scoots-
actually, olberman's argument was a little flawed at the point he says this:
"In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.
“It's unacceptable to think," he said.
It is never unacceptable to think.
And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.
...because it just took the first half of bush's sentence. and the half-sentence standing alone sounds worse than the whole.
for example, i could say... "It's unacceptable to think, that this president has any regard for the constitution or civil rights," and i would expect olberman to pat me on the back.
i agree with olberman's point of view but not with his debating skills in this instance where he rails against a partial sentence which changes the meaning of what was said.
i saw the news conference and bush did pause at that point in the sentence but i think it was to take a breath and try to remember what the second half of his sentence was supposed to be. ;-)
-ep |
