He is either saying that they were willing to let 300 people die or that they helped him while making sure the bomb wouldn't go off. Those would be the only two logical choices.
This man is a lunatic. There is no other way to describe this type of thought process. Let's just say for the sake of arguement that the CIA did want to make President Obama look bad, there is no other way to do this? Does he really think that they don't speak to the press as an anoymous source? They could easily leak something that would be embarassing to the administration. I am sure that Leon Penatta has given them plenty of ammo, since he has no experience whatsoever in the intelligence field.
The people who work at the CIA do the jobs that they do for a lower salary then they would make in the private sector, live a life that is full of secrecy, and gets little to no glory. We should be heralding the people who are willing to do this for a living, not accusing of them of attempted murder.
What is wrong with this man?
Posts
6 comments:
Do you happen to have a source for this post? I wanted to look into this story, but I didn't see any links to audio/video footage of Keith making this claim. Thank you.
You're right, he is a lunatic. [sigh] :)
Malcolm:
It was on his show Tuesday night. I am sure that you can find the video on YouTube. I saw the clip on the news.
Thanks for letting me know your source. I actually watched Keith's show that night. In case I missed him saying what you accused him of, I watched the clip several more times. Keith never said the CIA purposely did not follow up on the underwear bomber to make President Obama look bad. When Keith referred to whom may have been the victim in the possible withholding of information, he never specifically said President Obama. The terms Keith used ("Someone" and "some other part of the counter-terrorism system") could have been any individual or a group of people. Also, Keith made it a point to say that the intentional withholding of information was only a possibility and that the White House was investigating.
As for me not believing that Olbermann would say something like this, I'm not just going to take your word nor anyone else's without some proof. If I told you that Glenn Beck used a racial slur on his show, would you simply believe me or would you ask me to back it up with facts? You'd ask me to back it up, as well you should.
Signed,
Your favorite left-leaning commenter
Malcolm:
I suppose that you don't think he was agreeing with Garfalo when she was saying that the tea party on tax day was done by racists? While yes, he didn't say it, he agrees with the people when they are saying these crazy things.
I know how these tv shows work, the hosts know pretty much everything that is going to be said before it is said. There is next nothing that comes as a surprise.
I don't care that you are left leaning, but Olbermann is crazy. He believes that anyone that doesn't agree with his view of the world is a racist, a homophobe, and any number of other things. One must question his sanity.
If you suppose that, you'd be dead wrong. Keith did agree with Garafalo when she painted all tea baggers as racist. I totally disagree with that statement. However, I do believe that a racist/redneck element is present in the Tea Party movement. I think that anyone who doesn't see that is kidding themselves.
Also, comparing Garafalo's remarks with Richard Wolffe saying the White House was investigating the possibility of someone withholding info is like comparing apples and oranges. Garafalo made a direct accusation; Wolffe did not.
By the way, when you say "these TV shows", are you also referring to programs on the Fox News Channel?
As for sanity, if you question Keith's you must be highly concerned about the mental stability of Glenn Beck. I am astounded that any rational person can take him seriously. I'd say that even if Beck was a liberal. Chalkboard conspiracies, seeing hidden Communist messages in architecture, I mean come on, lol!
Post a Comment