Saturday, May 24
Thursday, May 22
That incredible font of Patriotism Laura Ingraham has apparently responded to Keith Olbermann's taunt - "Why do you hate our troops" with the following.
Her claim here, using the site "Olbermannwatch" as her source is that Keith is a liar, and that he really did mean to insult our U.S. troops when he mentioned "Cold=Blooded Killers" in the Iraq War and wasn't simply throwing Bush's ridiculous rhetoric at the Knesset right back at him in reference to BlackWater.
As it was delibered Keith's Special Comment said this starting from the relevant quoting from Bush's speech:
"The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.'
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes 'cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives'?
They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day... with war crimes.
Let's just reinterate that Olbermann was Quoting the President in that statement, and clearly was turning that comment around to point at people who may, very well may, have committed WAR CRIMES!
Who might those people be?
Who are the War Criminals?
Might they be the members of Bush's Cabinet who conducted meeting after meeting discussing torture methods in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act?
Might they be members of Blackwater USA who have been granted immunity and impunity to murder civilians in Iraq?
Ignoring the War Criminals, the wingnut fringe instead attacked him for daring to use the Presidents word against American Troops. In response to this Keith issued a Clarification
Television goes by quickly and the viewers are not provided a copy of the script. So it is possible that reasonable viewers might have been confused by exactly to whom I referred, especially considering that I edited the original line, which was: "Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created includes cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives? They are called your cabinet and your Pentagon."
During the editing process, it seemed that was a little broad, that there appear to be men in both of those places, General Ricardo Sanchez, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, perhaps even the new Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates, who did not merit inclusion in that list. Obviously, my use of Mr. Bush’s phrase, cold-blooded killers, did not refer to U.S. troops. I have never had anything but the highest respect for them and their sacrifice.
The difference here? Once sentence, specifying the cabinet and pentagon as the "killers" was removed. Instead he said "They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day... with war crimes."
That's changing a single sentence, that's all. In neither version of this were our troops called out. In neither version were our troops insulted.
He changed it because he didn't think it was fair to make a statement that would have included current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former Secretary of State Colin Powell (who openly and frequently objected to the use of torture) and General Ricardo Sanchez who has also vehemently criticized such crimes.
Sanchez was the former Commander of Forces in Iraq, so if he deliberately excluded Sanchez he was most certainly excluding all of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanitan who had NOT COMMITTED WAR CRIMES.
One might go so far as to assume that he was also alluding to War Crimes and cover-ups such as in Haditha. Or Moumadiya. Or Crimes such as the killing Pat Tillman and subsequent cover-up and destruction evidence in that case.
But only a completely assclown or moron would think Keith meant "All Of Our Troops Are War Criminals!"
Yet this is exacty what Olbermannwatch claims.
After he came under fire for his Special Comment on May 14 in which called U.S. Troops "cold blooded killers", Keith Olbermann delivered a "clarification" in which he claimed that he had edited out the part in which he called White House and Pentagon officials "cold blooded killers". One problem, the day the Special Comment aired Keith was on Daily Kos comparing himself to Mozart for having produced his "masterpiece" in "one write". In other words...WITHOUT EDITING.
This is what Olbermann actually said in a comment within his May 14th Diary.
Strunk & White (25+ / 0-)
Funny thing about these.
When I first write 'em, they are half as long.
Then I'm reminded of other things this administration has done, and suddenly, they're twice as long.
Actually, this one was one straight write. Took about an hour, I moved one sentence, added the new info on the fraudulence of the golf claim, and altered about a half dozen adjectives, and that was it. Not exactly Mozart's unblemished composition sheets, but I'll take it.
"If you're going through hell - keep going!" -- Winston Churchill
by Keith Olbermann on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:44:06 PM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
This is the point where you have to wonder if these people are simply lazy or mendacious? Keith did exactly what he said he did, he meant exactly what he said he meant - and he has certainly every RIGHT to say it in a country that is supposed to still have free speech.
Yet again, we have a completely mischaracterzation of a reasonable statment into some kind of anti-American slur. We've seen this with Michelle Obama and her comments about how the American people were coming together with common cause "for the first time in her adult life". We've seen many of the comments of Rev Wright distorted (which admittedly wasn't hard to do). Or the comments of Rosie O'Donnell the half-million Iraqi casualties - so far - and just who the "terrorists" responsibile for this war?
(No, She did not mean our Troops, she clearly meant Our President is Responsible. He is "The Decider", Right?)
The very thought that Our Troops are Terrorists is just plain insane. It's a LIE to say that Rosie made that claim, Michelle has made that claim, or that Olbermann has made that claim.
Here, yet again, and again and again, socio-pathological liars like Ingraham, O'Reilly and Olbermannwatch throw fact and common sense out the window in a desperate and sad effort to smear the critic. To justify the unjustifiable. To excuse criminals by confusing them with our Heroes. Deliberately. Viciously.
Keith was at least honest enough himself to realize that some people may have taken his comments the wrong way if you weren't fully paying attention, or simply don't care about the truth... but I care.
And I'm sure the Troops, those who've fought, bled, died, been traumatize and continue to struggle financially and emotionally after their service Care too.
Tuesday, May 20
The argument that simply speaking with the leaders of countries we disagree with being "appeasment", some type of surrender or traitorous behavior is simply ridiculous on it's face. It's false bravado, bully diplomacy done at the barrel of a gun and the dull plodding thoughlessness of a charging Rhino.
Most High School students, those with a better knowledge of Presidential History than Dana Perino, understand that Kennedy talked to Kruschev. Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush (via Rumsfeld) talked to Saddam, Bill Clinton's people talked to Jerry Adams and Milosevic, and George W. Bush's Administration has talked to both Qaddafi, Lil Kim Jong Il and the leaders of the Sunni Awakening.
Yet somehow - Obama is the misguided one here?
It's just so wrong and inaccurate it's galling to the point of rage.
The definition of "Appeasment" via Dictionary.com
ap·pease – verb (used with object), - peased, - peas·ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
A discussion is not a concession to some belligerent demand. It's a discussion. It's communication. How can you make any progress in any direction at all unless you discuss the issues at hand?
Standing back while loudly bellowing "Give Up, Or I'll say GIVE UP again..." is not a ration foriegn policy.
Former G. H. W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker understands this fully - From Hannity and Colmes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg
Baker: My view is that you don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well and that Diplomacy requires talking to your enemies. You don't reward them. Talking is not appeasement. I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 ...at a time when they were listed as a terrorist state. On the 16 trip Syria changed 25 years of policy and sat with the table with Israel, effectively recognizing their right to exist.
Maybe that is what Barack Obama want to discuss with Iran, Mr. McCain?
Fortunately though, Barack Obama himself knows how to seperate fact from their distructive inane fiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-VduN-FVc
In this speech Barack makes it clear that the failure to engage is not a sign of strength, it is a travesty of disastrous proportions. Since Bush and his ilk like to use a retroactive rewriting of history to suit their own rhetorical needs, lets suppose this had always been our policy and as a result we had have lost the Cold War?
If we hadn't negotiated with the Soviet Union...
There would still be Nuclear Missles in Cuba pointed right at Florida. East and West Germany would not have been reunited. There would still be a wall across the center of Berlin.
It's well past time we relearned something that we seemed to have always known before the reign of President George W. Bush.
DOJ Inspector General's Reporthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGd9P4sNnfo