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:863 Comments:72
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.
"It is burdened with errors that the writers well know, making it shallow intellectually at best."
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.
Do you have an example of this please so we know what sort of error you speak of?
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.
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.
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???
The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
~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.
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.