 |
|
« Apologies for (Even) Light(er) Posting | Main | Still Busy Two - Light Posting Continues » August 30, 2006
Olbermann: Dishonest or Dumb?
Posted by Dorkafork Olbermann's recent unhinged rant against a rather benign Rumsfeld speech is notable not so much for the display of Bush Derangement Syndrome, but for a small problem pointed out by Olbermann Watch. Here's an excerpt from the transcript of the show: But we begin with a big--a brief refresher on the rhetoric itself, the defense secretary's remarks before the national convention of the American Legion beginning yesterday with a history lesson, before Secretary Rumsfeld compared critics of the current war in Iraq to those who tried to appease Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before World War II. Here's the transcript of the same section from Rumsfeld's speech: I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons. (emphasis added) Huh. The bolded part that shows that Rumsfeld wasn't talking about critics of the war in Iraq wasn't in the video clip Olbermann showed. How'd that happen? That's a pretty fortunate coincidence for Olbermann. The fact that Iraq wasn't even mentioned, and all the places Rumsfeld mentioned were specific to the War on Terror and not the war in Iraq, why that might have made his comment about "critics of the Iraq war" look stupid. Even if he had not made that mistake, the rant is pretty much what you'd expect. Whereas sensible people would view Rumsfeld's remarks as "responded to critics" or "criticized opponents", to those in the fever swamps of the left they become "he somehow restrained himself from stomping audience members' faces with his jackboot." Here's some of the phrases Olbermann uses to describe the speech: "...we have only Donald Rumsfeld's demonizing disagreement...", "A reminder to Mr. Rumsfeld dissent indeed is not disloyalty..." I'm having trouble finding comments to that effect in Rumsfeld's speech. Here are some more choice Olbermann quotes:
So too was was it hard to read that. Where to begin? I could start at the end, where Olbermann directly contradicts his earlier statements about Rumsfeld crediting the Administration with omniscience by saying "he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong." (Sounds like an argument against "omniscience.") Or I could start with the fact that there doesn't seem to be anything in the speech about knowledge or about "how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong." (You'd expect at least something like: "There are known knowns, and known unknowns, but I KNOW ALL!") But I think I'll just stick with a simple snarky remark: "'Omniscience.' You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." My favorite line in his rant though, is this: "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 Emperor's new clothes." It's the sort of thing a stupid person says to try to sound smart. I can only imagine Keith Olbermann's version of "The Emperor's New Clothes": "And a little boy said, 'But he's not wearing any clothes!' And then the townspeople cried, 'Where's our RECEIPT! We want our money back, AND OUR COUNTRY!'" (via Hot Air) UPDATE: The LA Times gets it wrong, too. Is it too hard to write "critics of the Bush administration" instead of "critics of US policy in Iraq"? Do I have to draw a Venn diagram? What's really funny is going from the Olbermann rant, with his vigorous defense of his conception of free speech, to the LA Times piece which is entitled "Pipe Down, Rummy." The same people who claim to support free speech are calling for Rumsfeld to resign/be impeached because they disagree with what he said. (via Allah.) Posted by Dorkafork at August 30, 2006 11:43 AM | TrackBack (1) Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Commentsdorkafork - You're going to force me to defend Olbermann, and that pains me. While his rant was indeed ridiculous, and his editing of the video was shady, it is not a wackily unreasonable interpretation to feel that Rumsefeld was criticizing Iraq war opponents, given that Rumsefeld has explicitly outlined his belief that Iraq is part of the war on terror. I think Iraq is part of the war on terror. Don't you? Don't you think the admin thinks that? Posted by: Bill from INDC at August 31, 2006 02:20 PM Oh, I see, you're saying that Iraq is the exclusive focus of Rumsfeld critics. Still: shrug. Posted by: Bill from INDC at August 31, 2006 02:27 PM I can see your point, but I think they're going to far with their interpretation. Olbermann had Dean on the same show discussing Rumsfeld's speech, and Dean had this to say: "You have the secretary of defense and the vice president essentially saying that 54 percent of the American people are—whatever they said, they‘re morally confused." I don't think that's a fair description of what Rumsfeld said. Posted by: dorkafork at August 31, 2006 02:27 PM Mostly I'm amused at the rest of Olbermann's incoherence. Posted by: dorkafork at August 31, 2006 02:31 PM Amused, perhaps, but definitely not surprised. Posted by: mikeski ...if stupidity is sufficient explaination, you usually have no need for recourse to any other. Posted by: leelu at August 31, 2006 11:24 PM Dishonest or dumb, do I have to choose. Bill, I think you have strained mightily to find a point for Olbermann. No doubt he needs the help, but I think Dorkafork's comments are on target. Posted by: Robin Roberts at September 1, 2006 12:05 AM "A special comment on his attack on your right to disagree." WAKE UP AMERICA! We are being DixieChicked! Remember, Republicans who disagree with you are really trying to take away your first amendment rights! Or something... Seriously, for people who refer to the importance of "freedom of speech" so much, the left seems to have problems understanding the concept. Posted by: cumberbun at September 1, 2006 01:02 AM Robin - Overall, I agree: Olbermann doesn't have a point. I'm saying his specific assumption that Rumsfeld's criticism included Iraq war critics is not necessarily a bad one. Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 1, 2006 08:27 AM This guy needs to go back to ESPN. He was funny then. He can probably be funny again. Then again, maybe not. Maybe he should just go watch baseball games with his mom so he can use his head to block any further errant throws. That said, I agree with Bill. I've been a little surprised by how many righty bloggers I've seen react to this whole thing with some variant of "He never said he was talking about critics of the Iraq War". Well, then who was he talking about? More to the point, who else could he be talking about besides the Administration's most vocal critics on the hot-button issue? I mean, sure, the reference points he used involved terrorist attacks in places other than Iraq, but if Iraq is part of the war on terror (and even if lefties don't think it is, critics of Iraq and critics of the war on terror overlap pretty substantially), then there really is no other group to whom it could reasonably be concluded he was referring. As soon as I read about the speech, that was my assumption, and while I do think the speech has been mischaracterized in the press (shocking!), it's clear that Rumsfeld was just saying, diplomatically, the same thing that most righty commentators have been saying (correctly, in my estimation) for several years now: that the left just doesn't get it, that they haven't learned from history, and that, although I think "appeasement" is a bit too loaded of a word to describe the actual desires of most people to the left of center, their thinking on how to deal with terrorism does not even approach being realistic. That's what Rumsfeld meant, even if he didn't put it in the same blunt / snarky terms used by bloggers. Instead of acting shocked and dismayed that lefty nutwads like Olbermann correctly interpreted, we should be pointing out why Rumsfeld is essentially right. Nothing is more important than getting people to understand the nature of the threat, because until they do, Olbermann will just be one among many. Posted by: Manolo Cabeza de Huevo at September 1, 2006 12:02 PM Like I said before, I can see that. Certainly the Venn diagrams of the two would have significant overlap. But not total overlap. And I think it's worth noting because: 1) Olbermann et al. are trying to run with the wrong interpretation. And it is the basis of Olbermann's rant. "Waahh waah waah. He's saying that we're like appeasers just because we disagree on the war." I happen to think that's quite different from what he was actually talking about, that they are like appeasers because they act like appeasers. Now I don't think it's some sort of gross misinterpretation, but it's still wrong. Had there been less emphasis on "disagree with us and you're morally confused", I wouldn't have even noticed it. And come on. "Receipt for the Emperor's New Clothes"? Posted by: dorkafork at September 1, 2006 01:05 PM And come on. "Receipt for the Emperor's New Clothes"? Oh, don't get me wrong. As far as I'm concerned, Olbermann long ago received his Doctorate of Douchebaggery from Asshat University. I just don't think the focus should be on the nuances of the distinction between his interpretation (i.e. poor-victim routine) and what Rumsfeld was actually saying; it should be on the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Rumsfeld is right. Posted by: Manolo Cabeza de Huevo at September 1, 2006 01:31 PM I liked the irony of the opening line of his epic closing rant: OLBERMANN: The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a profit or a quack. MSNBC mispelling prophet was just icing on the cake. Posted by: B Moe at September 1, 2006 07:35 PM Put me down for "dishonest," because that's what the whole "you're questioning my patriotism" meme is about. Olbermann's idea of the First Amendment is he gets to trash Bush AND be immunized from catching any flack for it - anything less and he claims his 1st Amendment rights/loyalty is being challenged. Such a pantywaist. Posted by: BD http:/xoomer.alice.it/ringtones-free/free-mp3-ringtones.html free mp3 ringtones free mp3 ringtones Posted by: ali at October 3, 2006 08:10 PM ionolsen20 I just don not have anything to say right now.www_4_2 Posted by: thomson at October 17, 2006 05:07 AM Posted by: buy viagra at November 17, 2006 07:22 AM Posted by: viagra online at November 18, 2006 05:28 AM bjaxf twfmgsvhe vnptzmjhx ecmwvltop mqvjnsly ovgcmz nwbdzfcgy Posted by: wxmjz hpaoizs at January 26, 2007 04:17 AM Nice resource, very interesting reading. http://s1u.net/inob Posted by: Cellphone at April 13, 2007 10:23 PM The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another... Posted by: Bobby Ricketts at April 16, 2007 07:31 AM The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another... Posted by: Bobby Ricketts at April 16, 2007 07:32 AM Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields... Posted by: Gunnar Berlin at April 16, 2007 04:52 PM The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations... Posted by: Jaylan Loving at April 17, 2007 03:05 AM The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations... Posted by: Jaylan Loving at April 17, 2007 03:06 AM |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.indcjournal.com/nav-commenters.gif)