Skip to content

“Stop Making our Troops Suffer in Order to Make our Generals Happy.” Meltdown with Keith Olbermann Part 18

December 2, 2009

Keith Olbermann outdid himself Monday night on the eve of President Obama—finally—announcing his strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

He told the President to “get out now,” because the General advising him is a liar, and that the generals advising him are “in the war business,” conduct “war for the sake of war,” are looking for quagmires to keep the “war business” going, and compared  them to 12 year-olds who don’t want to go to bed.

Dreading just such a reaction from the fruit-loop wing of his party, President Obama has delayed sending needed reinforcements for troops in the field, and dithered away the summer season when offensive operations could have been most effective.

And it was a waste, Mr. President.  The radical Left is not going to respect your “thoughtfulness” if the decision allows for even the possibility of the projection of American power, or the killing of America’s enemies.

It was predictable.  Olbermann challenges Obama to live up to his “hope and change” rhetoric, deliberately ignoring the constant drumbeat from the candidate that Afghanistan was “the good war,” and the “necessary” one.  Afghanistan was a hammer against George W. Bush and Iraq.  Now that the focus is Afghanistan, they no longer want to fight it.  It was predictable.

Because to the Left—and to Olbermann and Obama—the Afghanistan issue was NEVER about beating al Qaeda, it was about beating Republicans. That’s why Olbermann now thinks it’s time to “declare victory and go home.”

In a rant that was filled with 60s cultural and political references—and could have been subtitled, “Everything I Know about the Pentagon I Learned at SDS Rallies and Reruns of Dr. Strangelove”—Olbermann did everything but chant, “Hey Hey, how many kids did you kill today?”

General McChrystal has doubtless served his country bravely and honorably and at great risk, but to date his lasting legacy will be as the great facilitator of the obscenity that was transmuting the greatest symbol of this nation’s true patriotism, of its actual willingness to sacrifice, into a distorted circus fun-house mirror version of such selflessness.

Friendly fire killed Pat Tillman. Mr. McChrystal killed the truth about Pat Tillman. And that willingness to stand truth on its head on behalf of “selling” a war or the generic idea of America being at war to turn a dead hero into a meaningless recruiting poster, should ring essentially relevant right now.

Wait just a minute. Who is using Pat Tillman as a political tool?  And in a cause directly opposed to the one he gave his life supporting?

Only the deepest recesses of the paranoid Left buys the slander that McChrystal deliberately was involved in any cover-up in the reporting of the Pat Tillman death.

But let’s examine that just for a minute.  The media focus HAS robbed Pat Tillman of his heroic status and made him merely a victim.  The evidence against McChrystal is that he put out the word that the fact that Tillman braved intense enemy fire to protect another soldier should not be de-emphasized.

Well of COURSE, it shouldn’t! Tillman got a Silver Star for braving enemy fire to save a comrade in a blistering firefight—no matter whose bullet actually killed him.

From the very center of a part of our nation that could lie to the public, could lie to his mother, about what really happened to Pat Tillman, from the very man who was at the operational center of that plan, comes the entire series of plans to help us supposedly find the way out of Afghanistan? We are supposed to believe General McChrystal isn’t lying about Afghanistan?

Didn’t he blow his credibility by lying, so obviously and so painfully, about Pat Tillman? Why are we believing the McChrystals? Their reasons might sound better than the ones they helped George Bush and Dick Cheney fabricate for Iraq, but surely they are just as transparently oblivious of the forest.

“The McChrystals?”  I’m sorry, did I miss that this is a family business?  Of course, this sleazy tactic enables Olbermann to put anything he wants to in General McChrystal’s mouth, then say, “I didn’t say HE said it, I said people LIKE him said it.”

But General Stanley McChrystal is an individual, and an uncommonly distinguished servant of his country.  Therefore, he must be destroyed.  By any means necessary.

So, Keith implies that Stanley McChystal is a sociopath, in the leadership of a club of sociopaths, whose only purpose in life is to send our nation’s finest into the meat grinder for no discernable purpose.

The Pentagon… is in the War business. You were right, Mr. President, to slow the process down, once a series of exit strategies was offered to you by men whose power and in some case livelihoods are predicated on making sure all exit strategies, everywhere, forever, don’t really result in any service-man or woman actually exiting.

We cannot afford this ethically, Sir. The country has, for eight shameful years, forgotten its moral compass and its world purpose.  And here is your chance to reassert that there is, in fact, American Exceptionalism. We are better. We know when to stop making our troops suffer, in order to make our generals happy.

Yes, the object of the Pentagon is to look for unwinnable quagmires so that they can stay in the “war business.”  I’m not sure Michael Moore even believes that.

Then the full moon insanity really manifested itsef, as Keith addresses the President with the world’s weirdest conspiracy theory, but tries to inoculate the inherent insanity in it, by admitting it’s paranoid but putting it out there, anyway:

And upon arrival you were greeted by a Three Mile Island of an economy, so bad that in the most paranoid recesses of the mind one could wonder if the Republicans didn’t plan it that way, to leave you in the position of having to prove the ultimate negative, that you staved off worldwide financial collapse, that if you had not done what you so swiftly did, that this “economic cloudy day” would have otherwise been the “biblical flood of finance.”

Yes, 30 years ago, Republicans deployed ACORN, Jesse Jackson, and Barney Frank to attack banking standards in the name of racial equality in order to bankrupt the economy so that a future liberal messiah would be constrained in his spending… no wait, he’s spending trillions… uh, forced to continue a war… no, can’t connect that… what was I talking about again?

You know this, Mr. President: we cannot afford this war. Nothing makes less sense to our economy than the cost of supply for 35,000 new troops. Nothing will do more to slow economic recovery. You might as well shoot the revivified auto industry or embrace John Boehner Health Care Reform and Spray-Tan Reimbursement.

“Nothing?”  Really?  Even the inflated numbers put out by antiwar activists about the cost of the war, put it at about 5% of the so-called “stimulus package,” about 3% of the cost of Cap and Trade, or about 5% of the Harry Reid plan to insure another 10% of uninsured Americans.

And we in Michigan would like some evidence of this “revivified auto industry.”

What does it cost to lose a war?  That is incalculable.  What did 9/11 cost?  Keith admits its even likely that Afghanistan will again be occupied by foreign invaders, it would just make him feel more noble if it were not us.  So, create a safe haven for al Qaeda.  What could that cost?

But as Keith reveals, the Left never believed anything Obama said about Afghanistan was more than convenient rhetoric.  They supported Obama from the beginning of the primaries because they expected him to lose wars and abandon the efforts.  Now, they are going to hold him to it.

Advertisements
10 Comments
  1. Jay Kanter permalink
    December 2, 2009 9:27 am

    Keith Olbermann,Ed Shultz,Rachel Maddow,Chris Matthews,and David Schuster are all mentally and emotionally disturbed.Don’t waste your time watching or reading them.THEY
    WORK FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS ATTACK DOGS.

    • Carterthewriter permalink
      December 2, 2009 1:33 pm

      They’re headed for a chain gang. Worry no more, Jay.

  2. December 2, 2009 9:33 am

    “Only the deepest recesses of the paranoid Left buys the slander that McChrystal deliberately was involved in any cover-up in the reporting of the Pat Tillman death.”

    I beg to differ. Both the “Left” and “Right” have acted together to protect General McChrystal from punishment for his central role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death. For details, take a look at my documents posted at feralfirefighter.blogspot.com

    . . .

    Three years ago Kevin Tillman wrote his eloquent letter, “After Pat’s Birthday”: “Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. … Somehow this is tolerated. Somehow nobody is accountable for this.”

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091106_happy_birthday_pat_tillman/

    Kevin had hoped the 2006 election of a Democratic Congress would bring accountability. But, just as with warrantless wiretapping and torture, those responsible for the cover-up of his brother’s fratricide have not been held accountable by the Democratic Congress.

    In his book, “Where Men Win Glory,” Jon Krakauer blamed the Bush administration. However, the cover-up has been a thoroughly bipartisan affair. The Democratic Congress and the Obama Presidency have protected General McChrystal from punishment for his central role in orchestrating the cover-up:

    http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-they-teach-you-how-to-lie-yet_06.html

    Sometime after his April 2007 Tillman hearing, Congressman Henry Waxman got the word the “fix” was in, to lay off McChrystal. Shortly before his August 2007 Tillman hearing, McChrystal was dropped from the list of witnesses and never interviewed despite his central role in the cover-up.

    Senator James Webb conducted a secret “review” of McChrystal’s role. On May 15th 2008, the Senate Armed Services Committee (headed by Levin and McCain) held a secret “executive session” where McChrystal testified behind closed doors about his actions “in detail.” Shortly afterwards, the Senate promoted him to Director of the Joint Staff.

    On May 12th 2009, despite McChrystal’s role, President Obama handpicked McChrystal to be his new commander of the Afghan War and for promotion to the Army’s highest rank. Ironically, on the following day Obama gave the commencement address at Arizona State University inside Sun Devil Stadium without once mentioning Pat Tillman! [Note: see Bob Young’s “Obama’s Big-Time Fumble” (Arizona Republic 5-17-09].

    After a pro forma June 2nd hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate (begged to do so by Senator Reid) confirmed McChrystal’s promotion on June 10th.

    It’s not surprising that after the initial fratricide cover-up fell apart, Army officers and the Bush administration lied to protect their careers. Reprehensible, but understandable. But the Democratic Congress, after they took control of both Houses in 2006, could have gone after those responsible. Or at least not promoted them!

    And Andrew Exum’s review of Krakauer’s book for the Washington Post covered for McChrystal as well. Yet, Andrew never mentioned his extensive personal and professional conflicts of interests: he is a “fan” of McChrystal, worked with him closely during the past summer Afghan War assessement, and he works for Nate Fick’s Center for a New American Security (CNAS) that meets with McChrystal weekly and is leading the push for the Afghan surge.

    The media’s been complicit as well. The New York Time’s Pentagon Reporter Thom Shanker wrote a May 26th piece “clearing” McChrystal of all wrong-doing shortly before McChrystal’s confirmation hearing. Since then, Thom has enjoyed favorable access to McChrystal (so much for the NYT’s coverage without “fear or favor’!) Ironically, Thom Shanker is currently a “writer in residence” with you at CNAS!

    http://feralfirefighter.blogspot.com/2009/11/lies-borne-out-by-facts-if-not-truth.html

    Guy Montag, SSGT Co. “F” (Ranger) 425th INF MI ARNG 1983 — 1991

    • Wayne permalink
      December 2, 2009 2:05 pm

      Good post, Guy. The Tillman family has reason to morally outraged at the “friendly fire” killing of Pat Tillman and then the cover-up that followed. With friends like those who needs enemies? Having three rounds fired into his forehead by his so-called comrades and then destroying his private possessions before turning the body over to the family it almost sounds like a planned hit …

      Certainly enough to make others question making the courageous stand that Pat Tillman did in enlisting for all the right and honorable reasons after an outrageous attack on his own country — but then who are you going to trust when the previous President assures the world that Islam is a religion of peace only to be replaced by another President that may himself consider America the enemy while considering Islam an honorable and peaceful religion.

      • David Forsmark permalink
        December 2, 2009 4:13 pm

        I’m sure Guy appreciates being supported by someone who is thinking “planned hit.” Look, this is not unique to this war. Read Flags of our Fathers. It didn’t mean we shouldn’t go on to Okinawa, however.

        • Wayne permalink
          December 2, 2009 5:14 pm

          I suppose you are right, David. In war there are all sorts of casualties including the truth. It does seem there are some ill fitting pieces in the Tillman episode. The family is outraged about what they perceive to be a lack of forthrightness on what exactly happened to their family member. Yo can agree or disagree — I just happen to agree with the Tillman family on this from my understanding of what happened.

          • David Forsmark permalink
            December 2, 2009 5:50 pm

            The Tillmans have a right to their grief and their outrage, if that’s how they want to react. The Olbermann slander is a deliberate reach, however.

  3. Paul permalink
    December 2, 2009 10:25 am

    Keith Olbermann is an idiot. Didn’t he attack Lou Dobbs? Keith Olbermann is making it seem like a conspiracy. Keith Olbermann is making it seem like the only thing we need over in Afghanistan are little kids who praise the enemy to make them just go away (who are illegal Americans, because “they need the jobs”) and they just have to hope that no one kills, hurts, or robs them. Remember (this is in Olby-Land) Islamic fanatic terrorists are actually the GOOD guys and the evil, meanie generals are the devils of the world and so are American lovers and believe who even believe in religion one bit. Aren’t Generals troops as well? Without Generals, the troops wouldn’t exactly know what to do. And you’d have to have about 50 Colonels to one Maj. General, and Sergeants? That’s like 10,000 sergeants to one Maj. General. Olbermann, you damn tard. And seriously, Mr. “Keith”, what did 9/11 cost? Diddly squat? Sounds like it to you and in Olby-Land. Heh, we can call Olbermann a bigot for hating 3000 innocent Americans (not including the soldiers).

  4. Ken permalink
    December 2, 2009 12:25 pm

    Keith Olbermann is a left-wing, Socialist zealot in the guise of a “respected” journalist. He will always be a mouthpiece for the ultra-left and do/say anything to support that agenda, even if it means defaming a determined and respected battlefield commander. I am sure in his mind America deserved 9/11 and the Fort Hood killer is a hero. He disgusts me!! He cares nothing for America or its people. His only interests are promoting himself, his show, and his and others radical left views and aspirations. He is a Progressive Tool!!

  5. JOHN REDMAN permalink
    December 2, 2009 1:39 pm

    Keith who?

Comments are closed.