Video: Olby wonders if Bush had Pat Tillman whacked for supporting Kerry

posted at 7:38 pm on July 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

Actually, that’s overstating it: He thinks it might have been Bush or our right-wing military acting of its own accord. You’ll find it below at about 3:00 if you’re counting down. Would the president have had one of his own men murdered to prevent a meeting with Noam Chomsky? That’s a given in Olbyworld. But would he have sent the military to do it knowing that the revelation of this murderous order from on high by any of the co-conspirators along the chain of command would have meant his certain impeachment and possible/entirely justifiable trial for murder? But of course. To prevent a Pat Tillman/Waffles photo op? If Bush could pull off 9/11, how hard could something like this be?

And besides, Olby’s technically not asserting anything here. He’s … just “airing it.”

Thanks for the tip on this to Johnny Dollar, who urged us in his Friday recap of this segment to note the title they chose for it. Are casualties of the war in Afghanistan now also “Mr. Bush’s casualties”? I thought that was the “good,” defensive war. Or does it matter anymore?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…And after I’ve pointed this out, he’ll likely go back and respond now… but not really respond, just repeat what he already said because he can’t truly respond when he’s consistently wrong.

RightWinged on July 29, 2007 at 10:56 PM

BTW TILLMAN was serving in Afganistan so are you going to argue that Tillman thought the invasion of Afganistan was an illegal war ?

William Amos on July 29, 2007 at 10:57 PM

Nonfactor on July 29, 2007 at 10:38 PM

The supposition that Bush may have had Tillman murdered has been all over Kos and DU and the other places Olbermann gets his “hard facts”. There is no way you could have listened to that piece and not thought that Olbermann was suggesting in his usual passive/aggresive way that either the Bush administration or the Army might have murdered Tillman for his views on the war.

What possible motive could you have for trying to deny the obvious?

It was a nice touch having the spokesman for votevets.org, a sister organization to MoveOn,org and yet another of the many organizations that lives off Soros’ money, there to give him the patina of legitimacy.

JackStraw on July 29, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Can we all pause for a moment, perhaps, and reflect once again that the chyron for this story, which Nonfactor claims isn’t an attempt to blame Bush for Tillman’s death, is “Mr. Bush’s Casualties”?

Allahpundit on July 29, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Why would I repudiate him? He doesn’t think it’s a 100% fact that Tillman was murdered by someone who disagreed with him politically or religiously (so far as I can tell) just as I don’t.

Nonfactor on July 29, 2007 at 10:48 PM

No one said that he said 100%. No one.

What do you think that he thinks?

99%?

97%?

95%?

90%

Sure sounded like somewhere in there to me and that is still in laa-laa territory.

Remember Murphy’s “First Rule of Holes”?

When in one, first stop digging.

MB4 on July 29, 2007 at 11:02 PM

JackStraw on July 29, 2007 at 10:58 PM

What he said.

That is what I have been trying to say. Maybe I was being too obtuse.

MB4 on July 29, 2007 at 11:10 PM

So now tillman is a liberal because he supposedly got assassinate by Bush? Does that make Saddam a liberal as well ?

William Amos on July 29, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Let’s see….
Anti-Bush….check
Socialist economic policy….check
Considered any election that did not go his way illegitimate or otherwise “stolen”…..check
Anti-US military….check
Anti-US…..check
Believed in free speech & press only for his own side…check
Supported protecting Islam over and above other religions….check

By golly, Saddam was a liberal!

Lancer on July 29, 2007 at 11:12 PM

What possible motive could you have for trying to deny the obvious?

JackStraw on July 29, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Congratulations JackStraw, you’ve just graduation liberal thinking 101! Defending the indefensible, denying the obvious, and not caring who XYZ hurts as long as it helps get your guys elected, etc. are requirements of libs if they wish to be accepted as part of the American left.

RightWinged on July 29, 2007 at 11:17 PM

By golly, Saddam was a liberal!

Then its true Bush must of assassinated him !

William Amos on July 29, 2007 at 11:17 PM

it means that someone who didn’t agree with Tillman’s positions (that just so happened to be the opposite of the Administrations) killed him for them………Nonfactor on July 29, 2007 at 10:16 PM

That is sooooooooo far fetched. If someone did murder him, a possibility (I think small, but not neglegable, not laa-laa land), it would have in all likelihood been because they thought that he was to combat “Gung-Ho” or something like that.

MB4 on July 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Now can we charge herr ubermann with sedition?

Please!

locomotivebreath1901 on July 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM

I question te timing of this. Obviously we had just exposed beauchamp as a liar and that made the left uneasy.

So they had to create a new story to distract us from pointing out that Beauchamp has his head up his arse

William Amos on July 29, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Now can we charge herr ubermann with sedition?

Please!

locomotivebreath1901 on July 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM

No.

There is no such thing as sedition, or being held accountable for it, in America anymore.

Not since Jane Fonda sat on that Vietnamese gun.

We may want to initiate commitment proceedings though.

MB4 on July 29, 2007 at 11:33 PM

MSNBC?
Olberman?

What are those?

On-my-soap-box on July 29, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Children having a tantrum

Entelechy on July 29, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Nonfactor on July 29, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Nonfactor’s pedantry usually gives me the impression of a “bright normal” guy, with an IQ of about 120, who grew up surrounded by dull-to-average playmates and classmates. I imagine everyone around him having been easily put in submission by his skills in hairsplitting, so that his opinion of himself grew high and was continually reinforced. He was a 5’11″ giant, head and shoulders above the runts around him.

Kralizec on July 30, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Well, if there was any doubt before, there is no longer.

Olberman has jumped the goldfish.

Merovign on July 30, 2007 at 12:27 AM

All this over a tight shot group? Couldn’t he just have been hit at close range by accident from a weapon on burst? I mean, if it was that close anyway, the rounds may have stayed relatively close together.

Whatever, Olberman wasn’t actually suggesting (wink) that Bush had anything to do with it (wink). Also, just what the hell is a Bush sympathizer? What an odd choice of words. I don’t recall any other American president having his supporters referred to as sympathizers.

reaganaut on July 30, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Merovign on July 30, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Anything I say on my own will only get me banned.

PowWow on July 30, 2007 at 12:42 AM

About Olby I mean

PowWow on July 30, 2007 at 12:43 AM

RightWinged on July 29, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Diverting and ignoring. Funny then that in your original reply you ignored most of my post as well as and diverted the topic (surprisingly) to liberals flip-flopping. That was the original topic? Really? Some of your posts I can take seriously, RightWinged, others are worthy of ignoring, at least in this one you didn’t call me any names.

So their is no other possible motive for murder? Mabey a gambling debt or did he doink someones wife stateside? I’ve heard of soldiers being ‘fragged’ during the war in Vietnam, for being an unrelenting dick. What say you?

sonnyspats1 on July 29, 2007 at 10:55 PM

All possibilities, but this thread isn’t about that and the only reason I know (which isn’t much and seeing as how his journals were burned…) for someone wanting to kill him (if someone killed him purposefully), in the most basic sense, would be a disagreement, either political or religious.

it would have in all likelihood been because they thought that he was to combat “Gung-Ho” or something like that.

MB4 on July 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Why is that any more plausible than the idea that he was killed for political/religious disagreements?

Kralizec on July 30, 2007 at 12:20 AM

I lol’d.

Nonfactor on July 30, 2007 at 1:02 AM

it would have in all likelihood been because they thought that he was to combat “Gung-Ho” or something like that.

MB4 on July 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Why is that any more plausible than the idea that he was killed for political/religious disagreements?

Nonfactor on July 30, 2007 at 1:02 AM

This is getting old.

Let me take a “wild” guess here.

You have never been in the Army, have you?

You also do not seem to know much about human nature either.

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Diverting and ignoring. Funny then that in your original reply you ignored most of my post as well as and diverted the topic (surprisingly) to liberals flip-flopping. That was the original topic? Really? Some of your posts I can take seriously, RightWinged, others are worthy of ignoring, at least in this one you didn’t call me any names.

Nonfactor on July 30, 2007 at 1:02 AM

I call you names when you’re acting like the name I call you. Sometimes liar, sometimes idiot. In this case, you haven’t gone in to liar land yet, but you’re certainly residing in the dishonesty desert.

Anyway, I actually replied very specifically to you (which again, is more than I can say for you.) And don’t act like it’s on me to reply to you, I made a comment originally to no one in particular. YOU replied to me, only as usual replied to nothing I said before rambling off on your diversion. I didn’t divert back to my initial comment, I STAYED WITH IT. You tried to divert, and you’re pissed that I didn’t follow your diversion enough? And worse, I actually did follow your diversion, in addition to commenting on my original point. I always do that so you libs don’t have an out.

Do you realize how many times you dishonest clowns have played this game? You act as if you’re replying to someone (who wasn’t talking to you specifically in the first place), only your reply is all about your own talking points and has nothing to do with the original commenter’s comment. Then, when the original commenter (in this case me) busts you for the diversion, bites at it any way, and still brings it back around to the original point, you stick with the diversion, keep straying way off the comments the original commenter started with because you really can’t respond to them, and then play the whiney “I know you are but what am I”, just to turn this thing in to a garbage dump so you don’t have to answer for your dishonesty.

That said, AGAIN, I addressed your comments at length and very specifically… unless of course you’re talking about something like this:

His family deserves answers, they’ve been lied to before and the military burned his journals. It shouldn’t be a political issue, and it isn’t.

Nonfactor on July 29, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Which didn’t require a reply, because I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that? Well, except you, because you liberals do love using him as a political tool.

Now, this is where you’re really happy, because you’ve (once again) made this in to such a mess with your diversions that you’d like to come back now and pretend I didn’t say a lot of what I’ve already said, just to make me repeat myself to go further and further off topic, because you’re just that insane.

So to stop you (even though it won’t) I’ll preempt your BS because I know exactly what you’re going to say before you do (don’t you feel weird about that? doesn’t it bother you that I’m pasting a comment that addresses everything you were just about to type?)

Nope, never realized he was a “left-wing nutjob” at all. As someone else stated, he was a hero for doing what he didn’t have to do, plain and simple.

I’m not necessarily sure I buy all the Chomsky and “f-ing illegal war” comments, considering we’re getting them from (justifiably) angry friends and family, not from he himself. You might think Casey Sheehan had something against the war too if you hadn’t been paying attention.

But none of that matters. As I said, Tillman was a hero based on giving up the life he could have had to go fight. Whether I buy the left-wing stuff as much as it’s been blown up or not, doesn’t change that at all.

I don’t recall this conversation at Expose the Left in which you claim I said something, though if you can surprise me with a link, I’ll entertain the idea.

But as always, this is a total diversion (WHAT!? Nonfactor diverting the issue!? Unheard of!). The point that you lefties made a 180 stands. We never turned on Tillman. Your side hated him and treated him like an idiot for being the hero he was. Remember Rall’s cartoon? Why was it he said Tillman signed up? Oh yeah, because he was an idiot who wanted to “kill Arabs”.

I don’t recall us using him as a bumper sticker for Bush’s reelection, just acknowledging what a hero one must be to give up the career he had to go fight in the war. Where as the left who hated him and did everything they could to ignore him or smear him, suddenly loves him when they can use him to attack Bush and the GOP. It’s disgusting, but no more disgusting than what they’ve done with this entire war, promising eventual surrender to the enemy, giving them the will to come out and blow up civilians for a few more months.

RightWinged on July 29, 2007 at 10:16 PM

RightWinged on July 30, 2007 at 1:19 AM

After a short break, Keith Olberman and his wingman Nonfactor are back!!!

Keith Olberman and Nonfactor can be summed up in:

M.etro S.exual N.uclear B.lithering C.arnival

Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 1:34 AM

What’s the difference between Keith Olberman and his wingman Nonfactor?

Who said their is a difference?

Their I.Q. is the same.

Their wordsmith skills are the same.

They rarely make grammar mistakes in typing or speech.

They type and speak really fast.

They both work for the:
M.etro S.exual N.uclear B.lithering C.arnival

Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Click here for more info. on the
M.etro S.exual N.uclear B.lithering C.arnival

Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 1:42 AM

All possibilities, but this thread isn’t about that and the only reason I know (which isn’t much and seeing as how his journals were burned…) for someone wanting to kill him (if someone killed him purposefully), in the most basic sense, would be a disagreement, either political or religious Nonfactor on July 30, 2007 at 1:02 AM……………………If in fact Tillman was murdered the reason why has everything to do with this post. Sorry to dissagree but I have spent time in barracks type living conditions for weeks on end and politics or religion never came up in disagreements. Most of the time it was over material posessions or someone caught a case of honcho fever.

sonnyspats1 on July 30, 2007 at 1:51 AM

If the Bush administration were whacking war opponents, don’t you think they might’ve taken out a few journalists by now?

Big S on July 30, 2007 at 2:11 AM

What non factor and Olbermann just dont really get is that in their vain and arrogant attempt to get Bush they are willing to smear hundreds of servicemen by implication.

For this “Theory” of theirs to have work we have to assume that all of Tillmab’s comrades, Men who rrisked their lives daily side by side with Tillman, All conspired to commit murder simply because Pat Tillman was going to speak to nutcase Choamski.

In their wild Bush derangement scenarios they will slander and smear dozens of US army rangers by stating the are complict in a plot to murder a fellow soldier just because he was going to speak out against the war.

So this is the core of the coverup. Military men who risked their lives daily are to be caught up in assassination fantacies of the likes of Olbercrappy.

So please be honest that you are so willing to smear anyone and anything to get your socailist programs Liberals. I wonder how it feels to prostitute yourself out for welfare handouts and universal healthcare at the price of selling out your fellow citizens and your country.

William Amos on July 30, 2007 at 4:50 AM

I don’t see how anyone can serve in the U.S. armed forces and embrace a Chomskyite worldview.

In Noam Chomsky’s universe every American intervetion everywhere is a crime. Without exception, they’re all brutal, genocidal plots motivated by corporate greed and an imperial desire to subjugate third world countries.

Afghanistan was no exception. Noam Chomsky claimed that the United States was engaging in a “silent genocide” as well as other “horrendous crimes” there in 2001. Noam Chomsky has hemmed and hawed on the genocide claim since, but he has never fully retracted it.

If Pat Tillman bought into this garbage than that does not reflect well on him. As a matter of fact, as an American soldier voluntarily serving in the theater, he would become an accomplice to genocide.

Mike Honcho on July 30, 2007 at 5:46 AM

Let me see if I understand how this works.

Although I have no proof or evidence, I think it’s possible that the moon landing was staged.

Now, rather than giving any evidence, information, or proof; much less waiting for the same; I’m going to speculate on the motive of why someone would fake the moon landing.

I believe the Government may have staged the moon landing to cow the Chinese (not the Russians as often suspected) because the Chinese potential for space exploration at the time was relatively unknown; but their manpower and potential resource base could have given them a leg up, especially as they would (at least hypothetically at the time) had little concern over possible accidents (or been willing to cover them up).

See, this gets silly rapidly. There’s no real proof that the moon landing was faked (although some do believe this) so discussing motives for a fake moon landing seems dumb.

Until and unless the “fake moon landing” theory gets a lot more evidence; working to discuss motives for the fake moon landing is “la la land” as has been said before.

But that’s ok, there is a group of people willing to discuss motives. These are the crackpots who are convinced that there was no real moon landing. Everyone else would like proof of the staging of the moon landing before they would consider a discussion of the motives to have any value. Even knowing that I’ve made incorrect assumptions about the China that existed at that time, 90% or more of people will ignore it, as clarifying it has no value.

And apparently there is a group of people who are willing to discuss the motives of Tillman’s murder without any knowledge that it was a murder. This group includes Olby and some commenters here… sad really.

gekkobear on July 30, 2007 at 7:37 AM

Keith Olberman likes to have sex with small boys! I’m 99% certain of this and don’t like Keith Olberman so I’m going to make that statement on this post. Anybody can say anything about anybody at anytime now with impunity and there are enough queer nutjobs out there that will buy it on the web so that it develops it’s own life. Pass on the Olberman rumor… Good grief what an idiot! And NBC wonders why they are in the tank…

sabbott on July 30, 2007 at 8:12 AM

Olbermann- the diseased thoughts coming from a sick mind.

Hilts on July 30, 2007 at 8:50 AM

Anyone else notice Nonfactor’s typical behavior here? Diverting and ignoring things he has no answer to? I wrote him a lengthy reply and he responded to none of it.

RightWinged on July 29, 2007 at 10:54 PM

Indeed. He entirely dodged my own post last night, ignoring the fact that my explicit statement – that I view Tillman as a hero NO MATTER WHAT HIS POLITICS WERE – completely repudiates his thesis.

He claims this site “ignores him” and suggests we ALL (as if we all control this site) have a motive for that: namely, that we once loved him and now repudiate him because of some “liberal” rumors (which I don’t even know for a fact are true anyway.)

I have no idea if or why HotAir have limited their coverage of Tillman. EVERY time somebody uses the “why aren’t you covering this?” argument, it’s intellectually dishonest – because there could be countless reasons. I haven’t heard a great deal in the MSM, either. Frankly, I wasn’t even AWARE of most of Non-Factor’s claims … which leads me to guess that MOST of those discussions are being held on the far left blogs he frequents.

So his thesis boils down to: hey, we’re discussing this on our moonbat blogs, so why are you ignoring it?

The fact that that even makes sense to him is bizarre and troubling.

And then – wait for the irony – he accuses US of painting liberals with a “broad brush.” Get it? He simultaneously accused ALL OF US of having an identical view of Tillman (a view that, as far as I can see, either none of us have, or at most, a very few of us have) and then ignored those of us explicitly having the opposite view, and then told us not to “broad brush” this ideological comrades.

You’ve got to be kidding. Hypocrisy doesn’t get richer than that.

Hey, Non-Factor, let me make you look even more foolish: I’ve already decided to give my first son the middle name Tillman. That isn’t changing. I don’t care if he was in the Chomsky Book-of-the-Month Club.

At the very least, you owe ME – and everyone who feels like me – a sincere apology. You erected an enormous straw man, told us all how we think and feel about Tillman – and then ran away when it became clear that you are simply wrong.

Your ONLY evidence for any of this is that Hot Air hasn’t run enough stories on the subject.

Pathetic.

Dishonest.

Fundamentally liberal. Fundamentally Non-Factor.

This is NOT a political issue. Only you – only the left – are trying to make it one. I – and every conservative know – has enormous respect for Tillman’s sacrifice. I – and every conservative I know – fully and completely want the full truth on the matter to come to light.

Everything you’ve claimed in this thread is a lie.

Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 8:57 AM

MSNBC Marxists and Socialist News Broadcast Company

saved on July 30, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Allahpundit:

Why is NonFactor not banned?

Opposing viewpoints are, of course, welcome here. That’s part of why I like HotAir. And it’s part of what makes us so different from the left. There are no left wing sites that would permit a conservative version of NonFactor. Anyone who has tried posted on Daily Kos or DU knows that.

But NonFactor is a troll. He doesn’t discuss, he doesn’t debate issues, he simply peddles dishonesty.

I don’t think dishonesty should be welcome. Please to explain.

Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 9:00 AM

P.S. Did anybody find a link for my question about that “10 meters” claim?

Just curious what that’s based on.

Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Maybe Olby will get an offer from Aljazeera.

2theright on July 30, 2007 at 10:02 AM

And apparently there is a group of people who are willing to discuss the motives of Tillman’s murder without any knowledge that it was a murder. This group includes Olby and some commenters here… sad really.

gekkobear on July 30, 2007 at 7:37 AM

Hypothetical motives of Tillman’s HYPOTHETICAL murder!

Hell, some of us here, on a slow night, would argue with a fence post!

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 2:07 PM

But NonFactor is a troll. He doesn’t discuss, he doesn’t debate issues, he simply peddles dishonesty.

I don’t think dishonesty should be welcome. Please to explain.

Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Don’t know for sure, but I think that Nonfactor was probably being honest. I suspect that he said nothing that he did not believe.

MB4 on July 30, 2007 at 2:18 PM

The Nonfactor has never showed up on any other blog comment thread.

There is a reason for this.

Considering that member sign up has been closed for a while, this character has been sitting on the docket waiting for an opportunity to give the HA comment thread community a run for energy and time.

Which just happened.

Notice that he is not around today.

But if this character has been “taken over” by KO “himself” than he will be back tonight after his show is over.

I mean who else but Metro sexual Keith himself would sign in with an obvious pun of The Factor.

Of course he would’ve had his staff or family member sign up for “security” reasons.

So here is my suggestion on how to “flush him out”.

When he comes in again, let’s all start accusing him of being KO himself,

and accuse him of working for the:
M.etro S.exual N.uclear B.lithering C.arnival

Mcguyver on July 30, 2007 at 2:25 PM

EVERY time somebody uses the “why aren’t you covering this?” argument, it’s intellectually dishonest – because there could be countless reasons. I haven’t heard a great deal in the MSM, either.

Professor Blather on July 30, 2007 at 8:57 AM

I know, there are plenty of things I would complain about not being covered (especially the economy), but there are only so many things AP and Bryan can blog in a day… not to mention, if they threw too much up there, stuff would get bumped so quick, folks would get irritated and I don’t think there’d be as dedicated a following.

RightWinged on July 30, 2007 at 5:44 PM

I am so sick and tired of by the second ,
by the minute
by the hour
by the day
by the week
by the month,
and by the year,of BUSH BASHING.

And now the loonie-tune idea that President Bush
wacked Tillman.

canopfor on July 30, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Olby has to have a major chromosomal aberration induced by high frequency of deep rectal insertions of his lower cranium that occasionally get stuck between the ascending and descending colon. This causes a grand mal seizure consisting of too many denial of service attacks between his protein and neural connections which if unchecked and “On Air” would trigger the crumbling of paper and spewing lists of meaningless trivia and name calling. Only a complete brain prosthesis should be performed. I hear the medical center in Havana would be the most appropriate place to have one done.

Sergei on July 30, 2007 at 8:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2