle plan for the next invasion of France, in 1919, three months after the end of WW1. Russia helped them to rearm, Hitler was the evil man that happened along to bring fruition. Oberman condemns England, never mentions Russia.
#22. To: tom007 (#21)
What's your take on the assertations that Prescott Bush, Harriman, etc, and the New York Banking scene of the 1930's were, to some significant degree, financing the third reich?
#23. To: Cynicom (#20)
Olberman condemns England, never mentions Russia.
#24. To: Cynicom (#18)
Shirer
#25. To: christine (#23)
ahhh....
#26. To: All (#25)
ahhh.
#27. To: Cynicom (#26)
Oberman never mentions that Murrow was a champion for Alger Hiss....Sins of omissions.
#28. To: jessejane (#27)
Oh. I didn't know that either.
#29. To: jessejane (#27)
"We will not walk in fear, one of another.
#30. To: Cynicom (#29)
#31. To: Jethro Tull (#24)
Didn't he die a few years back kinda young? He looked to be in great shape & health and I remember it took me by surprise. He was a wonderful historian. LOved his appearances on C-Span with Brian Lamb.
#32. To: robin (#30)
He wasn't going to get it on the air w/o those coveralls.
#33. To: Cynicom (#31)
#34. To: Cynicom, Jethro Tull (#31)
"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
#35. To: Jethro Tull (#33)
His last book was the Greatest Generation?,
#36. To: Cynicom (#32)
You get an A+...
#37. To: Phant2000 (#36)
Edward R. Murrow REALLY was
#38. To: Cynicom (#35)
(Edited)
That was thing I learned from his book. Pay attention to what the speaker is saying, not "how" he is saying it. Big difference and I never forgot it.
#39. To: robin (#38)
; it's all in the delivery, and timing.
#40. To: Phant2000, Cynicom (#36)
#41. To: Cynicom (#39)
.
.
.