A Rebutal To Olbermann

• August 31, 2006

For a nut with a cable show that almost nobody watches, Keith Olbermann sure gets a lot of attention.
Anyway, I guess Olbermann had a big response on his show (and posted to his website) to Donald Rumsfeld’s recent comments about the war on terror. A response that has the usual Olbermann sycophants frothing at the mouth.
I know that’s probably a bit mean (Dave, who I link above, is a friend and is typically pretty level-headed), but I just don’t understand how so many people can a) totally misconstrue Rumsfeld’s statement and b) not understand what we’re up against in the war on terror.
Anyway, Olbermann Watch has a thorough rebuttal of Olbermann’s response and convincing arguments for why Oblermann shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone.
Be sure to read the whole thing.

Tags: Asshats, Letters, National Heritage Area

http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

Because I have to run out the door again and can’t return quick enough to answer all your questions, let me respond to robert108:

Why shouldn’t he be able to say what he sees is true? Doesn’t he have any free speech rights?

Mr. Rumsfeld has all the freedom to say whatever he wants, I don’t and won’t contest that. My issue is with him calling anyone who disagrees with his policy or the administration’s policy as a fascist or un-american. That is untrue!

I have to run. Chew on that, I’ll be back.
http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

I read the speech on Tuesday night and two paragraphs stood out, as they have with many…

And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

&heellip;

The good news is that most Americans, though understandably influenced by what they see and read, have good inner gyroscopes. They have good center of gravity. So, I’m confident that over time they will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions about it.

It was not my intention to put words in the mouth of Mr. Rumsfeld, but his comments above certainly imply that I, as a detractor, am immoral and intellectually confused. That my opinion, which is contrary to his, is not just wrong, it’s morally wrong. Whereas he goes on to say that even though I’m immoral and intellectually confused, not to worry, I will come around to the true thinking, his thinking, the government’s thinking.

By making those comments he disregards the very right I, or you, have to question the government and even his authority. By calling dissent, not directly, fascist in nature is wrong. Recount history, that’s fine, but don’t label Americans, even some who voted for Mr. Rumsfeld’s boss, as morally and intellectually confused because we disagree.

In 1999 when we were introduced to Governor Bush we were told of a man who was able to get both parties to work together as one and accomplish goals. What happened to that leader. From the top down, the Bush administration goes out of its way to polarize the country and the latest speeches by Cheney to the VFW and by Rumsfeld and Bush to the American Legion are doing just that.
http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

Fortunately, he hasn’t taxed like a Dem,

That’s obviously false… unless your willing to contend that the Dems would simply spend more and therefore that would make the GOP spending increases okay.

From CATO: President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

To say that ‘we’ don’t understand what we’re up against assumes incorrectly, at least of me and certainly of Mr. Olbermann. I recognize that there are plenty of islamo fascists whose sole concern is to do harm to American’s. I get that. Your, and I mean most conservatives, philosophy says that if someone hates us for who we are then we ‘must’ fight them. We must take them down, erradicate them as an organization and as a people. I disagree with that. It’s my philosophy that our current foreign policy of increased involvement in the middle east only aggrivates the hatred. Our soldiers aren’t dying in America, they’re dying ‘over there’. The terrorists tell us what they want, they want us to die, but ultimately they want us to leave them alone. Why not oblige that? Let them live in the stone age with their archaic religious beliefs.

Pulling out of the middle east does not mean I don’t ‘support the troops’, pulling out of the middle east would satisfy my foreign policy strategy. Every day that our current administration entangles with middle eastern alliances, and foes, we lose freedom right here in America. That’s not right. That’s contrary to what the Constitution affords me in this country.

What is simply so offensive, to me and to my ilk like Mr. Olbermann, is not necessarily the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which is absurd, is the fact that Rumsfeld has gall to call a dissenting opinion, in a country where dissent is supposedly encouraged (but not anymore), un-American or fascist.

That was the point that was so emphatically made last night in Mr. Olbermann’s commentary. Yet, people like Reed Newman who consistantly comments on my blog about what a puke Mr. Olbermann is never refutes his words. He only attacks his bias or his liberalness. That’s weak and silly.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

Dave Miller said, …is the fact that Rumsfeld has gall to call a dissenting opinion, in a country where dissent is supposedly encouraged (but not anymore), un-American or fascist.

Can you show me where he has actually said that?

I see that I’m not the first one to ask you this and I want to make sure that you don’t miss it.

Thanks.
robert108

HG: He obviously doesn’t. Kinda puts the rest of his economic comments in perspective. I thought I drew a clear distinction in my previous comment. I guess he just wasn’t capable of that level of understanding. Maybe he was trying to find some “implications” instead of simply reading what I wrote. A lot of lefties are like that. They are not straightforward, so they can’t fathom how anyone else could be straightforward.
robert108

Dave Miller: Nice spin. “My issue is with him calling anyone who disagrees with his policy or the administration’s policy as a fascist or un-american. That is untrue!”

It is untrue that he said “anyone”. You lie to mislead there. He called the fascists fascists and said they are unAmerican, all of which is true. You just don’t like it.
robert108

Dave Miller: Implication, by definition, is in the ear of the hearer. I get no such message from what you cut and pasted. Perhaps your anti-President premises have something to do with your conclusions…
In case you haven’t heard, Mr Miller, this country is founded on debate between competing sides, not “bipartisanship”. To the extent that the President has attempted to pander to the opposition, he has been wrong, and it has consistently led to disaster, as he has attempted to woo the Dems by spending like them. Fortunately, he hasn’t taxed like a Dem, so we have a good economy in spite of the Dem-style spending. Criticizing dissenters is free speech, something you obviously would deny to those who disagree with you. Typical leftie.
HG

Dave Miller,

You’ve got to know the difference between taxes and spending right?
robert108

HG: I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
http://www.campus-watch.org/ Bezu Fache

his comments above certainly imply that I, as a detractor, am immoral and intellectually confused. That my opinion, which is contrary to his, is not just wrong, it’s morally wrong. Whereas he goes on to say that even though I’m immoral and intellectually confused, not to worry, I will come around to the true thinking, his thinking, the government’s thinking.

Maybe this is what he was implying Miller:

“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” — John Stuart Mill
Reed Newman

Weak and Silly?

When does criticizing people who disagree with you equal stifling dissent? Isn’t that what Rumsfeld did? Criticize people who criticize him?

I’m sorry, I won’t comment on your blog anymore. You feel the need to go to other blogs to call me weak and silly……who is being weak and silly now?
robert108

“Dems would raise spending and taxes.”

That is all they know how to do. You forgot “increase dependency on govt”, Rob.
http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

It’s one thing to refute or criticize someone’s arguement, it’s another thing when you are in the position of Mr. Rumsfeld to label dissenters as un-American. Again, you fail to grasp the true issue with Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarks and the commentary issued by Mr. Olbermann in regards to those remarks.
HG

R108: I’m sure Dave is capable of understanding. I think he is kinda reactionary though. Either his views are not fully his own, or he may think he is in a hostile environment. Either way he is not thinking through things very well right now.
Carrick

On the other hand, Rob, Dave Miller’s dishonesty is to be excused, because he’s a dissenter. Or at least that’s the meme that the antiwar people run with.

But I disagree that Rumsfeld even says that the dissenters are acting immorally (though through their twistings of the truth, they are at least acting amorally). If you read what he said carefully, he’s just saying that there is moral confusion over whether it is the right thing to do.
robert108

Dave Miller: So, Rumsfeld has fewer free speech rights than Olberman? Sec Rumsfeld didn’t do any “labeling” at all, he just stated the facts, and let the listeners draw the obvious conclusion. If it walks like a duck, has feathers, and quacks like a duck…it’s a duck.
Ronnie

“Again, you fail to grasp the true issue with Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarks and the commentary issued by Mr. Olbermann in regards to those remarks.”

So tell us, what was the true issue with the remarks?

Is there is reason to sound so condescending to people who read your blog and post on it?
robert108

Dave Miller: “To say that ‘we’ don’t understand what we’re up against assumes incorrectly, at least of me and certainly of Mr. Olbermann. I recognize that there are plenty of islamo fascists whose sole concern is to do harm to American’s.Nice understatement. They want to kill most of us, and to subjugate the rest. Tell the truth. I get that. Your, and I mean most conservatives, philosophy says that if someone hates us for who we are then we ‘must’ fight them.No, we must fight them if they attack us. Remember WTC 1993? The Cole?, 9/11? What part of fighting those who attack us don’t you understand? We must take them down, erradicate them as an organization and as a people.As far as I know, Islamofascism is a political belief, not “a people”. Tell the truth. I disagree with that. It’s my philosophy that our current foreign policy of increased involvement in the middle east only aggrivates the hatred.We are forcing them out into the light of truth. They have been there for over 1300 years, but we have only started paying attention since 9/11. Our soldiers aren’t dying in America, they’re dying ‘over there’. The terrorists tell us what they want, they want us to die, but ultimately they want us to leave them alone.No, they want us to die, either over there(soldiers) or over here(everybody). Why not oblige that? Let them live in the stone age with their archaic religious beliefs.Because they want to kill us all or pull us back to the Stone Age with them. Don’t you get it? You sound just like Neville Chamberlain after he talked with Adolph.

Pulling out of the middle east does not mean I don’t ‘support the troops’, pulling out of the middle east would satisfy my foreign policy strategy.Your strategy is to run away from them. Every day that our current administration entangles with middle eastern alliances, and foes, we lose freedom right here in America. That’s not right. That’s contrary to what the Constitution affords me in this country.Study what it took to win WWII sometime before you speak on this subject.

What is simply so offensive, to me and to my ilk like Mr. Olbermann, is not necessarily the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which is absurd, is the fact that Rumsfeld has gall to call a dissenting opinion, in a country where dissent is supposedly encouraged (but not anymore), un-American or fascist.”It’s a true description. Why shouldn’t he be able to say what he sees is true? Doesn’t he have any free speech rights?
http://www.campus-watch.org/ Bezu Fache

From the Miller Report

Mr. Rumsfeld’s comments that any detractor of the current administration’s policies in regards to terrorism and fighting “that” war is “morally and intellectually confused”. In other words, un-American and maybe a terrorist.”

All you have to do to realize that Miller’s recap of Rumsfeld’s statement is deceitful is to go to Rob’s link in his post.

totally misconstrue Rumsfeld’s statement

It clearly shows what Rumsfeld said in cotrast to the words put in his mouth by what others wanted to hear.
Carrick

What he said was “…where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.” I think the very fact that there are people question the morality of the war implies that there is confusion over whether the war is moral.

That is a dramatically different statement than (e.g.) “Dave Miller is confused because he opposes the war”, as any clear thinker can easily discern, even to a critic of Rumsfeld like myself.
HG

“Mr. Rumsfeld has all the freedom to say whatever he wants, I don’t and won’t contest that. My issue is with him calling anyone who disagrees with his policy or the administration’s policy as a fascist or un-american. That is untrue!”

David Miller,

I agree it is not fair or true to say all who disagree are fascist or un-American. But be honest, that is not what Rumsfeld said. The following is a conservative attempt to honestly clarify why we are there and why we should stay in Iraq.

We went into Iraq because Iraq posed an immediate threat based upon broadly accepted intelligence and the ability of terrorist to attack our homeland. This decision was the right decision based upon the preceding factors. In hindsight, we would not have gone in had we known no immanent threat existed. Other steps would likely have been taken which may or may not have inevitably led to a similar decision to exert force upon the Sadaam’s Iraq. The argument to enforce UN resolution 1441 is not one that we would hold our nation to, and so we will not justify the war based upon that resolution. However, now that we have overthrown Iraq and we now know no immanent threat existed. It is not right to abandon Iraq to Iran or Islamic terrorists since US & International intelligence mistakes led to the overthrow of their nation. We can help the victims of Sadam’s brutality to embrace the freedom we Americans enjoy and cherish. Therefore we will stay and help the Iraqi people re-establish a government based upon the principles of freedom. The war against Sadaam’s Iraq is over, but the war for Iraq continues. We are fighting another war as well as the “war for Iraq”, that is the “war against Islamic terrorists”. Iraq however, is the current battlefield chosen by the Islamic terrorists. Here the two wars converge. Because of this dynamic we cannot withdraw and must defeat the Islamic terrorists in Iraq for two reasons. First, to leave Iraq is a victory for Islamic terrorists, and by their own statements will follow us and kill us wherever we are. It is better to fight them in Iraq than New York City. Second, to leave Iraq is to damn the Iraqi people to likely become Iranian citizens within a nuclear nation with clear and evident ties to Islamic terrorist organizations. The world has just watched Iran fight a war with Israel via Hezbollah. It is not a good thing for the Islamic terrorist state, Iran, to expand its borders.
http://www.campus-watch.org/ Bezu Fache

It’s another thing when you are in the position of Mr. Rumsfeld to label dissenters as un-American.

Why put words in Rumsfeld’s mouth Miller? Is it because it’s more convenient that way? Does doing that somehow make it more palatable to appease terrorists? Rumsfeld was extremely careful and measured in his speech. It seems to me that he went to great lengths not to offend anybody. He quite effectively taught a lesson of history; that none of us should ever forget the events that led to WW II and warned that if we do, we’ll suffer dire consequences. “Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It.”
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Dave,

Your, and I mean most conservatives, philosophy says that if someone hates us for who we are then we ‘must’ fight them. We must take them down, erradicate them as an organization and as a people. I disagree with that. It’s my philosophy that our current foreign policy of increased involvement in the middle east only aggrivates the hatred.

And that’s why you don’t get it.

The islamic fascists want to eradicate us. Whether we attack them or not, they will be attacking us. So we either fight them there, or we fight them here.

It’s as simple as that.

Also,

it’s another thing when you are in the position of Mr. Rumsfeld to label dissenters as un-American.

I think it would do you some good to actually read Sec. Rumsfeld’s words rather than relying on Olbermann’s take.

Here’s the speech. Please read it, and then back up your assertion that Sec. Rumsfeld called anyone un-American with an actual quote.

I think you’ll find that you can’t.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

DAve,

My issue is with him calling anyone who disagrees with his policy or the administration’s policy as a fascist or un-american. That is untrue!

Again, please provide us with a direct quote from Rumsfeld indicating that he said any such thing.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

That’s obviously false… unless your willing to contend that the Dems would simply spend more and therefore that would make the GOP spending increases okay.

Dave, while the Republicans have been pretty bad on spending…you can’t take tax cuts away from them.

Dems would raise spending and taxes.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

It was not my intention to put words in the mouth of Mr. Rumsfeld, but his comments above certainly imply that I, as a detractor, am immoral and intellectually confused. That my opinion, which is contrary to his, is not just wrong, it’s morally wrong.

I think you’re overreacting. People make moral judgments all the time. Some people think that pre-marital sex is immoral. Donald Rumsfeld thinks that people who don’t think we should take the fight to the terrorists are immoral.

Big whoop.

This is intereting:

By making those comments he disregards the very right I, or you, have to question the government and even his authority. By calling dissent, not directly, fascist in nature is wrong.

By making those comments Sec. Rumsfeld is simply disagreeing with you. Further, to put the word “fascist” in Rumsfeld’s mouth is just plain stupid. He said immoral, not fascist. There’s a difference.

Words mean things, Dave, and you can’t accuse someobody of calling you a fascist when they didn’t.

Let’s look at some of your earlier comments:

My issue is with him calling anyone who disagrees with his policy or the administration’s policy as a fascist or un-american.

It’s one thing to refute or criticize someone’s arguement, it’s another thing when you are in the position of Mr. Rumsfeld to label dissenters as un-American.

What is simply so offensive, to me and to my ilk like Mr. Olbermann, is not necessarily the foreign policy of the Bush administration, which is absurd, is the fact that Rumsfeld has gall to call a dissenting opinion, in a country where dissent is supposedly encouraged (but not anymore), un-American or fascist.

You routinely accused Rumsfeld of calling war dissenters un-American and/or fascist…yet he used neither of those words. Despite your protestations to the contrary, he didn’t even imply them. You’re just plain being untruthful.

Also, when Rumsfeld said this…

And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

What makes you think he was talking about all war dissenters? Dissent against this war comes in many different flavors. Some simply oppose the war in Iraq as a policy matter. Others seem to think that Islamic terrorism is actually our fault, and that our troops are somehow worse than the terrorists and that Iraq might actually be better off with Saddam at the helm.

Rumsfeld thinks these people are immoral. I agree with him. Thinking that Iraq would be better off if Saddam were still in charge and ordering the families of political dissenters raped, etc. is, in fact, immoral.

Olbermann is a reactionary moron. He is all knee-jerk Bush hatred all the time. You’re smarter than that Dave. If you like Olbermann, fine. Whatever. But at least try to check some of what he says out before you swallow it whole, because clearly you were mislead on this one.

Create a SAB Readerblog

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development

SayAnythingBlog.com

A Rebutal To Olbermann

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments