Feeling morally, intellectually confused? Oberman on Rumsfeld

[chomerics]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14765.htm

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.

We end the countdown where we began, our #1 story. with a special comment on Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday. It 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 to England. It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords. It knew that the hard evidence it had received, which contradicted it’s own policies, it’s own conclusions - it’s 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 - had 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 flu vaccine shortages, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelope 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 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." And so, good night, and good luck.

Couldn't have said it better mysef

[Redskins Diehard]

Improperly formatted thread title, AFC.

[Destino]

Not bad at all. Really like that Murrow quote at the end.

[@DCGoldPants]

Here you go Chom. So R.D. might actually comment on the topic here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131617/

rename the thread

Feeling morally, intellectually confused?

[Duckus]

Pretty interesting video – when was this live, last night? Though I don’t agree with everything he said, his main two points are extremely accurate and very important.

1) Questioning our own government is not un-American, immoral, or wrong. And it not un-American, immortal or wrong to support the government 100% like many do. It has sadly become standard now in American politics that if you don’t agree on an issue the other side is stupid and anti-American. I thought difference of opinions and being able to hold those opinions not in fear is what America was about….

2) The secrecy of this administration bothers me and I think he makes a good point about that. Obviously some things are going to be secret and not disclosed to the American people but the level of secrecy in this administration is disturbing.

[jbishop26]

:notworthy

well put Mr Oberman

[Redskins Diehard]

Here you go Chom. So R.D. might actually comment on the topic here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131617/

rename the thread

Feeling morally, intellectually confused?

Funny you should post that with a comment "so might actually comment on the topic here."

Ahh, the irony.

[@DCGoldPants]

Funny you should post that with a comment "so might actually comment on the topic here."

Ahh, the irony.

I provided him with the link to correct what you were whining about.

But, on the topic.

I think Keith goes alittle "off" a lot. But, on this. He is mostly right. I think Rummy either knows he's full of **** and lies right through it. Or, he really believes he's right, that this country isn't about freedom anymore, and civil liberties are yesterday's news.

either way, he's wrong.

[Beaudry]

This reminds me of how the leftists thought Jon Stewart "owned" the guys on Crossfire. They are saying what you want them to say and because you agree with them, you think they "owned" the other guy.

I like Oberman on sports. As for "Countdown", it is the leftist TV equivalent to Rush Limbaugh radio.

[Ax]

Ah yes, another fold-out centerfold for the "I'm Right, You're Wrong" liberal circle jerk.

Soon to be followed by another fold-out centerfold for the "No I'm Right, You're Wrong" conservative circle jerk.

Rinse, repeat.

You've done a great service for your country. See you again tomorrow.

[chomerics]

This reminds me of how the leftists thought Jon Stewart "owned" the guys on Crossfire. They are saying what you want them to say and because you agree with them, you think they "owned" the other guy.

Ummm, Stewart DID own the two commentators, and it was hysterical. he called their ruse, their disguise, and exposed their act as nothing more then a farce, which of course it is.

I like Oberman on sports. As for "Countdown", it is the leftist TV equivalent to Rush Limbaugh radio.

No, there is no leftist equivalent of Rush. There is nobody who makes up things quite like Rush does, he is in a class by himself :laugh:

[Destino]

Ah yes, another fold-out centerfold for the "I'm Right, You're Wrong" liberal circle jerk.

Soon to be followed by another fold-out centerfold for the "No I'm Right, You're Wrong" conservative circle jerk.

Rinse, repeat.

You've done a great service for your country. See you again tomorrow.

There is a bit more to it then that. This isn't about who is right this is about what disagreeing with the government means. Oberman is clearly against what Rumsfeld and the current admin are doing but the greater point that is lost on so many:

1- Your elected leaders work for you not the other way around.

2- It is completely American to disagree with them from time to time.

[chomerics]

Ah yes, another fold-out centerfold for the "I'm Right, You're Wrong" liberal circle jerk.

Soon to be followed by another fold-out centerfold for the "No I'm Right, You're Wrong" conservative circle jerk.

Rinse, repeat.

You've done a great service for your country. See you again tomorrow.

Just curious, do you think the critique has any merits? Do you think Oberman was not correct in his analysis? If so, where and why. Do you see the relationship he was making between Nevel Chamberlan's appeasment of Hitler, and ignorance of what Hitler was doing similar to the Administration's blind arrogance in Iraq talking about freedom and victory? Do you see the relationship between controlling what people see and read, while demeaning the other side as wackos? Do you see how Rumsfeld and Cheney did the exact same thing here in America? Do you see how everything they said about Iraq was not correct, and their omniscent stories have all turned out to be 100% false? Why should we believe anyone with a track record like they have? because they are the from same party? Since when did party loyalty trump country loyalty?

[Beaudry]

Ummm, Stewart DID own the two commentators, and it was hysterical. he called their ruse, their disguise, and exposed their act as nothing more then a farce, which of course it is.

No, there is no leftist equivalent of Rush. There is nobody who makes up things quite like Rush does, he is in a class by himself :laugh:

You agreed with Stewart so you think he "owned" those guys. Those on the right thought Stewart made an idiot of himself. I thought it was just really strange, probably because I don't watch Crossfire. Like Ax said in his post below mine, this thread is going to be nothing more than a left-wing circle jerk. I'm sure AFC & Sarge with do the same in another thread today. The thing is, the people enjoying the Oberman and Stewart stuff don't realize what they really are.

I was listening to republican talk radio this week. If you really want to complain about somebody, Sean Hannity is the man. Limbaugh, though obviously forcing an agenda, is a sharp, witty guy who has a talent for radio. I didn't hear him make things up. He, and all people with agenda, just spin things to their liking. Just like you spin things to your liking.

[Destino]

I'd be interested in asking those folks on the right, what comments exactly they felt made Stewart look bad. I'd be willing to wager it was his comments concerning Kerry and Bush. That's not the part anyone is celebrating when it comes to his time on crossfire.

His point on crossfire is one that needs to be made more often. It concerns the fact that politics today is scripted - it's like pro wrestling. If you don't think so, ask yourself why no politician ever answers a question directly, why the demand questions be limited or provided beforehand, or why "the state of the union" is such a watered down waste of time compared to what it used to be (you can watch old ones and see for yourself). Politicians in the US are completely unknown to the voters. Voters are choosing between two guys reading a script written by a pro. If they dare to actually speak honestly the media, always looking for a hot story, will rip them apart.

[Air Force Cane]

You want to talk about morally confused?

1. Liberals claimed they were for "human rights" all throuhout the 1960's-2000.

2. When a vicious dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents, started three wars, attacked all of his neighbors is deposed- the liberals condemned the LIBERATOR rather than the dictator. Now, they want to leave Iraq in the hands of Al-queda terrorists- who will commence a bloodbath the day after our troops leave.

Here is some more liberal morality on display:

1. Liberals claim to love and support homosexual rights, the right to freedom of speech, to assemble, to petition, and to do what they want with their bodies.

2. Liberals support Hizbullah, Hamas, and castigate Israel. They actively seek to have the United States lose to Al-Queda in Iraq. Because that is what happens if we "withdraw now". Taking the side of the most reactionary forces on the planet against the side of the DEMOCRACIES which actually support the rights listed in #1 above.

Please explain this moral confusion for me.

[@DCGoldPants]

You want to talk about morally confused?

1. Liberals claimed they were for "human rights" all throuhout the 1960's-2000.

2. When a vicious dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents, started three wars, attacked all of his neighbors is deposed- the liberals condemned the LIBERATOR rather than the dictator. Now, they want to leave Iraq in the hands of Al-queda terrorists- who will commence a bloodbath the day after our troops leave.

Here is some more liberal morality on display:

1. Liberals claim to love and support homosexual rights, the right to freedom of speech, to assemble, to petition, and to do what they want with their bodies.

2. Liberals support Hizbullah, Hamas, and castigate Israel. They actively seek to have the United States lose to Al-Queda in Iraq. Because that is what happens if we "withdraw now". Taking the side of the most reactionary forces on the planet against the side of the DEMOCRACIES which actually support the rights listed in #1 above.

Please explain this moral confusion for me.

its easy.

You're confused.

When you use the term liberals to bunch a huge group of different people today. You lose.

Its the problem with attacking a strawman. You defend a specific person, by attacking one that doesn't exist.

done and done. next?

[Ax]

Just curious, do you think the critique has any merits? Do you think Oberman was not correct in his analysis? If so, where and why. Do you see the relationship he was making between Nevel Chamberlan's appeasment of Hitler, and ignorance of what Hitler was doing similar to the Administration's blind arrogance in Iraq talking about freedom and victory? Do you see the relationship between controlling what people see and read, while demeaning the other side as wackos? Do you see how Rumsfeld and Cheney did the exact same thing here in America? Do you see how everything they said about Iraq was not correct, and their omniscent stories have all turned out to be 100% false? Why should we believe anyone with a track record like they have? because they are the from same party? Since when did party loyalty trump country loyalty?

My only point was that this is just another "My Side Is Better Than Your Side" thread that some here, some more than others, apparently feel the need to post Ev'ry Freakin Hour of Ev'ry Freakin Day. Loudly squealing their superiority over the other side, while denying any partisan motives by their own. Sounds like one child molester claiming moral superiority over another because the kid he molested was 9 years old, BUT YOURS was only 8.

Rinse, repeat.

[zoony]

My only point was that this is just another "My Side Is Better Than Your Side" thread

your point was not lost on most of us... only those to who you were speaking. :laugh:

.....

[PleaseBlitz]

Re: John Stewart vs the Crossfire guys.

Its just not fair when someone that is funny like John Stewart faces off with guys that are used to arguing with stiff political types every day. Carlson didnt know what to do. Stewart used humor to make him look like an ass.

PS i generally stay the hell away from politics, consider myself an independant, and ten to lean slightly right. I voted for Bush. Twice.

Tucker got :owned:

[GhostofAlvinWalton]

My only point was that this is just another "My Side Is Better Than Your Side" thread

The people arguing with you are proving your point. :2cents:

.

[Ax]

The people arguing with you are proving your point. :2cents:

.

Does that mean I "Destroyed" them. :laugh:

[Redskins Diehard]

I provided him with the link to correct what you were whining about.

But, on the topic.

I think Keith goes alittle "off" a lot. But, on this. He is mostly right. I think Rummy either knows he's full of **** and lies right through it. Or, he really believes he's right, that this country isn't about freedom anymore, and civil liberties are yesterday's news.

either way, he's wrong.

Hardly "whining". People around here get blasted from all angles when they post thread titles like that. AFC being one that I see all the time...have you never seen that? AFC and Chomerics are about the same person...you agree with one and jump to his defense, you disagree with the other and take issue with every thing he says.

[Redskins Diehard]

Does that mean I "Destroyed" them. :laugh:

I think you pwned them, or something like that

[Bonez3]

I watched this a couple nights ago and was surprised nobody posted it sooner. A fantastic commentary.