[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Keith Olbermann: Bush owes us an apology 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#5. To: Morgana le Fay (#0)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just drop it. I am not interested in discussing anything with anyone that resorts to incivility of personal attacks.
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.
There are no replies to Comment # 33. End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|