Monday, November 06, 2006

Olbermann Special Comment - Election Style!

*rouses the rabble*

Olbermann: Where are the checks, balances?
Bush has been 'making it up' for too long, and the people have let him

We are, as every generation, inseparable from our own time.

Thus is our perspective, inevitably that of the explorer looking into the wrong end of the telescope.

But even accounting for our myopia, it’s hard to imagine there have been many elections more important than this one, certainly not in non-presidential years.

And so we look at the verdict in the trial of Saddam Hussein yesterday, and, with the very phrase “October, or November, Surprise” now a part of our vernacular, and the chest-thumping coming from so many of the Republican campaigners today, each of us must wonder about the convenience of the timing of his conviction and sentencing.

But let us give history and coincidence the benefit of the doubt—let’s say it’s just “happened” that way—and for a moment not look into the wrong end of the telescope.

Let’s perceive instead the bigger picture:

Saddam Hussein, found guilty in an Iraqi court.

Who can argue against that?

He is officially, what the world always knew he was: a war criminal.

Mr. Bush, was this imprimatur, worth the cost of 2,832 American lives, and thousands more American lives yet to be lost?

Is the conviction of Saddam Hussein the reason you went to war in Iraq?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the weapons of mass destruction that did not exist?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because of the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida that did not exist?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to break the bonds of tyranny there, while installing the mechanisms of tyranny here?

Or did you go to war in Iraq because you felt the need to wreak vengeance against somebody, anybody?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to contain a rogue state which, months earlier, your own administration had declared had been fully contained by sanctions?

Or did you go to war in Iraq to keep gas prices down?

How startling it was, sir, to hear you introduce oil to your stump speeches over the weekend.

Not four years removed from the most dismissive, the most condescending, the most ridiculing denials of the very hint at, as Mr. Rumsfeld put it, this “nonsense.”

There you were, campaigning in Colorado, in Nebraska, in Florida, in Kansas -- suddenly turning this ‘unpatriotic idea’ into a platform plank.

"You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources," you told us. "And then you can imagine them saying, 'We're going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following.'"

Having frightened us, having bullied us, having lied to us, having ignored and rewritten the Constitution under our noses, having stayed the course, having denied you’ve stayed the course, having belittled us about "timelines" but instead extolled "benchmarks," you’ve now resorted, sir, to this?

We must stay in Iraq to save the $2 gallon of gas?

Mr. President, there is no other conclusion we can draw as we go to the polls tomorrow.

Sir, you have been making this up as you went along.

Those vaunted Founding Fathers of ours have been so quoted up, that they appear as marble statues: like the chiseled guards of China, or the faces on Mount Rushmore. But in fact they were practical people and the thing they obviously feared most was a government of men and not laws.

They provided the checks and balances for a reason.

No one man could run the government the way he saw fit -- unless he, at the least, took into consideration what those he governed saw.

A House of Representatives would be the people's eyes.

A Senate would be the corrective force on that House.

An executive would do the work, and hold the Constitution to his chest like his child.

A Supreme Court would oversee it all.

Checks and balances.

Where did that go, Mr. Bush?

And what price did we pay because we have let it go?

Saddam Hussein will get out of Iraq the same way 2,832 Americans have and thousands more.

He’ll get out faster than we will.

And if nothing changes tomorrow, you, sir, will be out of the White House long before the rest of us can say we are out of Iraq.

And whose fault is this?

Not truly yours. You took advantage of those of us who were afraid, and those of us who believed unity and nation took precedence over all else.

But we let you take that advantage.

And so we let you go to war in Iraq to oust Saddam or find non-existant weapons or avenge 9/11 or fight terrorists who only got there after we did or as cover to change the fabric of our Constitution or for lower prices at The Texaco or…?

There are still a few hours left before the polls open, sir. There are many rationalizations still untried.

And whatever your motives of the moment, we the people have, in true good faith and with the genuine patriotism of self-sacrifice (of which you have shown you know nothing), we have let you go on making it up as you went along.

Unchecked and unbalanced.

Vote.

Labels: , ,

9 Comments:

At 11/07/2006 08:45:00 PM , Blogger Toronto1 said...

That's right. Get out and vote. Don't waste you time watching tv, going to the mall or whatever you do. VOTE!!!!!
If you want to cure your problem. Then vote. Turf them, kick there butts out of there, show them the door, etc,etc.
If you want more of the same, well the fault is only yours and yours alone.
So the next time the government does something really stupid, well you can't yell at them and call them all sorts of names that your mother taught you to never say.

 
At 11/07/2006 08:49:00 PM , Blogger High Priestess Kang said...

Yay for voting!!!

The polls were a zoo this morning at 06:55/07:00. w00t!!!!

I hope they weren't voting for *gasps* Republicans. I only voted for two and it was because the other candidates were insane with no proven records (judges).

 
At 11/07/2006 09:05:00 PM , Blogger Toronto1 said...

We vote in the municipal elections next week. It's going to be interesting to see what happens with this. If you would like to read about Canadian politics go to www. The Star.com and it will give some info you might find interesting to read. I know you like to read about stuff.

 
At 11/07/2006 09:13:00 PM , Blogger High Priestess Kang said...

I think I shall.

Do you have a big turn out in the smaller elections or does it trend like South of the Border (for you) with little interest?

 
At 11/08/2006 05:29:00 AM , Blogger Toronto1 said...

It depends on who is running. This is my opinion, mandatory voting. I think it would great if everybody who is allowed to vote should vote. Because if you don't vote, you have no say in what is going on.
I always vote, my mother taught me that.
This election next week will be very interesting because you may see a Mayor get slapped down a few notches. Our mayor in Toronto is the one I am talking about.

 
At 11/08/2006 07:24:00 PM , Blogger High Priestess Kang said...

Howard...

I agree. I don't think any election is particularly more important than another. Why we trumpet (in the US) a phenomenal turn out of 40% is beyond me. People should be ashamed of themselves.

Is the mayor of Toronto a slime?

/Marnie

 
At 11/08/2006 07:25:00 PM , Blogger High Priestess Kang said...

Scooter...

I would love that. I would pay money to see that.

Ooops. Said to much. Time to go to Gitmo.

/Marnie

 
At 11/08/2006 09:09:00 PM , Blogger Toronto1 said...

Not so much a slime but some of his ideas I would really question. He is a good man and I think he is a genuine person but he is soft on crime, we have a gun violence problem in Toronto. We also have a transit, garbage and money issues in Toronto. Some hard choices will be have to be made, I don't think he will be able to make them.

 
At 11/08/2006 11:01:00 PM , Blogger High Priestess Kang said...

It doesn't sound like he has what it takes to be mayor, sadly. What else should mayors worry about other than crime and infrastructure issues.

*sighs*

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home