See other Editorial Articles
Title: Keith Olbermann: Bush owes us an apology
Source:
MSNBC
URL Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/
Published: Sep 19, 2006
Author: Keith Obermann
Post Date: 2006-09-19 10:31:39 by Morgana le Fay
Keywords: None
Views: 347
Comments: 33
The President of the United States owes this country an apology. It will not be offered, of course. He does not realize its necessity. There are now none around him who would tell him or could. The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential. An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people. Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell. In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom." Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom. The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." This President's response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one's breath, but within it contained one particularly chilling phrase. "Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?" “If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective. Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison." And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter. Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists. Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees. What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison. And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right. All of us agree about that. Except, it seems, this President. With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right. And then there was that one, most awful phrase. In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark. “It's unacceptable to think," he said. It is never unacceptable to think. And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries. That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think. Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth. It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights. This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President. If Mr. Powell's letter -- cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive -- can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance, what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague? "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush. They were the words of Thomas Jefferson. He put them in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that anti-thetical to the status quo just now? Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them? Between your confidence in your infallibility, sir, and your demonizing of dissent, and now these rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued - a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone who disagrees. Or what will next be done to them. On this newscast last Friday night, Constitiutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, suggested that at some point in the near future some of the "detainees" transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo, will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured. Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions, might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration, for them. That, certainly, could explain Mr. Bush's fury. That, at this point, is speculative. But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President's words were at such variance from the entire history of this country. For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable. There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders -- Republicans or otherwise -- who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down - and explain the reality of the situation you have created. There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States. And more than one. But, Mr. Bush, the others -- for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago -- they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one. We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you. The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation's birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence. Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire's that are more pertinent still, just now. "Think for yourselves," he wrote, "and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too." Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us get yelled at by the President. Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly unacceptable.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Morgana le Fay (#0)
Walk the Plank! Do we Tar and Feather him first?
"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 "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush. They were the words of Thomas Jefferson. He put them in the Declaration of Independence." Walking the plank is for underlings who are sacrificed to benefit their bosses like Scooter Libby. I'm sure that the above quote from the piece would be lost utterly on Bush. I'm sure he considers the Declaration of Independence another 'goddamn piece of paper' too. I would like to see Powell break his go along with the herd off the cliff mindset and show true leadership ability by tasking and punishing Bush for his insane megalomania and bad attitude toward he effort to try to gently show the boy the light. If Powell had true Presidential class leadership ability, he would aggressively work for what is right instead of hedge things as not to wound or bruise an obviously insane scofflaw like Bush. His instincts were sound in not giving in to run for the presidency, because the man clearly does not seem to have what it takes. You need, 'the vision thing,' and fearless audacity in pursuing what is right and just. Bush is gravely in deep violation of hos oath of office in how he tries to gut the Constitution at every turn. Powell must realize the time for gentle nudging with him is over, and that if he truly cares about the U.S.. it is time to pull out a political two by four and to rhetorically smack Smirk between the eyes with it. Nothing less then that will do.
Davy Jones' Locker!
"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 Rabbi Bush never had the confidence of Olbermann and his ilk. Olbermann has found a writer that writes like Edward R. Murrow and as a talking head Olberman is trying hard to SOUND like and DELIVER his rants like Murrow. Murrow was a communist that helped destroy Joe McCarthy. In otherwards, Olbermann is a fraud, bashing Bush because it makes ratings.
It might be more effective to say that Obermann is an Islamofascist lover who hates the troops and wants the terrorists to win. The audience you are trying to reach has already been programmed to buy into this - far fetched as it may be. I've seen a consistent message of integrity through everything Obermann has reported since day one on the air. I say that if integrity means exposing Bush sleaze, then so be it. I would rather have a genuine stab at honest reporting than the Fox news model you seem to advocate here, i.e., that of selective truth and selective integrity depending on the opinions the GOP needs the goobers to hold at any given moment. You yourself might rethink your opinion here; the ratings are showing that this format of selective truth is now transparent to many people and is becoming less and less effective.
.
It's a sign of the laughable incompetence in direction of all its many fanatic projects that an establishment figure like Powell can be allowed to wander so far off the reservation. Bush has no credibility and so is losing his grip. Some would say losing his mind. May it be a sign of things to come that MSM figures like Olbermann feel free to paste Bush in a manner we haven't seen since the days of Richard Nixon.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that everything Olbermann has said was "the truth", to that I would certainly agree. As for integrity, that I would not care to subscribe to Olbermann. Murrow became the darling of the anti Americans long ago with his constant bashing of McCarthy, I remember his rants very well, and Olbermann is trying to sound like Murrow. If one closes their eyes they can hear a cheap imitation of Murrow. That is why he quotes Murrow often.
Google "Gay" and "McCarthy" for a very, very long list of reports on just how disgusting and hypocritical this pack of closet queers actually was. Coulter and the GOP now have the uphill battle of rehabilitating these dishonest thugs in order to keep the label of "McCarthyight" off the back of Bush and his pack of brownshirts. For the same reason, the GOP has found it necessary to pre-empt the word fascist least this well fitting shoe be placed on the foot where it really belongs - on the party closely allied with big business interests that is now in the process of formenting a world war and quashing personal freedoms at home.
.
If you are going to make general and utterly unsupported smears it is usually best to stick to the GOP playbook. The GOP has a set of stock sound bites that they recommend you employ. Things such as "America Hater", "Troop Hater", "Islamofascist" and the other silly and inapplicable smears you see on FR and LP. These stick in the minds of the people you are trying to fool. Your unsupported smear above might simply be forgotten. As your main goal seems to be to disredit the messenger bearing the inconvenient message, it doesn't really matter what you use, just as long as it fools the goobers into believing that the messenger is somehow "bad". For this, "Islamofascist lover" might work better. Just a suggestion.
.
The most disgusting part of the McCarthy assassination was that MANY in the government were well aware of the Venona transcripts that proved McCarthy was right. The leader of that hatchet queer group was "President Dwight Eisenhower". The MSM cheerleader was Edward R. Murrow.
Bump.
Somewhere along the line perhaps you have lost track of my comparison of Olbermann and Murrow. Do you recall the braodcasts of Murrow during the 40s and 50s????
Yes, I've seen them.
.
Heard Murrows broadcasts of the 40s?? Watched the McCarthy hearings of 1954 along with Murrow broadcasts?
ROTF...great stuff!
As you know, and as I know, Eisenhower never said a word on this subject. When Coulter spins this for the goobs, she keeps it general. You would do well to take heed. Don't let people pin you with facts if you have to whitewash this sort of prior misconduct. A lot of effort went into investigating the destroyed lives, the false and hysterical accusations and as a result and there is a strong record supporting what really took place. Better to just call Eisenhower and the MSM "Islamofascist Lovers". The audience you are trying to bamboozle will buy it. I think the actual leaders of the queer group were McCarthy's right hand man Roy Cohn and his right hand man G. David Schine. Google these names to get a picture of what went on. And no, Lenny Bruce was not planniing to lead a communist insurrection in the US. As you know, Coulter just needs to whitewash these guys and their tactics to keep the label off the GOP when they do the same sorts of things today. Contrary to the hysterical and paranoid rantings of a pack of vicious queers, the commies were in no position to take over the world and the domino theory wa a bunch of bullshit cooked up by a crooked administration. Too bad so many innocent people were destroyed so these monsters could preen on stage. Sort of like Bush and the GOP huh?
.
You seem to wandering off the reservation. You might start afresh by answereing my questions rather than chilish personal attacks.
As for integrity, that I would not care to subscribe to Olbermann. Second that.
Olbermann has been a failure at every tv venue he has tried, always an also ran. Now he has found there is gold to be had in bashing Bush and his lackeys. ... seems to not understand that I am merely trying to point out that Olbermann is an opportunistic talking head. Bash Bush to his hearts content and I will cheer him on, but I also know he is a fraud, a Murrow wannabe, nothing more. I will say, he does have some good writers.
You asserted a fact in post number 11: "The leader of that hatchet queer group was "President Dwight Eisenhower" I answered it in post number 18. You are now trying the FR/LP obfuscation tactic by accusing me of wandering off the reservation. You just did that in the post I am now answering here. If you would just demonize the messengers by calling them "Islamofascists Lovers" you wouldn't have to do this dance. That precisely why the GOP attacks the inconvenient messengers in this manner. They know they can't deal with it on a factual level and they avoid doing so. In addition, the people you want to poison the message for arn't really interested in facts. Do you think Badeye or Becket Saunders care what really happened? "Islmofascist Lover" works great and keeps the people with the truth from attacking you with facts and logic.
.
"Bush is a pussy and could not even hold his own in our armed forces...its easier for him to use double speak and America will put up a fight for their rights until this cocksucking bush family gets the fuck out of office." ++++++++++++++++++ I wonder how he really feels?
Just drop it. I am not interested in discussing anything with anyone that resorts to incivility of personal attacks.
As are most musicians, writers,
actors, and broadcast personel until they find the slot that fits them. Ever
hear the term "paying dues"? Now he has found there is gold to be had
in bashing Bush and his lackeys. ... seems to not understand that I am merely
trying to point out that Olbermann is an opportunistic talking head. Bash
Bush to his hearts content and I will cheer him on, but I also know he is a
fraud, a Murrow wannabe, nothing more. I will say, he does have some good
writers. Raw, unsupported opinion presented as hard fact. This lets
you do the Limbaugh shuffle. Let people see it as fact until you get called on
it, then ID it as "just opinion" or "just entertainment". You are getting
better here, but you are still making unnecessary work for yourself. You could
accomplish the same result with vastly less text by simply saying: "Everyone
knows Obermann is an Islamofascist lover who hates the troops and wants the
terrorists to win".
.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com As you can see, he has the Bushies so worried they have even established a damage control site for the FReeps at Café' Paranoia to get their instructions on Olbermann bashing from.
Did anyone ever dream it would come to this? And what the hell is in store in the next two years?
"(OWNews - NEW YORK) Olbermann Watch continued its dominance in the Olbersphere ratings war by retaining its positions as the Number 1 http://non-MSNBC.com, Keith Olbermann website for the 112th week in a row. But that's not the biggest news. In what can only be described as utter humiliation for Keith Olbermann, http://OlbermannWatch.com has now pulled ahead of http://Bloggerman.com, Keith's own blog on the http://MSNBC.com site, in the coveted Google Pank Rank demo." Note how the "FReeping" tactic is used to boost hits to that site which is then cited as scientific proof that people who disagree with his message vastly outnumber those of us who know something is seriously wrong with Bush and company. This sort of thing would make Joe McCarthy proud indeed. This is why I have always been against 'FReeping' as it's unethical nature lends itself to creating false pictures to obscure the facts on bigger things then mere unscientific polls. They are really getting sophisticated in how they misuse that tactic.
Now he has found there is gold to be had in bashing Bush and his lackeys. ... seems to not understand that I am merely trying to point out that Olbermann is an opportunistic talking head. Bash Bush to his hearts content and I will cheer him on, but I also know he is a fraud, a Murrow wannabe, nothing more. I will say, he does have some good writers. Bush has been a failure at every venue he has tried, always an also ran. Now he has found there is gold to be had in mining 9/11 for power. Cynicom seems to not understand that I am merely trying to point out that Bush is an opportunistic wannabe dictator. Bash Bush to his hearts content and I will cheer him on, but I also know Bush is a fraud, an FDR or Churchill wannabe, nothing more. I will say, he does have some good writers.
Unthinking bump.
Now, if only he could learn to read and deliver the lines properly, we'd have happy days and a chicken in every pot.
"Moral equivalence" drives the FReep world bananas as well.
As an aside, do you disagree with anything Obermann said above? Or can you prove him wrong on any of his points? You offer nothing on the validity of Obermannn's message, but you seem to be making a valiant Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox News style effort to demonize the messenger. Are you saying that we should not pay attention to Obermann's message because hs is a _______________ . 1, commie. Or some combination of the above? I have a suggestion, if you have a problem with Obermann's message, focus on that message and lay off the vague, general and unsupported smears of the messenger. Tell us why what Obermann said is wrong, and forget about trying to demonize him for us.
.
#2. To: Morgana le Fay (#0)
Well said, Keith. Bravo.
#3. To: robin (#1)
"If Mr. Powell's letter -- cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive -- can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance, what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague?
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
I'm sure that the above quote from the piece would be lost utterly on Bush.
#5. To: Morgana le Fay (#0)
In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence,
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
n otherwards, Olbermann is a fraud, bashing Bush because it makes ratings.
#7. To: Morgana le Fay (#0)
"the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
#8. To: ... (#6)
I've seen a consistent message of integrity through everything Obermann has reported since day one on the air.
#9. To: Cynicom (#5)
Joe McCarthy
#10. To: Cynicom (#8)
(Edited)
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that everything Olbermann has said was "the truth", to that I would certainly agree.
#11. To: ... (#9)
hypocritical this pack of closet queers actually was.
#12. To: ... (#9)
For the same reason, the GOP has found it necessary to pre-empt the word fascist least this well fitting shoe be placed on the foot where it really belongs - on the party closely allied with big business interests that is now in the process of formenting a world war and quashing personal freedoms at home.
#13. To: ... (#10)
If you are going to make general and utterly unsupported smears it is usually best to stick to the GOP playbook.
#14. To: All (#12)
governor bush debates smirk
#15. To: Cynicom (#13)
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that everything Olbermann has said was "the truth", to that I would certainly agree.
#16. To: ... (#15)
Yes, I've seen them.
#17. To: lodwick (#14)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#18. To: Cynicom (#11)
(Edited)
The leader of that hatchet queer group was "President Dwight Eisenhower".
#19. To: ... (#18)
As you know, and as I know, Eisenhower never said a word on this subject.
#20. To: Cynicom (#8)
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that everything Olbermann has said was "the truth", to that I would certainly agree.
"Take him to the tree of Wobegon." -- Thulsa Doomshowitz
#21. To: Tauzero (#20)
As for integrity, that I would not care to subscribe to Olbermann.
#22. To: Cynicom (#19)
(Edited)
you are wandering off the reservation
#23. To: who knows what evil, robin, everyone here (#17)
People are waking up: here's a quote from YouTube on the debate video -
#24. To: ... (#22)
You asserted a fact in post number 11:
#25. To: Cynicom (#21)
Olbermann has been a failure at every tv venue he has tried,
always an also ran.
#26. To: Cynicom (#21)
#27. To: Morgana le Fay (#0)
“It's unacceptable to think," he said.
#28. To: Cynicom (#24)
From that site:
#29. To: Cynicom (#21)
Olbermann has been a failure at every tv venue he has tried, always an also ran.
#30. To: Quatermass (#27)
Outstanding poster.
#31. To: Quatermass (#29)
I will say, he does have some good writers.
#32. To: Morgana le Fay (#0)
It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists
I've already said too much.
#33. To: Cynicom (#24)
Just drop it. I am not interested in discussing anything with anyone that resorts to incivility of personal attacks.
2. pinko.
3. fag.
4. Islamofascist.
5. Burka Booster.
5. Troop Hater.
6. America Hater.
7. Bin Laden Booster.
8. Terrorist Lover.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest