From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
this was a commentary made by Keith Olbermann last week on his primetime show. the next day, the pundits were attacking it, but provided little evidence as to why exactly....Keith pretty much hit the bullseye.

Here's what he said, and I couldn't have said it any better.

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.



At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

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-Qaida 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."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.


Sept. 11, 2006 | 3:19 p.m. ET

"

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 18, 2006
I saw that segment where Keith gave a speech of his own just before Pres. Bush aired his. It gives me the shivers to think that we're going thru this in real time.
on Sep 19, 2006
brrrrr
on Sep 24, 2006
I don't totally agree with Olberman's slant, but it was interesting to see the vaccuous response from the public.

It's as if Olberman's articulate and impassioned speech didn't strike a chord or even register with the general public.

Though some understand and wholeheartedly agree with Olberman's statements, it's as if his words hit dark air and simply faded away.

Very curious.
on Sep 24, 2006
Olberman is eloquently melodramatic, but the force of his words is undercut by their content, all the false assumptions and misdirected blame that should be obvious, not to mention several straw men that he sets up & knocks down.

Col Gene has this same sense of Bush as an all-powerful imperial potentate who could, by merely lifting a finger or uttering a word, move Mount Everest, if only he wanted to. Of course, he's only characterized that way when something his critics think should have happened hasn't; otherwise he's a bumbling dunce. Could he have pushed the locals a little harder to get their act together? Sure. Did he have any authority to do so? No. Would we be any further along? Doubt it.

Does New York City have a local government? Does New York have a state government? Senators, Congressmen? Is there such a thing as the Port Authority? In Olberman's telling, apparently not.
on Sep 24, 2006
this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.


even though this government' is frequently used in place of 'this administration' and vice-versa, for sake of precision and clarity, olberman prolly shoulda employed the latter in the phrase i've quoted.

with that outta the way, keith's correct. pimping fear worked well for bush and his team in 2002 & 2004. bush's recent 911 anniversary speech took the same tack and, based on poll numbers, it still works for him.

as far as monuments go (or, more accurately, don't go), it's all for the best. as long as he don't have any dedications requiring speeches, bush avoids making even his least articulate predecessors look so much better--and himself seem even more foolish--by comparison
on Sep 25, 2006
I guess the reason Olberman's speech didn't resonate with me so much is though he made some very good points he seemingly framed his entire speech around the lack of a 9/11 memorial.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals. - Keith Olberman

I could care less about a useless memorial dedicated to a day when nearly 3,000 people I don't know died. I see little reason to commemorate the day that has served as the catalyst for serious re-tailoring of our civil rights.

We don't 'show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals' with some well-placed lights, brick, and steel. We show proud defiance to 'terrorists' by only recognizing their acts with well-placed punishment and by affirming our own freedoms and way of life by keeping them intact.

Still wailing over 9/11? Shit happens. Take it and go on. Olberman, if you want a memorial, petition the people that own the land - Larry Silverstein and Blackstone Real Estate Advisors.
on Sep 26, 2006
I could care less about a useless memorial dedicated to a day when nearly 3,000 people I don't know died. I see little reason to commemorate the day that has served as the catalyst for serious re-tailoring of our civil rights.


You still have the same civil rights as you did before. Your attitude about people that were killed by terrorists is pathetic at best.
on Sep 26, 2006
could care less about a useless memorial dedicated to a day when nearly 3,000 people I don't know died. I see little reason to commemorate the day that has served as the catalyst for serious re-tailoring of our civil rights.


So then I guess you feel the same way about the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii?
on Sep 26, 2006

Sounds like someone isn't familiar with Oberman's show. 

You might as well call it Counting Down with Col Gene.  He never lets facts or common sense get in his way.

on Sep 26, 2006
DR Miller - bear in mind, Deference thinks the government or some other conspiracy other than Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.
on Sep 26, 2006
Drmiler, bear in mind Draginol is lying through his teeth as he's a bit upset about being wrong on a separete thread - again.

I wasn't even alive when Pearl Harbor was attacked, drmiler, so it's ridiculous to compare the two.



on Sep 26, 2006
Drmiler, bear in mind Draginol is lying through his teeth as he's a bit upset about being wrong on a separete thread - again.

I wasn't even alive when Pearl Harbor was attacked, drmiler, so it's ridiculous to compare the two.


And that would be where you're dead wrong! I wasn't alive during Pearl either. But that does not preclude me from recognizing what the memorial stands for or "why" it was built". And the 9/11 memorial is for "exactly" the SAME reasons as the one at Pearl. "A bunch of Americans lost their lives due to a cowardly attack on the US". So it's NOT ridiculous to compare the two! If you think it ridiculous then look into a mirror!
on Sep 27, 2006
Okay, start raising funds for the memorial, drmiler. Petition your representatives. You care enough to do that yourself, don't you?

You will have to raise quite a bit of money for that prime real-estate in New York's downtown financial district for it to become a profitless memorial to a date in history - regardless of sentimental value.

And certainly, I could never hold Pearl Harbor in mind to the equal of anyone who experienced it or heard of it's present happenings from my actual living experience. That is reserved for those few remaining veterans, their widows and peers. In my wildest imaginations I can't fathom 9/11 even being equal to the 'Day that Will Live in Infamy.' I'm realistic about that as much as I am my sentimental disconnectedness from
9/11.

Your attitude about people that were killed by terrorists is pathetic at best.
- Island Dog

This faux outrage is unacceptable. Back up your mudslinging with some rhetoric, Island Dog. Some explanation as to why you are still wailing over the near five year -old tragedy of 9/11? Who did you know that was a victim? How connected, how obviously deeply emotionally invested are you with 9/11? Give me some talk, I need to understand where you are coming from.

on Sep 27, 2006
Drmiler, let me share with you an account from my daily life.

I meet with a 'customer' once a week who is a Korean War Veteran. He wears his truck-driver-style Vet. headgear when he visits.

The late-seventies grandfather makes me feel so small.

While waiting, he will share stories of looking back on buddies only to find a burst grenade and disembodied legs replacing the spot of his commando brethren. He'll recount tales of gunfire and locations I can only vaguely spot as being within the quarter of the global war theatre that would soon define a DMZ Line.

I am humbled by this living legend. I've supreme respect for him.

The closest I got to live fire and exploding grenades was in basic training in 1999.

I can't fathom and, as well, can't sincerely empathise with this worldly vet on the appropriate level as I don't have the experiential knowledge he does. I can only nod my head and give my support, beyond that I would be insincere.
on Sep 27, 2006
This faux outrage is unacceptable. Back up your mudslinging with some rhetoric, Island Dog. Some explanation as to why you are still wailing over the near five year -old tragedy of 9/11? Who did you know that was a victim? How connected, how obviously deeply emotionally invested are you with 9/11? Give me some talk, I need to understand where you are coming from.


I'm not wailing over Sept. 11, nor is my outrage fake. The fact that terrorists attacked my own country and intentionally killed innocents is all the connection I need. I would find it more odd not to be outraged at what these islamists did.

2 Pages1 2