Listen to Laura Ingraham’s take on Olbermann’s palinode, or recantation, of his rant in which he calls the USAF “cold blooded killers.”
Olby’s really getting out of control. I wouldn’t be surprised if he completely breaks down soon.
Listen to Laura Ingraham’s take on Olbermann’s palinode, or recantation, of his rant in which he calls the USAF “cold blooded killers.”
Olby’s really getting out of control. I wouldn’t be surprised if he completely breaks down soon.

|
11 Comments
That’s a rather inventive interpretation.
To which interpretation do you refer?
Two things: that he called the US Air Force “cold blooded killers”, and that he recanted any part of his special comment.
Also, Olbermann is completely right to be upset. To think that a gesture as insignificant as giving up golf somehow compares with losing a child, that giving up golf is a satisfactory expression of solidarity with the bereaved is bad enough. It’s like the United States sending a paltry $500,000 of emergency aid to China after they suffer a cataclysmic natural disaster, or like a family friend whose mother-in-law sent her a pack of disposable razors for Christmas. It is damning with faint praise.
But for even such a contemptuously minute gesture to have been a lie as well, is nothing short of breathtaking.
Whoa, whoa, whoa…
Hold on a second, Sergei. I used “USAF” to mean United States Armed Forces, my fault for not clarifying, but that’s a minor.
I hope you heard the actual interview which Olby misrepresented.
Transcript:
The interviewer asked Bush about golf, Bush answered. What would you expect him to do?
Also, yes, Olbermann said, actually, he was referring to the generals but that he should not have included all of them.
Did you listen to or watch Countdown, or the clip that is linked on this post… me thinks not?
“Did you listen to or watch Countdown”
Yes, I did.
“What would you expect him to do?”
Tell the truth.
Okay, Sergei.
Bush was asked: “Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?”
and Bush responded: “… I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Bush was asked: “… how did you come to that [decision]?”
and Bush responded: “I remember when de Mello… got killed in Baghdad… And I was playing golf… and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it anymore to do.”
Is this a lie? Bush didn’t say that this was the day he ceased playing all golf, did he? No. He said that that event brought him to the decision that playing golf was not something he should be seen doing.
Why is Olbermann outraged? It’s not like Bush said “to be in solidarity as best as I can with” the US Armed Forces, he had decided to give up golf. Bush said:
Olbermann misrepresented the President’s words. Remember, Olby said that Bush “equated” the sacrifices of the troops with “playing golf.” According to Olby, the act of giving up golf is enough for Bush to feel like he is fulfilling his obligation of being in solidarity with the families of the Troops. But, that’s not what Bush said at all. Bush said that, included in his belief that he should show solidarity with the families are sub-beliefs, one of which is “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf.”
This is just one of many sub-beliefs, but Olbermann confused the species for the genus and took the belief about not being seen playing golf as Bushes only belief about showing solidarity, when, in fact it was just one of many.
“Bush didn’t say that this was the day he ceased playing all golf, did he? No. He said that that event brought him to the decision that playing golf was not something he should be seen doing.”
So, you’re claiming that Bush continued to play golf after he’d decided that he should stop?
“the belief about not being seen playing golf as Bushes only belief about showing solidarity, when, in fact it was just one of many.”
Such as? This would have been a non-issue if there were other gestures, but throughout his presidency, Bush has demonstrated over and over and over again that he simply does not care about our soldiers. That’s why he ships their bodies home like some kind of cargo, when every other nation — and, up until his presidency, our nation — receives its fallen heroes with the honor they deserve. It’s why, while talking about deadly terrorist attacks,, he had this attitude. It’s why, when he learned that Iraq did not in fact have weapons of mass destruction, that he had made a colossal mistake that had resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, rather than being filled with horror, he joked about it. It’s why he has refused to properly equip our soldiers, despite being more than willing to spend money that does not exist. It’s why, even after the media revealed that the military had rejected Israeli anti-RPG technology that would have saved American lives, for no reason other than pride, he refused to step in. It’s why he continues to shred veterans’ benefits, resulting in countless deaths that could otherwise have been avoided. It’s why he took my grandfather’s program, which was intended to improve the care we’re providing for our veterans, and turned it over to Halliburton, resulting in the Walter Reed fiasco. It’s why he’s spent over an eighth of his presidency on vacation, despite the fact that we are in the middle of a war. And it’s why he always has that stupid smirk on his face. He suffers an almost total disconnect from the results of his actions. In light of all of this, do you not see why people should be outraged that he considers things as insignificant as giving up golf the best he can do? How about providing for them once they get home? How about taking some steps to ensure that they have the equipment they need to survive? How about allowing their bodies to return home in dignity? How about shedding a tear, or at the very least not smirking, when our soldiers are dying every single day?
And then to discover that even this one, pitiful gesture was a lie? How can you not be outraged?
I don’t know. But I do know that it was probably something that took a while for him to arrive at. I probably didn’t know what that odd feeling in his gut was at first, but then, maybe after a few more games, he realized that it just didn’t seem right.
Visiting wounded vets, honoring the fallen with medals and in broadcast speeches, and meeting with the families of the fallen, amongst other things.
But, Sergei, that doesn’t mean that your other complaints aren’t just as justified. That’s what you should be focused on. I once had a post about regime change in Iraq, a lone commenter and myself had a brief exchange. The commenter said:
I take this comment to mean, in general, use the most solid argument’s you have to make your case, and don’t play fast and loose with the facts.
This is precisely what Olbermann has done with Bush’s words.
And then to discover that even this one, pitiful gesture was a lie? How can you not be outraged?
Bush was asked a leading question, simple folk, like Bush, will jump on the out provided for them in order to save face or bolster their self-image or for various other reasons. This has been pretty well established and, in fact, on direct examination in court, leading questions are objectionable.
Do you think Bush would have said what he said about showing solidarity with families of soldiers if the interviewer had not suggested this to him?
a) If he would have, then Bush is clearly thinking about the lives affected by the war. I wouldn’t expect a simple man like Bush to come up with an on the spot lie that makes him look altruistic. I just don’t think he has the capacity.
b) If not, then Bush was led into making this statement by an interviewer who was taking advantage of his less-than-average cognitive powers.
If (b) is the case, and we don’t believe Bush would have made the remarks without the leading question, we can’t say that Bush equated “golf with the toll of the war,” or even that the suggestion that his not “golfing in recent years” as a symbol of solidarity originated in his mind. For it was the interviewer who provided this out, Bush merely followed the path on which he was led. If this is the case, only those with agendas that differ greatly from mine or yours, Sergei, would frame this as Olbermann has. For Olbermann, instead of any argument in the list of complaints found in your last comment, decided that lying about the nature, context, and meaning of a comment about golf was a preferable point on which to denounce the President. The sad thing is he didn’t need to lie, as you have shown. And the fact that Olbermann has railed on Bush for any of the above topics that you listed does not negate any of his other actions. Just as Hamas may provide Palestinians with transportation occasionally, this does not negate any of there evil deeds.
Anyway.
On topic:
It was not Olbermann’s rant on Bush that was really objectionable, it was the fact that he implied that Bush had created “cold blooded killers” which could be brought up on charges for war crimes. Olby was taking about the US military, this much was obvious, he even stated that he could see how some could see his comments that way and that he was unclear because he edited the transcript last minute. Then he said that not all of the intended targets of the accusation of “possible cold blooded killer” deserved to receive his denunciation, thus the title of the post “Ingraham on Olby’s Palinode”
I am confused, are you the infamous MC PEE Pants or does that claim to fame belong to Trajan.
I went by the name “Mr. President” on ThinkProgress. M.C. Pee Pants is a rapping spider who’s really a minion of Satan on Aqua Teen Hunger Force (#1 in the hood, G).
Bush may have been asked a leading question, but that does not change the fact that he lied.
As for KO not needing to bring this up, this was the issue at hand. Also, it’s sort of an adding insult to injury thing.
Post a Comment