Delving further into the swamp.
If you really want to see how bad the fever swamp left has gotten, you need look no further than "Countdown" with Keith Olbermann. Last week brought us a classic example of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) courtesy of Newsbusters. In opening his show Olberman hinted that the attack that was thwarted by British Intelligence was "not quite as real as advertised". He then went on to imply that the administration used their campaign plan to paint the Dems as "soft on terror" to push the Brits into arresting the terror plotters right after the Connecticut primary - to push Ned Lamont's victory over Bush lackey Joe Leiberman!
Well first off the Administration doesn't have to do much at all to push the impression that the Dems are soft on terror. They demonstrate that to the world day in and day out.
Even one of Olbermann's guests, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, thought that Olbermann was carrying this a bit far as this excerpt indicates:
"Olbermann: "None of us can say for certain why the Bush administration would have pressured British authorities to move early on the terror arrests, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, even doing that, did not the pounding by the Vice President, by Ken Mehlman, by others, still leave the administration wide open for doubt and even suspicion about the timing of all this?"
Milbank: "Well, Keith, that's just the kind of question that emboldens the al-Qaeda types."
Olbermann: "Thank you very much."
Milbank: "Well, it's not really even a matter of suspicion. I mean, Karl Rove came out earlier this year and said, look, this is what our fall campaign is going to be about, it's about stirring up terrorism and then saying that we can protect you better than the other guy. I wouldn't get too bogged down in the timing issue because, if anything, the Bush administration politically would have wanted to wait until September or October when everybody was paying attention. But it's not even an open secret, it's completely out in the open that terrorism is politicized routinely over and over again." (emphasis added)
Milbank is correct - terrorism HAS been politicized over and over in the last 5 years - it was a staple of the 2004 election. He is also correct in his analysis that if the administration was indeed looking for an "imminent attack" to exploit they would have waited until October when people were actually paying attention to the elections.
The fact that Keith Olbermann has any viewers is astonishing. That 375,000 people in this country actually watch this tripe and take him seriously is disturbing. Then again, I do know some people who think that the Popular Mechanics article (and soon to be book) debunking the 9/11 myths is a government conspiracy so.....
Well first off the Administration doesn't have to do much at all to push the impression that the Dems are soft on terror. They demonstrate that to the world day in and day out.
Even one of Olbermann's guests, Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, thought that Olbermann was carrying this a bit far as this excerpt indicates:
"Olbermann: "None of us can say for certain why the Bush administration would have pressured British authorities to move early on the terror arrests, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, even doing that, did not the pounding by the Vice President, by Ken Mehlman, by others, still leave the administration wide open for doubt and even suspicion about the timing of all this?"
Milbank: "Well, Keith, that's just the kind of question that emboldens the al-Qaeda types."
Olbermann: "Thank you very much."
Milbank: "Well, it's not really even a matter of suspicion. I mean, Karl Rove came out earlier this year and said, look, this is what our fall campaign is going to be about, it's about stirring up terrorism and then saying that we can protect you better than the other guy. I wouldn't get too bogged down in the timing issue because, if anything, the Bush administration politically would have wanted to wait until September or October when everybody was paying attention. But it's not even an open secret, it's completely out in the open that terrorism is politicized routinely over and over again." (emphasis added)
Milbank is correct - terrorism HAS been politicized over and over in the last 5 years - it was a staple of the 2004 election. He is also correct in his analysis that if the administration was indeed looking for an "imminent attack" to exploit they would have waited until October when people were actually paying attention to the elections.
The fact that Keith Olbermann has any viewers is astonishing. That 375,000 people in this country actually watch this tripe and take him seriously is disturbing. Then again, I do know some people who think that the Popular Mechanics article (and soon to be book) debunking the 9/11 myths is a government conspiracy so.....
posted by The Lady Logician at
7:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home