Mark Levin attacks "Osama bin Olbermann" for comparing Americans to Al Qaeda, and other crimes

Summary: Well, Keith Olbermann has already responded to the first "Olbermann called the troops 'cold-blooded killers' " rant by Mark Levin.  Don't know if he wants to take a whack at Levin's second attack, but I'll do my small part to give some analysis.

  Okay, let's get the title out of the way.  I give you Mark Levin:

Why don’t they do a study on increased attacks from our media against our soldiers?  I wonder what that does to American morale, and to the morale of Al Qaeda, which must be going through the roof?  I’ll bet they only have one channel on all damned day long, they in their little caves.  MSNBC!  And they jump up and down, and shoot in the air, and enjoy each other when Olbermann comes on.  They’re all thrilled.  That’s right.  Osama bin Olbermann.  There he is.  He shows up.  That’s their boy!

  Now here's one of Mr. Levin's complaints from the last time around:

He's making a parallel, a comparison between Al Qaeda and either the American people generally, or our armed forces.

  Faster, hypocrite!  Kill!  Kill!  Next quote:

But when you smear the American soldier, who unlike Olbermann is selfless and patriotic, who believes in their mission, who understands the importance of what this country is doing...when you attack the American soldier who’s on the battlefield facing down this enemy, while you’re in your air-conditioned office, demanding caffeine-free coffee, getting your shoes polished and your hair primped, you pick a fight with all of us, Olbermann.

  I'd like to comment on the phrase "who believes in their mission", as it references American soldiers.  I don't mean to be cruel, but history doesn't tend to judge the worthiness of a war based upon whether the soldiers who fought it thought it was just.  I'd imagine that Confederate soldiers believed in their cause just as much as Union soldiers, but the Union gets the credit for being on the right side of the Civil War.
  As I said, no cruelty to our soldiers intended.  I'm not saying the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are the heroes.  I'm not saying our soldiers in those countries are morally deficient in some way.  I'm just saying that history doesn't judge the worthiness of wars based on whether the soldiers who fought in them thought the wars were just.  Next:

War crimes.  You know, the UN has been pushing for this International Criminal Court for at least a decade now...under which our troops could be dragged in front of these courts and prosecuted.  I assume that’s what he means to be charged with war crimes.

 
  Isn't the Bush Administration's mantra, "If you're not one of the bad guys, you have nothing to fear."?  If our troops aren't guilty of war crimes, then they'll be found innocent (assuming fair trials).  As for the war crimes Mr. Olbermann was driving at, allow me to do as I did in a previous diary on these rants and re-quote Rawstory's Larisa Alexandrovna:

The unprovoked attack on Poland by Germany was a war crime just as your attack against Iraq - based on lies - is a war crime. This is not my opinion. This is not a political attack. This is a fact. Consider the words of the esteemed former chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials, Benjamin Ferencz, regarding your war of aggression against Iraq:

"...Prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

  Next quote:

So the cold-blooded killers...he was going to say, but somehow he edited it out in his twelve and a half minute diatribe...are called his cabinet and his Pentagon?  Well, let’s see.  Who works for the Pentagon?  Is it the agricultural inspectors?  No.  Is it the parks service?  The rangers?  No.  Well, let’s see.  What else could it be?  The United States Armed Forces, you moron.

  Now combine this with an earlier quote in the video linked to above:

Cold-blooded killers?  I guess if you’re a cold-blooded killer, you have to be armed.  And if we’ve created these cold-blooded killers, it would have to be the armed forces.

  I bring this up because of the idea of fusing all the Armed Forces (first quote).  If the Pentagon and the cabinet can be fused with the soldiers on the battlefield, and the soldiers are armed (second quote), wouldn't that mean that the people in the cabinet and Pentagon wander around carrying the same guns and wearing the same armor, fighting in the same gun-battles?  I admit, when Mr. Olbermann said this about people like Mr. Levin...

They hear criticism of our nation’s collective conduct in Iraq, and immediately assume it’s the fault of the soldiers.

  ...it didn't make much sense to me.  But it turns out that Mr. Olbermann was onto something.  For if Mr. Levin is going to fuse the soldiers on the field with the higher-ups, then wouldn't that also mean that it's the fault of the soldiers in Iraq that they're even in Iraq?  Next:

He represents the dark side of this country, the people who benefit from this nation, who benefit from the security that those young men and women...and I say, "young men and women"...are now providing us overseas, so this slob can sit in his office, and drink his coffee, and make demands of his staff as he does, and put out this little one hour propaganda skit every single night.  How does he think he’s able to do it?  He’s able to do it because of the United States Armed Forces.

  Out of curiosity, how many freedoms have we gained since the invasion of Iraq?  How many terrorist attacks have been foiled only because of the invasion of Iraq?  Where exactly is the proof that this is all accomplishing something (even if that mattered in the face of the initial invasion being a war crime)?  Next:

You pretend that we’re not facing a real enemy, whether in this country or outside this country.

  From Mr. Olbermann:

And all the time I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my own friends, two in the planes and as I discovered from the missing posters, seared still into my soul, two more in the towers.

  So apparently Mr. Olbermann believes his friends were killed by the Cloverfield monster &/or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.  Next:

This time we will face down Tokyo Rose in a Business Suit.

  The occupation of Iraq is not World War II.  Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler.  And George Bush certainly isn't FDR.  You want to see how a member of the Bush family would have behaved during World War II?  Go do some research on George Bush's grandfather.

  Now, there are tons of other things I could go after, but the clip is nearly ten minutes, and I don't want this diary to go on forever.  So I'll conclude by trying to give a sense of why Mr. Levin is freaking out over this whole thing.
  Imagine that the Gates of Hell (Located in Iraq, of course.  Damn, did Mr. Bush pick the right battlefield.) are rattling.  They're rattling because, on the bad side are all the hordes of Hell.  And the only thing keeping those gates locked is the three-headed hound Cerberus (note: it's a metaphor, not an attack on the troops).  If that hound lets up for one second, the Gates of Hell will burst open, the hordes will flood out, and they'll head straight for Mark Levin &/or the people he cares about.
  And there's Keith Olbermann, blowing his liberal, hippie, marijuana smoke in Cerberus' heads...because he thinks getting an animal stoned is funny.
  That is the mortal terror that, in my opinion, has gripped Mr. Levin.  That's why he's been going berserk attacking Mr. Olbermann.  And that's why he takes a witch-hunting approach of "that birthmark says you're in league with the Devil" to those who are "guilty" of criticizing the soldiers.
  In Mr. Olbermann's initial response to Mr. Levin, the former made one point I would debate him on.  I don't think Mark Levin hates the troops.  I think Mark Levin loves the troops...just not as much as he loves buying into Bush's BS.