I do understand that he wants to use what he crudely calls the "hole" as a metaphor for the "hole" "in the fabric of our nation," but it's an inaccurate set-up for what isn't exactly a brilliant literary device. There's video and text at the link. I watched the first quarter of the video -- the WTC site is visible behind him -- then had to switch to the text because his heavy-handed delivery was getting on my nerves. Why doesn't mainstream media find better people to put on the air?
Scrolling way down into the extended text, we find this:
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.Now, class the lesson for today is alliteration. He's really trying hard to write well. Earlier in this peroration, he was quoting the Gettysburg Address, and it's easy to tell he thinks he's bringing us elevated text.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Here's something about "The Path to 9/11":
A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.Does the average viewer even know who the hell he's talking about or does this just sound nutty? So... uh ... Disney?
Just as the terrorists have succeeded — are still succeeding — as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero…A wedge to pit? Well, maybe someone who cranks out prose like this and doesn't seem to think any editing is necessary also thinks you can quickly sketch out a design for a series of buildings and get going. (The memorial at Gettysburg was dedicated only four months after the battle, he tells us.) There was, of course, an early design for the reconstruction -- and, of course, it had nothing to do with Bush -- but it went nowhere, because it wasn't very good. (I don't know what physical monument Lincoln stood near when he gave the Gettysburg Address, but I think I can fairly assume it was the sort of thing that would be met with cries of outrage today. That said, maybe we should have put up a simple slab of marble with a reverent inscription. But that's another matter, and it's got nothing to do with Bush.)
So too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding — as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
Olbermann's drivel ends this way:
When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…Should we forgive Olbermann for using the World Trade Center site as a backdrop and a metaphor for his (atrociously written) political speech?
When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.
Posts
81 comments:
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space…
And yet when a mini-series suggests that both Clinton and Bush failures were responsible, that's apparently reprehensible. Weird.
Olbermann's the person that I hear calling people un-American, using overblown rhetoric, and driving a wedge between people all the time.
Olberman was a second-rate hack as a sportscaster, bouncing around from job to job as he wore out his welcome.
He is a third rate political commentator, but has found a one note message that appeals to just enough moonbats to keep him on the air.
How is Olbermann exploiting the WTC in any way different from Bush exploiting the WTC?
Anyway, I imagine he's going overboard to get publicity so more people tune in to his TV show.
Keith Olberman = Fred Phelps
(chuckle). I wonder what a Fred Phelps TV show would feature?
I don't think the comparison is fair. Fred Phelps is a true wacko nut job. In the Gaussian Distribution of Life, he is Mr. 10 Standard Deviations below the mean. Olbermann is just someone with a TV show to hype. Little different from Ann Coulter, Jerry Springer, Bill Bennett or any of the other many who make a living shouting Look At Me!!!!
fenris, here's a clue: They're both exploiting it.
I am not quite sure I understand Olbermann's logic. Apparently, Bush hasn't taken his part of the respnsibility for 9/11 yet, but Clinton has? That the Road to 9/11 is somehow evil because it puts that into question? But then Democratic Senators are somehow heroic by trying to keep the movie from running? And Clinton, who presumably has taken his part of the responsibility for 9/11 has had his minions threatening to sue over the movie?
I would almost suspect from Ann's excerpts that a big part of the reason for Olbermann's rant is that movie and the fact that it pointed out that threat of Islamic terrorism didn't start on 9/11, and that the Clinton Administration spent its eight years asleep at the help, never realizing that we were already at war.
The other thing is that he seems to think that President Bush has a responsibility to apologize for anything bad that happens on his watch. My suspicion is that part of this is liberal feel-good, and the rest is political gotcha.
It's so funny, because I just got done saying that Olbermann has been Murrow-esque lately.
I guess it comes down to the fact that, for those who lean left like I do, there just aren't THAT many people in the news media who will overtly lean left with us. I'm not saying there are no liberals in the news media, but most are so worried about being called "members of the liberal media" that they won't do it overtly.
Sometimes he is over the top, but you also have to remember that those of us who are already predisposed to be aligned with his point of view have spent the past few months being told that simply by disagreeing we are enabling the terrorists.
Not that we haven't been told that before, it's just been particularly Godwin-ish lately.
I understand that some won't like Olbermann, but his rhetoric is no less aggregious than that of a Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly, we're just used to hearing those on the right speak this way (even if they do so with less alliteration).
Did you have to watch Olberman for a class you're teaching?
You can judge a man by what it takes to make him mad.
Isn't the WTC site *mostly* private property? I know the owners and designers need to coordinate with New York City's supervisors, environmental groups, city planners, the FAA, etc...
and most of the designs have met with everything from scorn to apathy.
I don't remember hearing about the President's desire to see Doric columns spaced between flying butresses on a 120-story skyscraper. I fail to see where the President has anything to do with the designs of the rebuilt WTC.
Now, I will admit that I'm somewhat surprised the Pentagon Memorial hasn't been built yet, and the funds still haven't been raised.
Olberman's funny when he rants against the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly, but this one falls short.
He caused the devastation of Katrina, the least he can do is fill the hole.
… look into this empty space between my ears and the big blob of bipolarity therein of which this administration also allowed not to be fixed, and realistically remember to remind me:
Who has left this humongously horrible hateful hole in my head?
You have not forgotten, Mr. President.
I have.
May you forgive me my piss poor prose.
Mango has it right:
Personally, I would prefer Bush's energies to be focused on fighting and winning against global terror, and making sure something like 9/11 never happens again.
As for a memorial - right now the hole in the ground, the cross that is viewable from Church Street, and the firefighter wall that is supposed to be on Liberty are enough for now. Give the city time to figure out exactly what to do there. This is a local issue - not federal.
Olberman's an ass.
The WTC site is owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ run by a board appointed by the 2 states Governors. To add to the confusion, they had just leased the site to Larry Silverman before the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Silverman owns the right to rebuild the site, under the direction of the PA and the City and State of NY. Seems that there is already too much government involvement here, 7 WTC is up and getting leased, built by Mr. Silverman with no government committee interference, because it was across the street from the main site. Is there a lesson here?
login: hpgear (are they getting ad revenue?)
Goesh
Who? Olbermann? I wouldn't go so far as blaming him for Katrina. Rather, it was a natural phenomenon, compounded by decades of pork barrel politics that directed LA's more than fair share of the national resources into less useful projects through the process known as "earmarking". While Olbermann may support the politicians who did force the CoE into spending the money it spent in LA foolishly, I don't think that we can assume that he truly knew that they would do so.
The WTC site is owned by the Port Authority of NY and NJ run by a board appointed by the 2 states Governors. To add to the confusion, they had just leased the site to Larry Silverman before the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Silverman owns the right to rebuild the site, under the direction of the PA and the City and State of NY. Seems that there is already too much government involvement here, 7 WTC is up and getting leased, built by Mr. Silverman with no government committee interference, because it was across the street from the main site. Is there a lesson here?
Olbermann mixed far too many talking points together, and ends up sounding like a less literate version of that old fraud Ward Churchill.
That "Five years later this space… is still empty" is a "nightmare" for the US? My nightmare was a hundred more 9/11s. The lack of a new WTC wasn't high on my list of scary dreams.
That "no Memorial to the dead" was unpredictable? Didn't it take a few years just to clean it out? Weren't there still forensic questions a year later? Weren't they still sifting for any possible record of the dead to give back to the families? And even longer to settle the legal issues? Weren't there godawful committees that came up with plans since rejected? And whose responsibility in New York is it for the memorial? Where's Hillary been in this demand?
"the terrorists… are clearly, still winning"
Really? They're "clearly" beating us? By what criterion? I'm not a gambler, but I would love to bet on football against this maroon; his definition of "winning" is generous to a fault, not unlike the participation ribbons given out in junior league soccer.
Hey, al Qaeda: everyone's a winner in this war! here's your Ken Olbermann Participation ribbon! Be sure to share it with Saddam; he won, too!
Olbermann is a whiny teenager. "I don't like the world you gave me, man. I didn't ask to be born." He needs to move out of his mom's basement.
Can someone explain why Olbermann is going on and on blaming Bush for the fact that the World Trade Center site has not been rebuilt and that there is no memorial there yet?
Because that's what he does. (Among others)
Perhaps, because Olbermann is feeling increasingly irrelevant. And is just another shrieking, hysterical member of the far left.
Btw, I read the NY Post 2-3 times a week and the Ground Zero issue is entirely a NY state and NY City intramural scrum. I never hear the feds nor the president mentioned in the stories about what to do with the site. And Olbermann is well aware of that.
I think a lot of us are taught somewhere down the line that mixed metaphors are not the best way to express oneself, but it has only been in the last year, after reading a number of online sources that highlight this, that I have even begun to recognize the "problem". And mostly, that is a result of some of the more prominent Democratic politicians seeming to be in a contest recently to see who could put the largest number of mixed metaphores together into a single paragraph, or, even worse, single sentence.
Olberman and his ilk are convinced that America deserved what it got and are nothing more than apologists for America and our culture. Islam terms this behavior dhimmitude.
This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. If you dare oppose the President then you are somehow at worst, a terrorist yourself, or at best a terrorist sympathizer. It's ridiculous that there's no room for dissent in this country, even if you feel the dissent is misguided.
Design concept proposal for memorial to be built to fill the tragic empty space at Olbermann Ground Zero.
Dylan
Well, apparently since dissent is now forbidden, and you voiced it here, I would seriously start looking over your shoulder. Most likely, your last post is already in the hands of the NSA, CIA, FBI, TSA, DOD, DOE, and the Forest Service. Hopefully, you don't live near any National Forests, so you should at least be safe until later today.
Oh, there's way more than a dime between Paul Wellstone's funeral and Fred Phelps. Stop being hyperbolic. I wasn't at Wellstone's funeral -- but if what went on gave comfort to his grieving family, by maybe convincing them that he wasn't dead, or that the policies he fought for didn't die with him, well who is anyone to deny a grieving family that? I'm not sure how you can compare that to Fred Phelps and his family faithfully flogging the fag flag every chance they get. (Wow, alliteration can be fun)
I was only trying to inspire those who don't know where New York is to get out and vote the Democrat ticket.
Oberman is right about only 1 thing and only that tangentially.
It does take too darn long for anything to get done when you involve citizen and government consensus.
As noted, WTC 7 is built and occupying as we speak, by private people.
Look how long it takes for less contentious memorials in DC to be built. forever.
Having toured Europe a lot and also New England, I like simple War Memorials. You go to any village in France, and many in Germany, UK, or Belgium and you see a simple granite Obelisk with the names of the war dead inscribed.
Make me the Memorial Czar and I would put up an interim monument.
Two granite pillars, offset models of WTC1 and WTC2 large enough to hold the inscribed names of the dead. with a fire bell out front.
Simple, elegant, understated.
want to replace it later with something fancier or move it into the lobby of a museum, fine.
"A wedge to pit..." is pretty bad, Ann. It makes you wonder: Is our children learning?
re: "I wasn't at Wellstone's funeral -- but if what went on gave comfort to his grieving family, by maybe convincing them that he wasn't dead, or that the policies he fought for didn't die with him, well who is anyone to deny a grieving family that?"
I watched the funeral service on TV. It was a disgrace. 20,000 people came to the University of Minnesota basketball arena, with images of important visitors projected onto the huge TV screen there. Non-democrats who came to pay their repsects were actually booed, including Gov. Jesse Ventura, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and former Republican Sen. Rod Grams.
It became a ridiculous political rally and was such an embarrassment that it was felt to have played a role in republican Sen. Coleman's election over MN favorite son Walter Mondale, Wellstone's last-minute replacement.
And it was an early sign of BDS, as rumors that Bush had Wellstone's plane shot down began to circulate thereafter (by Ted Rall) and others).
fenris, both Bush and Olbermann are standing (perhaps not literally) on a graveyard, speechifying to make a point. They are both using the deaths of others, unrelated and unknown, to grind an axe to up ratings or to justify unpopular decisions (as if there was a link between 9/11 and Iraq). That says bad taste to me.
Re; "They are both using the deaths of others, unrelated and unknown, to grind an axe to up ratings or to justify unpopular decisions"
By that convenient and broad definition, Lincoln had no more standing to speak at Gettysburg than John Wilkes Booth.
Christo-fascist zombie regime
Hot damn! Is that a great name for a rock band, or what?
Overblown rhetoric is defined by the blow-hearts Cheney...
Is this a new way of describing his cardiac condition?
"I noticed Olbermann didn't mention our common enemy. Perhaps he and I don't have one."
No, Sip, the enemy is one in common.
The difference is, you've seen the enemy, you've met the enemy, you know the enemy.
The Olbermanns refuse to even look.
"a mini-series suggests that both Clinton and Bush failures were responsible".
If we can do nothing else, let's get just this one bit right. The people responsible for 9/11 were the Islamists. Not Clinton and not Bush.
Yes, I'm angry with Bush's staff, and even more so with Clinton and his staff. They could have done more to protect us.
But make no mistake. None of these people were responsible. The islamists are our enemy.
... the puppet-monkey bush ...
Wait -- Is he a sock-puppet or a monkey? Is this some new combination of Chimpy McHitlerPuppet? Or is it a delightful children's story? "Little Rabbit Foo Foo and the Magical Puppet-Monkey Bush." Why not both!
Seriously, you can't expect people to keep up with the slander du jour if you guys keep mixing them up. Could you maybe send out a weekly memo so we all know what to call him?
Olbermann overlooks one inconvenient fact: There is already a memorial at Ground Zero, as anyone who visits the site can attest.
Sippican,
I think there's quite a difference. Lincoln was dedicating a cemetery as the Commander in Chief of the men he sent to fight and who died there. Bush is standing on the remains of 9/11 trying to get Republicans re-elected. Lincoln honored the dead. Bush is using them.
MM: "Bush is standing on the remains of 9/11 trying to get Republicans re-elected. Lincoln honored the dead. Bush is using them."
Says you. I wonder how many apologists and southern separatists would have written similar comments in blogs had they been available 1863?
Sippican,
I was thinking more along the lines of a heavy metal group -- like those Finnish dudes, but with masks of the Republican Administration.
You know -- the Christo-fascist Zombie Regime, man.
Wow.
So it's understandable that Wellstone's son is angry not at his dad's death, but at his dad's political opponents and turns a funeral into a political rally -- because that's what dad would have wanted. Democrats were there because, you know, they really cared.
But the Republicans were the ones using the funeral to score political points.
I guess only one side is capable of base political motivation.
Olbermann must have been inspired by Mayor Nagin's comments faulting progress in NYC but not enough progress in NOLA. Blaming Bush for NOLA's problems does get some traction -- even though those problems were 40 years in the making and exacerbated by local incompetencies.
Here, Olbermann tries to blame Bush for the WTC hole even tough it's generally known that the real problems there have been insurance lawsuits, local agency turf wars, and an emotional fight over the design of the memorial (which continues).
Olbermann is a dishonest hack. His idea of cleverness is mocking Nazi Sieg Heils. Why does anyone listen to him or give him more than quick glance if only to confirm that he's still wearing his bespoke clown shoes?
Dylan
Well, apparently since dissent is now forbidden, and you voiced it here, I would seriously start looking over your shoulder. Most likely, your last post is already in the hands of the NSA, CIA, FBI, TSA, DOD, DOE, and the Forest Service. Hopefully, you don't live near any National Forests, so you should at least be safe until later today.
I didn't say that those of us who dissent are then rounded up. You are the one making me out to be a lunatic.
I'm just saying that, when we dissent, we are called hysterical (which is what you did) or terrorist sympathizers... These are not the only options. Just as Republicans are not a redneck, unintelligent, intolerant monolith, neither are Democrats a paranoid, hedging, dovish one.
geoduck: "As for Olbermann - I think his reference to the empty space was largely metaphorical - not so much a reference to the actual site, as a reference to the hole/split in the fabric of our body politic."
Yeah, that's why I said: "I do understand that he wants to use what he crudely calls the "hole" as a metaphor for the "hole" "in the fabric of our nation," but it's an inaccurate set-up for what isn't exactly a brilliant literary device." And "Should we forgive Olbermann for using the World Trade Center site as a backdrop and a metaphor for his (atrociously written) political speech?"
Shed some new light, please.
Olbermann should have stayed in the toy department. He's out of his depth.
Truly,
That's more like it, but that monkey is clearly not a Christo-fascist zombie. There's not one shot of him trampling the Constitution while shoving a Bible down someone's throat.
Olbermann's themes include Bush's incompetence and dementedness. I support both claims.
In a place with a Republican mayor, and (more importantly) a Republican governor, the Republican President (with a Republican congress) could not bully-pulpit his way to a reconstructed site. Or anywhere close. This is just one example of how his claims of vision and priority do not get GOOD RESULTS.
How much rope shall we give?
He is a bad government official, and he is our President. (Twice!!) Someone needs to stand up for this view, and give voice to the masses. Thus, Keith.
I'm brought to tears that someone is standing up to Bush's BS rhetoric, and using actual modern American rhetoric to do it. "America" is a modern faith, and I'm part of it. It leads me to love, and be open to, the neighbors I disagree with. And to fight, within a code of civics. I often fail.
Bush's rhetoric is dressed-up medievalism.
George W. Bush's heart of hearts loves his family, and has roots in a sliver of American society... but that heart, and those roots, fruit mere blood-money, damn oil, please-God brief power, and the myth of Rapture. Little else.
Re: "Bush's rhetoric is dressed-up medievalism."
Yes, because Islamofascism is the modern version of the medieval West-vs-Islam wars. I'm glad you finally see the light.
We should have stuck with "Crusade" from the beginning. But I'm okay with calling ourselves the "Christo-fascist zombies" if you prefer that over 'Crusaders'. Whatever. So long as we fight to win.
Where are the Conservative politicians threatening NBC affiliates broadcasting licenses?
I'd boycott NBC programming, but other than Conan, NFL Football and occaisonally Leno I don't watch NBC.
MSNBC and CNBC aren't particularly watchable either. Other than Doctor Who and Battlestar Galactica there's nothing on the Sci-Fi channel.
It's not like Universal has been releasing films I have to rush out and see, either.
You can't boycott a product you weren't using in the first place, oh well.
Olbermann has been at MSNBC pretty much longer than he's ever been at any other job. Seems like he's just trying to force yet another producer to fire him (Dan Abrams, you have a decision to make, Olbermann's speech and its time and place crossed so many lines that it's not even worth crafting a metaphor for)
(and he was a fantastic sports anchor when he was on local TV in Los Angeles, he may be a crazed BDS infected moonbat, but he is most definitely NOT a second-rate hack as a sportscaster)
If he returned to being a sportscaster, I'd probably watch him again, otherwise his show, and the entire news channel he operates at can fling poo inside someone elses TV.
Broken down to its basics, that's all Olbermann was trying to do, fill up that 'hole' he was grandstanding in front of with his own rhetorical feces, and that stinks.
This is like that thread where people were defending the legitimacy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" in comparison to that miniseries. Blatant case of "If someone I agree with does it, it's ok, anything coming from the other side is vile political posturing."
because Bush is no Lincoln
Bush functions better. If he went around depressed all the time like a buffalo in Wyoming-the Liberals would like him better.
Personally Lincoln was a mess, and his wife.
If Bush was manic depressive and Laura was bipolar the Left would like it.
Lincoln didn't have 24/7 techno babble hurled at him and his battles were more clear cut and easier for the public to understand.
Shimmy enlightened us with the following:
"but that heart, and those roots, fruit mere blood-money, damn oil, please-God brief power, and the myth of Rapture."
Olbermann, not to mention Shimmy, really do perform a public service. Whenever I consider the shortcomings of George Bush, and wish we had leadership more skilled at communicating a positive vision, I see something like Olbermann's hateful toxic rant or Shimmy's hysterical nonsense.
Then the alternative becomes painfully clear.
tjl:
You said it, man. Shimmy's quote is both maudlin and twee, like a teenager's angst poetry.
Shimmy, turn off the the Cure CD. Come up outta the basement and smell the autumn air. Put away the dog-eared copy of Fahrenheit 911 and step away from the DU webpage.
There's a battle to be won, and it ain't against Bush. Wake up.
I despise this man. Since I assume he has some intelligence, I also have to assume he's being consciously dishonest in his depiction of so much.
How dare he talk about using 9-11 as a wedge issue while letting this mud drop out of his mouth.
Should we forgive him, as you ask? No, unless he changes, and he won't.
There is nothing - nothing - worse for a country than dishonest, rage-filled dissent. Which is pretty much all the Democratic Party is these days, at its heart.
Pointing out deep dishonesty is not the same as calling someone unpatriotic; saying (screeching) that it is just amounts to more dishonesty.
The whole "hole in the ground" drama has me thinking....
Isn't a "hole in the ground" really the correct memorial anyway? Why are they (whomever "they" are) really wasting time and money trying to come up with some fancy-pants memorial that will never be enough for some and will always be too much for others?
I personally think they should leave it as is: a stunning reminder in it's ugliness and emptiness of what we lost on 9/11/01.
(TOG rules, btw, Scott!)
Olbermann's a left-winger. By definition he believes it is the responsibility of the federal government to do everything he wants done and solve every perceived problem in the world.
Bush is the head of the government, and something Olbermann wants done hasn't been done, ergo Bush is personally responsible for it not being done. QED -- leftie logic at work.
Meanwhile, on the topic of the appropriate memorial, I'm partial to a simple stone tablet listing the names of those who perished that day. It should be centered on the rooftop of a new tower that is twenty stories taller than the original towers and be directly situated between the two anti-aircraft batteries that are labled with the slogan "We will not forget."
That's the best idea I've heard for the site yet.
I found KO's invocation of The Twilight Zone fitting, though probably not for the reasons he thought it was.
It doesn't surprise me that few are actually addressing the issues Olbermann raised.
1. Bush & Co. lied about why we went to war.
2. BushCo calls anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist sympathizer.
3. BushCo took an opportunity for healing and turned it to paranoia and hate.
4. BushCo has continually used hate tactics to "win" elections.
5. BushCo claims to be telepathic, by constantly telling people what they are really thinking and what their real motives are.
6. BushCo has used the events of 2001 in a blatant attempt to destroy civil liberties.
None of these things are debateable. They are facts. Maybe those of you who are more afraid of freedom than of totalitarianism rejoice in #6. Maybe those who are more interested in controlling your fellow Americans than living with their diversity think BushCo is great. I can't change that.
Most who support BushCo keep saying "Liberty is useless when you are dead."
I would say life is useless without liberty. Or, to quote a more famous American, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"
What happened to that noble sentiment? When did Americans become such lame, cowardly sheep that they forgot what real bravery is? (Hint: it isn't cheering a war on from the safety of a computer desk.)
Ron:
"Boo"? A real mature statement.
Ron:
"Boo"? A real mature statement.
It doesn't surprise me that few are actually addressing the issues Olbermann raised.
1. Bush & Co. lied about why we went to war.
2. BushCo calls anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist sympathizer.
3. BushCo took an opportunity for healing and turned it to paranoia and hate.
4. BushCo has continually used hate tactics to "win" elections.
5. BushCo claims to be telepathic, by constantly telling people what they are really thinking and what their real motives are.
6. BushCo has used the events of 2001 in a blatant attempt to destroy civil libertie
Ok, I'll address them:
Only a paranoid moron would believe that any of those six statements are true.
There. Now I've addressed them. Let's get back to the subject at hand, which is that Olbermann is barking mad. :)
"There. Now I've addressed them. Let's get back to the subject at hand, which is that Olbermann is barking mad. :)"
See, I don't think the guy is barking mad. He's just starting to catch on that the trouble with attacking O'Reilly is that O'Reilly fans are going to keep watching that show, not his. From a ratings standpoint, attacking Bush is a much more rational strategery.
Seven Machos said: Also, tron, how do you know that bad, evil "BushCo claims to be telepathic, by constantly telling people what they are really thinking and what their real motives are."
Simple. They said so themselves.. How many times have these people said they claim to know that a person is a traitor and wants to help terrorists? It happens anytime anyone disagrees with them.
Murtha and Cleland, bona fide war veterans who have suffered major medical problems (including PTSD and loss of limbs) and yet still served their country in Congress, are also called traitors and weaklings by the neoconservative punditry.
It is barbaric. It is an outrage.
Jeff,
I never called the military chickenhawks, and neither did Ron. We're calling the neoconservatives (really - pseudoconservatives) I refere to as "BushCo" chickenhawks.
It is easy because a) most of them haven't served in a war and b) I have.
Jonathan,
Warrantless spying, keeping citizens out of the country without proper legal process, trying to silence the press - these aren't infringements of civil liberties? What high school did you graduate from?
It is interesting that no one addressed my Patrick Henry quote either. Again, people who are too afraid to allow liberty are worse than chickenhawks. They are just plain cowards.
I will allow you the freedom to speak your mind without calling you a traitor, the freedom of religion without calling you a terrorist, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure (and wiretapping) without threatening your life.
Are you brave enough to allow me the same courtesies? Are you brave enough to risk attack? Are you brave enough to be an American, or are do you prefer to be a scared little cog in an authoritarian machine?
"Personally, I would prefer Bush's energies to be focused on fighting and winning against global terror, and making sure something like 9/11 never happens again."
I think that over the last five years we all would have preferred that, but that just doesn't seem to be part of the plan.
Simple. They said so themselves. How many times have these people said they claim to know that a person is a traitor and wants to help terrorists?
It doesn't matter how many times "these people" have said it, because Bush hasn't said it. So you claiming that "Bush & Co" have said it is a lie -- just as it would be a lie (presumably) for me to say "Anti-Tron and the membership of NAMBLA are pedophiles and child molesters."
Revanant,
Is, or is not, Bush "the decider"?
I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. Bush claims to be in charge of his party, his administration, and the country.
Further, Bush has indeed said that people who speak out against his warrantless spying program and Iraq are "giving comfort to terrorists."
Since this is objectively not true (terrorists don't want to be ignored and have people go on with business-as-usual,like begin free to speak their mind, they want to be feared) then it is an attack on their motives.
I got a comment from "abraham" but I tried the profile link and got nowhere. I tried searching on Blogger search and got way too many "abraham" hits to search through.
Anyway - abraham, I am not a troll. I'm tired of being lied to. The proof is here and here and here .
abraham,
I like your list of "debate rules." Too bad you can't enforce it everywhere. It didn't take long (2nd and 5th comments) in this "conversation" to attack a class of people (moonbats) and one person ("your questions and arguments aren't made in good faith"). Both of these violating "da rules."
I struggle to see how my alleged trolling was any worse than this. In my view, I was considerably less provocative. In my original comment, I listed some categories of people (fearful enough to sacrifice liberty, those who want to definitively control their fellow Americans) and let people decide on their own if they want to be in that category.
I did ask the rhetorical question "when did Americans become lame..." - the easy answer is "we didn't." So therefore the logical conclusion is that we don't need unconstitutional measures to provide "security."
Any other answer should spark some serious self-examination (soul-searching, if you will.)
Is, or is not, Bush "the decider"?
Bush decides executive and military policy, certainly. Contrary to your apparent beliefs, however, he doesn't decide every word spoken by every supporter of the war. :)
I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. Bush claims to be in charge of his party, his administration, and the country.
I assume you're speaking from ignorance rather than deliberately lying, but Bush doesn't claim to be in charge of the Republican Party. He is, in point of fact, NOT in charge of the Republican Party.
He is certainly in charge of his administration, but it has never been the position of his administration or anyone in it that everyone who disagrees with the conduct of the war is a traitor.
And if you think his position as representative of the American people makes him responsible for what everyone in America says, realize that that makes him responsible for what YOU say, too. :)
Further, Bush has indeed said that people who speak out against his warrantless spying program and Iraq are "giving comfort to terrorists."
Indeed he has. But that doesn't support your claim that Bush "calls anyone who disagrees with them a terrorist sympathizer."
Since this is objectively not true (terrorists don't want to be ignored and have people go on with business-as-usual,like begin free to speak their mind, they want to be feared) then it is an attack on their motives.
Could you translate that from Dipshit to English, please?
Keith Olberman is the most hateful person on television today. Perhaps he is unaware that the American people elected President Bush, therefore it might be a nice idea to refer to him with that title instead of 'Mr.'
Any other network would have let him go long ago, but Keith has something in common with the owner of that network.
Here is the problem with Keith Olbermann and nearly every "journalist", whether in print or on television: They are basically lazy people who have taken a passive-aggressive employment position that is pseudo-credible enough to get paid for it. If they were only intelligent enough to use the vigor and vehemence they utilize in their quest for the perfect lead or the big breaking story in a real job, imagine the productivity. They all know too well that a larger, entitlement-based government feeds into their lazy existence and helps them continue to preach a lazy lifestyle to those who are predisposed to blaming others for their failure yet unwilling to lift a finger to make their own lives better. Anger and blame are Olbermann's tools, and, while adept with these weapons of mass destruction, the result will always be his own failure.
Post a Comment