Olbermann on Rumsfeld's "fascism" comment

[db]

"...there was another government faced with true

peril - with a growing evil - powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld?s, had a monopoly on all the

facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true

picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in

terms like Mr. Rumsfeld?s - questioning their intellect and their

morality.

That government was England?s, in the 1930?s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone

England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all

treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which

contradicted policies, conclusions - and omniscience ? needed to be

dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew

the truth.

Most relevant of all - it "knew" that its staunchest critics

needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost

of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile - at

best? morally or intellectually confused.

That critic?s name? was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this

evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way

Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History - and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England

- taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty - and his own

confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the

man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute - and exclusive - in its knowledge, is not the

modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern

version of the government? of Neville Chamberlain."

(Etc.)
Transcript and video

 

[Aisengard]

:thumbsup:

Hits the nail right on the head. Well done.

 

[halik]

I was sick to my stomach when I read the wall street journal article about Rumsfeld propaganda talk. Critique is aiding the enemy? Disagreement makes us weaker? You cannot be serious.

Edit:
Olberman could not have said it any better.

 

[bobdelt]

Olbermann is worse than O'Reilly. He will say anything to sound good and just says what people want to hear, very eloquently - oh wow, he used fancy action verbs lets all bow down before him.

He should go back to Sports Center.

This has nothing to do with this particular post, but my disgust with him in general.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: bobdelt
Olbermann is worse than O'Reilly. He will say anything to sound good and just says what people want to hear, very eloquently - oh wow, he used fancy action verbs lets all bow down before him.

He should go back to Sports Center.

OK.

How do you feel about Donald Rumsfeld?

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: halik
I was sick to my stomach when I read the wall street journal article about Rumsfeld propaganda talk. Critique is aiding the enemy? Disagreement makes us weaker? You cannot be serious.

Edit:
Olberman could not have said it any better.

Picture Rumsfeld sawing a large log in two. A 300 foot redwood log. He's only part way cutting through it with one of those huge two man saws. GWB is on the other end helping him. We are all standing on that log as it hangs over a cliff. We're looking on and asking them questions. Sweating. We're aware of where we stand. But we are being told to just be patient. Heck, much more than that, as this thread points out. We're being told we're committing treason to be against their 4th Reich. Their 100-year pre-emptive war agenda. We're being told by Fox News, the Pentagon's media mouthpiece, to "shut up." On a daily basis.

On September 4th, 2002, CBS reported, "that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq -- even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks..."

See that? The war on Iraq was pre-planned to go ahead as the centerpiece of the Hitleresque drive to knock down one oil Nation after another in a series to gain control of the Earths most concentrated oil reserves. Lest you think for our good. No way was that for us. It's to keep a tight reign on the oil spigot to create artificial scarcity and drive up corporate profits.

That's pure Fascism by the clearest definition.

Rumsfeld is using a tactic. He's saying the buzzwords "Hitler", "Nazi" and "fascism" in his speaches now to counter and try to erase the initiative we are correctly deploying to pin those labels on him. The labels fit him and his 4th Reich perfectly.

Am i an anti-war dissenter sowing discord and hatred of our USA Soldiers? As Rumsfeld will accuse everyone who is against him? Well i can speak for myself. I'm the extreme opposite of a pacifist. I believe America has a much greater threat than a bunch of third rate nutcase Islamic armies who worship with pride their 3rd rate chinese imported missiles. Russia and China are our our one huge threat that won't ever just collapse and go away. That enemy presense requires the USA to be twice as strong as what we have now in military strength. I'd prepare to win WWIII against a real foe.

All Fascist leaders like Rumsfeld, who has zero regard for the USA Constitution or for the millions of our soldiers have died for the freedom it guarantees, lead their armies to commit huge military blunders. Caused by swelling hubris, greed and shameless, souless, self serving corporatized wickedness. They say a Corporation often behaves by it's very nature like a psychopath. That there is the real danger of Fascism. And it's psychotic beady-eyed lizard leaders.

 

[LEDominator]

Because CBS is known for its integrity in reporting :disgust:

It is funny to me how he compares the two situations when Churchill was a die hard conservative. I see his point, but I think we are bound for a world war III with Islamofacists. And it doesn't mater whether you like GWB or not.

 

[Aegeon]

Since Rumsfeld already brought up Fascism, I think its only appropriate to bring up the following conversation a reporter had with Hermann Goering during the Nuremburg Trials.

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

 

[LEDominator]

Goebbels at Nuremburg in 1934

Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that the people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run. A good propaganda will always come along that serves a good cause. But propaganda is still necessary if a good cause is to succeed. A good idea does not win simply because it is good. It must be presented properly if it is to win. The combination makes for the best propaganda. Such propaganda is successful without being obnoxious. It depends on its nature, not its methods. It works without being noticed. Its goals are inherent in its nature. Since it is almost invisible, it is effective and powerful. A good cause will lose to a bad one if it depends only on its rightness, while the other side uses the methods of influencing the masses. We are, for example, firmly convinced that we fought the war [WWI] for a good cause, but that was not enough. The world should also have known and seen that our cause was good. However, we lacked the effective means of mass propaganda to make that clear to the world. Marxism certainly did not fight for great ideals. Despite that, in November 1918 it overcame Kaiser, Reich, and the army because it was superior in the art of mass propaganda.

National Socialism learned from these two examples. It drew the correct practical conclusions from that knowledge. The ideal of a socialist national community did not remain mere theory with us, but became living reality in the thoughts and feelings of 67 million Germans. Our propaganda of word and deed created the conditions for that. Mastering them kept National Socialism from the danger of remaining the dream and longing of a few thousand. Through propaganda, it became hard, steely everyday reality.

Makes you wonder about the US media. I also think it is funny that people consider the Nazi's to be right wing. They are socialists (see below), they even nationalised quite a few industries, including railroads. Its just easier to label one side as Nazi's I guess (A general observation, I have heard it from both).

Or consider economic policy. Does anyone believe that the idea of class struggle could have been eliminated only by a law? Is it not rather the fact that the seeds we sowed in a hundred thousand meetings resulted in a new socialist structure of labor? Today employers and workers stand together in the Labor Front. The Law on National Labor is the foundation of our economic thinking, realizing itself more and more. Are not these social achievements the result of the long and tireless labor of thousands of speakers?

What about the shortage of foreign currency? This affects the people in serious ways. Propaganda once again is the key to dealing with the problem.

The Hereditary Farming Law, the idea of the Reich Agricultural System, market regulations in agriculture, all these need propaganda to show the people their importance, which is necessary if they are to succeed.

Marxism and Communism acheive their goals through class struggle and army violence. Socialism, though similar in ideals, generaly uses parliamentary practices to legislate the utopian ideal society.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Because CBS is known for its integrity in reporting :disgust:

It is funny to me how he compares the two situations when Churchill was a die hard conservative. I see his point, but I think we are bound for a world war III with Islamofacists. And it doesn't mater whether you like GWB or not.

Huh?

What are these.. Dated March 2001 ..
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch?s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ?Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.? The documents are dated March 2001. Click here to view the press release

BTW, the neocon doctine at PNAC is their desire to attack Iraq and others in the ME
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Because CBS is known for its integrity in reporting :disgust:

It is funny to me how he compares the two situations when Churchill was a die hard conservative. I see his point, but I think we are bound for a world war III with Islamofacists. And it doesn't mater whether you like GWB or not.

What the hell does CBS have to do with this? And why, if we ar at war with "Islamofascists," did we attack the largest secular nation in the Middle East?

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Because CBS is known for its integrity in reporting :disgust:

It is funny to me how he compares the two situations when Churchill was a die hard conservative. I see his point, but I think we are bound for a world war III with Islamofacists. And it doesn't mater whether you like GWB or not.

What the hell does CBS have to do with this? And why, if we ar at war with "Islamofascists," did we attack the largest secular nation in the Middle East?

He cited CBS is the relevancy. Obviously Iraq isn't very secular btw if people have alegiances to clerics and whatnot. Not that it matters, but Saddam Husseins regime also has ties to the Nazis in world war II. The History channel had a thing on it a while back. I also would note that I never mentioned Iraq, all I am saying is at some time or another the West is going to have a big confrontation with Islam.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

He cited CBS is the relevancy. Obviously Iraq isn't very secular btw if people have alegiances to clerics and whatnot. Not that it matters, but Saddam Husseins regime also has ties to the Nazis in world war II. The History channel had a thing on it a while back. I also would note that I never mentioned Iraq, all I am saying is at some time or another the West is going to have a big confrontation with Islam.

What allegiances to clerics are you talking about? How could Saddam Hussein's regime have had ties to the Nazis when he was 8 when the war ended? He didn't take office until almost 35 years later.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Because CBS is known for its integrity in reporting :disgust:

It is funny to me how he compares the two situations when Churchill was a die hard conservative. I see his point, but I think we are bound for a world war III with Islamofacists. And it doesn't mater whether you like GWB or not.

Huh?

What are these.. Dated March 2001 ..
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml

These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch?s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and ?Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.? The documents are dated March 2001. Click here to view the press release

BTW, the neocon doctine at PNAC is their desire to attack Iraq and others in the ME
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

Not that it particularly matters but it also had data on Saudi Arabia and the UAE (for judicial watch). As far as the neocon documents, they seem to more or less believe the same thing everyone else thought about WMDs, prior to us going in. I know the debate about the intelligence rages, but I believe France and Great Britain also believed at the time he had WMDs. I don't think it is as one sided as we went in purely for oil. If I had to guess I would say they thought it'd be win-win. Get rid of Saddam's regime and thus any potential threat real or perceived, create a democracy, and as a perk have access to the oil. We all know how it has turned out though.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: LEDominator

He cited CBS is the relevancy. Obviously Iraq isn't very secular btw if people have alegiances to clerics and whatnot. Not that it matters, but Saddam Husseins regime also has ties to the Nazis in world war II. The History channel had a thing on it a while back. I also would note that I never mentioned Iraq, all I am saying is at some time or another the West is going to have a big confrontation with Islam.

What allegiances to clerics are you talking about? How could Saddam Hussein's regime have had ties to the Nazis when he was 8 when the war ended? He didn't take office until almost 35 years later.

Sadr, etc. Those clerics I didn't mean that he was alive then, but the Baath party, which Saddam was a part of, traces its roots to the second world war and Germany's support of the arabs in order to offset Britains control of the region. A lot of the Arab leaders had pretty close ties to the germans, including the Mufti of Jerusalem who went to Iraq. It is way too complicated to sum up in a short little forum post but if you are interested I would check the listings for the history channel to see for yourself.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Sadr, etc. Those clerics I didn't mean that he was alive then, but the Baath party, which Saddam was a part of, traces its roots to the second world war and Germany's support of the arabs in order to offset Britains control of the region. A lot of the Arab leaders had pretty close ties to the germans, including the Mufti of Jerusalem who went to Iraq. It is way too complicated to sum up in a short little forum post but if you are interested I would check the listings for the history channel to see for yourself.

Uh, Sadr has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Nazis for any reason. You seem to be lumping the "bad guys" all into one catagory when they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Arguably the Baath party might have been somewaht inspired by the Nazi rheotoric in some respects, but saying Saddam's regime actually had ties to the Nazis is pretty absurd.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Sadr, etc. Those clerics I didn't mean that he was alive then, but the Baath party, which Saddam was a part of, traces its roots to the second world war and Germany's support of the arabs in order to offset Britains control of the region. A lot of the Arab leaders had pretty close ties to the germans, including the Mufti of Jerusalem who went to Iraq. It is way too complicated to sum up in a short little forum post but if you are interested I would check the listings for the history channel to see for yourself.

Uh, Sadr has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Nazis for any reason. You seem to be lumping the "bad guys" all into one catagory when they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Arguably the Baath party might have been somewaht inspired by the Nazi rheotoric in some respects, but saying Saddam's regime actually had ties to the Nazis is pretty absurd.

LOL and you wonder why there are still people foolish enough to support the Dub and his excellent adventure in Iraq?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Sadr, etc. Those clerics I didn't mean that he was alive then, but the Baath party, which Saddam was a part of, traces its roots to the second world war and Germany's support of the arabs in order to offset Britains control of the region. A lot of the Arab leaders had pretty close ties to the germans, including the Mufti of Jerusalem who went to Iraq. It is way too complicated to sum up in a short little forum post but if you are interested I would check the listings for the history channel to see for yourself.

Uh, Sadr has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Nazis for any reason. You seem to be lumping the "bad guys" all into one catagory when they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Arguably the Baath party might have been somewaht inspired by the Nazi rheotoric in some respects, but saying Saddam's regime actually had ties to the Nazis is pretty absurd.

The argument can be made that the Bush administration has Nazi ties also because of the dealings of the Bush family's patriarch during that time period. You were reaching immensely to try to connect Saddam with the reich.

It is funny to me how he compares the two situations when Churchill was a die hard conservative.

The political leanings of Churchill are irrelevant to the argument. The point that Obermann was making was comparing the treatment that Churchill received from those in power in England for his dissent. They attempted to paint him as a traitor to the cause much like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Condi, the GOP, et al have done to everyone that has had anything but diehard, blind support for their antics.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: LEDominator

He cited CBS is the relevancy. Obviously Iraq isn't very secular btw if people have alegiances to clerics and whatnot. Not that it matters, but Saddam Husseins regime also has ties to the Nazis in world war II. The History channel had a thing on it a while back. I also would note that I never mentioned Iraq, all I am saying is at some time or another the West is going to have a big confrontation with Islam.

What allegiances to clerics are you talking about? How could Saddam Hussein's regime have had ties to the Nazis when he was 8 when the war ended? He didn't take office until almost 35 years later.

Sadr, etc. Those clerics I didn't mean that he was alive then, but the Baath party, which Saddam was a part of, traces its roots to the second world war and Germany's support of the arabs in order to offset Britains control of the region. A lot of the Arab leaders had pretty close ties to the germans, including the Mufti of Jerusalem who went to Iraq. It is way too complicated to sum up in a short little forum post but if you are interested I would check the listings for the history channel to see for yourself.

Wow, this is really the saddest attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq I've ever seen... portraying Iraq as the "bad guys" by linking them to the Nazi's. I guess we should destroy or disband every nation, group, or company that ever associated with the Nazi's... including Ameriacn ones, right?

 

[Used Rugs]

Now the sun is the same in a relative way, but your old now. Shorter breath, one day closer to death.

I think Olberman was right on.

Bush and his cronies creep me out.

 

[NeoV]

You guys can take this in as many different directions as you want, but the bottom line is that D Rummy is a joke and an embarassment to this country, and like him or not, Keith Olberman's statement is dead-on accurate.

 

[Used Rugs]

Originally posted by: NeoV
You guys can take this in as many different directions as you want, but the bottom line is that D Rummy is a joke and an embarassment to this country, and like him or not, Keith Olberman's statement is dead-on accurate.

I 110% agree with you.

 

[Lemon law]

The must stop an evil tyrant like Hitler example is trotted out on every occassion---the point being that Hiltler was an extreme example. Most international
problem have a happy diplomatic solution---and if all international problems were approached militarily, every nation on earth would be at war with its neighbors.

One could also compare Rumsfeld with Hitler----but the comparison somewhat fails----Hitler at least was semi-competent---Rumsfeld blew his conquest campaign first pop
out of the box.

After all---you go to war with the secretary of defense you have.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

One could also compare Rumsfeld with Hitler----but the comparison somewhat fails----Hitler at least was semi-competent---Rumsfeld blew his conquest campaign first pop
out of the box.

One could argue about which is more dangerous--a competent tyrant, or an incompetent boob who really doesn't give a sh!+ what anyone else thinks (and feels he has nothing to lose in any case)

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: LEDominator
Sadr, etc. Those clerics I didn't mean that he was alive then, but the Baath party, which Saddam was a part of, traces its roots to the second world war and Germany's support of the arabs in order to offset Britains control of the region. A lot of the Arab leaders had pretty close ties to the germans, including the Mufti of Jerusalem who went to Iraq. It is way too complicated to sum up in a short little forum post but if you are interested I would check the listings for the history channel to see for yourself.

Uh, Sadr has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Nazis for any reason. You seem to be lumping the "bad guys" all into one catagory when they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Arguably the Baath party might have been somewaht inspired by the Nazi rheotoric in some respects, but saying Saddam's regime actually had ties to the Nazis is pretty absurd.

wtf? I never said Sadr was a nazi, he asked me what clerics were in Iraq I answered...