Here, friend Olbermann complains that candidate Rudy Giuliani is playing too rough on the campaign trail with the Democrats. Quoting Mr. Giuliani: “If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be best at this — we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it.” Insisting that the election of any Democrat would mean the country was “back ... on defense,” Mr. Giuliani continued: “But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”
Mr. Olbermann is outraged: "At least that Republican president under which we have not been safer has, even at his worst, maintained some microscopic distance between himself and a campaign platform that blithely threatened the American people with “casualties” if they, next year, elect a Democratic president — or, inferring from Mr. Giuliani’s flights of grandeur in New Hampshire — even if they elect a different Republican. How ... dare ... you, sir? “How many casualties will we have?” — this is the language of Osama bin Laden."
Now, now, Mr. Olbermann--think. Think more deeply.
Aren't you, and most Democrats, claiming that the war in Iraq is a disaster for this nation, is accomplishing nothing but leading to the death and maiming of U.S. soldiers?
Isn't this your major complaint against President Bush, and against most Republican presidential candidates--that support for them means more American deaths? You and yours don't say this directly, but it is strongly implied in much of what you do say.
So you and your political allies are saying that support for the Bush or Giuliani position on Iraq means...death. For Americans.
You and your political allies believe there are certain consequences if American soldiers remain in Iraq.
Well, Mr. Bush and/or Mr. Giuliani believe there are certain consequences, yes indeed, if America leaves Iraq, and if we adopt what appears to be the policies advocated by leading Democrats concerning terrorism.
If it is acceptable for you to outline what you believe to be the consequences of your opponents' views on Iraq and terrorism, then why is it unacceptable for them to do the same?
You're in error again, Mr. Olbermann.
