November 1, 2006

"This President Never Apologizes"

Keith Olbermann's commentary tonight:
On the 22nd of May, 1856, as the deteriorating American political system veered toward the edge of the cliff, U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina shuffled into the Senate of this nation, his leg stiff from an old dueling injury, supported by a cane. And he looked for the familiar figure of the prominent senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner.

Brooks found Sumner at his desk, mailing out copies of a speech he had delivered three days earlier — a speech against slavery.

The congressman matter-of-factly raised his walking stick in midair and smashed its metal point across the senator’s head.

Congressman Brooks hit his victim repeatedly. Sen. Sumner somehow got to his feet and tried to flee. Brooks chased him and delivered untold blows to Sumner’s head. Even though Sumner lay unconscious and bleeding on the Senate floor, Brooks finally stopped beating him only because his cane finally broke.

Others will cite John Brown’s attack on the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry as the exact point after which the Civil War became inevitable.

In point of fact, it might have been the moment, not when Brooks broke his cane over the prostrate body of Sen. Sumner — but when voters in Brooks’ district started sending him new canes.

Tonight, we almost wonder to whom President Bush will send the next new cane.

There is tonight no political division in this country that he and his party will not exploit, nor have not exploited; no anxiety that he and his party will not inflame.

There is no line this president has not crossed — nor will not cross — to keep one political party in power.

He has spread any and every fear among us in a desperate effort to avoid that which he most fears — some check, some balance against what has become not an imperial, but a unilateral presidency.

And now it is evident that it no longer matters to him whether that effort to avoid the judgment of the people is subtle and nuanced or laughably transparent.

Sen. John Kerry called him out Monday.

He did it two years too late.

He had been too cordial — just as Vice President Gore had been too cordial in 2000, just as millions of us have been too cordial ever since.

Sen. Kerry, as you well know, spoke at a college in Southern California. With bitter humor he told the students that he had been in Texas the day before, that President Bush used to live in that state, but that now he lives in the state of denial.

He said the trip had reminded him about the value of education — that “if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you can get stuck in Iraq.”

The senator, in essence, called Mr. Bush stupid.

The context was unmistakable: Texas; the state of denial; stuck in Iraq. No interpretation required.

And Mr. Bush and his minions responded by appearing to be too stupid to realize that they had been called stupid.

They demanded Kerry apologize to the troops in Iraq.

And so he now has.

That phrase — “appearing to be too stupid” — is used deliberately, Mr. Bush.

Because there are only three possibilities here.

One, sir, is that you are far more stupid than the worst of your critics have suggested; that you could not follow the construction of a simple sentence; that you could not recognize your own life story when it was deftly summarized; that you could not perceive it was the sad ledger of your presidency that was being recounted.

This, of course, compliments you, Mr. Bush, because even those who do not “make the most of it,” who do not “study hard,” who do not “do their homework,” and who do not “make an effort to be smart” might still just be stupid, but honest.

No, the first option, sir, is, at best, improbable. You are not honest.

The second option is that you and those who work for you deliberately twisted what Sen. Kerry said to fit your political template; that you decided to take advantage of it, to once again pretend that the attacks, solely about your own incompetence, were in fact attacks on the troops or even on the nation itself.

The third possibility is, obviously, the nightmare scenario: that the first two options are in some way conflated.

That it is both politically convenient for you and personally satisfying to you, to confuse yourself with the country for which, sir, you work.

A brief reminder, Mr. Bush: You are not the United States of America.

You are merely a politician whose entire legacy will have been a willingness to make anything political; to have, in this case, refused to acknowledge that the insult wasn’t about the troops, and that the insult was not even truly about you either, that the insult, in fact, is you.

So now John Kerry has apologized to the troops; apologized for the Republicans’ deliberate distortions.

Thus, the president will now begin the apologies he owes our troops, right?

This president must apologize to the troops for having suggested, six weeks ago, that the chaos in Iraq, the death and the carnage, the slaughtered Iraqi civilians and the dead American service personnel, will, to history, “look like just a comma.”


This president must apologize to the troops because the intelligence he claims led us into Iraq proved to be undeniably and irredeemably wrong.


This president must apologize to the troops for having laughed about the failure of that intelligence at a banquet while our troops were in harm’s way.


This president must apologize to the troops because the streets of Iraq were not strewn with flowers and its residents did not greet them as liberators.


This president must apologize to the troops because his administration ran out of “plan” after barely two months.


This president must apologize to the troops for getting 2,815 of them killed.


This president must apologize to the troops for getting this country into a war without a clue.


And Mr. Bush owes us an apology for this destructive and omnivorous presidency.

We will not receive them, of course.

This president never apologizes.


Not to the troops.

Not to the people.

Nor will those henchmen who have echoed him.

In calling him a “stuffed suit,” Sen. Kerry was wrong about the press secretary.

Mr. Snow’s words and conduct, falsely earnest and earnestly false, suggest he is not “stuffed,” he is inflated.

And in leaving him out of the equation, Sen. Kerry gave an unwarranted pass to his old friend Sen. John McCain, who should be ashamed of himself tonight.

He rolled over and pretended Kerry had said what he obviously had not.

Only, the symbolic stick he broke over Kerry’s head came in a context even more disturbing.

Mr. McCain demanded the apology while electioneering for a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois.

He was speaking of how often he had been to Walter Reed Hospital to see the wounded Iraq veterans, of how “many of them have lost limbs.”

He said all this while demanding that the voters of Illinois reject a candidate who is not only a wounded Iraq veteran, but who lost two limbs there, Tammy Duckworth.

Support some of the wounded veterans. But bad-mouth the Democratic one.

And exploit all the veterans and all the still-serving personnel in a cheap and tawdry political trick to try to bury the truth: that John Kerry said the president had been stupid.

And to continue this slander as late as this morning — as biased or gullible or lazy newscasters nodded in sleep-walking assent.

Sen. McCain became a front man in a collective lie to break sticks over the heads of Democrats — one of them his friend, another his fellow veteran, legless, for whom he should weep and applaud or at minimum about whom he should stay quiet.

That was beneath the senator from Arizona.

And it was all because of an imaginary insult to the troops that his party cynically manufactured out of a desperation and a futility as deep as that of Congressman Brooks, when he went hunting for Sen. Sumner.

This is our beloved country now as you have redefined it, Mr. Bush.

Get a tortured Vietnam veteran to attack a decorated Vietnam veteran in defense of military personnel whom that decorated veteran did not insult.

Or, get your henchmen to take advantage of the evil lingering dregs of the fear of miscegenation in Tennessee, in your party’s advertisements against Harold Ford.

Or, get the satellites who orbit around you, like Rush Limbaugh, to exploit the illness — and the bipartisanship — of Michael J. Fox. Yes, get someone to make fun of the cripple.

Oh, and sir, don’t forget to drag your own wife into it.

“It’s always easy,” she said of Mr. Fox’s commercials — and she used this phrase twice — “to manipulate people’s feelings.”

Where on earth might the first lady have gotten that idea, Mr. President?

From your endless manipulation of people’s feelings about terrorism?

“However they put it,” you said Monday of the Democrats, on the subject of Iraq, “their approach comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses.”

No manipulation of feelings there.

No manipulation of the charlatans of your administration into the only truth-tellers.

No shocked outrage at the Kerry insult that wasn’t; no subtle smile as the first lady silently sticks the knife in Michael J. Fox’s back; no attempt on the campaign trail to bury the reality that you have already assured that the terrorists are winning.

Winning in Iraq, sir.

Winning in America, sir.

There we have chaos — joint U.S.-Iraqi checkpoints at Sadr City, the base of the radical Shiite militias, and the Americans have been ordered out by the prime minister of Iraq … and our secretary of defense doesn’t even know about it!

And here we have deliberate, systematic, institutionalized lying and smearing and terrorizing — a code of deceit that somehow permits a president to say, “If you listen carefully for a Democrat plan for success, they don’t have one.”

Permits him to say this while his plan in Iraq has amounted to a twisted version of the advice once offered to Lyndon Johnson about his Iraq, called Vietnam.

Instead of “declare victory and get out” we now have “declare victory and stay indefinitely.”

And also here — we have institutionalized the terrorizing of the opposition.

True domestic terror:

Critics of your administration in the media receive letters filled with fake anthrax.

Braying newspapers applaud or laugh or reveal details the FBI wished kept quiet, and thus impede or ruin the investigation.

A series of reactionary columnists encourages treason charges against a newspaper that published “national security information” that was openly available on the Internet.

One radio critic receives a letter threatening the revelation of as much personal information about her as can be obtained and expressing the hope that someone will then shoot her with an AK-47 machine gun.

And finally, a critic of an incumbent Republican senator, a critic armed with nothing but words, is attacked by the senator’s supporters and thrown to the floor in full view of television cameras as if someone really did want to re-enact the intent — and the rage — of the day Preston Brooks found Sen. Charles Sumner.

Of course, Mr. President, you did none of these things.

You instructed no one to mail the fake anthrax, nor undermine the FBI’s case, nor call for the execution of the editors of the New York Times, nor threaten to assassinate Stephanie Miller, nor beat up a man yelling at Sen. George Allen, nor have the first lady knife Michael J. Fox, nor tell John McCain to lie about John Kerry.

No, you did not.

And the genius of the thing is the same as in King Henry’s rhetorical question about Archbishop Thomas Becket: “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

All you have to do, sir, is hand out enough new canes.
Crooksandliars has the video.

: The must apologize.

11 comments:

  1. David, give it up. Kerry was undermining the troops as he always has done. He simply went too far, and he got hell for it. His initial response? Blame Bush of course! He could not even apologize to the troops. He refused. It was not only until he was pressured to the point of being squeezed in a vise to when he finally did apologize...which goes to show you his was not sincere at all...because if he was, he would of apologized to the troops instead of bashing the President. Kerry still flip flops, that's for sure.

    Need I remind you of his statement:

    "...And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not..."

    And that's not undermining our troops? Hey David, Kerry messed up on Monday. He knew he did. His last attempt at "redemption" for it was to blame Bush, along with the rest of you who are backing his butt up. Luckily for the American People, Kerry's chances of running for President again are now about as good as you waking up from that liberal nightmare you're in.

    Really David, just what color is the sky in your world?

    Put that in your god forsaken "Ladies and Gentlemen" response and shove it up where the sun don't shine...SIR.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Keith Olbermann is a great American.
    Thank God we have someone speaking the truth.

    Anon #2

    ReplyDelete
  3. Olberman, as usual, is right on the money. Man, I wish I could write the way he does!

    McCain has really come out of the Neocon closet, hasn't he? For years he was a sort of a wolf in fox clothing, drawing fawning comments from moderately progressive folks who felt guilty about not having any Rapepublicans to admire. But now that he thinks he has a real shot at ultimate power, he's exposing his true vulpine nature -- embracing all the lies and distortions, the power grabs, and the abuse of the Constitutional rights that the Roviacs employ so effectively.

    What really disturbs me, though, is not that a McCain reveals himself for what he is nor that a Bush continues to demonstrate how willing and eager he is to destroy this country's fabric of democracy. No, what really disturbs me is the Democratic Party's rush to become a second right-wing party. Look at all those supposedly progressive candidates hurrying to the phone to disinvite Kerry to their rallies. Far worse, look at the way the party is running it's own set of anti-choice, pro-USAPATRIOT Act, born-again doublespeakers.

    When you win with a slate like that, what have you won? Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and they is us," but this is worse than that. The Democrats are joining the enemy. It's a very disturbing state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. K.O. is a brave AMERICAN. he still remembers what it is to BE an American.

    ReplyDelete
  5. More psycho-babble from Olberman. As usual, if you use enough big words, some think you're smart. Olberman isn't.

    One key point that you inhabitants of the looney left don't get is that the soldiers don't want an apology - they are enlisting in droves because they believe in the cause. Just cause you don't believe in it, and you complain from the comfort of your computer, they stepped up to the plate to serve their country - after 3 years of war. They get it.

    The Bush lied people died harangue is tired and stale. We're there. Get over it. We can't leave until the job is done. Support these brave Americans, stop making their honorable service a joke (a la Kerry), and understand that they are fighting a global war on terror, first stop Afghanistan, second stop Iraq.

    They get it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. xranger:

    These liberals will never get it.

    They believe in undermining our troops during a time of war. These very same liberals do not understand that the terrorists are listening to what the left says. The terrorists would love nothing more than for the Democrats to take control of the house and senate so that they can defund our efforts in Iraq.

    My question to Maria, who said this on an entry of 10/24/06 titled, Bush: "I'm all about cutting and running" Maria then goes on to accuse the President of not staying the course, yadda yadda yadda. Read it and see what she says.

    So all that being said. Maria, how in the heck can you and your fellow David sit there and accuse our President of not staying the course when you support a political party that wants to cut the funding of our efforts in Iraq?

    Clearly, YOU TWO are the ones who are the "cut and run" types. Not Bush.

    Oh wait, you were against the war before you were for it, or you were for it and now you're against it. You two should stop taking advice from John Kerry's play book.

    Lastly, must I remind you all that members of the Democratic Party have said things undermining our troops, such as:

    "The idea that the United States is going to win the war in Iraq is just plain wrong." - Howard Dean

    "...And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not..." - John Kerry

    And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We all know what Kerry said this week, and he attempts to cover his behind by making it look as if he was telling a joke. And then he says he was actually speaking of the President. He knew what he meant and we all know what he meant. He was undermining our Military, exactly the way he did back in 1972:

    "I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job'

    But don't question Kerry's (or any liberal like him) Patriotism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually, x, people are staying out of the military in droves. I'm not sure where you get your -- pardon the expression -- information, but my sources, the Military Officers Association of America and the Project on Defense Initiatives seem to disagree with your assessment.

    - Item: In 2006, Only 2 of 6 Reserve components made their goals. The other four missed.

    - Item: To make its goals in 2006, the Army had to lower its education standards, raise its maximum age to 42 and increase its re-enlistment bonus to $40,000!

    - Item: The Army actually missed its goal by many thousands of soldiers in 2005.

    - Item: Both the Army and Marines have only achieved retention goals through massive "stop loss orders," which means that active duty members are being forced to stay in against their will.

    - Item: A Zogby poll taken early this year showed that 72% of troops in Iraq wanted to see the war wrapped up by the end of this year.

    You can look it up. So...what are your sources? Or are these faith-based assertions?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jesus, Brayden! You ask how I can accuse Bush of not staying the course when he and his admin make a big annoncement that they will not only no longer use the phrase "stay the course" but try to say they never said that phrase?!?

    Seriously, WTF????

    And, since before they all flip-flopped on that phrase they presented the only choices as "stay the course" or "cut and run," when they abandoned the phrase "stay the course" the obvious joke would be to say that they were now cutting and running.

    Really, how do you function in the world when you have so little comprehension?

    Do you hurt yourself when you try to think?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Be reasonable with the kid, Maria. When did a Neocon ever try to think?

    Neocons's don't have to think. They have faith. They believe.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shitrock, the current enlistments for active duty have met their goals, so don't use 2005 data.

    The re-enlistment bonus for special forces soldiers is over 6 figures now, not a mere 40 grand - why send them to private security companies to make the big bucks? This is nothing new - bonuses have always been a part of the volunteer army.

    The Marines employ stop-loss for mainly support personnel, they knew this could happen when they signed the paper. We all did.

    The re-enlistment rate for the army is very strong right now. In addition, Rummy is transforming the army into a more mobile and fluid force to combat this new threat - we don't need the huge armor divisions any more. (The Soviets won't be pouring through the Fulda gap).

    It is bizarre, though, how, as a former soldier, you seem to relish any negative news on the army.

    Oh well, the rest of us believe in our service, our country, and our soldiers.

    BTW - I'm not a religious man. No need lumping me in the "evil religious right."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maria, don't be stupid. You accused Bush of not staying the course because you misunderstood what he said. He meant that strategic changes must be made (How about that? You can accuse Bush of being stupid and not understanding what Kerry said this past Monday when Kerry accused our troops of being uneducated. Certainly you have to know Bush meant that strategic changes must be made during a time of war). Why? In order to keep the enemy guessing. God, don't be so dumb. Go back to your campfire singing Kumbaya and let the man do his job of protecing your sorry butt so you can ridicule him some more with your buddies at your side claiming flower power is the answer to all the world's problems. Funny, how I don't hear any of you say that we've been safe since 9/11, no attacks have occured on United States of America soil since then. Nope, can't say that. It would make Bush look good. Shhhhhh....that's not part of your liberal agenda.

    Hey, you are the person who complained that Bush is "Cutting and Running." You're bitching that he is cutting and running (when you don't even know what the facts are), all the while you support a political party who wants to defund the war in Iraq.

    So in your immortal words, "WTF?"

    ReplyDelete