Commentary: Olberman Rips Bush

[Graeme]

Fritz, I have already agreed with you on the topic about a democratic president would result in another attack on the USA, but I have to disagree with your analyse of the next point.

The quotes you have made are irrelevant, as they either predate the time of invasion by several years, and hence do not allow for changing circumstances in that period, or are made after the event by people who would not have had access to the primary intelligence sources. In other words, they would have had to make judgements based on what they had been told by others, who may not have passed on all the relevant information.

Treating this as a clear thinking exercise, the fact that there was unaccounted biological and chemical weapons at the end of the Clinton Administration, and that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction program during the Clinton Administration, does not mean Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction program at the time of the invasion.

Indeed, as we now know, most of the evidence pointed to the fact that previous programs had been terminated and the items in question had been destroyed. Yes, they were unaccounted for, but unaccount does not mean that they still existed.

What happened in the lead up to the invasion was that evidence that contradicted the assertion that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction program were discounted, downplayed or simply ignored. This is the point that Mr. Olbermann was making, in a rather over the top manner.

There was no attempt, at least when I listened, to deny that Iraq had a program at one point. The question was did it have one at the time of the invasion? The intelligence that was shared worldwide at the time, and mainly originating from USA intelligence agencies, was that it did. Subsequent reviews have shown that the position that was shared worldwide was not as definite as it was made out to be -- indeed, was considerably less definite than it was made out to be.

THAT is the accusation that Mr. Olbermann was making, and while I agree that hindsight is 20-20, it still indicates that there was a distortion of the basic intelligence information. Mr. Olbermann has placed the blame for that distortion on President Bush. THAT point can be debated, since he is also subject to only knowing what others tell him, but Mr. Olbermann's accusation, which fits with the leadership principle of "The Buck Stops Here", is not completely outrageous.

[DesDownunder]

Cole, Nickolas and Graeme all make excellent points on the nature of the debate.

Yes, I agree there are many areas that stem from both the subject matter and Olbermann's speech and in particular his rhetoric, that is useful to authors both as a resource as well as tools of literary merit.

I can imagine Shakespeare calling on Olbermann's rhetoric to accentuate the irony of the times in which we live, if he had written a play about political assassination. Oh wait a minute he did. It was called Julius Caesar.

I am reminded of the manipulative forces Shakespeare used in the speeches of both Brutus and Marc Antony.

We must be mindful of this manipulation both for our own use as authors as well as individuals being subjected to all kinds of (including media) manipulation from many different sources.

It is possible to quote many statesmen and even bureaucrats to bolster one's argument. Yet we need to be sure that they in turn have not made their statements based on false or misleading information and some times without reason. This is not always easy to ascertain. Certainly not easy to prove.

It is also necessary to watch our own emotional involvement in such subjects so we can contribute to the debate, rather than just trying to get our opinions accepted by everyone else. Who knows I might even change my mind about the subject. Strength of character does not maintain it is always right, just always ready to listen, to analyse and consider.

Anyone can win a debate. A discussion of this nature does not have to be personal. It does not have to have a winner; just an exchange of ideas and perceptions that enriches all our thoughts.

We should all feel some degree of accomplishment if we can provide such food for thought within the confines of a well-meaning and interesting debate with some relevance to our lives.

We should maintain sufficient respect for each other that we will all enjoy the after-debate orgy.

[JamesSavik]

All of us have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.

Remember all of the games that Saddam's people played with the UN Inspectors? Remember the UN inspectors saying that they would enter a building from the front and a convoy of trucks would leave from the back?

It seemed like a macarbe game of wack-a-mole and the prize was DX nerve gas and the UN inspectors looked like the keystone cops.

Everybody, and I do mean Everybody thought Saddam had something- the only real question was what and how much.

While we found no large stockpiles of chemical weapons, there were tons of precursor chemicals and the capacity to make all they could have wanted. Any country with oil refineries and the infrastructure that supports them can make nerve gas- it is simply a chemistry problem- and not a terribly difficult one at that.

To be fair though those "precursor chemicals" can be found in and/or make everything from baby milk to industrial plastics.

[Drewbie]

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call anyone a liar, but I will say that Keith Olberman is a manipulator. He plays on the emotions of people who don't want to see through his distortions, but that's his job. Rush limbaugh and Shawn Hannity do it too. Is it wrong? Maybe, but that's what they get paid to do.

What makes it so sickening to me in Olberman's case is the fact that he invokes the memories of the lost troops to get his point across, but at the same time, he takes a shot at them by indirectly calling them murderers. Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity call for the war to continue for whatever reason, but neither of them have ever served in the armed services. That puts them on the same level as that lowlife Olberman, as far as I'm concered. Instead of taking what they say so seriously, why not examine all of the facts and come to logical conclusions?

Fact: Olberman is employed by MSNBC, an ultra left wing network that is dedicated to socialist causes such as national health care, gun control, welfare dependence and income redistribution.

Fact: Hannity is employed by Fox, an ultra right wing network that is dedicated to draconian causes such as restriction of reproductive rights, the prohibition of gay rights, the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II and powerful anti drug laws.

Fact: Ben and Jerry's Everything 2wisted is a rich and creamy treat with big hunks of white chocolate, dark chocolate and peanutbutter cups.

Fact: We all have our own positions and convictions. We're a community, though, and should strive to respect everyone's opinion, regardless of how misguided we might think it is.

Fact: I should really take my own advice sometimes icon1.gif

I agree with most of the statements nick has put here, Olberman is doing things which I despise which both sides of the political spectrum does.

Olberman is just doing the same rhetoric that others are doing, if you really want to be shocking then agree with bush. bush bashing is nothing new.

there is other things that olberman has done which is done that has only had his interest at best which I don't care for at all. Wish we had a real news achor like walter cronkite.

[Nickolas James]

I agree with most of the statements nick has put here, Olberman is doing things which I despise which both sides of the political spectrum does.

Olberman is just doing the same rhetoric that others are doing, if you really want to be shocking then agree with bush. bush bashing is nothing new.

there is other things that olberman has done which is done that has only had his interest at best which I don't care for at all. Wish we had a real news achor like walter cronkite.

So are you saying that Ben and Jerry's Everything 2wisted isn't a rich and creamy treat with big hunks of white and dark chocolate and peanutbutter cups??

Actually, the statement you made about agreeing with Bush if you really want to shock people is exactly right.

[Drewbie]

So are you saying that Ben and Jerry's Everything 2wisted isn't a rich and creamy treat with big hunks of white and dark chocolate and peanutbutter cups??

Actually, the statement you made about agreeing with Bush if you really want to shock people is exactly right.

Never been a big ben and jerry's fan, not that I had it alot, have to try it sometime then.

I'll say this incase they get the wrong thoughts. I consider my self an independent, I like some parts from each side.

I would love to see a new party come in.

[blue]

*SIGH* -- This thread has demonstrated the very problem that we face among our elected leaders: Our American society must neither divide nor isolate itself nor point fingers of blame at the other guy. To my mind, it is not a Republican issue; neither is it a Democratic issue, as they have been just as divisive and isolating. Instead, we must choose to come together in cooperation and compromise, to pool our best ideas and find workable solutions.

I am disappointed that no one seems to have pointed out that this thread has chosen to fire acrimoniously at a single party and individuals, while totally not seeing the larger problem, and not seeing that it is destructive of the larger community and of AwesomeDude's community.

No, I no longer consider myself a member of any party, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise. However, I will vote for whichever candidate I believe is most likely to do any good. I still have some faith in ordinary people to do what's right and work together.

This topic was closed for admin review before. I wish it had remained closed permanently. I was wrong not to have stated my case more strongly and insist on my principles. Now I'm going to hush on this topic.

[Tanuki Racoon]

I will vote for whichever candidate I believe is most likely to do any good. I still have some faith in ordinary people to do what's right and work together.

1. Politicians are not ordinary people. Generally ex-lawyers and judiciary. No sane, rational human would enter politics.

2. So you are, like most people, ultimately voting for whomever sucks less.

[Nickolas James]

*

I am disappointed that no one seems to have pointed out that this thread has chosen to fire acrimoniously at a single party and individuals, while totally not seeing the larger problem, and not seeing that it is destructive of the larger community and of AwesomeDude's community.

Well I don't know, Blue. I think I've taken aim at both parties, and God knows that there's plenty of blame to go around. But I agree with your view that this thread was initially started as a way to bash Bush. In a way, though, hasn't he earned it? He spent through a surplus, then he helped us dig a 10 trillion dollar hole. Of course, there were republicans and democrats there who were more than happy to help him blow the money, but in the end, he presides over the nation and the buck stops with him until he leaves office.

I think if anything, this thread should be way for people to post their thoughts, read what others are saying, and think about what they're reading. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint. I think I said somewhere else that arguments and honest debates bring improvements. So instead of dissention, this thread can be an opportunity for us to come together as a community or writers and readers and talk about what's wrong, what's good and what we can do to make the right changes in this nation, or in other nations.

[aj]

I don't know much about this Olberman guy, but it's fairly clear from what he said in this editorial that he's that most common form of DC wildlife, the spin doctor. Yeah, some of what Bush said was kinda dumb, but we've come to expect that. But this guy took his comments out of context and created an entire diatribe out of that dishonest and distorted take on Bush's comments. The whole 'thundering from the pulpit' bit of 'righteous indignation' was about as convincing as Vin Diesel's acting (don't get me wrong - I'm a huge Vin Diesel fan, and I would never kick that boy outta bed, but he can't act his way out of a paper sack).

Those who create and perpetuate spin are the lowest form of life. I'm afraid Mr Olberman has placed himself just below pondscum on the evolutionary scale.

cheers!

aj

[Tanuki Racoon]

I'm afraid Mr Olberman has placed himself just below pondscum on the evolutionary scale.

(While I disagree with you, that is beside the point of this reply)

I wish to point out, that leaves him (no matter your opinion) at least 14 points above Car Salesman.

[Trab]

I don't know the man, and I don't really understand politics, and more particularly US politics. The one thing I see as a huge common denominator in most countries, regardless of their political system, is the lack of togetherness. It truly looks to be 'me, me, and me for me'. If there isn't an immediate benefit to the individual, and that includes large corporations, then it just seems almost impossible to get something done. It is more important to save a job than create clean air. It is more important to create a housing project that can be sold for millions than preserve perfectly fine housing that is keeping seniors sheltered affordably. It is more important to keep drugs under patent than help provide relief from suffering for millions at a reasonable price.

As long as the goal is 'winner takes all', there will be no serious improvement. Our biggest advances are arguably when we all work together, whether that was fighting the Nazi war machine, the 'cold war', the 'space race', or other obvious target. What is needed is a goal that is perceivable and immediate. Unfortunately, people seem almost incapable of seeing 'non-immediate' needs, and we will continue to flounder, doing what we can for ourselves and not the future of people or the planet.

What is really needed, more than anything else, is a charming, insightful, and dedicated leader who CAN see the need, and can drum up the necessary fervour in the public, to both support that candidate and his/her vision. As I see it, there is as yet nobody that meets that need anywhere on the horizon. Sadly, I think we will have to sink to the depths of despair before we will field someone like. Maybe there are those who can do it, but they don't see the chance for getting into power, or if so, swaying the public.

[Cole Parker]

Trab, I like what you say, but feel some pessimism that it will occur. Pulling together for common goals is obviously a good thing. Where we have a problem is defining common goals. We have such divisive issues today that consensus, or even compromise, seems impossible.

Look at what faces us as a nation (and you too, up in the wilds of Canada.) How does one compromise on abortion? You vote to abolish it, or condone it, and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground available, no common goal that both sides will accept. Here, many voices say our borders should be closed entirely; only a few should be able to get in, they should be rigorously screeened, and we should deny entry for the masses even if there is a need for their work. Others say we need these workers to harvest our crops; without them, tons of food rots in the fields. We have a faction that passionately proclaims that our right to have guns is a necessary element of protecting our freedoms, while just as vociferous a group says crime and domestic terrorism from street gangs would be significantly quieted by eliminating guns in the population. Again, compromise doesn't interest either side in the debate. Many people feel national health care programs are socialistic, and socialism has proved to be a flawed system and has failed wherever it's been tried, and it shouldn't be started here even for this purpose; the advocates of universal heath care scream that you're throwing away people if you fail to allow them and their kids access to heath care whether or not they can pay for it, and how can we call ourselves a civilized country if we do that? Again, neither side wants to seek compromise.

Yes, we all pulled together to defeat the Nazis. Maybe that's what it takes, an issue so major that we don't think about these other things, but concentrate on the one major goal ahead of us. That does leave the other problems lingering, however. We haven't solved them, just set them aside from when we can get back to them.

It's very difficult these days for a large majority of our people to agree on much, and certainly not on issues that involve religion or politics or even race and money. Finding a charismatic politician who can lead us to solutions to these problems that will be accepted by most of the citizenry seems terribly unlikely to me. Which of course is very unfortunate.

But I understand your disgust with politicians. Here, they say what they say more to appeal to the crowd they're talking to than to express what they really feel. They're afraid to do that because it will turn off some people who might vote for them otherwise. Their campaign promises are to curry votes, not to provide truth. And that's where they shame themselves, and us for believing them.

Sorry. Guess I'm in a pessimistic mood today.

C

[Trab]

I'm feeling pessimistic too. Here, in Canada, I think that type of political pandering without true content or intent being voiced started with Pierre Trudeau. He was marvellously popular with the masses, but I despised his whole campaign, and he promised nothing. Statements like, "Government must be open and transparent to all citizens" sounds wonderful, but there is not even the promise to even try to do that.

[DesDownunder]

Friends,

The Olbermann address to the world, if one can call it that, has raised many opinions as to its worth in both style and content, as well as raising the ire of some contributors.

We must be on the defensive that we do not allow such discussions to divide us from seeing that underlying all our comments and opinions is a common concern for the welfare of the common good of Mankind.

Both Trab and Cole and in fact everyone, have enriched this debate with their insight and questions into the concerns that have effect upon us all.

Though Trab and Cole feel they are suffering pessimism, I think we can see they are reaching out to us to recognise the problems we all face and for which we will indeed have different answers and opinions.

Those differences need not divide us. Those differences represent cumulative thoughts and ideas which together may offer some hope for a better future.

While agreement on all issues may escape us, our agreement to be ready to discuss these issues and others with dignity and respect for each other is the first step to a better world.

I suggest that this discussion has reached a point where we might consider the next topic for consideration.

[Trab]

I suggest that this discussion has reached a point where we might consider the next topic for consideration.

Now isn't that the most marvellously tactful way possible to say, "move on"?

[DesDownunder]

Now isn't that the most marvellously tactful way possible to say, "move on"?

I try

Seriously if someone feels they have something else to contribute that hasn't been covered, that is fine.

I just don't want the debate to get locked in a circle of unwarranted division.

This is not the government.

[Trab]

ROFLMAO. Too funny, Des.

[Tanuki Racoon]

This is not the government.

Remember, the opposite of PROgress is CONgress. That sums it up nicely.