Keith Olbermann delivered a pretty spectacular Special Comment in the wake of Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence. First, he quotes John Wayne who said, after Kennedy was elected, “I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.â€
Our generation’s willingness to state “we didn’t vote for him, but he’s our president, and we hope he does a good job,†was tested in the crucible of history, and far earlier than most. And in circumstances more tragic and threatening.
And we did that with which history tasked us.
We enveloped “our†President in 2001.
And those who did not believe he should have been elected — indeed, those who did not believe he had been elected — willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.
And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and sharpened it to a razor-sharp point, and stabbed this nation in the back with it.
Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.
Did so even before the appeals process was complete…
Did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice…
Did so despite what James Madison –at the Constitutional Convention — said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes “advised by†that president…
More after the fold.
Mr. Olbermann goes on to, I presume, use Zola’s “J’Accuse” technique from the Dreyfus Affair.
I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.
I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.
I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.
I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but instead to stifle dissent.
I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.
I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.
I accuse you of handing part of this republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.
And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of you becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.
Olbermann argues that, like Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre where he fired the special prosecutor, Bush has transformed this scandal from a complicated, murky affair into a simple matter, viscerally understandable by the American public. “It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one — and it stinks. And they know it.” He goes on to say that now is the time for Bush and Cheney to resign. They are uniquely bad leaders. It won’t happen of course. Bush and Cheney don’t recognize law or shame or persuasion. They understand only force. They won’t do anything they aren’t compelled to do. Still, it is nice to have someone say it on national television.
“Still, it is nice to have someone say it on national television.”
No….
What’s nice is living in a country that allows the freedom of speech this tool so obnoxiously takes advantage of.
In the scope of history, one can look back at all of our administrations and count “unjust” wars, civil rights deprivations, boneheaded policies and a whole host of perceived and real violations by the various leaders of our United States Of America.
Disagree all you want with ANY administration, but the latest fad or trend (endorsed by shitheads on both sides all too often) of impeaching, recalling, prosecuting, and villifying is absolutely ridiculous.
We have a relatively simple remedy for politicians who don’t do what we ask of them.
IT’S CALLED AN ELECTION.
One need look no further than Olbys’ atrocious ratings to realize he ain’t no Edward R. Murrow. More like a Soupy Sales with a dictionary.
I’m not an impeachment freak. In fact, I was firmly against it until this Libby pardon. Now, I can’t say I’m firmly in favor, but I’m at least open to the idea. If Bush had a hand in blowing the cover of a covert CIA agent in a fit of political retaliation, then used his pardon powers to cover his ass for a crime he had a hand in, there should be greater consequences than simply having him be an even lamer lame duck.
Note that I say “if.” Let’s get the documents. Let’s get involved parties under oath and find out what the facts are. If the Bush administration continues its fetish for secrecy, we’ll just have to assume the members of the administration are hiding something and assume the worst. These folks aren’t entitled to the benefit of any doubts.
But, yeah, I agree that it’s good that we live in a country where we can say this stuff — just make sure you don’t raise a BongHits 4 Jesus banner or make statements against the Bush administration that look like threats even if they’re randomly scattered on a Yahoo message board.
Thanks for the chance to hear Olbermans 4th of July message on american and government values,and vivid review of history many of us older people have lived through. I wouldn’t have heard it otherwise.I loved the parody with Zola who accused the French generals of cover-up to ‘save’ the French government.
For many all they will catch is the partisanship, but that surely wasn’t the main thrust.Partisanship is so built into every political dialogue we all have. I mention Libby;you mention Clinton.But wouldn’t it be edifying,at least, if both sides would put their argument into a grand literary style as Olberman did? I can see a great one-man stage presentation. I’d go see it.
I heard this and it was great. I think Olbermann’s sincere and thankfully he also has a sense of humor.
The only reason not to impeach Bush – assuming there is evidence for it – is this: President Cheney. Kucinich (sp?) has filed articles for that impeachment.
No, I did not favor impeaching Clinton. It is the case where I have ever heard of lying in a deposition constituted perjury. Frankly,it backfired on its proponents. I am thinking right now that Bush and Cheney have pushed the envelope but not with commuting Libby’s sentence. I think most of us expecting something like this but hoped it would not happen. Connect the commutation with outing Plame and I think all bets are off. Olbermann is right about that.
Masson, you are correct – these guys have no shame or embarrassment. I have been trying to figure out for years now just what they hoped to accomplish. Everything seems a complete failure and they are far too inept for dictators.
Olbermann’s ratings are actually pretty good. Also, I think impeachment and recall have only been used by one side in the last couple of decades. Maybe you can cite a recall or impeachment of a Republican in the last few years. If you can’t, then both don’t do it. And at least now we know that for the Right, it’s not about the lying. Because this guy lied and got off the hook, relatively. For Clinton, we kept hearing it was about the lying. But really it was about a penis in a mouth, and a cigar in a vagina. That’s what he was impeached for. Because the Right has now declared that lying under oath isn’t a a big deal after all, if the lying wasn’t about a criminal act. Oh, but the Left needs to elevate the dialogue, and stop agitating for accountability. Maybe we’ll do that after the Right makes up its mind about what lying is permissible and what isn’t.
This site has now officially entered the O’Donnell/Sheehan moonbat territory.
The “right” declared lying under oath was a big deal when they impeached your precious Slick Willie for it. “T”, I know you like to consider yourself a moderate, logical individual, but that statement proved you are anything but. Keep living in lala land, it’s doing a lot of good for your mental health.
Of course, expecting logic from folks who believe we are all genetically descended from parameciums is probably a stretch to begin with.
So we the people are going to impeach Bush for commuting the sentence of one who was “convicted” in a bogus witch hunt, …er prosecution of something that wasn’t even a crime? Sure makes a lot of sense to me.
No sanctions for Clinton exchanging pardons for campaign contributions to his “wife”‘s campaign, no problems there, right folks? No problems with him selling nuclear and military secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, right?
But God (or Darwin) forbid Bush commute (not pardon) someone (who still faces severe penalties, btw) who was on the receiving end of one of the worst witch hunts in recent memory, and now we are talking impeachment?
I submit that Libby still faces much sterner consequences than “Pants” Berger will for destroying classified documents and covering up his boss’s connection to 9/11. But who cares about that, right lefties?
Oh, and “T”, Olbermann’s ratings are pretty good when compared to PBS maybe, but not in relation to anyone or anything else. That’s why those of us who think for ourselves laugh at him, and you guys quote him as if he’s someone of importance.
Oh, you’re a Creationist? Regale us with some of your “logical” fairy tales, please! My “mental health” could use the laughter. You see, evolution explains how natural selection is a mechanism that caused small changes over time (billions of years) such that we did come from less complex life forms. Your way is “God” did it all, and “God” didn’t have to come from anywhere because he’s (oops–“He’s”) always been here. Which isn’t an explanation. But no matter, feel free to criticize me. I enjoy being criticized by the superstitious for the error of not believing in their superstitions.
Didn’t Berger plead out? Didn’t the Bush Justice Dept. accept the plea and provide a sentence of some kind? Would you like him convicted a second time for the same offense? Otherwise, what are you bitching about? No one reduced his sentence, have they? I don’t really know if obstructing justice in the matter of outing a CIA agent dealing in WMD is worse than stealing copies of classified documents. But both had punishments levied, and only one is actually completing his sentence as levied by the sentencing judge. The other had Judge Dubya modify his sentence.
Oh, and it was a witch hunt. Boo-frickin-hoo. That mean ol’ Bush CIA, and Bush Justice Dept., and Bush-appointed special prosecutor, and mostly that mean ol’ Bush-appointed judge just huntin’ away at poor ol’ “Scooter”. My only regret is that there wasn’t a blowjob thrown in somewhere so we could better understand the legal issues involved.
Actually, Scribe, the Right’s opinion of record now is that lying under oath isn’t a big deal if no other criminal charges were filed. You may recall no criminal charges were filed against Clinton. Ergo, the new Right position is that it wasn’t about the lying. Either that, or their position is nuanced. Or it was really just about the blowjob. Now which is it? The problem isn’t me. The problem is the Right can’t come up with any consistent position on lying, when it is bad, and when it isn’t. Getting pissy at me won’t change your side’s hypocrisy which is readily apparent to most observers.
Olby has right around 500,000 viewers nightly. Oh yeah, he’s a force to be reckoned with allright….heh heh
You actual evidence regarding evolution is…a book written 170 years ago? Anything else, besides your pathetic need to refute the existence of God?
Hate to break it to you bud, but there’s yet to appear one single shred of scientific proof of evolution from anyone. After 170 years of looking, still not A SINGLE THING.
Still standing by your fraudulent theory?
The rest of your rambling was so incoherant, I have no clue as to what you were trying to say. Something about some conspiracy, and my hypocrisy, and how Berger’s attempt to whitewash the record was just o.k. with you.
Nice work on your part, continuing to prove the “logic” of liberalism. With believers like you, liberals sure don’t need me to point out their fraud. You’re doing a super job on your own.
So we’re back to you having problems with reading comprehension. Ask a friend or parent to define the big words for you. It’s not that difficult, but don’t be embarrassed to ask for the needed help.
You have a problem with a book written 170 years ago, but your proof is a book written two thousand years ago. Is that irony completely lost on you? You have to be some sort of characature made up to provide laughter for the rest of us. As far as there not being a shred of scientific proof of evolution, I can’t provide the remedial training you would require to become convinced. Evolution has more supporting evidence than almost any other scientific theory. It is the grand unifying theory of the life sciences. Your hyperbolic attack on it is without any basis. A near-consensus of scientists accept evolution, but not “Scribe”. “Scribe” calls it a fraud based on a lack of “any shred” of scientific evidence. The thing without any shred of scientific evidence is Creationism. Yet, that lack bothers you not so much.
You’re nothing but a loudmouthed fraud without a basic working knowledge of the life sciences, and with only remedial reading comprehension skills. Instead of keeping your pathetic skill-set well-hidden, you stand on your dunce stool and shout “Look at me!” Good for you, tiger. Good for you.
Im not sure how significant 500,000 viewers is or isnt,but I know any totalitarian regime keeps track of what they deem to be the ‘intelligentsia’ and these are relatively few in numbers in any society or country.Who are these people? I can tell you that from my visits to Germany and exchanging homes and visiting with East germans,that the former East German government compiled lists of people that could be dangerous,and in our country they would be probably thought of as ‘free-thinking liberals’.These people were watched and followed,just like in a spy novel,but this was real life.In Germany they were officially thought of as ‘reactionaries’
All totalitarian regimes rule in a conservative way,’a liberal dictator’ wouldn’t last a week.Berlin was a cultural and intellectual center of Germany before WW-2 and Hitler always lamented that he never was voted for by a majority in Berlin. We would call these people Germanys ‘intelligentsia’,or ‘free- thinking liberals’. During totalitarian regimes anyone who thinks freely becomes a sort of liberal and therefore dangerous.Whereas in different regimes, in different times they would have lived a conservative, unobstrusive life..Olberman is certainly an intellectual and a liberal,and this Bush administration has really riled him up.But Im a quiet unobtrusive type too( a retired school teacher living on pension) and Im also riled up by this monster administration.Olbermans July 4th oratory was inspirational,and Im just so grateful to have heard it on this blog.So maybe be wary of this puny bunch of 500,000 who watch Olberman’s show;his audience may be growing.I don’t know what the Bush legacy will be, but let’s hope there’s a silver lining to this dark administration and we do gain insights into why we so patiently suffered for so long such an insufferable regime.
Next thing you know, Darwinists will be using the “Piltdown Man” as their latest proof.
Nothing is funnier than a liberal attempting to use logic.
Shorter Scribe: *Holding fingers in ears*–“I can’t hear you!”
No, we won’t be using Piltdown Man (which was debunked by scientific means–but thanks for playing), any more than you will be using any of the latest “incarnations” of “God” such as Jim Jones or David Koresh to prove the existence of “God”. Do us a favor and bring something that a sixth grader couldn’t smack down.
No, I’ll be using fossil evidence (funny how the specimens don’t get more complex the deeper in the strata one goes, do they?), divergent evolution from homologous structures to adapt to new selective pressures, convergent evolution of analogous structures again due to selective pressures, vestigial structures, divergence of species after isolation, genetic evidence of relatedness, observable evidence such as animal husbandry where changes are due to an artificial selective pressure that we control (the same is readily apparent from the myriad of breeds of dog all descended from canis lupus and changing due to our selection of various traits– or, is God “creating” new dog breeds before our eyes?), antibiotic resistance which is again due to selective pressures, etc. I could crack a book and go on if you like.
Your explanation again: Abracadabra.
E.J. Dionne has a very piece in today’s Washington Post that hits all the points for me. The Clinton impeachment analogy is a red herring – Clinton was impeached irregardless of what some of us thought about the underlying perjury but not convicted. Did Mark Rich’s crime impinge on the integrity of the government as did Libby’s? I do not think so and for me that analogy is also a red herring. Libby was convicted but his pals did nod not like how the Sentencing Guidelines (which they created) treated him. Assuming for a second that Bush did this to protect himself, where are those of you favoring this commutation standing then? Once again Bush shows he has neither integrity nor backbone. The Dionne piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/05/AR2007070501822.html?referrer=email