Excuses In Favor Of Distance

The Modern American Right simply can't comprehend the very simple concept that they claim is one of the pillars of their ideology - accountability.

In light of the many "controversial" moments during the seemingly endless GOP Presidential debates, the Right is in full-on defense mode because some audience members booed an active duty member of the American Military because he is gay and he disagrees with Don't Ask Don't Tell.

For examples, check Breitbarts frothy-mouthed minions here, here, and here.

The rusty lynch-pin of their defense is that "it was just a couple of people", that this is something that not everyone in the Modern American Right would accept. And while the Right wants to paint this as a smear by Liberals/Progressive, the reality is that those that did cast aspersions at this soldier were largely ignored. They faced no backlash, even though Liberals/Progressives that merely questioned the need to invade and remain in Iraq were labeled as un-American traitors.

So it was with little surprise that I watched Fox"News" do their best to run . But what Megyn Kelly did was such a distortion of reality that I'm shocked that a time-space paradox didn't manifest itself right there in the studio with her:



Is Kelly attempting to excuse the actions of these people in order to push the narrative that there must be a specific amount of vitriol hurled by a set amount of persons toward a group of people that the Modern American Right allegedly champions before it becomes wrong? It would certainly appear that way. Moreover, her laughably flaccid claim that it wasn't the soldier that was being booed, that it was his question, falls completely flat when one considers how the Modern American Right spends countless hours decrying Liberals/Progressives questioning a particular mission of the American Military but offering support of the troop that is put in harms way.

I've seen and heard many disgusting and revealing aspects of Right Wing posturing, but this has got to be one of the worst. Not only do these people use members of the American Military as props, but they are more than willing to completely ignore real hatred that is leveled at them.

I'm wondering how long it's going to take the folks at Fox"News" or any lunatic fringe wingnut to piece together some conspiracy theory that it was actually Liberal/Progressive infiltrators at the debate that did this.

Wingnut Blogger Praises Socialism

In light of Ron Paul's insistence that a patient in a hospital be allowed to die as a result of an inability to pay for medical expenses, one would think that the Modern American Right would stand by their "individual responsibility" talking points.

Then again, embracing the concept of "I am my brother's keeper" can make you look like a caring and "compassionate conservative" if you find the to go along with it:

A Virginia marine who lost both of his legs and right arm in an IED blast in Afghanistan was welcomed home over the weekend.

J.B. Kerns, 21, returned to his hometown of Ararat, which is located in the southwestern part of the state, to a group of bikers who escorted the war hero home.

“Any young man that comes home in that condition, that’s what he needs. He needs to know people still care for him,” said one of the bikers welcoming him home.

“It feels real good to be home. It’s an honor to come from a town like this that gives such great support,” said Kerns. “You all don’t know what it means to me to know that everybody here is here for me.”

The community has raised more than $50,000 to help the family with medical bills.

( emphasis by Jim Hoft )

Anytime someone of opposing socio-political stripe suggests that the community come together to help another person, the Modern American Right ties themselves into knots while shrieking that such acts are "socialism".

Sure, soldiers returning home from "war" deserve our respect and our help, so why isn't this courtesy extended to others? Are they of lesser value to America because they exercised their free will and opted to not join the military? The answer is certainly they are of lesser value - unless they vote Republican, embrace Tea Bagger dogma, and are regular viewers of Fox"News"

The Dangers Of Niche Market Posturing

Considering the fact that The Modern American Right endlessly claim that our country is "Center Right", that we embrace "conservative ideals", and that we need to be fiscally responsible, why the fuck is Rush Limbaugh hawking a pack of iced tea - yeah, you read that right - that they really aren't that secure about peddling?

After teasing it for a few days, Rush Limbaugh made a major announcement on his show Wednesday afternoon. He’s launching “Two If By Tea,” what he calls “the best” sweet tea you’ll ever drink. A picture of “Rush Revere” adorns the bottle, “sounding the warning the liberals are coming.”

“We are doing this for the single reason that we love tea, and we want to share it with you,” Rush explained. “The shrink wrap is a work of art,” Rush said. “You’ll save it … along with the bottles.” Part of the profits will go to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

Can we all say "Tax Write-off"? Yeah, I knew you could.

You'll notice the words "part of the proceeds". Why not all? Is Limbaugh banking on the fact that he can make more money off this if he doesn't have to donate 100%? I'm guessing yes, since there is a NO RETURN policy. After all, I remember his "donation fever" after the "phony soliders" letter of complaint from the US Senate was sold on EBay for $2.1 million ( which Limbaugh matched to obvious maximize his return ).

But let's look at the price - $23.76 per 12-pack.

In most markets, the cost of a 12-pack of beer ( Bud Light ) costs approximately $10.00. The cost of a 12-pack of coke costs approximately $5.00. The cost of 12 McDonald's sweet teas - despite the way they market it is almost half what it would cost you to buy Limbaugh's non-guaranteed bottles of swill.

So who's benefiting from this? Certainly not the consumer - unless they want to drink anything Rush tells them to out of some sense of patriotism. And I would love to see the results of a full audit from the alleged recipients of Rush's "charitable giving" considering how his compatriot Sean Hannity faired with his alleged "Freedom Concerts".

I bet you can say another word - "scam". Yep.

Yes, He Did: Reflections On The Aftermath Of Bin Laden's Death: PT 1

I had fallen asleep early Saturday evening, so I missed the good news. But, upon awaking Sunday morning, I was bombarded with Tweets and Facebook updates that revealed not just that we had finally killed the preeminent terrorist of a generation, but that that very action had further divided the nation it was intended to bring together.

In the interest of full disclosure and honesty, I had - for some years, come to believe that Bin Laden had been killed and no one was really reporting this fact because his communications - primarily audio only heard by a select few - were unusually timed with specific Bush Era political moves. Not to go all "Alex Jones" on you, but the fact that Benazir Bhutto claimed to have actionable intel regarding Bin Laden's assassination, I was inclined to more than moderately embrace that theory.

But back to the point at hand.

The first thing that immediately jumped out at me was the fact that the Modern American Right, with unblushing intensity, refused to acknowledge that the Obama administration should be recognized for this victory. And that, to me, tells me that now more than ever, they can't define what the word "victory" means in regards to military action overseas.

What they did do was something I thought quite peculiar, considering their metric for praise prior to Obama's election - they claimed that Bush was responsible for Bin Laden being killed by military action. But this wasn't just about Bush, it was about "waterboarding". It wasn't about techniques proven to provide intel that could immediately acted upon, it was about something that Liberals/Progressives knew was untrustworthy. If "waterboarding" was such a glorious tool for gleaning intel from terrorist detainees, why couldn't the Bush administration accomplish this task in as timely a fashion as the Obama administration did?

Unfortunately, for the Right, this poorly conceived rationalization is false. Donald Rumsfeld has even denied that "waterboarding" was a factor in all of this. But don't tell that to Jim Hoft ( aka: GatewayPundit - someone who is consistently sourced for the "Fair And Balanced" hate-site that is known as Fox"Nation" ). He's also pushing for a new conspiracy - that Obama knew that it was Bin Laden living in that compound since last Fall. The only problem with this is that they were only aware of a compound and not who lived there.

The scrambling and twitching efforts of the Modern American Right to denounce the actions of the Obama administration show not only their desperation, but their own knowledge that the Bush administration failed for nearly 10 years where the Obama administration succeeded in less than 3.

More to come tomorrow.............

Because Of Who They Are

It has long since surprised me that the modern American Right will go to any length to use members of the American military to further their narrative of the moment. But now that their ultimate media boogeyman has been removed from his post at MSNBC - and desires to exercise his right to free speech - the wingers are ready to morph the two together.

The object of Olbermann's disaffection was one Ed Driscoll who was quite pleased by the former "Countdown" host's departure from MSNBC......

Is this really the dumbest letter to the editor of the century, or is Olbermann's kingsize ego so starved for attention that he doesn't feel the slightest inclination to show respect for a veteran voicing his opinion in a forum specifically designed for such a thing?

So are we to believe that simply because a person wears a uniform - whether it be a member of the armed forces, a police officer, a fireman, or even a judges robe - that their opinions are not to be questioned or challenged?

Courting A Different Mistress

While this may be an over-simplification of how conservatives are viewing the prosecution of captured "terrorists", I still have to wonder why they have absolutely no faith in the American justice system.

With the recent civilian court trial of Ahmed Ghailani resulting in successfully rendering a sentence of no less than 20 years, conservatives are not pleased - at all.

And while all this noise from conservatives that Holder is an abject failure and is putting the country in danger each and every day, one has to wonder why military tribunals a) aren't used more often - even dating back to Bush's tenure in office and b) why conservatives would favor them over open trial in civilian court.

The first reason is one that is at the heart of every argument against Holder, the Obama DOJ, and civil trials in general

in the very few cases of captured terrorists being tried in tribunals, the defendants were given lighter sentences than comparable cases in the criminal justice system.

And that's exactly what conservatives are upset with - they feel that all charges against terrorists should stand without question and the maximum sentence be imposed. So if military tribunals often result in lighter sentences, if those on trial there have the right to an appeal - much like in civilian courts - why all the fuss?

I think this all comes down to a concept that I have spoken of at length before - perception vs. perspective.

Conservatives feel comfortable with the "perception" that military tribunals are something akin to this, when that's not even remotely the case. They believe that a tribunal, in general, is nothing more than a sentencing phase in which the prisoner is going to be given the harshest sentence possible. And that, most certainly, is NOT the case.

Despite the successes of civilian trials in relation to terrorism charges, the American legal system - despite the distractionary noise from conservatives - has been a success. Then again, success is measured quite differently dependent on where you sit on any given day. But, conservatives demand instant gratification to the fullest extent possible - and that is why they will never be pleased with the outcome of anything they don't have a hand in engineering.

And here's a final thought in regards to the complete disconnect in how conservatives want to fight terrorism and how they are approaching the prosecution of terrorists. After the rhetoric, the flag waving, and shouts of "smoke 'em out of their caves", "stay the course", and "no retreat, no surrender", conservatives are more than willing to hand those same people they are fighting a victory - and one that is none to small. Conservatives, with all their love of country and all that makes it so great, are simply afraid of bringing the terrorists to face trial in American because they might "say something nasty" or might "make a mockery of our legal process". That's the thinking here.

That's the crux of it - conservatives are simply afraid.

Insubordinate And Disrepecting Chain Of Command

I've been in a rather lengthy exchange with a person on Twitter that goes by the name @melsite1 regarding General Stanley McCrystal's blatant insubordination. To wit, Mr. Melsite1 thinks that I'm misusing the definition of the word "insubordinate". To that end, I clearly stated that he is completely and utterly full of it.

After all, just ask CPAC blogger hero Ed Morrissey who boldly used the tagline of a blog post today to highlight McCrystal's actions as insubordinate.

From The Washington Post on down to The Freepers, the reality of what McCrystal did is being reported.

However, there are those that claim that McCrystal's insubordination is excusable, since it was all Obama's fault

The real trouble is that Obama never resolved the dispute within his administration over Afghanistan strategy. With the backing of Gates and the Pentagon’s top generals, McChrystal sought to apply to Afghanistan the counterinsurgency approach that succeeded over the last three years in Iraq, an option requiring the deployment of tens of thousands more troops. Biden opposed sending most of the reinforcements and argued for a “counterterrorism plus” strategy centered on preventing al-Qaeda from establishing another refuge.

In the end, Obama adopted what is beginning to look like a bad compromise. He approved most of the additional troops that McChrystal sought, but attached the July, 2011 deadline for beginning withdrawals. Since then both sides have been arguing their cases, in private and in public, to the press and to members of Congress.

McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to Rolling Stone. He is not at fault for the lack of coherence in the Afghan campaign or the continued feuding over strategy. That is Obama’s responsibility.

Ah, the "dithering" talking point resurfaces. I'll get more into that later.

In the end, the reality of the word "insubordinate" depends largely on the situation at hand and who is involved. Clearly, McCrystal is guilty and should either resign or be fired immediately. I'm of the opinion, though he had to tow the Bush line that "the surge worked" in Iraq, that Petraeus could easily step into Gen. McCrystal's shoes and at least get things marginally squared away in Afghanistan before the scheduled draw-down next summer.

Make no mistake about it, we started losing in Afghanistan the moment that W. got us into a family vendetta in Iraq, and it hasn't improved since. Not only that, but Sec. Of Defense Robert Gates has sacked members of the military for lesser offenses than what McCrystal finds himself embroiled in. So if there isn't some serious restructuring going on in the next few weeks, I'm really going to be disappointed in this administration. Not from the standpoint of the conflict in Afghanistan, but of their desire to bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats. That just needs to end so we can get the real heavy lifting taken care of.

McCrystal should be out - no question. After all, if he's got such a low opinion of the Obama administration, I'm sure that Fox"News" would gladly hire him on as a military strategist. Isn't Ollie around retirement age? After all, they do love military men that hate Barack Obama.

Just sayin.

Distrust Of The American Armed Forces

I think Beck and former Judge Napolitano have seen Iron Man one too many times and they are thinking that a private companies could actually fight wars just like Tony Stark.



Conservatives masturbatory fantasies about privatizing everything from Social Security to schools often ignores that cost of such decisions, but it comes as no surprise that the idea of a privatized army would become a favored position of one of the loudest and most simple-minded conservatives - Glenn Beck.

However, their blatant disregard of the facts surrounding groups like Blackwater/KBR - who have a well recorded history of waste, fraud, and abuse - should give people pause. Not just in the fact that there have been billions wasted on contractors in Iraq, but that Glenn Beck, alleged champion of financial responsibility, is turning a blind eye to these actions.

But what should we expect from corporate apologists like Beck and Napolitano? Certainly no fiscal reasoning and the ability to research a topic before claiming to fully understand it.

40 Years In Ohio

While most people will rightfully see that the Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young track "Ohio" is the ultimate song regarding the massacre at Kent State back in 1970, there is a fantastic track from cult industrial band Skinny Puppy that is about that same fateful day.

Skinny Puppy : Tin Omen

Birther Army

It's this type of story that does not paint a very good picture of our country.

Formal court martial charges have been brought against Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the Army doctor who believes President Obama may not be a natural born citizen, for failing to follow orders, the military said today.

Lakin was charged Thursday "with one specification of a violation of Article 87, Missing Movement and four specifications of a violation of Article 92 (three specifications of Failure to Obey a Lawful Order, and one Specification of Dereliction of Duty)," said Chuck Dasey, spokesman at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, where Lakin is assigned.

The court martial is likely to raise the prominence of what is already a cause célèbre among Birther adherents.

This type of action is pathetic on two levels. Not only is this man a member of the US Armed Forces, but he is a doctor.

Though many will refuse to admit it, the Birther movement is largely predicated on one thing and one thing only - abject racism. But don't expect any conservative to admit that there is any such thing.

Here's an exit question for you. Considering this man's abject ignorance and willingness to not only put his fellow servicemen in danger for not reporting for duty that he signed up for, but putting your life in danger by picking and choosing when he will and won't serve, do you really want someone like him protecting your freedoms?

The Cost Of Freedom

I've pointed out before that Sean Hannity's alleged "Freedom Concerts" aren't exactly what they seem. Now, conservatives are catching up to this blatant use of the troops for partisan, political, gain.

...less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferret the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity’s statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes. Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.

Huffington Post has picked up on this story that I initially saw over at Daily Kos over 2 years ago. What's taken people so long to actually tackle this issue?

Conservatives love to use the military as a stick with which to beat people into submission so they don't have to defend their own ideological failings. And Sean Hannity has got a lot of people in on this - namely Oliver North - and they are all complicit in using the lives of not only American soldiers but of their families as well.

Let's see how the other "troop loving" conservatives take on this issue. Malkin, Morrissey, Allahpundit - I'm looking at you three in particular.

Listening To The Commanders

I'm reminded of the fact that this is the second high ranking member of the armed forces to say that DADT isn't necessary and John McCain still refuses to comply with his own statements regarding how he would vote should these circumstances present themselves.



As I've stated before, this is about professionalism, and the Republicans in the House and Senate are actively questioning that professionalism within our armed forces simply because they think "teh ghey is icky". Sounds like they could use a lesson in professionalism themselves.

Think Progress has more.

Sometimes The Truth Hurts

Just check out the comments section over at Fox"Nation" and you'll see what I mean.



The self-styled, neo-patriotism of the conservative movement ( you know, support the troops "there" so you don't have to support them "here" ) is something to marvel at. From Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" remarks to the continuing bile hurled at Markos Moulitsas - an Iraq war vet, the conservative Right shouldn't be shocked at all at what Bill Maher has to say, because it's true.

Questioning Professinalism

And that's exactly what conservatives that are opposed to repealing DADT are doing - telling everyone that those that serve in the military aren't professional enough to handle serving with someone that is openly gay.

From Sprigg to Perkins to Retired Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis - these men are making it crystal clear that they believe the members of the military lack professionalism.

Even John McCain is taking this route.

The ignorance and fearmongering surrounding this issue isn't surprising, and that is a sad fact to have to realize.

Then again, we are talking about the party that has let it's fringe take over since last year.

Of Zealots And The Patriots They Hate

It certainly didn’t take right-wing religious zealot Tony Perkins to complain about gays in the military after Obama’s SOTU last night.

The military is a warrior culture for a reason: Our service members wear the uniform to fight and win wars, not serve as liberal social policy guinea pigs. The sexual environment the President is seeking to impose upon the young men and women who serve this country is the antithesis of the successful warfighting culture and as such should be rejected.

This statement, more than just about anything that Perkins says, show just how ridiculously ignorant he is of members of the gay community. It’s as if he is claiming that if gays and lesbians can serve openly in the military that suddenly everyone will be wearing butt-less, leather, chaps, having orgies, and singing show tunes.

But the one thing that Perkins doesn’t seem to understand is this – gays and lesbians are already serving in the military and there hasn’t been this dramatic “sexualization” of the United States armed forces.

It’s truly a sign of his pathetic character traits of Tony Perkins when he is more concerned with silencing patriotic Americans that are willing to lay down their life for this country simply because they don’t fit his canted view of the world.

Bumbling Tweety Bird?

I often find myself in a position, when attempting to write something, where my fingers end up clicking away words and phrases on the keyboard that my brain never intended to trigger. The good thing about writing is the editing process where you get to correct your textual gaffes. Live TV or a hot-mic somewhere off camera is not as forgiving.

After last night's Presidential address to West Point, Chris Matthews decided he would try to "read" the faces/the body language of the crowd ( a tactic that Bill O'Reilly and Fox"News" love to employ constantly ) and he made a statement that has every corner of the conservative world wondering what the hell he was talking about.



From the very start, conservatives have claimed that Obama has no love at all for the US military, and some within the US Armed Forces have been very vocal
to that effect. So when Matthews makes the assesment, based solely on how the relationship between Obama and the military, that he is in the enemy camp, it's predicated on readily established rhetoric coming from the Right.

The only problem is that it's an incredibly stupid thing to say. Not in-so-much as it's completely false, but that it does nothing but provide ammunition to the reactionary Right who are always searching for even the slightest verbal/physical slip-up they can use. And that is precisely what is going on today. Conservatives aren't so much appaulled by this, they are celebrating the very fact that he said it. As certainly as they are allowing themselves to forget how often they have used the military as their own personal, rhetorical, weapon when attempting to discuss the issues of the nation, conservatives are literally overjoyed that they can reap the fruits of their labor now that Matthews has ran with their ham-fisted storyline.

Service Rationing

There have been serveral moments where Glenn Beck has dove head-first into the shallow end of the pool, but this has to be one of his crazier moments.



I don't feel that I'm going out on a limb with this one, but I find it hard to believe that the alleged Courts-Martial of the Navy Seals has anything to do with someone being punched in the mouth. There's just not enough evidence being presented in the media for that to be a legitimate reason to punish these guys. It does, however, fit nicely into the conservative meme that Obama is destroying the military. And that is, though you won't hear any conservatives admit it, patently false.

But all one has to do is just take a look at what Beck is postulating - as mass exodus from military service by anyone that thinks that Obama is damaging them. there isn't a clearer example of someone politicizing the American military than this. I'm not going to be holding my breath waiting for people like Sean Hannity, Oliver North, or Bill O'Reilly - who have all used the military in some fashion or another to hamfistedly prove a point - to distance themselve from Beck on this one.
As he's the literal star of the network right now, they dont' want to run the risk of getting on Beck's bad side.

It seems that some of the most wingnutty of conservative bloggers are beginning to shy away from Beck's hysteria.

Ed Morrissey @ Hot Air

I’d have a problem with this advice if it was given privately, let alone to millions watching on television. Men and women enlist in the volunteer service to defend America, not to pick and choose which Commander in Chief they follow. They’re professionals who serve with honor regardless of the politics of the day. If they feel as though they’re not getting the support they need, they will know it better than those of us sitting stateside arguing over politics and policy. They will not need us to suggest that they bail out of the military if those are truly the conditions under which they serve.

And if you care to sift through the comments section there you'll notice that the village natives are getting restless with people that express their displeasure with Beck - the infighting is starting to get worse.

Some Thoughts For Your Day

- On this Veterns Day, it's important to not only look at what the brave men and women of the Armed Forces have done for this country, but what we should do for them once their time in the service is completed. It's relevant to note that last year over 2200 veterans died because of lack of healthcare coverage.

- In a moment of weakness, Britt Hume let loose with a flash of honesty on Bill O'Reilly's Fox"News" program recently by correcting Bill and stating that a plurality of Americans ( at least 55% ) prefer healthcare reform with a public option. One can only speculate what people like Hannity, Beck, and Fox"News" figure-head Roger Ailes thought of Hume's off-script ad-lib.

- Is it a suprise to anyone that Fox"News" would edit in footage to make a gathering of slobbering conservatives look larger than it really is?

- One would think that people wouldn't assumption that anyone that isn't from this country is a terrorist. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

- The Prejean book tour and masturbation seminar continued recently with the former Miss California touting that she is going through the same thing as Sarah Palin. It's likely that Carrie is attempting to capitalize on Palin's own rock-star status and hope that by some form of creepy osmosis that she will be seen in the same light. Has anyone noticed the creepy "Stepford Wife" way in which Prejean presents herself in whenever she does interviews?

-

The Pieces Don't Seem To Fit

There’s this inescapable feeling that has rattled around in my brain since the tragic Ft. Hood shootings last week – the “facts” don’t seem to make much sense.

Considering all that we are being told about Hassan, it all seems to be far too atypical, much too predictable of a portrait of a radicalized Muslim. Almost like his character traits are being created as each daily news cycle starts.

The questions that I have only multiply with each day. If the FBI was monitoring Hassan for at least 6 months, were they simply waiting for something like this to happen before acting? Federal agents have been known to do this and have even gone so far as to actively provoke reaction from those under investigation. We saw this earlier in the year in New York several Muslim men were sold weapons by undercover agents. Was the Ft. Hood situation escalated by this type of action by the FBI? Who’s to say yes or no?

But the claim made this morning by the media that Hassan was “connected” to the Sept. 11th hijackers makes this whole scenario even more difficult to swallow. Perhaps it’s the overuse of 9/11 as a catalyst to push a certain message, ideal, or excuse the actions of specific law enforcement personnel. The connection, if true, is loose at best. Hassan was alleged to have attended the same mosque as some of the Sept. 11th hijackers. But the story is being framed ( primarily by Fox ) that he had direct communications with the men who ultimately carried out the attacks on Sept. 11th.

Even within 24 hours of the shooting, where news reports showed that this was the act of one man, I found it extremely difficult to accept the fact that Hassan was able to wound 29 people and kill 13 with two handguns. Even in a target rich environment like thE processing center where the incident took place, one would have to expect multiple reloads and that those there wouldn’t simply sit and wait to be shot.

The variables, the nuance within this story, doesn’t really lend itself to the neatly wrapped package that some within the media are attempting to deliver to us.

Were there other shooters? What did he really say prior to shooting? Was Hassan carrying out orders from Al Queda? There’s been more speculation than actual delivery of facts from the media in regards to all of this.

And NPR has reported this morning that Hassan, since having his ventilator removed, has been able to speak. But what he is saying is not being reported, so as to preserve the integrity of the investigation.

And preserving that integrity is something that the conservative Right is willing to ignore. The Right needs for this to be about Al Qeada. They need for this to be about PC culture, that people are too afraid to confront someone that could potentially harm others simply because it's not the "proper" thing to do. Unfortunately, this story is not as simple as that.

I'm reminded of a scene from the film Arlington Road, where Jeff Bridges character speaks with his class about terrorism and the need for Americans to have a face, a name, to associate with horrific incidences.

By and large, our consumerist nature makes us act in very odd and reflexive ways. If we are presented a specific set of symbols, then we are moved to act in specific ways. Since Sept. 11th, 2001 many within the country have seen the actions - benign or not - by Muslims as motivated by abject hatred of America and all that the country stands for. This has resulted in a glut of stories - primarily pushed by conservative media outlets - that create the illusion that the country is continually under siege by Muslim extremists.

There is no excusing what Hassan has done, it was a horrible day and an equally horrible incident. But one can't help but feel like some of the "facts" surrounding this case are being manufactured in order to illicit a specific response.

The Book Of The Dead

In which Olbermann speaks about another piece of right-wing fiction.



Think about it - it's the next logical choice for a talking point if your a conservative. Tell them grandma's going to die, that government is going to take away Medicare - and I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why people that are decrying "socialism" are afraid Medicare is going away, and then play the big card; Obama is going to kill veterans.

So what's next? Is Obama going to start burning churches and eating puppies on live TV?