What he said!

[tag]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xoWT9BX0UaQ

[zauggru]

Wow, someone comparing our government to the Nazi's. Sorry, but that's the lamest fall back argument ever.

[Chip]

What a ****ing hypocrite. For the past what 5 to 6 years the liberal left and democrats have been calling Bush and the administration Hitler, Nazi’s, murderers, terrorist and even worse. When turn around was fair play what happens? Democrats and liberals cry like the cowards and babies they are. I don’t agree with a lot of what the administration does and doesn’t do but the absolute character assignation that the Democrats, liberals and media have done you deserve to be verbally ***** slapped.

BTW. Don’t you find the depth of the hypocrisy fascinating? He complains about the statement then turns around and does the same thing.

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

Wow, someone comparing our government to the Nazi's. Sorry, but that's the lamest fall back argument ever.

Uh, wasn't he comparing them to Neville Chamberlain's government?

[tag]

Wow, someone comparing our government to the Nazi's. Sorry, but that's the lamest fall back argument ever.


What he said was that the Bush administration is like the Chamberlain government, in that the current administration impugns the patriotism and loyalty of those who disagree with it, much as the Chamberlain government treated Churchill when he questioned their behavior towards Hitler. He does not compare the Bush administration to the Nazis.

What a ****ing hypocrite. For the past what 5 to 6 years the liberal left and democrats have been calling Bush and the administration Hitler, Nazi’s, murderers, terrorist and even worse. When turn around was fair play what happens? Democrats and liberals cry like the cowards and babies they are. I don’t agree with a lot of what the administration does and doesn’t do but the absolute character assignation that the Democrats, liberals and media have done you deserve to be verbally ***** slapped.

BTW. Don’t you find the depth of the hypocrisy fascinating? He complains about the statement then turns around and does the same thing.

This piece does not call the Bush administration "Hitler, Nazi’s, murderers, terrorist". Instead, it calls them incompetents whose dishonesty and bullying of detractors threatens our democracy. Further, I don't believe the piece indulges in character assassination, which I understand to be the practice of maligning someone’s political beliefs because of there personal behavior. Instead, it calls Rumsfeld and others demagogues because of their public behavior as members of the US government. Then he makes what I think is a strong argument in support of that, which you have not yet addressed.

As for calls to have me and others like me "verbally ***** slapped", well have at it. I wouldn't want to limit your freedom of expression, and frankly I think you just make a fool of yourself in your attempts to do so (at least so far.)

[Autocratic]

Wow, someone comparing our government to the Nazi's. Sorry, but that's the lamest fall back argument ever.

You either didn't watch the video or have zero comprehension skills.

[zauggru]

Sorry, but as soon as a liberal puts Hitler and Bush in the same sentence I stop watching. Same thing if someone put Hitler and Clinton. Yes he did go on to compare other things, but he is like the Anne Coulter of the left: extreme and ignorable.

[Thud]

So, the two who opposed the statements that Olbermann made either didn't watch the whole video or didn't understand it. Beautiful, just beautiful...

[kyleh]

I watched the whole video. I think that the person that posted that does not really understand what courage is. A guy in an air conditioned room broadcasting a few minutes worth of what is essentially 24 hours of editorial opinion in a more or less free country where he probably won't have his tongue cut out for saying the things he said is true courage?

This argument is getting cloudier by the month, regardless of which side you listen to.

The quotes he read at the end seemed particularly ironic to me considering the rest of his sermon. :)

[tag]

I watched the whole video. I think that the person that posted that does not really understand what courage is. A guy in an air conditioned room broadcasting a few minutes worth of what is essentially 24 hours of editorial opinion in a more or less free country where he probably won't have his tongue cut out for saying the things he said is true courage?

This argument is getting cloudier by the month, regardless of which side you listen to.

The quotes he read at the end seemed particularly ironic to me considering the rest of his sermon. :)

The issue isn't whether or not he is acting courageously; its whether or not he is right. So far, no one here has substantively challenged any of his assertions.

I am not sure which argument you are referring to that is getting cloudier. If it is that the administrations efforts in Iraq are going well, its hard to see how you can say that given the recent Pentagon report stating that the country continues to move towards civil war.

I do not understand how his quote at the end of the piece was ironic. My recollection is that it was a Murrow quote that spoke out against those who question others loyalty and courage because of their dissenting opinions. It seems in line with the rest of his statements. Please explain why you think it is ironic.

[Autocratic]

Sorry, but as soon as a liberal puts Hitler and Bush in the same sentence I stop watching. Same thing if someone put Hitler and Clinton. Yes he did go on to compare other things, but he is like the Anne Coulter of the left: extreme and ignorable.

The next time you stop watching something like this 10 seconds in, maybe you should refrain from comment.

[zauggru]

To appease the masses I forced myself to watch the whole the. It is apparent that he has no like for anyone in our current government and believes that most of them run the government for their own personal pleasure, profit, and use. Where was this guy when Clinton and his wife had the same attitude that Olbermann mentions. Do you think Kerry or Gore would have become saints of the political realm if elected?

Comparing Rumsfeld to Nixon, McCarthy. Saying that this administration seeks the desctruction of our freedoms. All a bunch of scare tactics and hacking points.

And finally at the end Olbermann finally brings it around to his point saying that Rumsfeld warned us of facism, but that Rumselfd didn't realize it was his own administrations facism. I don't care how subtly Olbermann puts it, but he still compares this admin to facists, which as soon as he mentions everyone assumes Hitler because of all the Nazi footage shown earlier. So by watching it for a minute or six I still get the same message.

[Autocratic]

Where was he when Clinton was in office? In sportscasting.

I could also make comparisons to fascists - your assumption is that he is thusly comparing Bush and co. to Hitler, which is not at all the case, and just a way of dismissing legitimate arguments (a method that conservatives happen to use all the time).

[zauggru]

Where was he when Clinton was in office? In sportscasting.

I could also make comparisons to fascists - your assumption is that he is thusly comparing Bush and co. to Hitler, which is not at all the case, and just a way of dismissing legitimate arguments (a method that conservatives happen to use all the time).

It's my favorite method! ;)


By the way, as there ever been an administration that didn't think everything they did was the right thing?

[Autocratic]

There have been administrations that have been far more willing to admit that they've made mistakes.

[zauggru]

There have been administrations that have been far more willing to admit that they've made mistakes.

You are certainly right about that. I really think a lot of things could and should have been done differently by the current admin. I just don't think they deserve the scathing hatred they get from "some" people. I didn't say all because most extremists don't represent the people in the middle.

[tag]

To appease the masses I forced myself to watch the whole the.

Well, thanks for taking the time to know what you are arguing about.

You are certainly right about that. I really think a lot of things could and should have been done differently by the current admin. I just don't think they deserve the scathing hatred they get from "some" people. I didn't say all because most extremists don't represent the people in the middle.

I think the anger is justified. it is not just that the Bush administration has been largely incompetent in dealing with many important issues, but that it has damaged our government, freedoms and standing in the world. Examples of these far more profound violations can be seen in such things as the use of torture, the refusal to grant combatants the rights POWs which were previously given, the decision to ignore laws regarding limitiations on domestic surveillance, the unprecedented use of signing statements to ignore the intent of laws passed by Congress, the suppression of scientific data and expert opinion in areas where administration policy was in conflict and the knowing use of dishonest claims used to support an argument for war. These things are deeply and personally offensive to me. They are to many Americans because they are a profound violation of the beliefs that they hold dear. Worse, when people have the temerity to point out these outrages, they are told by people like Rumsfeld that they are endangering our country's security and giving aid and comfort to terrorists. They are told that they are appeasers of fascism and that they would understand and appreciate administration actions if only they knew the secret facts. Of course, they can't know the secret facts because that would damage national security.

Zauggru, those are the true "scare tactics and hacking points." And they are being used to damage the reputation, common values and institutions of our country.

[kyleh]

I am not sure which argument you are referring to that is getting cloudier. If it is that the administrations efforts in Iraq are going well, its hard to see how you can say that given the recent Pentagon report stating that the country continues to move towards civil war.

The country continues to move towards civil war because the political extremists from both sides are at war and they will stop at nothing until one side or the other wins. Currently both sides are working as hard as they can to whip up enough fear to cause brother to take arms against brother, and this guy's little exposition is just another piece in that puzzle.

"The argument" doesn't have anything to do with the administrations past present or future, it has to do with political extremism and media ratings.

Can't you just imagine this d-bag and his writers all high-fiving each other when the director said cut? I can. He's no different than Rush.

[tag]

The country continues to move towards civil war because the political extremists from both sides are at war and they will stop at nothing until one side or the other wins. Currently both sides are working as hard as they can to whip up enough fear to cause brother to take arms against brother, and this guy's little exposition is just another piece in that puzzle.

"The argument" doesn't have anything to do with the administrations past present or future, it has to do with political extremism and media ratings.

Can't you just imagine this d-bag and his writers all high-fiving each other when the director said cut? I can. He's no different than Rush.

It appears that you are blaming debate over the war here in the US for fanning civil war in Iraq. That is a convenient argument frequently used by the Bush administration, and it has been used to try to silence people who dissent by labeling them as traitors or as favoring civil war over peace. But it is a false argument for several reasons. First, Iraq was known to be a deeply divided country prior to the American invasion; in fact that was the one of the primary reasons that Bush's father refused to overthrow the regime in 1991. Saddam Hussein was only able to preside over Iraq because of his brutal policies. Second, American promises of a democratic paradise that would descend on Iraq lacked credibility in the Arab world since we had imposed a punitive embargo on Iraq ever since 1991 and since we support Israel. I don't think this is fair, but it is a fact that America did not then and certainly does not now have the reputation amongst most Muslims as a force for good. But does internal American debate over the situation in Iraq and the length of our stay there influence the violence in Iraq? It certainly may. But I think that people who think that they are justified in blowing themselves up in other people’s places of worship, or torturing their neighbor to death with power tools for the glory of Allah may not really care what Mr. Olbermann has to say about Mr. Rumsfeld. And in any case, debate will happen in a free society- to stop it is to damage that freedom. If this is a weakness of ours, so be it. Because if we abandon our beliefs to support our cause, then we have already suffered a great defeat.

Further, Kyle, I think you should re-examine your statement about the motives of commentators who disagree with Bush and by extension the motives of those who agree with them. It may be that there is some past behavior of Mr. Olbermann that would make one doubt his sincerity on the issue. I know very little about him so this may be the case. But even if this is so, his motives are really beside the point, aren't they? What is really important is whether or not his argument is correct.

Of course, motives can be important. The motives of the American people when they supported were to stop the weapons of mass destruction and the support of al-Qaida that was supposed to be rife in Iraq. This all turned out to be nonsense, and it has also been made clear that the Bush government ignored evidence to the contrary and looked fervently for evidence to support it. You ask me to imagine the producers high-fiving after the segment ended, but I ask you to imagine the thousands of parents who have lost their sons or daughters to a war fought for dishonest reasons by an arrogant and reckless government.

[kyleh]

Further, Kyle, I think you should re-examine your statement about the motives of commentators who disagree with Bush and by extension the motives of those who agree with them. It may be that there is some past behavior of Mr. Olbermann that would make one doubt his sincerity on the issue. I know very little about him so this may be the case. But even if this is so, his motives are really beside the point, aren't they? What is really important is whether or not his argument is correct.

I always doubt sincerity if I don't know the person. Call it a quirk. :) If you think I'm a Bush supporter after the hundreds of posts that I've made in heated over the years, then I certainly can't argue with it. My argument is and always has been that I doubt the motives of both sides of this silly argument, and that I see logical flaws in the 'talking points' of both sides. I'm not one to partake in raging emotional debates, so I don't really know how to respond to the flawed arguments other than to point out the flaws.

Right now as I see it we have 2 factions of people: people who are directing this whole symphony (not necessarily the Bush administration, but I wouldn't rule them out), and people who are screaming the same 6 talking points at each other ad nauseum as if they are coming up with new arguments. Guess which ones of those people are going to be taking up arms against thier neighbors at the end of the day? Guess which ones are going to become more powerful as a result?

Sure, it's a tinfoil hat theory, but it makes more logical sense to me than any of the other silliness that tries to make our current political situation more sinister than it has ever been in the past.

[T.N.D.]

Remember, this the guy who has used the Nazi salute(more than once) when attacking O'Rielly, does he have a fixation on nazi's, maybe, maybe not.

[tag]

Remember, this the guy who has used the Nazi salute(more than once) when attacking O'Rielly, does he have a fixation on nazi's, maybe, maybe not.


Thats interesting. Honestly, I know nothing about the guy. I just ran into the clip by accident. The reason why I liked it was that it raised many important issues about the Bush administration. These are issues that are substantive, and I have tried to outline them in previous posts. I really don't care about whether this guy has a fixation on Nazi's. I don't actually care if Rumsfeld has one either. What I care about is the abuses of power and incompetence of the Bush administration. This, I think, is a more important issue than whether this guy is a nut.

Kyle- as for your statement, I have some sympathy with you as regards to people yelling talking points at one another and not listening. But we don't have to be that way. We can look at the substance of an argument rather than engaging in conspiracy theories or criticizing a message solely by questioning the sincerity of the messenger. If I said that all of id's games suck because John Carmack is a money grubbing a-hole, you would tell me that was ridiculous- the games either or good or not good regardless of his motivations, and that I should give specific reasons why. The same thing applies to arguments about the Bush administration.