Keith Obermann and a diarist epiphany
Kudos to diarist Reed Young for a concise and precise articulation of “moving forward” by cleaning up your backyard in relationship to prosecuting the terrorist Bush/Cheney team for war crimes. In my opinion, one of the reasons the diary reads so smoothly is due to the lack of distracting parenthesis. Not using them in writing requires a lot of rhetorical skills and discriminating discipline.
Regarding Keith Olbermann's Upcoming Special Comment On The Moral Imperative To Prosecute War Crimes
by Reed Young
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/17/25825/4080/298/685170
I cannot know until Monday if this was his (Keith Obermann) intention, but it occurred to me while I considered the implication that "looking back" is not a valid reason to deny justice, that in fact all the arguments against prosecuting Bush and Cheney depend not on looking forward, but on looking back, and on the way that we look back to be exact. It was switching the role of "looking back" in the standard argument that triggered a very rapid realization that I had been overlooking something crucial. It was like an epiphany or an apotheosis, but I'll try to explain as linearly as possible what I've realized about the Bush administration's war crimes.
And
What I notice about those memories is that I have been terrorized by my own government, in statements now proven false, and I'm still somewhat embarrassed at having been conned. Those sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution have done more to undermine it than any foreign or domestic terrorist ever has, or could. The argument that we should not prosecute them is dependent, at its ugly primal base, on the fear that the Executive Branch systematically instilled in us, through the lies that we know they told: that Iraq poses a credible threat not only of attack but of a "mushroom cloud," that apprehending terrorists requires compromising the Fourth Amendment, and that prosecuting terrorists might depend on, or even be advanced an iota, by torturing suspects who we assume, or pretend to believe have important "operational details" of an imminent attack.
As always,
BB
Regarding Keith Olbermann's Upcoming Special Comment On The Moral Imperative To Prosecute War Crimes
by Reed Young
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/17/25825/4080/298/685170
I cannot know until Monday if this was his (Keith Obermann) intention, but it occurred to me while I considered the implication that "looking back" is not a valid reason to deny justice, that in fact all the arguments against prosecuting Bush and Cheney depend not on looking forward, but on looking back, and on the way that we look back to be exact. It was switching the role of "looking back" in the standard argument that triggered a very rapid realization that I had been overlooking something crucial. It was like an epiphany or an apotheosis, but I'll try to explain as linearly as possible what I've realized about the Bush administration's war crimes.
And
What I notice about those memories is that I have been terrorized by my own government, in statements now proven false, and I'm still somewhat embarrassed at having been conned. Those sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution have done more to undermine it than any foreign or domestic terrorist ever has, or could. The argument that we should not prosecute them is dependent, at its ugly primal base, on the fear that the Executive Branch systematically instilled in us, through the lies that we know they told: that Iraq poses a credible threat not only of attack but of a "mushroom cloud," that apprehending terrorists requires compromising the Fourth Amendment, and that prosecuting terrorists might depend on, or even be advanced an iota, by torturing suspects who we assume, or pretend to believe have important "operational details" of an imminent attack.
As always,
BB
posted by BB at 6:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home