Now is Hillary's Chance to show Character and Leadership

As the AP has reported, the Democratic Primary race is now effectively over.

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, becoming the first black candidate to lead a major party into a campaign for the White House. Vanquished rival Hillary Rodham Clinton swiftly signaled an interest in joining the ticket as running mate.

Tonight, or at worst case tomorrow, Obama will achieve the magic Number - but the question remains, particularly if Obama does not immediately reciprocate her push to be VP, while Clinton and put Country and Party ahead of her own personal aspirations and finally begin doing the right thing?

Will she put down the sword and pick up the plowshare to start reinvesting in the the party infrastructure and unity - or will she continue to refuse to concede and still "take this alll the way to the convention" as Harold Ickes threated to do just three days ago?

It's clear that Hillary's supporters still have very raw and hurt feelings. People are feeling robbed. They're feeling let down. Even though many of us has been predicting this would happen for months, they are still stunned.

Why?

Because Hillary's campaign has worked so hard to create this illusion that in some mystical magical way - Obama wasn't going to be the nominee.

Well, within a few hours, Obama the Demoractic Nominee will be the reality.

People understandibly will begin going through the well documented five stages of grieving. Technically we've already been through Denial and are still deep in midst of Anger. We may have already begun to move into Bargining with Hillary's not so subtle push for the VP slot.

Eventually we're going to hit Depression, some may never leave that stage. Others, with luck, will eventually reach Acceptance.

I do know how hard this can be, because I didn't vote for Obama when I had the chance. My candidate was John Edwards, and even after he dropped out of the race I Still Voted For him Anyway, so I may have a slightly unique stance as I ask many of you to put down your hard feelings and consider putting Democrats back in the White House to be your first and greatest priority.

I had to go through my own candidate grief, and it took a while before I finally understood and embraced Obama. (Possibly reading how I went through that process might help some of you. It wasn't because I disliked or was biased against Hillary, it was because of what Obama brought to the table that no one else does.)

Even in the midst of all this I've still given Hillary credit for making Obama a better candidate. Hillary has fought hard for this nomination and she deserves credit for all her efforts, but the true test before her is whether she will fight just as hard to help the party and her supporters in particular through this process.

Will she fight just as hard to defeat John McCain even if she isn't on the ticket? And if she is on the ticket, will that sour support for Obama himself for accepting her?

It may not be nice to hear it, but she has long way to go to rebuild the trust with many Obama supporters and especially with many of the black community. She's exploited the working-class white community and helped drive an existing wedge and division even deeper.

She's dug a whole so deep she's going to need a backhoe to fill it again.

I frankly have my doubts that she's up to this challenge, just as I have my doubts that many Obama supporters are going to be in a forgiving mood anytime soon.

I've written more than once that Obama supporters have to anticipate that they're going to have effectively write many of Hillary's supporters off. Some of them are far too bitter. Some of them are far too hurt to come over to our side. I've strongly suspected that Obama will just have to go on without her and many of her supporters, even though that might significantly shrink the chances of a Democratic victory - he and we may have to do it anyway if she doesn't rally her supporters to Obama and our cause.

I do hope I'm wrong about that.

I do hope that she will show the kind of leadership and character that has inspired so many to support her with such fervor. I hope she does the right thing, suspends her campaign and concedes this nomination rather than continuing the death cage-match that has bruised feelings and generated a chasm within the party.

I hope she really steps up to the plate tonight and accepts the challenge that only she can fulfill.

I'm not expecting it, but I do hope for it - for it would be a truly glorious thing for the Democratic Party and for the Nation.

I pray I do not hope in vain.

Vyan

Unity Takes Two

You can't make a horse drink from water he doesn't want, you can't make someone accept an outstretched hand toward unity if they just plain don't want it, and you can't convince people of facts and realities they just refuse to accept.

Ickes on CNN complaining that Obama Hijacked 4 Delegates from Hillary

In this video Clinton's Campaign Manager Harold Ickes accuses the Obama campaign of theft, and even suggests the Hillary could still win the nomination with the support of the remaining uncommitted delegates. As of now she needs 240 out of the remaining 290 total uncommitted Super and Pledged Delegates.

That's 82.9%

In what bizarro upside-down world is that likely to happen?

Ickes has to know that Hillary can't win this, that everything he's doing and she's going will make the eventual Big Walk Back for her campaign ans supporters harder and harder.

There's only one way to look at this left - they have no intention of walking it back, ever!

All this Sturm und Drang is over 4 Delegates. FOUR. This is the sword they choose to fall on?

The more moderate supporers of Hillary will certain join with the rest of the party but the most rapid of Hillary's Evil Mob knows that this won't be over in another two days. It won't be over in Denver. The Humpty-Dumpty Democratic Party is broken and won't be coming back together despite the clearly noble efforts by Henry Wexler, Karl Levin, Donna Brazile and others this weekend to do exactly that. The most vapid of Hillary's supporters aren't going to listen to the facts or the reality, they aren't going to consider this to be a fair compromise or a generous gesture, they're going to listen Ickes when he says...

Ickes: They Hijacked - they just reached in and took four delegates from Hillary. It's unprecedented. It's unheard of. It's quite incredible.

...

Hillary got 73 delegates (out of Michigan) and Uncommitted got 55. Mr. Obama decided for strategic and tactical reasons to withdraw his name from the ballot. He didn't have to, nobody asked him to. He did it for his own strategic reasons. And now he says "Oh my goodness, I want these Delegates" - not only do I want the 55, but oh, by the way, I want the four of Hillary's

After these kinds of fighting words, accusing Obama of being a craven manipulative thief, they aren't unifying with anyone. Certainly not with Obama supporters and the Democratic Party once he becomes the nominee.

Let's be clear first of all every candidates except Hillary, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel took their names off the ballot, which includes Obama, Biden, Edwards and Richardson. (Kucinich sued to be taken off, but wasn't) They did it because Iowa and New Hampshire asked them to honor the DNC decision. If Ickes wants to call those states "Nobody" - that's his call.

As things stood prior to the RBC meeting - no one was going to get any delegates. Clinton now has 69 more than she did before, but apparently that just isn't enough for her, she wants all 73 and she wants Obama to get ZERO - even ignoring the "Fair Reflection" of 30,000 voters who specifically Wrote Obama's Name In.

Other's have been over this in far better and greater legal detail than I can achieve but the core point is that the RBC decision not only re-instated the votes of those who directly voted for Hillary, but also the 30,000 who specifically voted for Obama even knowing and expecting that their votes wouldn't count. Those 30,000 votes happen to match up fairly directly to the 4 delegates that Ickes says belong to Hillary.

The 30,000 write-in votes, which a Clinton supporter (Ickes, I think) admitted during the meeting were likely mostly for Obama, were over 5% of the total votes cast. They were not counted. Just adding those actually cast votes to Uncommitted (rather than throwing them out, as happened), dilutes Clinton’s percentage of the total enough to knock her down from 74 delegates to 70.45 of 128. Knocking off the extra vote we started with (74 instead of 73), Hillary’s 70.45 translates to 69.45, or about exactly what the R&BC awarded her. Hmmmm.

So whose really trying to steal whose votes and delegates here?

It might be argued that some of those uncommitted votes might have been for Edwards or Biden or Richardson, accept that only Edwards was still in the race at the point and assuming he would have reached the 15% threshold he (and Richardson and Biden have) endorsed Obama - so Obama would get all those delegates even if there had been some way of truly splitting them up accurately.

It's clear that Ickes and Clinton aren't the "Victim" here - they are the ones trying to steal delegates from Obama.

It's naked, it's blatant and that's what it is.

The fact is by not having his people fight for the 64/64 compromise, which he would have narrowly won, Obama put forth a positive gesture and effectively granted Clinton Five Delegates More than she would have had.

We don't have to be afraid that we'll offended the Clintonies by saying this - it's the truth, they need to know it and acknowledge it. Running around on tip-toes isn't going to change that. How many times can you put your hand out in friendship and "unity" only to have it slapped away again and again until you realize the other size doesn't deserve it anymore?

At a certain point, the Democratic party is going to have to rid itself of the Hillacratic Party. We won't have to push them out. They're going to go on their own, some are already effectively gone. Maybe they'll stay home in November with their arms folded clinging bitterly to their preferred losing candidate in a huff, maybe they'll go to a third party candidate like Nader, maybe Bob Barr, maybe to the Republicans. They do seem to certainly like Republican styled campaigning - meanwhile we are moving in a new direction.

They have to face the truth, Hillary has Lost, and so do we.

Hillary is going to win Puerto Rico. She's probably going to win the overall popular vote (as long as you ignore the Caucus States), but then again having the popular vote and $5 will barely get you a Coffee at Starbucks. It certainly didn't do anything for Al Gore.

In fairness, as I have mentioned several times before, Ickes is correct about the Electoral Map favoring Clinton. The latest polls have her leading McCain 327 to 194 on the electoral college. She is leading in eight states that Kerry didn't get in 2004.

In contrast Obama is only leading McCain by 276 to 238 and only picks of a measly fives states that Kerry didn't win. That's what we're arguing over - winning in November by eight states or just five?

His argument is that the path to the White House is easier with Clinton involved. On that point he may be technically correct, but here's the rub. Do we really want to start off a new democratic era by taking the shortest and easier possible path to victory?

Is the Low-Road really the best coarse to take?

Or, do we feel it's worth it to take the Best Road? It may not be as easy, it may not be as fast - we might have to fight with difficult and complex truth instead of easy to understand innuendo and double-talk. We have to take a serious look at whether we want to continue to fall into the old patterns, push the same old buttons, run from the same old fears that we have for generations or do we want to have the courage to do the hard thing? To do the Right Thing?

Wouldn't taking the High Road and Still Winning Be all the Sweeter, all the more worth it?

Do we have the guts to take a stand, and risk the possibility that some of our (soon to be former) Democratic brethren might never seek to join us on that path? That we'll never truly have "Unity" again?

I think we have no choice but to recognize some, like Ickes, and the Old New York Lady yelling at the cloud are simply too far gone, we can't expect and don't need "unity" with the likes of them. Instead we need clarity of direction and the conviction to get where we need to go.

Washington DC. The White House.

With them or without them, we're going to get there. No more Mr. Nice Giaus.

Vyan

O'Reilly Detonates Again

Limbaugh busts a Blood Vessel over McClennan

Y'know, watching the all new improved Scotty Show has been quite a treat so far - but most of the really good performances have been coming from Fox News, Dana (Tina Dancer of Fascism) Perino and of course, Comedian Rush Limbaugh.

On today's episode Mr Limpbaugh responds to this mornings interview with Scott McClennan on the Today show, just remember that this is the man that in 2006 admitted that he'd been "carrying water for the Republicans" for years and he wasn't doing it anymore. I guess he got his second wind. Limbaugh, being the singular dipwad that he is, goes far beyond the already standard talking points that Scott is just "Disgrunted", "Chasing a Buck" and that his behavior is "Puzzling".

No, it's much worse than that.

Funny Point Number One after McClennan describes how he thought Bush really meant it when he said he was going to be a "uniter not a divider" Yucks a minute on the one.

Limbaugh: This just Frosts Me. You are using the language of the LEFT! Don't you realize - You DOLT - that your job was to help your President Prevail!

And here most of us thought that the job of people in public service was to serve the needs of THE NATION and to protect and honor THE CONSTITUTION. Silly us.

Then Rush goes on an on and on about how President Bush did so much to reach across the isle by writing legislation with Ted Kennedy.

He went out of his way to bring Democrats into the White House for policy purposes.

That was ONE BILL Rush. One. Uno. Way back in 2001. What's he done for the country, and in concert with Democrats lately? Veto the Childrens Health Care Bill? Threaten to Veto the new G.I. Bill?

How many times did he meet with the Congressional Black Caucus? Was it even once?

This is a President who would never attack Democrats

Except for calling them "Appeasers", "Traitors", "Quitters" and "Defeato-crats".

Funny HA HA Number two: The Plame-gate deal, where Scott laments that both Libby and Rove lied to his face about being involved in the leak.

(Long Sigh) Uh, Scott. National Intelligence Estimate. The President does not leak it after he declassifies it. Do you not remember you idiot, that the drive-by media and the Democrats where clamoring for this?
...

Also this business about Rove and Libby involved, hey Scott have you heard thename "Richard Armitage"? They were not involved in the leak. Scott if you had an gonads you know that what happened to Scooter Libby was one of the major travesties of justice that has occurred in our lifetimes.

Ok, here's the interesting thing. Yes, it's true that the President can declassify anything he wants to - anytime he wants to. But contrary to what was discussed on Countdown with McClennan tonight - Valerie Plame's ID was not including in the NIE, according to transcripts of the Libby Trial Her status as an employee at CIA was included in a State Dept INR memo which was generated, in part, by Scooter Libby asking Armitage's deputy Marc Grossman about Joe Wilson's trip. If Scooter hadn't made an issue of it, there wouldn't have been a memo - which was STILL classified - for him to later leak to Armitage, Rove and others.

Second point, the NIE information that Libby was authorized to give to reporters, something that Richard Cheney's actual press secretary Cathie Martin refused to do, was all bullshit. Libby told Judith Miller that the NIE made an "unequivocal case against Saddam and his weapons program" That was a lie. Even the executive summary of NIE didn't make that case, and in the actual classified section was an extensive State and Energy Dept debunking of the aluminum tubes theory. It even posits that the Niger documents that Joe Wilson went to investigate were forgeries! Libby also told Miller that "Wilson's wife works at CIA, and that's why he was sent...", except that he told her that she worked in Non-proliferation when Grossman had told him that she worked for CPD, and that info was confirmed to Libby by Robert Grenier the CIA's top man on Iraq. The difference is crucial - CPD is where the COVERT SPIES WORKED!!

If LIbby had told her Wilson's Wife works for CPD even Thick-as-Rocks-Miller could have figured out that she was probably a covert operative and she was now a participant in Treason.

Libby's meeting with Miller on June 23rd was the FIRST case where classified info on Plame and Wilson went to an unauthorized person. It was the first time her ID was revealed. But it wasn't the last. The only reason Miller didn't reveal the information long before Robert Novak was because the New York Times refused to print the story. And if Karl Rove hadn't confirmed to Novak what Armitage had told him about Plame, he wouldn't have printed it either.

Yes, they were bloody well involved you nipple.

Libby's guilty sentence was perfectly appropriate considering he lied both the FBI and the Grand Jury that he first heard about Plame from Tim Russert, instead of the truth, Dick Cheney told him.

Then there's the Iraq War:

Limbaugh: His book is fiction. President Bush delivered 24 major speeches on Iraq over two years. Congress sited no fewer than 23 reasons when it overwhelming gave Bush the right to removed Saddam Hussein

Congress didn't give those reasons, the Iraq Force Resolution was written by the White House and it required the President to verify that there was no chance that "Diplomacy could still work" with Saddam. Bush to this very DAY is still claiming that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors back in, but he started the War while the inspectors where in the middle of finding and destroying al-Samoud missles that they found - IN IRAQ! They said that Saddam wouldn't come clean because he didn't explain What he Did with Yellowcake Uranium that Joe Wilson couldn't Find - BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE

Hey Rush, McClennan's not the "DOLT" or the "idiot" here - you are.

Vyan

They Shoot Peacemakers Don't They?

It had to be this way...

This is how it had to end.

No one was going to push Hillary out of this race, except Hillary. No one was going to invent some genius argument, that was going to convince her or her supporters that her candidacy had to end - she had to do it herself.

Of course, it's not going to end. It's going to limp on for a few more weeks, it might even get worse for her as she attempts, as she has so many times before, to lash out at the invisible enemies who have so spitefully held her back, and blocked her inevitable coronation.

It had to finally be revealed that Hillary's greatest foe, her greatest downfall, is Hillary.

The truly sad thing is that I think many of us are fully aware that Hillary probably didn't mean to deliberately build the construction that she needed to stay in the race purely because Barack Might Get Shot.

She's been saying over and over again how she's the "better candidate", and that's the reason she's continued to fight on. Frankly, looking at the Electoral Vote Map, she has a point.

Even as of today the state-by-state polls indicate she has a lead over McCain of 312 to 202 Electoral votes with 270 being needed to win the Presidency. That's practically a blow-out.

The thing is that winning isn't everything.

There's also the question of "Who would make the Better President?"

What Hillary has shown us again and again, long before this latest rhetorical blunder, is that it wouldn't be her.

She was against seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida before she was for seating them. She and her campaign gleefully exploited the Secret-Muslim smears, the links to a "Slum Lord", to an ex-Hippie Radical whose never been charged or indicted with anything, and his links to the outrageous black preacher - look he's black and angry and stuff - with the verbal diarrhea problem. (Not that any of them have ever spoken for Barack, but who cares?) She claimed we shouldn't just count the votes from 48 States, we should count all the votes - except for the caucus states she didn't win. We've heard her claim that the "little states" don't count when she doesn't win them, but that they show that "Barack can't close the deal" when she does. We've heard Geraldine give us the "Barack wouldn't be where he was if he was white" upper-cut, while Hillary herself delivers the round-house that his problem is that "He can't get the poor dumb white voters", and she can.

And all the while, the real reason she hasn't already won the nomination is because of all the sexism!?

Yeah, right.

If this was about just the one RFK statment, it woudn't be so bad. But we've already heard her claim that MLK wasn't as important as LBJ right on top of the 40 anniversary of Martin's murder. Why should we be surprised when she didn't know that she should have stopped with the insensitive crazy talk back then, and has now basically did the exact same thing to RFK and his memory?

I know some of her supporters feel that all she's done is fight hard and I agree we do need Democrats to fight hard for what they believe in. But what is it that she's shown she believes in here? That MLK doesn't matter? That she's Hubert Humphrey waiting in the wings for Kennedy's fall only to lose in November to Nixon? That truth is only viable when it's expedient? That some white people are irredeemably racist, and she doesn't care? That instead she's willing to exploit fear and paranoia of a black man, who couldn't possibly love America as much as she does or they do, while claiming she's the victim of gender prejudice? What, just cuz Chris Matthews is a condescending prick? Grow up. Have these all just been political arguments that have nothing to do with how she really thinks or how she would really govern?

Which version of Hillary are you guys supporting? Do you think you get to pick your personal favorite and go with that?

This is not how we need a potentially leader of the free world to be thinking, speaking or acting. They're supposed to be fighting for us, not just for themselves. If the RFK comment was her response to a 3 A.M. wake-up call, she just flubbed it and started World War III with most of America. Nobody makes you take the Low-Road, it's not a mandate, it's not a requirement - it's a choice. There's always a better option. She has simply made the wrong call - repeatedly - because she thought she could get away with it. She thought "it's just politics", instead of it being a complete lack of character. It's not just politics, it's clearly a part of who she is, and she's not getting away with it. Not anymore.

It's time for Hillary's supporters, to realize they made an honest mistake. Yes, she does seem like a great candidate on paper. Electorally it makes sense. It's true that she would probably win the Presidency more easily than Barack and that feeling that way can be easily understood, forgiven and forgotten. In the heat of a passionate campaign, we can all sometimes say things we don't literally mean, it can get away from us. But now it's time to face the facts.

Her campaign is in it's last throes. She's not going to be the nominee. She's not going to the be VP. She's out. She's probably going to continue to hang around, continue to get a few more charity/protest votes in Puerto Rico, but then - it's over.

This isn't a construction of the media. This isn't the boys club trying to squeeze her out. She's been dancing on the edge of the rhetorical cliff for months now. We all know it. Many of her supporters have happily cheered her on with each new dazzling kick and spin move. But you have to know she's been flirting with total disaster and devastation all along. It's been the kitchen-sink/scorched earth strategy for a long time. Now she's finally gone tumbling down the cliff and Nobody pushed her.

She fell off the cliff all by herself.

That's the way it had to go. It wouldn't have been tolerated if Barack had cut her off at the knees. He would've become the bad guy. The big black meany man who stole her Presidency from her. But that's not what happened. Nobody can claim that Barack knee-capped our first potential female President. She just lost.

She utterly failed the Commander-and-Chief test.

I'm not gleeful about this. I'm not joyful. I'm just relieved that it just might - just might - be nearly done with. I'm telling you this has not be fun to watch. Democrats clawing at Democrats. Friendships broken. Families going at each other. It's been H.E.L.L.

That is why people have wanted this to come to an end. We've needed to put her out of our misery. It's not about June. It's the fact that you don't count the length of campaign from the finish line backward, you count it from the beginning. This campaign has essentially been going on for a year and a half already. The only reason anyone might have wanted Hillary out of the race, beside the fact that she hasn't been able to statistically win for weeks, is that they're are just plain SICK AND TIRED OF IT ALL.

22 debates. 22 Friggin Debates. Enough already. We get it. We know who we want, we don't want Hillary. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

The one thing I have to thank Hillary for - in a sad, sick way - is making Barack a better candidate than he had been. McCain can't play the "He's a Negro" dog-whistle game on him, she's already done it and still lost. He can't argue that he's "too inexperienced", because with experience and judgment like her's - we obviously need more rookies. Obama is now innoculated on Reverend Wright, on William Aires and on Tony Rezzco. He's teflon. Unbreakable.

During all these challenges Obama has shown us a grace, class, dignity and clarity of vision that is rare and awe inspiring. His speech in Philadelphia was historic. That's how we need a someone to respond under pressure. These primaries have shown why we need a President like Barack Obama. This is the guy I want answering the crisis phone at 3 a.m. and at 2 p.m.

So, yes in a way, we owe Hillary our thanks.

It's also true that during her various attacks Barack suffered Electorally. Back on May 5th, Obama and McCain were in a dead-heat with 264 to 263 Electoral Votes respectively.

After Hillary hit him with Bitter-gate and "He's an Elitist who doesn't relate to hard-working blue collar (white) Americans" Barack lost ground not just in West Virginia, but in Texas, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan falling behind McCain 290 to 237 on May 11th.

But today - literally today,just a single day after Hillary's campaign has taken what may well be a mortal wound - Barack has flipped the map by gaining ground in New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. He now has regained the lead with 266 to 248.

He still has to break the tie in both Indiana and Virginia, as well as hold his leads in New Mexico, Ohio and Missouri to win. But it's possible he could do that and take back Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina. Sure, it could also go back the other way, there are quite a few states at play, including red ones, But today, for the first time, if just a few things go his way, it looks like Obama could win by an Electoral Land-Slide!

And we have Hillary to thank for that. Somebody had to air out of Barack's near-dirty laundry, better it was Hillary now than McCain in November.

It had to be this way.

By finally exiting the race, and not seeking to use her delegate votes to engineer some kind of Shotgun Wedding as VP, Hillary will be doing us all a great service.

She just might of saved this country, from both McCain and herself.

Vyan

Olbermann on Hillary's RFK Gaffe

On Olbermann, Cold-Blooded Killers and Bald-Faced Liars

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.

We 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.

Does Laura?