So, it's Bush's fault we still have a hole in lower Manhattan? Local politics have nothing to do with it?

Oh well....

Just remember: every time you masturbate, Bush kills a kitten.

Please, think of the kittens.

Did you watch it?

Nah, read excerpts. The argument that Bush is in some way responsible for the continuing hole just strikes me as particularly stupid beyond the pale.

But then, that's why I don't watch Olbermann. Frankly, he's so assinine (and unwatched) that I'm surprised anyone anti-Bush would be quoting him. He pollutes legitimate gripes with stuff that doesn't pass the kitten test.

Hi, Mark. In general, I agree with your point. There's a *lot* of anti-Bush rhetoric that's just useless caterwauling. But I'd disagree in this case. Based on your opinion of Olbermann (totally valid, as far as I'm concerned), I wouldn't expect you to necessarily get swayed over if you read the whole thing, but generally speaking, I would say it's worth reading the whole piece or watching it. An excerpt won't really do it justice.

Again, that's probably for people who might be dissuaded from checking it out, but not for the anti-Keithists, which it sounds like you are, which as I say is fine by me. I don't even watch the show (no TV), but in these recent commentaries being passed around online I find him pretty much spot on and considerably more eloquent than, say, Randi Rhodes or Al Franken.

And who else is making the case? I mean, who else who has a show. Some hard-working radio folk, to be sure. A handful of columnists. Stewart and Colbert are priceless, but they're rarely serious. No one with a show like his is saying this stuff -- or anything like it.

Oh, and I think the hole is a symbol of things tragically left undone, of Bush's profound disinterest in the reality that New York is facing. I don't think a specific critique of Bush's ability to cajole NY land developers (at least not primarily). And, frankly, other presidents would have worked on it.

Anyway, point taken, but I'd consider recalibrating the kitten test slightly, at least for the last ten days.

Cheers.

There's a certain trend in American politics to hold the President accountable for everything. (Yeah, I know, "the buck stops here" and all that, but what about the nickels and dimes?)

There's a Mayor of New York who could and should be taken to task.

There are Governors of New York and New Jersey to be taken to task.

If they wanted to get some really feel-good press, there are four Senators from NY/NJ who could be making some noise. (If Ted Stevens could nearly sneak a $10B "Bridge to Nowhere" into the budget, why the heck can't those four get it together to do something on the problem? America wants to see that site resurrected. Geez.)

All of these people have local clout to get things done. None of them are doing it. All of them (Rs and Ds) should be catching hell. None of them are.

It is a national disgrace that the hole is still a hole, and doesn't look like it will be anything else any time soon. But do you really want Bush to be a stand-in for the nation? Bush didn't organize the soup lines that sprang up after 9/11, he didn't organize all the spontaneous memorials that appeared, he didn't organize any of the things that real communities do in the aftermath of disaster.

Why the hell should he be necessary now? Except as a convenient excuse to shirk responsibilities?

I guess Bush could issue some kind of Executive Order taking over the whole mess, then contract out design selection and construction to Haliburton, but somehow I don't think that would get him any props from Olbermann....

The very serious question here is "do we want a nation of leaders, or a nation of the lead?" The people we select to lead us locally, who stand between us and Le Roi, have a responsibility to do something other than to simply chant "you go girl!" when he's on "their" side, or chant "you're a a nazi slut!" when he's not. You and I aren't going to be able to do much ourselves to fix the problems, but we elect people to get things done.

So far, Bloomberg (RINO) is more concerned about putting tobacco growers and gun dealers (out of state, natch) out of business. I'm really not sure what Pataki (R, sort of) stands for, except bland. Hillary! (D, steady sine wave between conservative and liberal) spends about as much time in-state (and on New York State issues) as she did when she was First Lady of Arkansas. Schumer (Schumer) is constantly lobbying to for the position of Senate Dog Catcher. Lautenberg (D - Machine) seems content to channel his inner Nurse Bloomberg. Menendez (D - Identity) is busy screwing over the State Department because Bush won't get PC about how to characterize the 1915 Armenian Genocide.

Wankers, one and all.

As you can tell, I'm a little frustrated by the quality of political discourse right now, and back on Olbermann bashing, he's really symptomatic of the problems.

Mark,

You have to go further. He takes this as a jumping point. To wit:

"....And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.
There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President — and those around him — did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is 'lying by implication.'
The impolite phrase, is 'impeachable offense.'"

And he goes on further. Watch it. You may actually find it compelling.

[disclaimer: haven't watched the Olbermann]

One thing I find interesting about all of this is that the mainstream Left seems to be abandoning the attempt to take the political high ground they tried a while back. That is, they seem to have learned (again) or to be learning that not wanting to get your hands dirty is not a recipe for success. Bush has been folksy as all get out, and sometimes slyly sometimes not so slyly taken advantage of the Left's weaknesses. (There's an impolite phrase for that, too.)

My jury's out on whether descending to the level of Rove, Limbaugh, et al. is the best long-term road. By the same token, though, I wonder whether the general political discourse was ever any good. Nothing else was ever good across the board -- not literature, plastic arts, music, life. We can, of course, cherry pick great politicians, but if there are 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, multiplied by 230 years (subtracting 50% of the total for smaller USes and incumbency), you get a great big steaming pile of mediocrity. (Margin of error +/- 4%.)

I'm coming around to the idea that politics is exactly what it seems: a power game where you make your hay while the sun shines, doing your level best to make your sun shine as long as possible. Naturally, where power is involved, people do crazy things. Alien and Sedition Acts, anyone?

Like Voltaire, I find more interest in my garden.

TK,

I don't see this as "descending to the level of Rove, Limbaugh, et al." Far from it. Rather it is finally an indignant "enough is enough" from the Left -- or at least from Olbermann -- and not letting Bush and Rumsfield and Fox News continue to frame the debate. Olbermann here speaks truth to power. It seems shocking, somehow, because the left has too long been cowed by fear of seeming soft on "terror" to do so.

I disagree with your analysis. I believe that Olbermann IS taking the high ground. Speaking truth to power is, IMHO, the highest ground.

P.S.: Disclaimer or not, don't you think that when you say "one thing I find interesting about all this," it is a good idea to actually see the "this" before commenting?

TK & Mark, I still *totally* agree with everything you're saying, and I think David's right, too. This thing isn't that thing. This commentary is very much not what Limbaugh, et al, is up to. He may take his cheap shots, might even make some stuff up, I don't know (though I'm guessing not from someone who's professional guiding star is Murrow instead of Barnum).

So I think everyone's right. This is my favorite Ish argument ever.

And this...

Schumer (Schumer)

... is effing hilarious.

(Or is that Hillary-ous?)

Anyway, tips of the hat all around.

Getting off the who-should-be-blamed, state-of-the-discourse discourse for the moment -- I was nearly physically sickened by the sight of the tiny, completely inadequate, reflecting pool at Ground Zero. It was like they had a kiddie pool there or something. Jeebus.

What I'm getting at with the comparison to the right-wing talking heads is not so much fabrication (I don't listen to them, so I'll take your word for it) as a no-sacred-cows (or the appearance of same) approach to public discourse.

What I'm saying is that it is interesting that the mainstream Left seems finally to be waking up to the idea that if you leave the Administration alone, they will do exactly as they please. And not leaving them alone means having some attack dogs. Kinda like every ice hockey team has its goon. You *will not win* for long in professional hockey if you don't have someone on the team who's willing to crack some heads.

Where have these sorts of people been for the Left? The Right has had drug addicts, former criminals, and other disgraced public figures on the air spouting invective for over a decade, and the Left is just now noticing that it works.

Was Olbermann 'spouting invective"? No. (Went and watched it, so put the zip gun away.) Was he giving a sober presentation of facts? No. Was he asking people to give the Wadministration a fair hearing? No. And I dig. He's saying things I can agree with.

But he's mixing emotion and news until they are inseverable. Quoting Lincoln's a good sign of that, as is starting a sentence with "History shows us . . ." Both Lincoln and History can be used to prove a lot of things, and nobody's going to fact check you on either.

[M E-L: you posted just before mine, but I spent too much time writing to erase it now.]

TK, two points:

1. I take it you from now on are foreswearing taking anyone to task for quoting Ann Coulter approvingly. After all, you have to be willing to crack some skulls if you want to change some minds.


2. If you are going to crack metaphorical skulls, doesn't it make sense to crack first-string skulls instead of benchwarming skulls? The whole "What to do about the hole in the ground" schtick is pretty low on the list of things Bush is or isn't doing right now that will affect the course of our country's history. (And yes, I know it's not about the hole, it's about "leadership." Well, as part of the political game, anything that the Right would call "showing leadership" will be cast by the Left as "politicizing events", so I suppose the hole is as good a metaphor as any for the virtues of empty rhetoric.)

Ann Coulter, the Deadhead?

But seriously -- I would leave Bush alone on the whole Ground Zero Memorial Hole thing if he would stop using it as a backdrop for speeches. Take your conventions elsewhere, sir.

Mark:

I'm not at all forswearing such, unless it becomes clear that leaving her alone means giving her enough rope. She's on the wrong side. She says dangerous things. She should be forced to spend a day in the stocks in Dearborn.

On your second point, I'm not sure whether you're being facetious. Is there anyone more first string than Bush? To adapt Churchill, the Left has to be prepared to fight on the symbols, to fight on the facts, to fight on the photo ops, to fight on the corruption, to fight against the politicians and the talking heads, to never surrender.

Is the symbolism of the World Trade Crater the worst thing happening? Perhaps not, but on the 5th anniversary of the attack, you have to talk about something. Pentagon's rebuilt, there's nothing to say about the crash site in Penna., and so you're left with The Hole.

In fact, talking about the hole in fact works to strip away some of the empty symbolism of the past few years. The hole is real, concrete, tangible, the locus of an event. What occurred in New York on 11 September 2001 was that some planes were flown into some buildings, and a lot of people were killed. That's the only thing nearly everyone (pace conspiracists) agrees on. Once we refocus on the physical reality, an alternate narrative can get a chance.

TK wrote:

Regarding your comment #12, Eric Alterman wrote "What Liberal Media: the Truth about Bias and the News" back in 2003. He made your point and a lot more three years ago.

As for the "Hole," it is what psychologists and psychiatrists a "presenting issue." It was a jumping point from which to talk about "impeachable offenses," the squandering of an overwhelming consensus of goodwill, the cynicism of the administration, and a strong rebuttal to the claim that dissent is treasonous, let alone Liberalism (see the aforementioned Ms. Coulter).

The "Hole" was a vehicle through which to make his compelling arguments. IMHO, it was a "slam dunk."

BTW, in the elevator on my way up to my 8th floor office yesterday morning, I was informed that "Yahoo searches for Keith Olbermann were at an all-time high" following this 9/11 commentary. FWIW.

David, if anyone in the Administration has said anything remotely like "dissent is treasonous" please refer me to the story. (Things like "revealing the SWIFT monitoring program as extremely harmful to our security" doesn't count; that's calling the reporting stupid, not treasonous.)

As to the overwhelming consensus of goodwill, well, that's not what some remember:

But it's also true that this initial wave of goodwill hardly outlasted the news cycle. Within a couple of days a Guardian columnist wrote of the "unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population". A Daily Mail columnist denounced the "self-sought imperial role" of the United States, which he said had "made it enemies of every sort across the globe".

That week's edition of Question Time featured a sustained attack on Phil Lader, the former US ambassador to Britain – and a man who had lost colleagues in the World Trade Centre – who seemed near to tears as he was asked questions about the "millions and millions of people around the world despising the American nation". At least some Britons, like many other Europeans, were already secretly or openly pleased by the 9/11 attacks.

But it sure is a swell framing for making Bush look bad, isn't it?

Honestly, I don't know how to respond here. The presumptions of bad faith, the positively manichaean vision of "Liberal" versus "Conservative" doesn't leave a whole lot of room for respectful disagreement. The premise seems to be "if you're not working by any means necessary to rid this country of the conservative scourge, you are part of the problem." Of course there media is Conservative; it's not spinning hard enough against the Administration!

The right-wing vendetta against Clinton (a man I detested) was contemptable. It was a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease. The left-wing vendetta against Bush is just as bad, only it's largely cheered on by people whom I feel should know better.

"Our beloved country" isn't one where one's political opponents are to be defeated by any tactics available. That's Lebanon. Let's try not to go there.

Mark, let me start from the top.

First, you ask if "anyone in the Administration has said anything remotely like 'dissent is treasonous'." Cheney said last weekend that those who dissent "validate the strategy of the terrorists." Hmmm... we are at war with "Terror." Those fighting us are "Terrorists." Validating the strategy of those we are fighting, well, what would you call it?

Second,

I mean, I can spend a half-hour on Google looking for many more examples, but frankly I don't want to. It's in the public record. Look it up.

Second, you question the overwhelming consensus of goodwill. "Olberman says:

-------------------------------------------------
"The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that."
------------------------------------------------

Note the phrase "throughout the country." You quote "The Guardian" and the "Daily Mail." Last I looked, England stopped being part of this country several centuries ago.

I for one was one of those people who gave the President my unconditional support. Mine lasted from 9/12 through probably the end of October. And it did. Garrison Keilor, the unabashed liberal, announced on Prairie Home Companion that "we are all Republicans now." Gary Trudeau is one of the President's strongest critics, and he, too, put "America first, party fiftieth." Boopsie "no longer cared what Madonna had for breakfast." Her child announced that she wanted to be a firefighter. Mike Doonesbury went to a memorial service for his former boss who died in the WTC. The theme for the month of October was "Everything changed. EVERYTHING."

Mark, they now have pills to improve memory. You might want to look this direction.

As to your last point, when you finally decide how to respond, let me know.

Mark, the "right-wing vendetta" did not stop with Bush's election. A woman wrote a book called "Treason," claiming that Liberals, by thinking liberally, are treasonous. She may be called a nut by those outside the media, but the media interviews her and asks for her commentary on a regular basis as if she is a normal, sane person!

Fox News has pulled CNN and MSNBC far to the right in a fight for ratings. And Fox... well, where on the left is there anything like Fox? Air America? Pacifica? Wishful thinking!

We have lived through years -- five, long years -- where the media has been fearful of criticizing the Administration for fear of being called "soft on terror," or worse, "aiding and abetting the enemy." Now that the President's poll numbers are in the low 30's, we are FINALLY seeing SOME members of the media speaking truth to power.

You remember the Clinton years, but you really don't seem to recall the past five years very well at all.

And Mark, one more point:

You write, "The presumptions of bad faith, the positively manichaean vision of "Liberal" versus "Conservative" doesn't leave a whole lot of room for respectful disagreement."

Again, your memory escapes you. To quote Olbermann:
-----------------------------------------------
"They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, 'bi-partisanship' meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, 'validate the strategy of the terrorists.'"
-----------------------------------------------

You cannot deny that. I mean, you can, I guess, but you would have a hard time backing it up factually.

Where and when in the past 5 years has the RIGHT engaged in "respectful disagreement"? On Sean Hannity? On Bill O'Reilly? On Rush Limbaugh? I'd really like to know.

re: Dissent=treason, as espoused by the Administration: Could you possibly give full quotes? With links to sources? Because omehow I think we're still not debating in what might be called an honest fashion, to wit:

"Mark, they now have pills to improve memory. You might want to look this direction."

And to the "we are all Republicans now" all I can say is it's easy to talk a good game, but in the end the proof is in the execution now, isn't it? Show me one instance of any of those people mentioned actually supporting an Administration policy (as opposed to simply "Sharing its pain" in the aftermath of 9/11) then I'll retract my call of "Bullshit!" Otherwise, talk's cheap.

As to media fear of criticism of Administration policies:

Brutal Afghan Winter
Afghan Gas Pipeline
"Death of Empires" Afghanistan
Where's Osama?
Brutal Iraqi Summer
100,000 Iraqi Civilian Deaths
Plamegate!
Cindy Sheehan
Korans-down-the-toilet
Abu-Graihb (sp?)
Extraordinary rendition
Stolen Ohio Election

I'm not even going to touch Rather and Mapes' "fake but accurate" campaign against Bush.

That's a partial list, but you get the idea. Doesn't seem to indicate the media is fearful of much. The criticisms and coverage have gone from the valid (Abu-Graihb) to the ridiculous (Camp Sheehan -- and, with recent revelations, we can officially add Plamegate to that end of the spectrum).

Face it, David; you aren't being persecuted, and there is no cost to you or to anyone else for holding or espousing the viewpoints you do. On the other hand, there is no obligation for any of the rest of us to take those views seriously.

If the media has been moving to the Right, it's because the audience is tuning out the noise. You may think the noise is great, and the masses are stupid, but in the end the media companies are going to follow the audience. (The media isn't in the hands of a few Oligarchs anymore. Get used to it.) If you want the audience (and therefore the media) to tack Left, it will be up to you and yours to come up with something that will actually attract the Masses (you know, the people the Progressive Left is supposed to care about) towards the Left.

Too bad they don't just have pills to take care of the problem, isn't it?

A few quotes:

Dick Cheney: "Suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists."

Ari Fleischer: "Any candidate who suggests that when the enemy attacks, the blame lies with the United States and not with the enemy does so at great peril to their own political future."

John Ashcroft: "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

Ari Fleischer: "I'm aware of the press reports about what [Bill Maher] said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

Paul Wolfowitz: "You said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him. It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies."

Donald Rumsfeld: "[C]ritics of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the ongoing U.S. war on terrorism."

Of course, those are just examples from within the Administration. There are many more examples from Republican legislators, right-wing commentators, and of course our favorite scarecrow of the right, Ann Coulter. (Remember that book called "Treason"?)

And to the "we are all Republicans now" all I can say is it's easy to talk a good game, but in the end the proof is in the execution now, isn't it? Show me one instance of any of those people mentioned actually supporting an Administration policy (as opposed to simply "Sharing its pain" in the aftermath of 9/11) then I'll retract my call of "Bullshit!" Otherwise, talk's cheap.

Two quick examples:

USA Patriot Act -- "an American act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1, and in the House by a vote of 357 to 66."

War against Afghanistan: "US Congress authorized president George W. Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorists who orchestrated the September 11th attacks. The vote in the U.S. Senate was unanimous. There was only one dissenting ballot in the United States House of Representatives."

And finally -- Mark, I know what you're saying. There's a dearth of rational debate when it comes to the important issues facing our country. Battle lines are drawn 'twixt left and right. It's as if, when anyone starts saying "we happy few, we band of brothers," he gets punched in the face.

And, when it comes to actual reasoned debate, there is of course much more common ground than anyone realizes. Of course I don't blame Bush 100% for the Memorial Hole. No one who actually thought about it would assign all the blame to him, or none of the blame. It's not that simple.

But politics is not a debating society. I'm sure that you or I could find some common ground with Olbermann, Coulter, or Insert-Pundit-Here -- if we had the chance to talk to them off-camera. And I know that you and I have plenty of common ground between us, talking about what's wrong with our country and how to make it right.

But, alas, politics is not about the rational discussion of how to make things right. It's about power, and we'd be naive to think otherwise.

Do you remember the end of Hoosiers (best sports movie ever?) when the small-town team is losing the Big Game? And Gene Hackman, who all along has insisted that they play as a team, says in essence (and I can't find the quote), screw the idealism, we've got to win, give the ball to the star player as much as you can.

Well, those of us who consider ourselves Liberals or Lefties or Progressives or what have you are starting to say, well we can't just be idealists. We can't just trust in reasoned debate. We've got to throw some elbows, because the other guy is, and if we don't we're just going to lose.

M E-L, I stand by my earlier assertion that saying a course of action will help the terrorists isn't an accusation of treason; instead it's saying that the advocated position is unwise.

And what am I missing in the Ashcroft quote? That we should be pitting citizens v. non-citizens? Or is it the "phantoms of lost liberty" thing? If so, tell me exactly which liberties we have lost, please. The libety to take international calls from people on the United States watch list without the government knowing you received the call?

Bottom line: we accept the risk of greater government monitoring of activities, or we accept the risk that those activities can be used by terrorists to attack us. It's a valid area of debate, but it's only compelling against the government if your're more afraid of Uncle Sam than Joe Jihadi. (If you didn't notice, Bush's numbers go up every time one of these "domestic spying" stories come out. Definitely one of those "What's the Matter with Kansas" phenomena.)

Interestingly, Christopher Hitchens had an exegesis on the Fleisher quote a week ago. It seems the quote was taken somewhat out of context, and Fleisher was also being critical of a "diaper head" comment from a Republican Congressman. (The topic had come up earlier in the press briefing.) I know, I know, I was shocked that the media might be spinning a quote against the Administration. I'm sure it hasn't happened since. After all, the media is so intimidated by the Great Communicator.

Be that as it may, and resisting the urge to fisk every quote, I will say that of course politics isn't beanbag; dirty politics will always be with us. (Thankfully, as this medium illustrates, the channels for both enlightenment and mudflinging have radically multiplied, so the prospect for a cleaner polity is actually getting better. But that's another post.) But at the end of the day, once the elbows and the skulls have been cracked, you have to ask is it working?

It didn't work in '04. I guess we'll know better after the midterms. My instinct is that it doesn't work as well for your side, but I could be wrong. I suggest y'all keep peddling the "impeachable offenses" line so we find out.

P.S. Of course you're right about Congressional Support for the Patriot Act and the War in Afghanistan. I was thinking more about the unity of the chattering classes. (Didn't B.D. lose a limb or something in Afghanistan?) But your point is taken.

Mark:

M E-L, I stand by my earlier assertion that saying a course of action will help the terrorists isn't an accusation of treason; instead it's saying that the advocated position is unwise.

Giving aid and comfort to the nation's enemies (see Rumsfeld, above) is the very Constitutional definition of treason:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec3

For two days, no one responded to my last point, so I thought I had the last word, and stopped checking. I look today and I see 6 new posts.

Thanks to TK and M-E-L for answering Mark's questions so I did not have to go through that tedious research. It looks QED to me.

Mark, to answer your question about Ashcroft:

You asked for the full quote, and M-E-L gave it to you. If you leave out that clause that doesn't seem to fit, he says this:

"...to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

By "lost liberty" he is talking about the erosion of civil liberties, of the Bill of Rights variety. He said very clearly that those who are trying to protect civil liberties are aiding the enemy, and hence are treasonous.

Mark, you would do well to read Eric Alterman's book "What Liberal Media?" that I refer to in post #16. He writes that Liberal media tends to look at both sides of issues -- you are probably too young to remember when the NY Post was owned by the Liberal Dorothy Schiff, and was THE liberal paper in NY. Nonetheless, William F. Buckley and Robert Novack were regulars on the Posts Op-Ed page, along with Jack Anderson, Max Lerner, Art Buchwald and HerBlock. Liberal Magazines regularly ran opposing positions. The concept was just what you espouse: "respectful disagreement."

Alterman shows all sorts of evidence of this, what has become anachronistic, "respectful disagreement" in whatever could possibly be called the "Liberal Media." The "Right-Wing Media," on the other hand, is the most vicious, nasty, distasteful poor excuse for news and talk imaginable. I mean, have you ever sat through Sean Hannity? Or O'Reilly? Or Limbaugh? Do you notice that if Fox ever has a "Liberal" guest, he or she is shouted down by the 5 other right-wing fanatics booked in the same slot to do just that? That is, if O'Reilly or Hannity isn't shouting over him or her himself?

It is the Right, Mark, that is the poster child for poor behavior in this regard. It is the Right that owns Fox, and owns Talk Radio, and created the bellicosity that you seem to abhor -- and rightly so, I might add. But if you do not see that this is coming from the Right, it is because you choose not to.

And to your other point, Mark, where you wrote:

"we accept the risk of greater government monitoring of activities, or we accept the risk that those activities can be used by terrorists to attack us. It's a valid area of debate, but it's only compelling against the government if your're more afraid of Uncle Sam than Joe Jihadi."

In an effort to engage in "respectful disagreement," I "respectfully disagree."

First, a brief history of civil liberties in the United States:

"In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Benjamin Franklin wrote: 'Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'" (That statement is as true today as it was when he said it. And he repeated that same statement in the Continental Congress on February 17, 1775 (ibid).

When we declared our independence, individual states created constitutions that guaranteed freedoms. The Pennsylvania Constitution, for example, held that the government was to hold power "without partiality for or prejudice against any particular class, sect or denomination of men whatever."

Murray Bookchin , who recently passed away at 85, wrote in his The Third Revolution :

There was to be only a single legislative chamber in the government, rather than two, elected annually by citizens, whose franchise would not be limited by any property qualification. Every tax-paying freeman over the age of twenty-one could both vote and hold office. The doors of the meeting place of the assembly hall were to be open to all citizens at all times, and bills passed by the new assembly would not take effect until they had been published and then approved by the next elected assembly -- that is, until the people had expressed their will through what approximated a referendum.... All officers were to be "servants... at all times accountable" to the people....

It's popularity was immense; as [Jesse]Lemisch points out [in Jack Tar in the Streets: Merchant Seamen in the Politics of Revolutionary America ]: 'The people cherished their copies as they did the Bible, and they would later take up arms against its domestic opponents.'"

Then, when unpaid creditors of the government schemed to hold the "extra-legal" Constitutional Convention to replace the Articles of Confederation with a centralized government that could actually pay its debts, the people were outraged. Not only was it a centralized government -- of which the people were rightly suspicious, having just won a hard-fought battle to be rid of one -- but where within it was there guarantees against the same tyranies from which they had just fought to be freed?

In an effort to appease those who would not tolerate a centralized government without such guarantees, they appended 10 amendments (originally 12) which they titled the "Bill of Rights."

It is almost cliche now to quote the Catholic who said that when the Nazis came for the Jews, etc, he said nothing, and then when they came for him, there was no one left to say anything. Yet when we start chipping away at the Constitution, first it will be people with Islamic names, and then it is those of us who by dissent, it is claimed "aid give comfort to the enemy." And then, for whatever spurious reason -- because by then no reason will be necessary --it could well be you. And then it will be far too late for any of us.

These amendments are the only lines of ink that prevent tyranny in this country. Once we compromise on our civil liberties, they tend to get chipped away, and chipped away, until "All Animals are Created Equal -- but Some are More Equal than Others."

Bush is even chipping away at you, and you don't even know it. He first admitted listening to "calls to Al Quaida." Then it turns out that far more domestic calls were being listened to, and that peace organizations that had nothing to do with Al Quaida were being infiltrated and violated. He denied secret rendition, then admitted it and denied it was illegal, and yet now he is attempting to pass legislation to make it retroactively legal! Why, may I ask, would he need to make it "retroactively legal" if it was legal in the first place?

But I digress. The point is that if we do not hold the line on the Constitution and civil liberties, to paraphrase Mr. Franklin, we will very shortly have neither.