The President of the United States owes this country an apology.
Um, why?

It will not be offered, of course (and for good reason).

He does not realize its necessity.
At the moment, neither do I.  Fill me in, Keith.

There are now none around him who would tell him or could.
Other than Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, all of CBS, ABC and NBC news, and CNN "news."

The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential.
I'm on pins and needles, Keith.  Why, why is an apology essential?

An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people.  Now you're just repeating yourself. 

Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell.
Don't just throw out the torture thing without explaining it; you're assuming everybody knows what you're talking about and agrees with it.  Is it even pertinent?

In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our (whose?) confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what (Keith thinks) it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent (to Keith), as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom."

Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom.

The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth (Jeez, Keith, I'll need to review the video of that), words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics.  (The main logical fallacy here is appeal to authority.  Give credit to Powell for his accomplishments, but he's not God.)

The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."  (Mr. Powell may be right about what the world thinks, but this is still an unsupported assertion; and if his assertion is correct, the world may very well be wrong.  Anybody think of that?)

This President's response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one's breath (roll the video again, Keith), but within it contained one particularly chilling phrase.

"Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter.  "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"  (Again, the appeal to the authority of Mr. Powell; does anybody think Powell has ever been wrong in his life?  Anybody but me?  And the authority of the "rest of the world?"  Please.  The rest of the world cared not at all when Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of people a year, and they're going to adjudicate our moral authority?)

“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said.  “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."  (Just what are you assuming Mr. Bush meant?  He was apparently speaking off the cuff.  Give the guy some room.  He bleeping agrees with you; you're just on such a hair-trigger about anything the guy says.)

And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.  (Sure, it's acceptable; think what you want.  The comparison is obviously wrong, but, to paraphrase Dennis Miller, I will defend to the death your right to miss the point.)

Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.  (And they would also be wrong.  This is a filler statement, Keith.)

Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.  (And they would be right.)

What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison.  (Noted.  Move on.)

And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.

All of us agree about that.

Except, it seems (to Keith based on an off-the-cuff statement), this President.

With increasing rage (visible only to Keith), he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right (a dictum audible only to Keith; the President has only said that he disagrees with you, Mr. Olbermann.  Your freedom to disagree is intact as evidenced by this entry in your blog and the lack of stormtroopers busting up the MSNBC studios). 

And then there was that one, most awful phrase.

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.  (Thanks for the color commentary, but it's like the sleight-of-hand of a magician; misdirection so you can slip in what's next...)

“It's unacceptable to think," he said.  (This is hilarious; Keith quoted the whole thing above, and thinks he can just take these words out of context.  What a maroon.)

It is never unacceptable to think.  (Noted, agreed, and the President did not contradict this.)

And when a President says thinking is unacceptable (not), 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 (actually, I'm pretty sure Bush has forgotten what he said at that moment and has no intentions of restricting free speech; the crumbs you pick at in attempting to prove an impending apocalypse...) -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.

That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think.  (Don't make me say it again, Keith.)

Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth (or a President who simply tells you what he believes in no uncertain terms).

It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights.  (Again, you're just repeating yourself.  Can I please be your editor?)

This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President (one you have not demonstrated that the President possesses; you really need more extensive evidence than four words off-the-cuff).

If Mr. Powell's letter -- cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive (and apparently not subjected to any critical examination by Mr. Olbermann, at least not publicly) -- can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance (buzzword), what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague?

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”  (George Bush would clap his hands and sing his agreement with this.)

Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush.

They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.

He put them in the Declaration of Independence.  (I put great faith in Mr. Jefferson as well, but to name him is just grandstanding here.)

Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that anti-thetical (according to Keith) to the status quo just now?

Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them (again, assuming what is not in evidence, Keith)?

Between your confidence in your infallibility (as perceived by Keith), sir, and your demonizing of dissent (as perceived by Keith), and now these rages (as perceived by Keith) better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued (as perceived by Keith) - a chilling suspicion (Keith, all you need is for MSNBC to turn up the heat, or you could wear a sweater) that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone who disagrees (when can we ever?  Who could have predicted that John Kerry, a public official, would have insisted that a private citizen reveal in public who that citizen voted for in 2000, despite that man's right to a secret ballot?  Clearly, we can't predict the extent of Mr. Kerry's rage either; or maybe we can.).

Or what will next be done to them.  (Keith, when the stormtroopers start searching your house, let me know.  You know it won't happen until the Islamists take over.)

On this newscast last Friday night, Constitiutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, suggested that at some point in the near future some of the "detainees" transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo, will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured (which they are instructed to do by the al Qaeda manual even if it's not true).

Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions, might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration, for them.

That, certainly, could explain Mr. Bush's fury (or possibly the fact that some (you) are making him out to be something he's not, and perhaps you would find it reprehensible if I compared you to such a thing).

That, at this point, is speculative (then leave it out; newsmen shouldn't speculate).

But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President's words were at such variance from the entire history of this country (but being speculative, it's completely worthless and should never have been mentioned).

For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable (and Keith Olbermann finds no thoughts unacceptable; The President is allowed to believe that certain thoughts are unacceptable, but he's not allowed to raid your house if you think those thoughts).

There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders -- Republicans or otherwise -- who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down - and explain the reality of the situation you have created.  (How about if not a one of them genuinely agrees with you?)

There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States.  (Again, why?)

And more than one.  (Why? Why?)

But, Mr. Bush, the others -- for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago (all assuming facts not in evidence) -- they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one (actually, none of them appear to be necessary).

We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree  and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you (Is Mr. Bush still then allowed to act with his conscience, despite the disagreement of some with his policies?).

The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation's birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence.  (Epigrams such as Voltaire's seem on their faces to be obviously correct; but somehow we've managed to live with laws against libel and slander despite Voltaire.  If what you write is untrue and causes harm, then perhaps we might think twice about defending it to the death.  We might still defend the right, but then assert our right to speak out against what that other has written.)

Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire's that are more pertinent still, just now.

"Think for yourselves," he wrote, "and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too."  (Still epigrammatical, but I'll take it on its face as true.  Again, however, the apparent assumption that Mr. Bush doesn't believe it too is not supported by your essay.)

Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us get yelled at by the President (asking the President to apologize for something he didn't do.  Business as usual.  You're just repeating yourself again, Keith.).

Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly unacceptable (to Keith).

Apologize, Mr. Olbermann, for intentionally misinterpreting what the President said.  There, brief and to the point.