tonight, on countdown

mattjericho · Post by **mattjericho** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:28 am

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. Rumsfelds 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 administrations track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the lifes 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. Rumsfelds speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true perilwith a growing evilpowerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfelds, 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. Rumsfelds -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was Englands, in the 1930s.

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 critics 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 todays 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 Ladens plans five years ago, about Saddam Husseins weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrinas 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 Emporers 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. Rumsfelds 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.
-Kieth Olbermann, Countdown, Aug 30, 2006

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:37 am

First of all, quoting Olbermann isn't a good thing. It's like quoting Bill O'Reilly, something none of us want to do. And since Keith needs a history lesson...here we go....

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Or he can see past the rhetoric, past the BS, and calls things as they are. Something that is lacking in this world lately. People try to insert nuance into black and white situations, sometimes for their own purposes, other times to just make themselves seem more damn intelligent.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the lifes 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.

I don't think Rumsfeld has ever called for the stop of dissent, if anything he has defended it, but has also said dissent has emboldened our enemies making them think we are fractured and easily broken. There's constructive dissent, and there's dissent for the sake of dissent. You can scream "Get out of Iraq now!" all you want, but if you don't have an idea how to make things "better" after we leave, don't be surprised if you are dismissed as an idiot.

BTW, this is the point that truly shows Olbermann is a complete and total idiot....

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.

What a load of crap. Seriously. Hitler WAS rearming, due to poor oversight by the League of Nations. Hitler's war machine is what brought Germany out of their own economic depression.

Olbermann also has the names reversed. Chamberlain was the one who signed over the Sudentenland to Hitler, trying to avoid bloodshed at all costs. Only when Hitler invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939 did Chamberlain realize he was had and have this ass voted out in 1940.

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.

Wait, Keith Olbermann fails WWII history and it's Mr. Rumsfeld who lives in a fog of fear?

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.

It depends where you draw the line. When you find yourself relishing situations where you are proven correct (when people die), you may want to think a bit more about your fervor and what it is serving.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:18 am

I just find it weak to compare this war to WWII.

If anything Rummy is attempting to cash in on the after effects of 'Saving Pvt. Ryan' and the mini-series 'Band of Brothers'. Pulling on the heart strings of retired America; urging them to think of a simpler time in their lives. Back in the good old days. Except in the good old days; things were as messed (if not more) then they are now.

IMHO, if anything they should be making comparisons to Vietnam; but then that would take some honest looking. It would show the failures of our government and their misuse of the American military complex.

I just can't trust this administration any more. They shout that Iran is ignoring a UN resolution....but didn't America ignore the UN when we invadded Iraq? Why should Iran be held to a higher standard then the US?
They talk about facing a new breed of facism, but they don't even think about how invading a country and attempting to establish a new government could be construed as bad, or even facist.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:44 am

People try to insert nuance into black and white situations, sometimes for their own purposes,

Totally agree!

There's constructive dissent, and there's dissent for the sake of dissent.

and again!

Olbermann also has the names reversed. Chamberlain was the one who signed over the Sudentenland to Hitler, trying to avoid bloodshed at all costs. Only when Hitler invaded Poland on Sept 1, 1939 did Chamberlain realize he was had and have this ass voted out in 1940

classic case of appeasement! somewhat similar to what Israel did with
the Gaza strip

IMHO, if anything they should be making comparisons to Vietnam; but then that would take some honest looking. It would show the failures of our government and their misuse of the American military complex.

Yes, yes it its.
Being that the military had their hands tied behind their
back by political quagmire(sound familiar) and public opinion swayed
by the nightly network news showing what war looks like on TV
every evening (sounds familiar again). The military wasn't allowed
to succeed, hence that one was lost.

but didn't America ignore the UN when we invadded Iraq? Why should Iran be held to a higher standard then the US?

because of the UN's continous ineptitude on anything. and because
Iran is developing(IMHO has developed) the capability to deliver a
nuclear warhead and is in the hands of a "true nutjob".

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:08 am

I just can't trust this administration any more. They shout that Iran is ignoring a UN resolution....but didn't America ignore the UN when we invadded Iraq? Why should Iran be held to a higher standard then the US?

There was no resolution by the UN for the US NOT to invade Iraq. There were several resolutions for Iraq to disarm and to comply with inspections which were (in theory) to be backed up with force.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:43 pm

Keith Olberman?

He makes Katie Couric look like a legit journalist.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:56 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

To take this beyond internet culture, you know your argument is blown when you start referencing Hitler, Mr Rumsfeld . . .

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:30 pm

I don't know. I think the comparisons between Hussein and Hitler were fairly reasonable. Hussein certainly would have liked to have been Hitler. And the guy in Iran is even scarier than Hussein to me. The belief that Israel should be wiped out brings about an apt comparison certainly. There are some scary ties between the Nazis and the PLO as well.

Then there is this issue of appeasement. "If we just leave them alone, maybe they won't hate us so much and they'll leave us alone." Didn't work then, won't work now, and will probably bring about much the same result, which is Iran will gain so much momentum that it will take a WWII scale effort to end it.

The comparison to Vietnam is only valid on one level as far as I'm concerned and that is to look at what happened when we left. If we leave Iraq now, you will see a Pol Pot esque slaughter in Iraq. I still can't figure out why the radicals of the 60's consider us leaving Vietnam as the height of their glory. Leaving a job unfinished and turning over the fates of a nation of people to that butchering madman makes you happy???? What the hell is wrong with you?!?!?!?

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:39 pm

To take this beyond internet culture, you know your argument is blown when you start referencing Hitler, Mr Rumsfeld . . .

I think Godwin's Law is over-quoted. There are quite a few times when the comparison to Nazi Germany can be quite valid.

I have not read Rumsfeld's speech, so I won't say if he violated it badly or just had a bad application of it done by others.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:21 pm

Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin argues in his book, Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

In the case of Iran/Iraq/PLO I think it's a valid comparison. And as a history lesson, it's certainly valid to revisit the results of appeasing him. The UN is by it's very nature an appeasing organization. Always has been, always will be. Sometimes you have to confront evil. The world had to stop Hitler. The world has to stop Iran and Islamo-fascism before it is too late.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:24 am

The comparison to Vietnam is only valid on one level as far as I'm concerned and that is to look at what happened when we left. If we leave Iraq now, you will see a Pol Pot esque slaughter in Iraq. I still can't figure out why the radicals of the 60's consider us leaving Vietnam as the height of their glory. Leaving a job unfinished and turning over the fates of a nation of people to that butchering madman makes you happy???? What the hell is wrong with you?!?!?!?

Hmm...parallels to Vietnam. Lets see:

A police action where the government thought winning the 'hearts and minds' involved a military campaign with bombs and civilian deaths. I know 'collateral damage' is inevitable; but after a point the civilian population doesn't see it that way.

An ever escalating number of troops is needed to accomplish the job, even though the government claims everything is going according to plan. Didn't Bush land on an aircraft carrier claiming that the 'mission' was accomplished.

Fighting a guerilla force that almost seemlessly blends in with the local population.

***

I agree though we can't pull out with facing some serious concenquences down the line. We've lost all of the support we had when we were tearing down the Saddam statues; and I'm not sure how we can get it back. I know that to follow will be "well the media doesn't report on all the good things we're doing" and that may be to a certain degre. However I think if we did somehow guarantee water to ever Iraqi, it would be a good start. (But we couldn't get water to people after Katrina...)

BTW, the radicals don't see it as not finishing a job. Their goal was to get the war to end; regardless. They accomplished their goal.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:21 am

Accomplishing their goal resulted in millions of innocent civilian deaths. And the same will happen in Iraq.

The "Mission" of ridding Iraq of Hussein was accomplished. As much as it's fun to point out the now seemingly ridiculous nature of that banner, the mission to that point had been accomplished. I believe in his speech he stated "the job isn't finished yet" and went on to describe future goals and missions.

I believe Iraq is more closely comparable to post WWII Germany. We are much further along in Iraq than we were in Germany at the same time points in reconstruction. I also think the Iraqi people recognize that their greatest threat is not the US military men and women, but the terrorists that are using their country to try and advance their 'cause'.

We'll see what happens, but I still believe history will prove us to have been right.

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:50 am

Accomplishing their goal resulted in millions of innocent civilian deaths. And the same will happen in Iraq.

I'm guesing the counter would be that thousands if not millions had already died because of our actions. How many would have died if we hadn't cast the die?

The "Mission" of ridding Iraq of Hussein was accomplished. As much as it's fun to point out the now seemingly ridiculous nature of that banner, the mission to that point had been accomplished. I believe in his speech he stated "the job isn't finished yet" and went on to describe future goals and missions.

Except that photo-op occured before we captured Saddam.

I believe Iraq is more closely comparable to post WWII Germany. We are much further along in Iraq than we were in Germany at the same time points in reconstruction. I also think the Iraqi people recognize that their greatest threat is not the US military men and women, but the terrorists that are using their country to try and advance their 'cause'.

The Iraqi people see America as a threat because the violence has escalated since our arrival. We might not be doing the detonating; but they see us as a catalist.

We'll see what happens, but I still believe history will prove us to have been right.

Eh, I dunno. History has shown that the victors write the history books. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:36 am

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

....well then, WTF,...

debate over, nothing accomplished?

let's all cash in our chips then!

sharkmansix · Post by **sharkmansix** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:38 am

...all I'm saying with that is being 'right' doesn't mean you weren't 'wrong' in the eyes of others. It all depends on your perspective of the events.

I would imagine the victims of the Dresden firebombings would agree with me.