Thursday, August 31, 2006
Thank you Keith Olbermann!!!
Keith Olberman of Countdown on MSNBC smacked Donald Rumsfeld down for implying that anyone who does not agree with the Bush Regime is a fascist and is appeasing the enemy! Donald Rumsfeld should be fired for being such an ass for saying the shit he does and for doing a sucky job in Iraq. If Hitler was alive today and still leading Germany, Rumsfeld would say the same thing about the people of Germany who go against the evil of Hitler! Here's what Keith Olberman wrote:
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?
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.
Aug. 30, 2006 8:34 p.m. ET
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?
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.
Comments:
<< Home
Keith Olbermann has struck a chord just like Stephen Colbert did at the White House correspondents dinner, the people there did not necessarily get it, but the country definitely did, and Keith is getting KUDOS from many corners and centers of this nation.
Kudos to Keith! Absolutely Clif. Keith said exactly what you and I've been saying all along: IMPEACH THESE BASTARDS. These guys have done nothing but desecrate our nation. Calling anyone who doesn't agree with these Fascists, 'fascists', is absurd and definately is taking the right to free speech away!
When these Pigs started squealing, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists", that is when free speech was squashed in this country because it gave the warmongering fascists the right to say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a terrorist or is appeasing the terrorists!
It's just bullshit. November can't come quick enough for me. Let's hope it's not rigged and Americans can have their voice heard!!!
When these Pigs started squealing, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists", that is when free speech was squashed in this country because it gave the warmongering fascists the right to say that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a terrorist or is appeasing the terrorists!
It's just bullshit. November can't come quick enough for me. Let's hope it's not rigged and Americans can have their voice heard!!!
Keith Olbermann and Lou Dobbs have the best two hours on television.
Olbermann has a way to cut with humor while making a point while Dobbs just flat out says it bluntly.
I better not write anymore Kay, I may get locked off this blog like I have Lydia's.
Olbermann has a way to cut with humor while making a point while Dobbs just flat out says it bluntly.
I better not write anymore Kay, I may get locked off this blog like I have Lydia's.
Larry, why would you get locked off my blog? I would never do that to you!!!!!!
Please keep writing because you and Clif make my day everyday. :-)
Please keep writing because you and Clif make my day everyday. :-)
Kay:
I am not talking about you. The trolls keep blocking posts.
I finally gave up posting on Lydia's since that is the only place I have problems.
I am not talking about you. The trolls keep blocking posts.
I finally gave up posting on Lydia's since that is the only place I have problems.
Kay and Larry,
The trolls are very scared of my blog for some reason. They blocked my own computer too.
I need to change now!!
larry, please try to post again and see. I had a friend try to fix it so I could publish.
They are connected with mypetjawa.mu.nu and littlegreenfootballs.com
The trolls are very scared of my blog for some reason. They blocked my own computer too.
I need to change now!!
larry, please try to post again and see. I had a friend try to fix it so I could publish.
They are connected with mypetjawa.mu.nu and littlegreenfootballs.com
Kay,
If they block my post here I will have to try on their favorite sites for awhile so maybe they will leave your alone.
Lydia,
I tried again but still nothing. I will keep trying.
If they block my post here I will have to try on their favorite sites for awhile so maybe they will leave your alone.
Lydia,
I tried again but still nothing. I will keep trying.
Lydia, Clif, and Larry!!! For the last two days I've been getting vicious emails from a neocon who threatened me. Then I find out that he or another neocon troll stole my identity on Americablog and posted vicious crap all day long using my name! Of course, I'm a regular there so those that know my 'voice' knew in an instant it wasn't me and sent me emails alerting me to it (which is how I found out in the first place). Well one of the asshole trolls had been to my blog because he had mentioned me saying in my profile about sending trolls to blogger hell and now I'm wondering if maybe he came from your site Lydia? He could very well be from one of those Reich wing sites like littlegreenfootballs!!!!
Anyways, I called the Maine State Police to report this guy and then told the Trooper that one of the trolls had made a threat to Bush using another poster's moniker at Americablog, so now, the Secret Service is involved!!!
Incredible. I think this is a sure sign that the trolls are losing the political battle and that their party is going down! I could be wrong but let's hope I'm not!!!
Anyways, I called the Maine State Police to report this guy and then told the Trooper that one of the trolls had made a threat to Bush using another poster's moniker at Americablog, so now, the Secret Service is involved!!!
Incredible. I think this is a sure sign that the trolls are losing the political battle and that their party is going down! I could be wrong but let's hope I'm not!!!
It doesn't surprise me that they tried posting on your name.
That is the trouble with most of these free blogs, they have no way to monitor who is on and they don't have a way to limit number of names used by one person.
Post a Comment
That is the trouble with most of these free blogs, they have no way to monitor who is on and they don't have a way to limit number of names used by one person.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]