Right Wing Targets Keith Olbermann

2:16 pm EST September 27th, 2006 | News | 72 Comments

The crazies are at it again, first it was the NY Times – now it’s Olbermann

The acerbic host of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who’s a frequent critic of President Bush’s policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick.

The powder turned out to be a dud, but that doesn’t change much. The right-wing in America has once again chosen to try and silence that which they disagree with.

UPDATE: Conservative Ed Morrisey of Captain’s Quarters is at least pissed at the flippant way the NY Post is covering this story, as is Hugh Hewitt — but Malkin cohort Brian Maloney can’t restrain himself and supports the Post’s characterization of the event. The right wingers cannot help it, can’t control it.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

72 Responses to “Right Wing Targets Keith Olbermann”

  1. Bill L. says:

    I love that the Post finds a faux Anthrax threat hilarious. Would they see things the same way had an envelope with white poweder found its way to them? You also have to love the attempt to paint Olbermann as a wuss afraid of dry soap.

  2. Duros62 says:

    God, what a horrible piece of writing. I’m surprised they didn’t infer that he had to change his pants before going to the hospital.

  3. midderpidge says:

    There you go Dugger, an act of terrorism.

  4. Rheinhard says:

    As noted, if this envelope had arrived in Bill O’Liely’s inbox, it would have read more like:

    A note inside warned O’Reilly, one of President Bush’s most vigorous defenders that it was ‘payback’ for his implacable stance against Islamofascist terrorists. An NYPD HazMat united rushed to O’Reilly’s home, but preliminary tests confirmed what O’Reilly himself suspected — the substance was harmless soap powder. Although Mr. O’Reilly insisted the incident go no further, authorities persuaded him to go to St. Luke’s Hospital, where doctors gave him a clean bill of health. O’Reilly, who reportedly has been a “high value target” for Al Qaeda terrorists, had no comment, but his steely glare and determined stride showed reporters he was unshaken by this attempt on his life.

    I do hope at least that this makes our ignorant punditocracy remember for a minute that Dear Leader hasn’t caught the anthrax killer either. Way to make us safer, George!

  5. josephdietrich says:

    Had one of their reporters gotten such an envelope they would be shreiking in such a high pitch only dogs would be able to hear it.

  6. PSoTD says:

    Paula sounds like a potential Darwin Awards winner

  7. doug g says:

    Would the NY Post print the same ridicule if the same envelope was received at the White House?

  8. Jay says:

    Actually, the NY Post did get such an envelope in 2001 and it contained anthrax.

    That being said, I doubt that this actually happened. I mean, a loud-mouth television talk show host has something like this happen to him and the only media outlet reporting it is the gossip page of the NY Post?

    I know Keith’s ratings suck, but even he’s worth more than a blurb on Page Six.

  9. Captain USA says:

    They already HAVE received such a letter. Three people got cutaneous antrhax.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax_attacks

  10. factcheck says:

    Those anthrax killers have been apprehended and put in jail, right?

    Oh, right.

  11. Alison says:

    Look, I like Olbermann, but let’s get some perspective here. He demanded to be taken to the hospital AFTER the NYPD identified it as soap powder. And had it been Olbermann reporting on this if it had happened to a right-wing pundit, you know darn well he would have been just as sarcastic and biting as the NY Post writer was, if not more so. I think the Post’s point was, after having been through this situation themselves, that they felt he overreacted after being assured it was nothing by the NYPD. And is it a crime to actually let the police conduct their investigation before we jump to conclusions about who sent this and what their motivation might truly have been?

  12. Jay says:

    Alison, you comment was reasonable, coherent and fair.

    Factcheck and his ilk won’t be able to comprehend it.

  13. factcheck says:

    I see no evidence that the NYPD “assured him it was nothing”. I see “preliminary tests indicate that substance was soap powder”.

    Wouldn’t you want to be sure?

  14. factcheck says:

    J’s out of his depth when he isn’t discussing dreamy American Idol contestants.

  15. Lex says:

    Perspective check: Sending the stuff is a federal crime whether it IS anthrax or merely LOOKS A LOT LIKE anthrax and is INTENDED TO BE MISTAKEN for anthrax.

    Just sayin’.

  16. MJB says:

    Been a while, but I’m glad to be back.

    Jay, so don’t believe it, who cares. Aren’t you ashamed that’s the only thing you had to add to this? But he’s a loudmouth so that means he can’t be trusted. It’s time for people like you who accuse people of being liars to actually show how he lied or document a history of lying, or else have the humility to not just say something to fill the space.

    Alison,
    I don’t think it’s reasonable to fault someone for being overly cautious when confronted with a potential threat to his life. On top of that, you KNOW that that kind of criticism would never have made it into the post if it was BillO or JPod who “overreacted”. And at least he kept it to himself, unlike BillO who needs to invent FBI warning of fake threats on his life.

  17. Dr. Squid says:

    Ah, Jay’s new defense – the letter didn’t really exist.

    He does know that even with soap powder that sending something like that is a federal crime?

    Or is it all of a sudden not a crime when it’s sent by a conservative?

    I suggest Jay deal in facts instead of his conservative ideology.

  18. Dr. Squid says:

    MJB,

    Don’t you know that if he’s not a conservative he can’t be trusted? Ask any conservative that.

  19. Henk says:

    Yup, like I totally trust the authorities. I mean if they tell me its like okay to breath the air at ground zero, F-in-A send me in, F the particle mask. If a cop tells me that powder in my truck is coke, not Twenty Mule Team Borax powder, hey who am I to argue? Send me up the river, 7 to life. What the hell you can always trust the judgement of the cops. I hear NYPD is one of the most trust- worthy police forces this side of Bagdad.

  20. factcheck says:

    The thing is that J just doesn’t care that Americans get threatening mail. I mean, they are liberals so what’s the difference? It isn’t like Olberman is a regular guy like O’Reilly.

  21. frameone says:

    “That being said, I doubt that this actually happened.”

    That’s awesome, Jay. How “reasonable, coherent and fair” it is to automatically assume that this is a publicity stunt orchestrated by Olbermann and the NYPD. What. A. Fucking. Idiot.

  22. Robert says:

    Factcheck,

    That’s not an overreaction by Olbermann.

    Now, if he had bogged his nation down in an unwinnable war against a country that had nothing at all to do with this envelope of powder to the tune of 2700+ (and counting) American soldiers lives and half a trillion dollars (and counting), then the Post might have a point about overreacting.

  23. greennotGreen says:

    I imagine that soap powder might be an effective camouflage for anthrax spores, and only testing considerably more sophisticated than what most cops carry with them would be able to determine whether there was anything hazardous in with the soap powder and the threatening note.

  24. factcheck says:

    How long will it be until a wingnut tries to kill a liberal in the media, like the people who killed Alan Berg? The eliminationist rhetoric coming from RW’ers like Maglalang almost makes it inevitable.

  25. Rounds77 says:

    How many times have right wingers affiliated liberals with Anti-American terrorist lovers? I’m surprised there haven’t been more offenses like this.

    I wouldn’t want to be around when a member of the Republican party of hate snaps, would you? Especially if they think you’re not “with them”.

  26. mdhatter says:

    Reignhard,

    god damn that was funny. thanks.

  27. mdhatter says:

    Alison,

    “And had it been Olbermann reporting on this if it had happened to a right-wing pundit, you know darn well he would have been just as sarcastic and biting as the NY Post writer was, if not more so.

    What color is the sky in your world?

    I mean, it’s still rather serious to rob a bank with a cap gun. Or to call in a fake bomb threat. Or to pull a false fire alarm.

    so, you tell me what place sarcasm has in the discussion of being a victim of a violent crime…. and just ONE INSTANCE of when K.O has done that.

    you are “just as sure”? well, prove it to me, b/c i think your assertion is full of ****.

    Just my 2 cents.

  28. Bill L. says:

    MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” was terrified … payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 … doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn’t known. Olbermann had no comment.

    Notice the framing of the whole event here. First, Olbermann is painted as a heavy handed jerk with an on-air “shtick.” Then the Post goes out of its way to essentially invent a scene showing him to be a spineless wimp.

    As for the assumption that Olbermann would have taken the same tone had this happened to someone like Rush or O”Reilly, well, anyone holding to that point of view needs to produce an example where he has done so in the past.

    Good luck with that.

    Ha! (sorry, just reading Jay’s “stunt” theory again)

  29. mdhatter says:

    “I wouldn’t want to be around when a member of the Republican party of hate snaps, would you? Especially if they think you’re not “with them”.”

    I would love it, as I am decidedly not with them.

  30. george says:

    Just watched the Olberman show. He explains the lack of coverage. Law Enforcement asked that no one talk. No one did except Page 666, which is particularly interesting given that when one of Murdoch’s journalists was kidnapped, everyone complied with Fox’s request not to air the news. The powder wasn’t identified for several hours, and Keith followed the standard FBI protocol for anthrax threats, which includes a visit to the emergency room and a follow up round of cipro.

  31. Jay says:

    Well, it looks like it did happen. I was wrong.

  32. frameone says:

    “Well, it looks like it did happen. I was wrong.”

    What a big boy you are, Jay.

  33. Jay says:

    And what a big dick you are Frame.

  34. frameone says:

    Jay, I might have some sympathy for you and be nice if you weren’t a fucking moron. Would you care to recap what you wrote:

    That being said, I doubt that this actually happened. I mean, a loud-mouth television talk show host has something like this happen to him and the only media outlet reporting it is the gossip page of the NY Post?

    I know Keith’s ratings suck, but even he’s worth more than a blurb on Page Six.

    You followed this imbecilic dreck up with a little smugness:

    Alison, you comment was reasonable, coherent and fair.

    Factcheck and his ilk won’t be able to comprehend it.

    Why the fuck should I care that you admitted you were wrong? You weren’t just wrong, you were wrong AND a pompous ass. Reasonable? Coherent? Fair?

    You don’t the meaning of the words you idiot.

  35. Jay says:

    Frame, go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. You’re no better than your buddy Factcheck. You couldn’t debate an issue with facts, logic and reason if your life depended on it. You’re nothing but a troll. This is what you’re good for:

    You’re an moron!

    What a fucking idiot!

    Idiot!

    Fucking idiot!

    You’re an idiot!

    That is the extent of your debating skills with just about everybody around here. You couldn’t debate an issue intelligently if you tried. I’ll give you the opportunity. I’ll put money up to see you try and discuss an issue without resorting to your usual tactics.

    But I am guessing you won’t take the challenge. And why should you? You’re not intelligent. Your idea of cogent argument is to put ‘fucking’ before calling somebody ‘idiot.’

    So, I’m laying it down. Put your money where your big mouth is or STFU. It wouldn’t be at all difficult to set it up. It could even be done with audio. You could still remain your pansy anonymous self, but it would be funny to hear you try to put together a decent thought without your turrets taking over and shouting “Fucking idiot!” within moments.

    Well?

  36. frameone says:

    “You couldn’t debate an issue with facts, logic and reason if your life depended on it.”

    Um, Jay, I give you Jay:

    “That being said, I doubt that this actually happened.”

    Idiot.

  37. frameone says:

    “You could still remain your pansy anonymous self …”

    Oh, and I’ve never really been all that anonymous on this blog. You can ask pedro that.

    You can read a small sample of my work on a regular basis here
    .

  38. Jay says:

    Well…Paul. What do you say? An open debate, or would you rather just call me an idiot?

    Can’t believe you gave ‘The Phantom Menace’ a positive review. And ‘Lethal Weapon 4′? Total dreck.

    And why the hate for ‘Blade’?

  39. frameone says:

    Debate about what Jay? Whether or not Keith Olbermann received a phony anthrax threat in the mail? I think you already blew that one.

    Or should we debate whether or not Olbermann would have made fun of say, Bill O’Reilly, if O’Reilly was threatened by a stranger in his home? Gee, what “facts” would you present to support that “reasonable, coherent and fair” position?

    I tell you what. Let’s have a debate about why your not a total fucking idiot.

    Here’s the topic:

    “Jay is a total fucking idiot.”

    Do you want to take pro or con?

  40. Quaker in a Basement says:

    Dodgeball 2.

  41. Elmo says:

    Olbermann pees sitting down.

    No …. really, you don’t have to thank me. It’s the least I can do.

    http://anechoicroom.blogspot.com/

  42. factcheck says:

    “So, I’m laying it down. Put your money where your big Frame, go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut. You’re no better than your buddy Factcheck. You couldn’t debate an issue with facts, logic and reason if your life depended on it. You’re nothing but a troll.”

    Wait a minute is this the same j that defended Bill O’Reilly’s regular guy credentials?
    the same guy that thinks torture is kewl?
    the same guy that thinks that calling someone a Macaca, “welcoming” him to America, hanging a confederate flag and noose, and using the n-word isn’t evidence of racism?
    That thinks a movie dramatization of real events doesn’t have any responsibility to be grouded in fact?

    Help me here guys, which of those viewpoints should be taken seriously as coming from a rational person?

  43. Jay says:

    And I’ll take that as a big fat NO.

    Thanks for playing Paul. I knew you wouldn’t do it.

  44. LMMatthews says:

    I suppose no one has bothered to watch Olbermann’s version of events? Perhaps you all should take a click over to MSNBC.com and do so. Frankly, I think the righties at the Post had a fit over his stinging rebuke of FOX News and their “interview” with Mr. Clinton – which was brillinatly Murrow-esque and a not-to-be-missed piece of commentary. All that aside, giving this much credence to some prankster’s antics is giving them just what they want …

  45. MJB says:

    “You couldn’t debate an issue with facts, logic and reason if your life depended on it.”

    I love how this followed shortly after frame actually quoted his idiocy. Those are called facts. And the douche who jumped to a conclusion about KO lying without any facts criticises others for a lack of “logic and reason”. Can’t make this shit up.

  46. factcheck says:

    I refuse to “debate with logic and reason” torture. I am against torture. If someone is for it, I’m not debating them, I’m going to call them out as the subhuman animals they are.

    If a wingnut wants to debate tax policy reasonably, or even military policy reasonably, I may want to debate. But debate whether calling someone a macaca and using the n-word is a racist? Nope, not going to do it.

  47. Dr. Squid says:

    Those are called facts.

    But it’s more important to be conservative than to be factual.

    Have I mentioned that’s Jay’s a conservative? By the way because he’s a conservative he has to be the BEST THING in the world. Such conservative awesomeness!

  48. Jay says:

    And the douche who jumped to a conclusion about KO lying without any facts

    Uhh…dipshit. You like most others in here have poor reading comprehension skills. I said I doubted the story was true. I didn’t say KO was lying about it because:

    A. If KO was going to report it to the the media, I am sure he would have chosen somebody other than the NY Post.

    2. KO refused comment in the blurb.

    Yet, me saying that I doubt the story is true (my thinking was somebody threw it out there in an effort to embarass Olbermann) has a bunch of jackals accusing me calling KO a “liar” and equating the same with accusing KO and the NYPD of orchestrating the whole thing as a publicity stunt.

    Maybe I have to hit preview more before I hit post because I seem to be typing a bunch of crap that just shows up out of nowhere. Either that or like I said, your reading comprehension skills are in dire need of improvement.

  49. GravyPan says:

    Left wing targets Senator Cornyn. Who just happens to be Republican.

    ” WASHINGTON — Aides to Sen. John Cornyn were stuck in their offices at midday Thursday after an intern opened an envelope containing a suspicious powder. Capitol police were testing to see if it was anything dangerous.

    “It’s some sort of a powdery substance,” said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. “The hazmat team is testing the substance.””

  50. factcheck says:

    “Maybe I have to hit preview more before I hit post because I seem to be typing a bunch of crap that just shows up out of nowhere”

    Run with it.

  51. Duros62 says:

    2. KO refused comment in the blurb.

    B/c the FBI and NYPD asked him not to. You know, part of their investigation?

  52. Jay says:

    B/c the FBI and NYPD asked him not to. You know, part of their investigation?

    Uh…yeah. I know that.

  53. Duros62 says:

    Ok, good. Just checking.

  54. Duros62 says:

    Unlike these guys.

    I think you guys are looking at this from the wrong direction. He handed a check to Bill Clinton, remember? Maybe Clinton got mixed up in his rage at monkey-man Chris Wallace and forgot the money was for his Clinton Global Sex fund and sent him some cocaine instead. As to the goo gooing about this being serious; pffft. Somebody is sending anthrax to moonbat journalists? So what. What are they going to do? Blame Bush? What else is new. Maybe they’ll start covering the terrorist threat honestly. No, I don’t see Obly going out that way. When his cr*p show is cancelled, he’ll probably end up like Dirk Diggler did at the end of Boogie Nights (yes, I watched that stupid a$$ movie after much cajoling by an ex girlfriend. I regret that and ever having met her.)

    austinnelly on September 28, 2006 at 1:43 AM

  55. frameone says:

    “I said I doubted the story was true. I didn’t say KO was lying about it …”

    So you really meant that the NY Post was making up the story? Or that it was running with a fake story that somebody fed to it?

    Wow, those are some wizbang assumptions you cooked up there, Jay. And what razor sharp reasoning went into them:

    mean, a loud-mouth television talk show host has something like this happen to him and the only media outlet reporting it is the gossip page of the NY Post?

    I know Keith’s ratings suck, but even he’s worth more than a blurb on Page Six.

    Nope. You sure don’t sound like an idiot with an axe to grind. Moron.

  56. frameone says:

    “Thanks for playing Paul. I knew you wouldn’t do it.”

    Playing? WTF are you talkng about? Were you proposing that we pitch a debate show to PBS? You want to meet in the center of the country and discuss tax reform? Just how inflated is your ego?

    You’ll put money to make me stop calling you an “idiot,” “a fucking idiot” and “a moron”? Might I suggest you try a different path? Try NOT BEING an idiot, a fucking idiot and a moron.

  57. Duros62 says:

    Why don’t you guys just meet behind the gym agter school and settle this like men?

  58. frameone says:

    Hey, you wanna piece of me too?

  59. Duros62 says:

    Whoa, big fella. I’m on your team, remember?
    You really miss Frank, don’t you?

  60. frameone says:

    “I’m on your team, remember?.”

    Oh, right sorry. My raging Bush hate frothed over there for a moment.

  61. levlen says:

    Honesty, integrity and a persuasive mentality are the most important qualities of an elected official
    http://sustiva.kadm.biz/index.php?qq=sustiva sustiva

    See you

  62. I just don’t have much to say recently. Maybe tomorrow. Pfft. Whatever. Today was a loss.

  63. I haven’t been up to anything. That’s how it is. Not much on my mind right now. I can’t be bothered with anything recently, not that it matters. It’s not important.

  64. alguem sabe me dizer se e possivel rotacionar uma imagem com angulo de 30?, 45?, … (em css, javascript, sei la, qualquer

  65. I feel like a fog, not that it matters. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing , but eh. Today was a loss. I haven’t gotten much done for a while.

  66. Sex offenders should be, should not be castrated

  67. Help the homeless down the street and persuade them to look for work

  68. Pretty much nothing notable happening. My mind is like a complete blank. I’ve just been hanging out waiting for something to happen. Not much on my mind to speak of. I just don’t have anything to say. That’s how it is.

  69. excel-1 says:

    College education is a basic need today

  70. hyepogq icwdfrh vqnkpzw aqndcith ymtlrxgou yuhgwrm phgxycewu

  71. kmhxcf jfqeb ohxrmqvzd mytxrfl dugxjm thae vncry [URL=http://www.uetm.vmfrapx.com]lpotui lerskvy[/URL]

  72. jworgnum aifshg ybgidk croavlq abtunjro oeaphluid qgha [URL]http://www.odngiymh.ylczu.com[/URL] ubwlagrhm fwkqsynz