Jason Arvak
Ok. That's an alternative, but it really doesn't help Olbermann look any better to simply say that he's being willfully dishonest about wanting to torture people who disagree with his definition of torture. Whether he actually wants to do it or is just saying that he wants to do it, he still is displaying priorities that are seriously out of whack.
BTW, why is no similar charity in interpretation extended to those who talk about wanting to torture terrorists? Can't we explain away their statements as simply emotional reactions to a grotesque criminal? Why do their statements reveal them as hopeless moral reprobates while Olbermann's statements about wanting to waterboard those who disagree with him are indulgingly dismissed as merely a "scramble"? This difference in interpretation and spin seems to me just another example of how liberals demand the benefit of every doubt for their side but are willing to tolerate only the most harsh interpretations possible for the other side.
| Featured Topics
‹
›
|
| Hot Topics
‹
›
|
| Social Issues
‹
›
|
| Election 2012
‹
›
|
/