|
Olbermann throws Rummy outa the ring
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Wow.
So appropriate the Edward R. Murrow quote at the end. Here's the video:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Ol...eldOnFacism.wmv
Transcript:
| quote: | The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald S. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable comments to the Veterans of Foreign Wars yesterday demand the deep analysis - and the sober contemplation - of every American. For they do 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, they credit 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 policies, conclusions - and 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 - 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 Omniscients. 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 enveloppe 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 un-reason, 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."
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/...ry-on-rumsfeld/ |
Excellent summary by Keith. Rumsfeld and this Administration should be downright ing ashamed for insulting the majority of Americans who disagree and dissent from their idiotic views on Iraq as we continue to watch our men and women die for being stuck in a civil war between fighting factions, one in which we fight with is an Islamic fundamentalist Shiite regime with ties to Iran. Things are going to hell in a handbasket there fast with the highest reported deathtoll to date, what is it over 3400 people dead per month now or so? They had no viable postwar plan, and the painful obviousness of that is being played out in the most despicable way - our soldiers dying while innocent Iraqis being slaughtered.
At the very least, Rummy's time has long past. A healthy handful of conservative commentators have mentioned this (O'Reilly immediately comes to mind). That man is nothing shy of a ing embarrassment to my country. Please do us all a favor and quietly retire. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
Edward Murrow's quote, i thought, was more of a referendum on Olberman's and your ilk, Opus.
he could have flipped it upon himself like he flipped Rumsfeld's notion that we compare to the Western European attitudes towards Hitler in the 30's. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
Edward Murrow's quote, i thought, was more of a referendum on Olberman's and your ilk, Opus. |
Actually it's much more fitting of your ilk's paranoia and downright fright of everything around you. The consequence, of course, is labelling, branding, and squelshing any and all descent from your "fearless" Administration and mouthpieces rhetoric.
McCarthyism, that lovely period in history that Coulter-lovers such as yourself cherish and yearn for the days of old. Funny how history tends to repeat itself. The question of "have you no descency" is all too fitting in today's times.
| quote: | | he could have flipped it upon himself like he flipped Rumsfeld's notion that we compare to the Western European attitudes towards Hitler in the 30's. |
He very well could have, but then that would expose the little underbelly of this Administration and their little Homeland Security's absolute joke of an effort to supposedly protect us in the name of "national security". But I like it just how it is, personally. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
"Mccarthyism"...wonderfull:rolleyes:
at some point you gotta ask yourself, who's more "scared and paranoid"? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
sniveling doucher.
so what is it, Olberman? is Bush a fascist or is he Neville Chamberlain? fascinating stuff.
Olby says: don't criticize the left's criticism, you're squashing dissent!
end fascism now! obey my dog!
f**k! even Chomskey doesn't think we [US] live under fascism. >link<
| quote: | Would you describe the US as it is now as a fascist state?
Far from it. In many respects it is the most free country in the world. |
sorry Opus. i'll give the intellectual benefit of the doubt to Chomskey any day against Olby. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| What a waste of a good 7 minutes. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
"Mccarthyism"...wonderfull:rolleyes:
at some point you gotta ask yourself, who's more "scared and paranoid"? |
Oh I'm sure my feelings are quite clear pertaining to this Administration's tactics, though I'm not exactly sure that defines being "scared" more than it's really frustration and resentment. But in regards to who is more scared and paranoid, I'd like to give you the floor and demonstrate to me the so-called paranoia of Democrats. When you are finished, we will then compare that paranoia to that of the Bush supporters who utilize Fear and paranoia as ideological weaponry to anyone who opposes their warmongering and intrusive philosophies. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
sniveling doucher.
so what is it, Olberman? is Bush a fascist or is he Neville Chamberlain? fascinating stuff. |
I believe his point is that squelshing dissent in the same manner as Neville did is beyond the pale with this Administration, given their track record which really doesn't help their cause whatsoever.
IOW, they have absolutely no ing room to bash dissenters because they've been downright wrong on nearly all claims made. I really didn't think that was too difficult a concept for folks to pick up on.
| quote: | | Olby says: don't criticize the left's criticism, you're squashing dissent! |
That's interesting to think about. So let me get your point straight here - it's certainly okay the fact that Rummy, Bush, and every mouthpiece one can turn on the AM radio dial, coupled with a healthy handful of media lapdogs in the press do anything and everything they can to squelsh, belittle, dismiss, bash, and demean any and all dissenters to their radical viewpoints (which the majority of Americans do disagree with their views, BTW), and is really all in a days work,
...but it's okay to cry "foul" when those dissenters grow a nutsack and push back at those Administration officials who have no real substance on their agendas but to pull political rhetoric out of their asses at their political opposers?
Got it. Thanks.
| quote: | f**k! even Chomskey doesn't think we [US] live under fascism. >link<
sorry Opus. i'll give the intellectual benefit of the doubt to Chomskey any day against Olby. |
The rhetoric is a bit strong, and I might say I wouldn't even go with that word just yet. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
f**k! even Chomskey doesn't think we [US] live under fascism. >link<
|
i think its cool YOU read what he has to say!
may the opus & q5 spats never end. youre always a great read guys :) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
demonstrate to me the so-called paranoia of Democrats. |
ok. one word; Federal Judges. (okay thats two words but still)
don't tell me Democrats don't play on the peoples fear when they want to obtruct nominations to Federal benches because you have been wholly complicit here many times.
another one...Social Security reform.
Democrats have played on the fears and paranoia of the black community for decades with phenomenal success. i could go on.
you want me to say defending what we do doesn't require an implied sense of dread? i can't. the Bush doctrine is defined by fear and there is no getting around it. the people that fight for it understand that and have come to terms with it. thats not political thats just the way it is. but just like the difficulty stopping that one that looks to vaporize a market or recruiting station by killing himself, people (you and Olby) are going to politicize the fear for whatever they can gain on Bush. big difference. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
all i have to do is put this graghic up and you, as a Democrat, will use fear and paranoia to denounce or dismiss it as the "fASCIST Buler neocon cabal" screwing the world for their personal gain.
 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
ok. one word; Federal Judges. (okay thats two words but still)
don't tell me Democrats don't play on the peoples fear when they want to obtruct nominations to Federal benches because you have been wholly complicit here many times. |
Good topic to start. Perhaps I should have qualified my statement and asked for a bit of unmitigated, unsubstantiated fear, because otherwise we could pretty much throw any politician in the ring no matter what side they're on. I don't think one could really be a politician without attempting to utilize a bit of fear about one's opponent.
Regardless, since Bush brought up 5 fed judges for the courts yesterday I think it's worth discussing. First off, let's look at the timing of Bush bringing up those judges lately:
| quote: | News that Bush had decided to nominate the five conservative jurists came just before Bush spoke at a fundraiser for Bob Corker, who faces a tough Senate race against Democratic nominee Harold Ford Jr.
..."I need a U.S. senator who understands that we need people on the bench who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate," Bush said.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/eb.../ap2984177.html |
So who's using fear here again? And the timing of this fear tactic really couldn't have been any sweeter, huh?
So who are the judges?:
| quote: | | A White House statement said Bush was nominating Terrence Boyle of North Carolina and William James Haynes II of Virginia to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Michael Brunson Wallace of Mississippi to the 5th Circuit in New Orleans; and William Gerry Myers III and Norman Randy Smith, both of Idaho, for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. |
Sound familiar? Boyle, Haynes, Myers? Boyle has been stalled forever with good reason which I'll show in a minute, Haynes is one of the torture memo authors:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conte...s/060227fa_fact
And Myers was one of the judges by the Gang of 14 deal to which those signatories made no commitment for cloture.
So who are these lovely specimens Bush has brought up, again?:
| quote: | William Myers III, one of the seven filibustered nominees, has built a career as an anti-environmental extremist. He was a longtime lobbyist for the mining and cattle industries. Then, as the Interior Department's top lawyer, he put those industries' interests ahead of the public interest. In one controversial legal opinion, he overturned a decision that would have protected American Indian sacred sites, clearing the way for a company o do extensive mining in the area. Mr. Myers has been nominated to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco. That court plays a major role in determining the environmental law that applies to the Western states.
Terrence Boyle, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, is also a troubling choice. He has an extraordinarily high reversal rate for a district court judge. Many of the decisions that have been criticized by higher courts wrongly rejected claims involving civil rights, sex discrimination and disability rights. Mr. Boyle's record is particularly troubling because the court reversing him, the Fourth Circuit, is perhaps the most hostile to civil rights in the federal appellate system, and even it has regularly found his rulings objectionable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/o...bfadfee&ei=5070 |
About Haynes:
| quote: | Haynes is a protégé of Cheney's influential chief of staff, David Addington. Addington's relationship with Cheney goes back to the Reagan years, when Cheney, who was then a representative from Wyoming, was the ranking Republican on a House select committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal. Addington, a congressional aide, helped to write a report for the committee's Republican minority, arguing that the law banning covert aid to the Contras--the heart of the scandal--was an unconstitutional infringement of Presidential prerogatives. Both men continue to embrace an extraordinarily expansive view of executive power. In 1989, when Cheney was named Secretary of Defense by George H. W. Bush, he hired Addington as a special assistant, and eventually appointed him to be his general counsel. Addington, in turn, hired Haynes as his special assistant and soon promoted him to general counsel of the Army.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conte...s/060227fa_fact |
I could go much further into detail on these judges, but I'm trying to keep things a bit more brief. My point is a simple one - there's a strong disagreeance here with these nominations, and with good reason. Telling the public and their constituents that they disagree with judges who have such radical views as these is the job of Congressional Democrats. I wouldn't expect anything less from my Congressman Moore here in Kansas.
So is utilizing factual content from the historical past on these judges a "fear" tactic? Is projecting on their likely future decisions incorrect and flat out wrong via fearmongering based on their past philosophies and past judgements? Granted, there's always exceptions, but by and large such predictions tend to come out in fruition. In fact, such predictions is what Bush and his supporters are banking on. Otherwise you guys wouldn't support such judges.
So again let's get this straight - you guys bank on these judges' records and hope they continue to rule in the same manner, and that's perfectly okay......
but when we come over and point out how we believe just how outlandish and incorrect their rulings are on given cases, all of the sudden that becomes fearmongering? If so, I believe we are beginning to use the term "fear" much more looser than I had ever perceived.
| quote: | another one...Social Security reform.
Democrats have played on the fears and paranoia of the black community for decades with phenomenal success. |
Perhaps I'm a bit remiss on this, but I'm afraid the "for decades" part is one I'm not familiar with. SS certainly has its flaws, but the alternative of private accounts is not one that will benefit anyone spare the top percentile of this country:
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib212
http://www.cbpp.org/1-18-06socsec.htm
There's good reason why African Americans rely on it to a greater degree (up to a point of age 65, then it flattens out in comparison to caucasions). If you really want to address that reason, I'm ing game. Perhaps both sides could then address the extraordinarily low employment and high poverty rates of African Americans, so THEN they wouldn't have to disproportionately rely on SS as much versus whites.
If you conservatives are actually serious about such an engaging conversation about helping out those that have difficulties getting off the bottom rather than using sweeping generalizations about how lazy they are, then perhaps more could actually be done about them.
Besides, the alternative for African-Americans on the private account scheme is not entirely rosy:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/arch...104spriggs.html
And speaking of fear and Social Security, I wonder if you remember this lovely little trip down the memory lane when Rove pulled this one out of his ass, a smearboat consultant to attack the AARP and SS:
I'm sorry, you were saying something about fear?
Your choice. I'll be posting my contentions of fear tactics by modern day conservatives in a follow-up, then we can compare notes.
| quote: | | you want me to say defending what we do doesn't require an implied sense of dread? i can't. the Bush doctrine is defined by fear and there is no getting around it. the people that fight for it understand that and have come to terms with it. thats not political thats just the way it is. |
You really can't be serious about handwaving this away so easily. I agree that the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war is based on fear. To say that's not political is downright laughable. Just recently Bush and his Administration have stopped at nothing to make their Doctrine a political event at every stop. They live on politics. Christ, that's what's kept your party in power this whole time. Is that to say that certain fears are unsubstantiated? Of course not, nor do I necessarily dismiss the philosophy of pre-emption in the first place. If it is supported with sound evidence, I would agree to it (hence my original partial agreeance with invading Iraq on the caveat that WMD were to be found - of course that evidence was so horribly weak and all counterevidence being wholly dismissed and buried, let alone leaving bin Laden as a consequence which was all drudged up AFTER the invasion). But this Administration has counted on that fear at every step in order to press any and all agendas coming their way. There's simply no way around that.
| quote: | | but just like the difficulty stopping that one that looks to vaporize a market or recruiting station by killing himself, people (you and Olby) are going to politicize the fear for whatever they can gain on Bush. big difference. |
You made no distinction of difference whatsoever. And if pointing out the wholes in the arguments of this Administration, if showing just how ridiculous and downright ing insulting that someone as high up in this Administration as the Secretary of Defense is making comparisons of Democrats and the majority public opinion to Hitler sympathizers, Jesus how ridiculous can one be here? Is that really how you define "fear"? I think most would simply say that's calling out the bull, and rightfully so. I dunno, again I think the definition of "fear" is being used pretty loosely in this instance when referring to Olbermann's speech. He called Rummy out on his bull comparisons and used his backwards logic against him based on Rummy's own historically inaccurate record of predictions. Are you truly defining that as a "fear" tactic? |
|
|
|
|
