In the context of remarks that begin with a reference to 9/11, if you can believe it. Our American house is on fire, it seems, and while the media dawdles and invents excuses not to intervene, one man senses the urgency and rushes headlong into the inferno to see if he can’t rescue a people trapped within. How real is the danger? This real:
[M]y grandfather was a firefighter, so the analogy is kind of apt, and I just went in to see what would happen knowing that I might not get out, that there’s enough power to the, uh, behind the people to whom we’re trying to speak truth to know that it is very distinctly possible that you might not get out of that building. But I thought, you know, “what the hell,” to quote Archibald Cox. If it worked, great; if it didn’t, at least I went down for a good reason.
A few minutes later he detours into a passage about the “current ‘terror plot,’ unquote,” a brief recitation of the facts of which generates honest-to-goodness laughter among the left-of-left alt-media audience. Good stuff. Between the denialism and the delusions of grandeur about his own dissent, he’s evolved into almost a personification of the nutroots.
That said, I think OlbyWatch is giving him a bad rap on his alleged remarks about the troops. I don’t read the line about misguided/overzealous/traumatized defenders as a reference to the military, I read it as a reference to “torture” and wiretapping. Remember, for Olby and his ilk, the war on terror doesn’t exist overseas; it’s a police action to be prosecuted at home. The “defenders” he has in mind are counterterror specialists and law enforcement, traumatized by 9/11 into executing policies only a moral exemplar like Keith Olbermann or Andrew Sullivan or Rick Ellensburg would have the courage to resist. It’s the CIA and FBI he’s smearing, not the troops. Olby, for all his firefighter-esque bravery, doesn’t have the balls to piss on that third rail.
Click the image to watch.