More like this please:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/


***
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.
***

--
Aloha, G-Ride

The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.

More like this please:

More like this please:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/


***
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.

More like this please:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/30/keith-olbermann-delivers-one-hell-of-a-commentary-on-rumsfeld/

***
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.
***