« Death in the Post-Decency World | Main | New York to Hand Out Drivers Licenses to Illegals »

Shameless bit of semi-self-promoting countermoonbattery here. I hope you don't mind, but the story is good: Philippines Marines train to cut Al-Qaeda allies, Abu Sayyef to pieces. Literally.

Olbermann said it like is is....he didn't mince any words and was right to the point. He talked bottom line.

You think so, Casseeyy? If things were only HALF as bad as you Liberals think they are, Olberman wuldn't have been able to make that attack because he would have been in PRISON with thousands of other terrorist-loving Lefties.

Muslims hate Liberals and if you fools had directed your hate towards THEM instead of America, this war would have ended YEARS AGO! This war is still going on because of YOU and people like you, Casseeyy. You have innocent blood on your hands.

"The Odd Couple, All In The Family, and Dying Woman Getting Peed On were filmed before a live audience."

That, sir, is not only un-American. It is dictatorial.

It never ceases to amaze me that those people that align themselves with the Left, all of the worst dictators of the world that have done so much harm and murdered so many people, go around accusing others of being un-American and dictatorial.

Casseeyy,

You're living proof that every time a liberal thinks, they weaken America.

BTW, out Founding Fathers considered the word "democrat" a slur as: "one who panders to the masses."

They were right then and now.

Based on what's circulating about Olberman's private life, he's NOT doing parody.

"Keith Olbermann: Moonbat or Parody?"
Please! No more false dichotomies: Both!

It's amazing that the blogs of the over the edge right will continue to flog this horse long after rigor mortis has set in, all for the intent of diversion from its own admission of abject failures. So, after the country genuflected to the instructed manipulation of the truth from the true soldier Colin Powell, it's now a "treasonous and despicable political act" to ask a Four Star General not to follow suite and betray us as well? And you're saying that the right hasn't had a field day politicizing the spineless left for not having the backbone to ask tough questions? The only question of courage that's been ask was from Sen Warner(he isn't running for reelection); "are we safer?" Obviously, we are not. As you indulge in your own kool-aid and sink in your own moonbattery, I'm wondering if you realize that those in the above picture will remain stuck in this stay-the-course quagmire while the Bush team plots ways to buy time and the left has no balls to adhere to Americans demands. All we're dealing with is the constant sniping from the people who lied us into an unplanned war, then lost the war they started, but will never, ever, take responsibility for their failures. Oh, and spare me the "you lefties come with a plan". This war belongs to Bush and the Republicans in power.

Are you on crack Ron?

You said,

"It's amazing that the blogs of the over the edge right will continue to flog this horse long after rigor mortis has set in..."

This post is about Olbermann's attacks on "Betray-US" that HE MADE THE NIGHT BEFORE.

Its no wonder why you take the facts out of context. You dont even know what they are. You have replaced history with anti-American talking points.

Freedom, the irony in your response is truly amusing. If you read the contents of my post, you'll notice I've said that this ordeal has been overly played out by the right but passively ignored by the left. You take Olbermann's comments and once again, flog this already dead horse as it diverts from the true failures your party has so obviously sustained. As expected, you admonish anyone that dares question your rationale as speaking in an "anti-American" way. If one doesn't agree with you, they're anti-American. If one questions the Bush Administration, they're anti-American. If one ask a commanding General not to lie to us like the Secretary of State Colin Powell did, you cry bloody murder. You exploit the troops to protect your dignity and proclaim you're right. While the true heroes are fighting, your base is eroding. The riddance will be welcomed.

Ron,

The fact is that our country is at war and have had some important successes in the field, but people like you want to hide that information from the public so badly that you accuse a man who is doing his job as a soldier of being a liar -or- traitor -or- at least defending those that do simply because he tells the whole story... Not just what you want to hear.

When challenged by Congressional leaders Petraeus has in no way covered up the difficulties we have had in Iraq and even going as far to answer “I don’t know” when asked if Al Qaeda could use Iraq as a base to attack America. He clearly felt that was a political question and did not get involved. If he was the political animal you accuse him of then he could have at least said “maybe” and appear to remain non-committal but still get the Bush Administration’s point across. However, this would be the most important point for the Bush Administration to get across about Al Qaeda in Iraq and he skipped the opportunity.

Getting to the heart of the matter… Our new Sunni allies have rebelled against Al Qaeda and have joined forces with our troops against a common enemy, despite the fact that they were once enemies as well. This is an important development that has greatly reduced the fighting in some areas yet you are quick to attempt to cover it up at the expense of our country's war effort.

Just because you are at war with Bush doesnt mean that you have to propagandize against the accomplishments and character of our troops. They are not one and the same.

Anyways, I am sorry to see you resort to lying in order to defend your attacks. You never said that this ordeal has been passively ignored by the left. If you cant fess up about your own mistakes you shouldnt point your finger elsewhere.

And what would that matter, anyways? You still said, "It's amazing that the blogs of the over the edge right will continue to flog this horse long after rigor mortis has set in..." and this post was still a response to Olbermann's comments on the subject the day before. Olbermann’s big mouth was keeping the issue alive, not Moonbattery.com The fact that you find it so threatening reveals that this issue has merit. After all, you commented twice on the subject in one day. Are you flogging a dead horse?

Irony is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

I'm trying to follow Olbie's logic here. So when the Democrats buy full page ads attacking the military, it's because Bush made them do it?

What makes you think Olbermann follows a proper course of logic? Remember the just said that Fox was worse that al Qaeda? The guy clearly isn't even attempting to be a journalist anymore and has fully embraced opinionated commentary. He's not reporting the news - he's spouting rhetoric.

Freedom, slow down pal as that froth can short circuit a keyboard quicker than kool-aid. I never called Petraeus a "liar -or- traitor" like you accused me of. Please show me where I said that.
You kinda shied away from the Collin Powell issue didn't you? Remember in February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He later admitted that he knew better but did it out of loyalty. Oh, and forgive me for not seeing our overwhelming success in Iraq. After all, we've already been told that it's mission accomplished and they're in their last throes so who am I to question the integrity of such honest leadership.

Ahhhh… my apologies. Your propaganda-analogy confused me.

You said, “If one ask a commanding General not to lie to us like the Secretary of State Colin Powell did, you cry bloody murder.” …I thought you were accusing Petraeus of being a liar but now I see what you are getting at.

I don’t think in leftwing talking points so I didn’t see how Powell is relevant to Petraeus. Whether or not Powell is a liar is irrelevant to whether or not Petraeus is lying. If what you say is true - Powell is proven to be a liar. So in the scenario that you portray he is an untrustworthy person. That would put him in a different class than an honest man like Petraeus. Basically the analogy that you have described would be like comparing “Chemical Ali” to “Stormin’ Norman”. There is no comparison in the level of integrity of these two men.

We all know that anybody even a priest can lie. However, for MoveOn to accuse someone as transparent and patient as Petraeus of not only being a liar, but unpatriotic is extremely offensive. This came even before his report so basically they were trying to pre-empt the truth. They only wanted one side of the story and it is they who are being unpatriotic by trying to suppress information from being released to the public. It would be like trying to cover up the Midway victory in WWII (being that you love analogies so much).

Unfortunately, your last sentence sounds like you think that Petraeus is a liar anyway, but are afraid to come on out and say it. Is that true?

Freedom, that last sentence said "After all, we've already been told that it's mission accomplished and they're in their last throes so who am I to question the integrity of such honest leadership." You take that as I,m calling PETRAEUS a liar??
Understandably, "leadership" would be ones that claimed "mission accomplishment" and "last throes" and their credibility is somewhat in the gutter. I suppose you feel that Rumsfield has always been straight up honest with the American people? You are of a minority if you do. Colin Powell, a very honorable man, has openly admitted he didn't agree with the statements he made in Feb 2003 but as a soldier, was loyal to his superiors. ASKING Petraeus not to be like them but rather, be honest with us is far from the atrocity that you're trying to put your spin to. You take my statements and twist them to force me to defend myself. You failed to contradict a single point of mine. As usual, defenders of the empire ignore the arguments of those on the other side and instead choose to create their own argument out of thin air. Then, after supposedly “winning” the fabricated argument, they feel they can dismiss the opponent with contempt. It’s boring and counterproductive.

Ron, I gave you the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt.

I asked whether or not you thought Petraeus was a liar from the following statement that you made…

“After all, we’ve already been told that it’s mission accomplished and they’re in their last throes so who am I to question the integrity of such honest leadership.”

That is a reasonable question coming from those strong words. I didn’t ask you about Powell or Rumsfeld so don’t say that I twist the subject. I ask that you address the issue instead of throwing around smokescreens. I have answered your question about Powell even though it has nothing to do with Petraeus so you could at least clarify what you said in that sentence.

If you want to “question the integrity of such honest leadership” then why don’t you tell me EXACTLY what it is about Petraeus that leads you to “question the integrity of such honest leadership”?

Basically you never answered my question, but you spent your entire comment hemming and hawing around it. Please refrain from saying that my reasoning is counterproductive and fabricated if you are going to continue to avoid the point. This is a two-way street.

I asked whether or not you thought Petraeus was a liar from the following statement that you made…

“After all, we’ve already been told that it’s mission accomplished and they’re in their last throes so who am I to question the integrity of such honest leadership.”

Again Freedom, the "leadership" in my sarcastic statement referred to Bush, Chaney, and Powell as they were the "leaders" that made the above and/or other statements I've referred to. The statements as well as Powell's, Rumsfield, et al., have been proven to be anywhere from incorrect to misleading to outright lies. Does this mean I'm calling Patraeus a liar? No. Once agian for fear of being misunderstood; no I'm not calling General Patraeus a liar. I do however find it appropriate to ask the General not to betray us as we have been by the current administration and its loyal followers. If you feel that this administration has been completely honest with the American people, I'm sure that in your world, every day's a holiday, Sunday comes twice a week, and there's a Wallgreens on every corner.

The personal attacks on Petraeus by MoveOn (and later Olbermann) called him a liar and insisted that he was a puppet of the White House.

What we have is modern-day McCarthyism in which anyone perceived (real or not) to be associated with the White House is a heretic and insulted to no end.

Our military is governed by rules that prevent it from interfering in the affairs of our government. As such they must report to civilian authority. The President is the Commander in Chief and therefore Petraeus must ultimately report to him. There are legal means that have been established in our Constitution by which Congress can influence the President and the military. These hearings are an example of that. You will find that there are many other checks and balances that are codified into law.

In this instance, the freedom of speech is another means by which the general public can wield influence in these affairs. This valuable freedom is not reserved for just the opposition.

The pro-victory population has every right to defend themselves and under the First Amendment they even have the right to counterattack against their tormentors.

We have a strong democracy that is working as it was supposed to.

If you feel that Petraeus is telling the truth then we have something in common.