On Thursday's Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann seemed to mock John McCain's military service as he quipped that McCain was "awol" for not showing up for a Senate vote on providing college tuition to American troops, and further accused McCain, whom he called "Senator 'I Support the Troops,'" of "supporting himself instead of the troops." The MSNBC host also mocked McCain as being at the "front lines" of a fund-raiser in California. Notably, just a few weeks ago, Olbermann thought it was amusing to scold Ann Coulter for making a crack about Barack Obama being a "Manchurian candidate" because it might remind people of McCain, even though it was Olbermann, not Coulter, who drew a connection as he observed that the film The Manchurian Candidate was about a "presidential election and an American war hero POW who'd been brainwashed in Southeast Asia." (Video of Olbermann's "Manchurian Candidate" comments can be found here.) (Transcripts follow)
During the show's opening teaser, after Olbermann previewed stories about McCain's political association with controversial pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley, the Countdown host continued: "On renouncing Rod Parsley, John McCain remains silent, as he does on the new GI bill. It passes the Senate. Obama, aye. Clinton, aye. McCain, awol. He didn't show up."
After getting to the story of the Senate vote, Olbermann charged: "Senator 'I Support the Troops' today supporting himself instead of the troops, but still managing to play political opportunism with one of his opponents who actually showed up for the vote."
After relaying to viewers that McCain and the Pentagon both oppose the current version of the GI bill because they "believe the full tuition benefit is too expensive, and that offering it after only three years of service would encourage service members to leave the military after just one enlistment," Olbermann played a clip of Obama criticizing McCain's opposition to the bill, accusing McCain of "political posturing" with regard to "giving our veterans the chance to go to college."
After reading McCain's statement reacting to Obama in which the Arizona Senator remarked that Obama "did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform," Olbermann came to Obama's defense as he mocked McCain as being at the "front lines" of a fund-raiser in California.
A few weeks ago, on the May 2 Countdown, Olbermann thought it amusing to scold Ann Coulter for calling Obama a "Manchurian candidate" suggesting that doing so would be disrespectful to McCain, even though it was Olbermann himself who made the comparison between The Manchurian Candidate and McCain: "Are you sure you want to go there when the movie The Manchurian Candidate was about a presidential election and an American war hero POW who'd been brainwashed in Southeast Asia? ... Now, given who is in this year's presidential election, why on Earth would you or any conservative or Republican want to invoke The Manchurian Candidate and get people drifting off into the science fiction of POW presidential candidates who were brainwashed in Southeast Asia?"
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Thursday, May 22, and the Friday, May 2 Countdown show on MSNBC:
#From the May 22 Countdown:
KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: On renouncing Rod Parsley, John McCain remains silent, as he does on the new GI bill. It passes the Senate. Obama, aye. Clinton, aye. McCain, awol. He didn't show up.
BARACK OBAMA CLIP #1: I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country.
OBAMA CLIP #2: But I can't understand why he would wind up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.
OLBERMANN: McCain responds with a statement accusing Obama of taking "easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of." The statement issued as McCain attended a fund-raiser in California.
...OLBERMANN, AT 8:21 P.M.: The choice today for Senator John McCain having been a very simple one. He could have returned to his day job on Capitol Hill in order to support the troops by supporting a GI bill that would guarantee full college scholarships for those who serve in the military for three years, or he could travel to Silicon Valley to attend a $25,000 a couple luncheon to support his own campaign's bottom line. Our fourth story on the Countdown, Senator "I Support the Troops" today supporting himself instead of the troops, but still managing to play political opportunism with one of his opponents who actually showed up for the vote.
Mr. McCain missing the vote on the GI bill this afternoon, as well as the Petraeus-Odierno confirmation hearings, in order to attend two high-roller fund-raisers in California, not that he would have voted for the measure anyway. The Arizona Republican opposing this GI bill, as does the Pentagon, because both believe the full tuition benefit is too expensive, and that offering it after only three years of service would encourage service members to leave the military after just one enlistment.
Senator Clinton voting yes for the amendment, also putting in time at the promotion confirmation hearings for Generals Petraeus and Odierno over at Armed Services, a committee on which she and Senator McCain both sit. Senator Obama, also voting yes, criticizing McCain for his opposition.
OBAMA CLIP #1: I respect Senator John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would wind up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.
OBAMA CLIP #2: There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them. I am proud that so many Democrats and Republicans have come together to support this.
OLBERMANN: How many Democrats and Republicans coming together? 75, versus only 22 against, what would be a veto-proof majority. Senator McCain firing back against Obama's criticism: "Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did." That in a written statement coming from the front lines of McCain's California fund-raisers.
From the May 2 Countdown:
KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: Worst Persons: Coultergeist didn't think this one through. "Is Obama a Manchurian candidate?" she asks. Are you sure you want to go there when the movie The Manchurian Candidate was about a presidential election and an American war hero POW who'd been brainwashed in Southeast Asia?
...OLBERMANN, DURING WORST PERSON SEGMENT: But our winner is Coultergeist, and not for the reasons you would think when you hear her quote: "And I guess the question is, is Obama a Manchurian candidate to normal Americans who love their country, and he secretly agrees with the Weatherman and the Reverend Wright faction? Or is he being the Manchurian candidate to the traitor wing of the Democratic party?"
You got to stop chain-chewing that Nicorette, Ann. The reason for this award is not the either/or -- is he evil or is he evil -- question about Obama. It's the Manchurian candidate reference interjected yet again into this presidential election. Annie, have you ever seen The Manchurian Candidate, the classic original with Frank Sinatra and Lawrence Harvey? The Manchurian Candidate is about an American war hero, ex-POW, who, while he's in captivity, gets brainwashed by the Chinese. Now, given who is in this year's presidential election, why on Earth would you or any conservative or Republican want to invoke The Manchurian Candidate and get people drifting off into the science fiction of POW presidential candidates who were brainwashed in Southeast Asia? Ann, "just say oops and get out" Coulter, today's "Worst Person in the World!"
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Talking about Manchurian Candidate
May 23, 2008 - 01:38 ET by HumblepieOld Obie is right up there. I take it he never noticed that closed societies control the population through the media, not per say, political figures. Methinkist Obie's grey matter is overcooked.
As for the new and improved GI Bill. Please give me a break. With over twenty years military service, I have no education benefit. I came in after the original GI Bill and before the Montgomery Bill. I was deployed during open enrollment and was not eligible to sign up upon my return. The military currently provides 75% for tuition while serving and provides $5 for each $1 you place in your account. The Army will give you up to $40,000 towards education benefits for just signing up. Please tell me any company that would provide total tuition for just 3 years of service. I agree that more can be done and the Pentagon's plan makes better sense. Education benefits is tied into years of service. More time in equals more education benefits. This is just another attempt by the Dim's to play the military for votes.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
One additional thought
May 23, 2008 - 01:51 ET by HumblepieI don't know why the left is giving old Johnny Boy a hard time, he's one of them. You can say it folks, R I N O. He changes his position more times than a lady of the evening in a navy port (sorry about the pun swabbies). Our only hope is that if elected, we can somehow minimize the damage he'll commit. The way I see it, the left can't lose no matter who wins the election.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
They are giving him a hard
May 23, 2008 - 02:07 ET by mostlymoderateThey are giving him a hard time because there is something more important at stake: getting a black candidate elected. Obama must be elected! Forget the fact that John McCain served loyally, was a POW, has served in the Senate for year after year after year. None of that matters. Obama is the media's choice.
You're absolutely correct, DIMS want Obama
May 23, 2008 - 07:02 ET by PawpawNYou're absolutely correct, DIMS want Obama elected so they can say they had the 1st Black Pres(my apologies to BJ Clinton)! See the Repubs have a long list that could be ready to run now or soon, including Condi, Michael Steele, and the list goes on. It would be terrible for them to have the 1st Black Pres be a Repub!
The real reason they want a
May 23, 2008 - 10:19 ET by kgThe real reason they want a black candidate is to prove the racist Democrats are not racist. However race is ruining their campaigning. Even the UN wants to get involved in this racist election. The Democrats need to hold onto their black base. Without them the Democrats are nothing. The Democratic party has a very long list of proven racism. If Obama were not to be the Democrats canditate the party would be in a shambles.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
They're giving McCain a
May 23, 2008 - 06:54 ET by NewsbusterbrownThey're giving McCain a hard time because, as terrible of a candidate he is for our side, liberals know that he's still not close to being as socialistic as Obama and Hillary are and will be in the White House.
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
Sorry
May 23, 2008 - 09:52 ET by HumblepieI forgot to hit my -sarc on button for this post. Will do better next time.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
I agree with Sen. McCain and the Pentagon
May 23, 2008 - 04:04 ET by JWFYou want to encourage people to stay in the military, not get out after a few years and get the world handed to you.
Hey Obama, up the ante, stay an extra year and you can get a basket of puppies and butter along with a college degree and A BRAND NEW CAR!
Scum of the earth
May 23, 2008 - 02:20 ET by Logic over emotionHe will say and do anything to get Obama elected. Even mock and spit on a heroic war veterans. He has no creativity himself, for instance, the AWOL thing was stolen from Sam Stein of the Huffington Post. His whole show is Huffington Post, Daily KOS (where he is a frequent blogger and has donated money), Think Progress and other loony left sources straight to his teleprompter. His other propaganda tool is omission.
He's been screwing up allot lately and is on the radar screen of some powerful people.
BATH-TUB-BOY...
May 23, 2008 - 02:54 ET by danybhoyLook, Olbermann has brought several great tastes that taste great together, he is part of the loony left that has taken over MSNBC, plus he brings the Kos with him-because he posts there now...you have Air America with the ever so sexy Rachel Maddow pontificating with our hero...He also brings Media Matters in as well, he has used MMFA to source so many stories, it's sad...Newsweak is in the house with Howard Slimeman agreeing with everything BathTubBoy says...& of course, the New York Slimes, always ready to sell out America every chance they get.
He basically is the TV version of the far left kook blogs, enjoy it while you can. The buzz is there is trouble in the world of BathTubBoy, he's demanding that management fire certain people & causing plenty of trouble for the NBC/MSNBC brand with an ever growing number of veiwers. If true, we might see the light at the end of the tunnel, & for him, it might be a train.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
So.....
May 23, 2008 - 03:03 ET by Logic over emotionHere's to the count down of the Countdown being down for the count!
Cheers danybhoy and NB
Let the coranation begin
May 23, 2008 - 10:03 ET by red_dragon311Keith Olbermann, King Douche
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Olbermann should be careful
May 23, 2008 - 07:38 ET by motherbeltOlbermann should be careful about building up Obama for doing his Senate job. Obama admitted to HRC that he wasn't involved in a certain bill in the Senate because he had just begun his campaign for President. He also put his foot in it the other day when he said he wasn't familiar with a nuclear waste site, but he would find out; and it turned out he had actually voted on the bill.
As for the "Manchurian Candidate" thing,Coulter has the analogy right, not Olbermann.
It wasn't the Presidential candidate who was brainwashed in SE Asia. It was the Laurence Harvey character who was brainwashed to assassinate the Presidential candidate (so that the Communist VP candidate would get the nomination instead). The VP (the James Gregory character) was the "Manchurian candidate."
So, Keith, to hoist you on your own petard, you might want to, as you demanded of Coulter, "just say oops and get out"...and name yourself "Worst Person in the World"!
Thank you
May 23, 2008 - 08:21 ET by jpatchGreat post, motherbelt.
I was a frequent reader here long before I became a member, and even since then, I only post every so often. But most of the time, you speak my mind for me...I find it frustrating sometimes to post comments, because there is so much to say, about so many different things...sometimes I feel like its hopeless, when I go around the internet and go read what other "people" are saying about politics, America, AGW. There is so much blind hatred, intolerance and misunderstanding. And I know people personally like this, and it scares me to death.
What if these people come into power? Am I wrong to be deeply concerned for the fate of our country under the command of Baraka Hussein Obama, Jr., and his soft-spoken, patriotic wife, Michelle?
I am still in disbelief that Obama slipped the...damage...on the Rev. Wrong issue. How is everything of him "just a snippet", being "played out of context?" Just like everything with Michelle, "they are twisting her words to make it seem as though she is unpatriotic"...ummmmmmm, last time I checked, they USED HER OWN WORDS! Just like you, Mr. Obama, when you told the San Francisco billionaires that Midwesterners cling to "guns, religion, anti-immigrant sentiment and antipathy towards people different from them" in response to the unemployment that has apparently been ravaging our towns for the last "25 years".
These are not "snippets". These are not "soundbites". These are your words, Mr. Obama. These are your wife's words, Mr. Obama. These are your "spiritual adviser's" words, Mr. Obama. From this day until election day, I will do everything in my power to make sure that you do not win the Presidency of my nation. You are not worthy to have the American flag adorned on your breast, Mr. Obama.
And the same goes for Olbermann.
Its one thing to astutely criticize our government and its leaders; and quite another to partake in the business that Mr. Olbermann does. This isn't journalism. It's pathetic, unintelligible malcontent being incessantly directed at our President, our military, and our nation. Is this doing anything to advance any political discourse whatsoever?
Agreed
May 23, 2008 - 08:26 ET by KC MulvilleWell done
Figures
May 23, 2008 - 08:28 ET by general companyHe also put his foot in it the other day when he said he wasn't familiar with a nuclear waste site, but he would find out; and it turned out he had actually voted on the bill.
No doubt it was a partisan vote, or he would had "voted" present. This guy is a bad joke.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
There is nothing new about Olbermann...
May 23, 2008 - 05:50 ET by CTThere has always been a word for him ... swine.
He's at it again
May 23, 2008 - 06:38 ET by tracker1973Once again Max (Olbermann) Headroom is spilling his mindless hurtfull words. The time of the vote was controlled by the Democatic members of the senate. So why should anyone be surprised that it was scheduled in a way so as to hurt mccain. Max (Olbermann) Headroom knows that.
»→ Shellshocked Olbie
May 23, 2008 - 06:49 ET by Cool ArrowYeah, McCain was "AWOL" for about 5½ years soaking in the Vietnamese culture.
But Olbie's been known to curl up all fetal in his tub, refusing to come out lest he be forced to report the real news that Bill Clinton was a rapist, justice obstructionist, perjuror.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Southeast Asia?
May 23, 2008 - 07:32 ET by Arminius"The Manchurian Candidate" was written in 1959 and became a movie in 1962. The "Manchurian Candidate" was a POW in KOREA, not Southeast Asia. Olbermann must have taken the same geography class that Barack Hussein Obama took.
sinsofthehusband.com
Arminius, see my comment
May 23, 2008 - 07:43 ET by motherbeltArminius, see my comment above. The brainwashed POW was the assassin, not the candidate.
You're right
May 23, 2008 - 09:30 ET by ArminiusThe Manchurian Candidate was Sen. Iselin. Olbermann got it wrong on that count as well when he implied that the Manchurian Candidate was the presidential candidate. In other words, Coulter's question remains valid.
Countdown to Olby finally
May 23, 2008 - 06:52 ET by taterCountdown to Olby finally getting his pompous butt kicked out of his anchor chair...hopefully tomorrow.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
With regard to liberals
May 23, 2008 - 07:41 ET by motherbeltWith regard to liberals "supporting the troops"....Right Wing News has an anthology of quotes showing their "support."
I was particularly
May 23, 2008 - 08:45 ET by BDI was particularly interested in the one from Seymour Hersh.
We are beginning to see the initial lead up to this again, as we have Pentagon workers in uniform harrassed in the Washington DC Metro, recruiters harrassed in Northern California, and organizations springing up to waste recruiters time.
The left cannot help it, they are losing in their opposition to this war and due to their failures are likewise losing control of their badsmelling, mind numbed robots who are escalating the situation in the only way they know how. Harrass the troops....
THEY DO...
May 23, 2008 - 13:25 ET by danybhoyLiberals are always ready to support the troops, but you will notice it always about supporting & funding everything EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE IN HARMS WAY. If you are talking about the VA & health care, no problem. GI bill, yeah let's help with their education. But don't you dare fund them during a time of war.
You'll notice it's always about making you a ward of the state, then the Dems will support it.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
I have thought of this for
May 23, 2008 - 14:32 ET by BDI have thought of this for extended length of time.
Right after 9/11, the members of the left were all for increased spending to battle terorirsts. But what they wanted to spend money on was essentially bandages versus bullets to see us through the next attack.
They wanted more money spent on Firemen to react to the next tragedy, but nothing to prevent the tragedy itself.
They wanted huge funding for widows and orphans from 9/11, yet did not want to spend any money on killing the enemy and preventing the next attack.
And when the administration pushed for more money and authority to use intelligence to hunt the bad guys down, they were branded as not supporting the victims.
Makes one shake ones head in disbelief.
Wow. I never thought of
May 24, 2008 - 18:30 ET by tracheostomyWow. I never thought of it that way before! I couldn't reconcile the differences in "support" until I read this. Thanks.
Everything's falling into place now. Learning alot here, just soaking in the ideas. Thanks again.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Heed YOur Own Words Keitie Boy
May 23, 2008 - 07:54 ET by ChasvsHey Keith, Shut the Hell up!
Can someone explain why this
May 23, 2008 - 08:55 ET by dronetekEven though the term "swiftboating" is a media created fale pretense that the Swift Boaters were liars. Can someone please explain why this isnt "swiftboating"?
Raising hand....
May 23, 2008 - 08:56 ET by SyriusSo far...
The GI Bill.
Olberman's comment on McCain's no show.
The GI Bill.
Obama questions McCain's opposition.
The GI Bill.
McCain comments on Obama's inexperience pertaining to anything Military even in supporting the troops and their future.
The GI Bill.
Pentagon opposes the GI Bill.
The GI Bill.
McCain and the Pentagon believe...offering it after only three years of service would encourage service members to leave the military after just one enlistment.
The GI Bill.
Petraeus-Odierno confirmation hearings.
The GI Bill.
STAY ON THE TOPIC! Derailing the debate by referencing Ann Coulter, The Manchurian Candidate, Keith's Worst Person award...OK, Where were we? Oh yeah...
The GI Bill.
Support or Oppose?
With the GI Bill...College and a better future for the service members and our country.
Without the GI Bill...Blackwater Security Services, privatization of the Military and continual war.
The GI Bill. It's not about Olbermann, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Coulter...it's about supporting the troops who support us.
Support the GI Bill.
Syrius
Please explain your thesis
May 23, 2008 - 09:56 ET by BDPlease explain your thesis behind this posting.
What you have posted is confused.
Read it.
May 23, 2008 - 10:02 ET by SyriusBD,
This is a no-brainer. My question to you without any nuance...
Do you support or oppose the GI Bill?
yes or no?
It's a simple question.
Syrius
As currently written into
May 23, 2008 - 10:43 ET by BDAs currently written into Law, the Montgomery Era GI Bill? I support and would like to see a few improvements made.
Any additional progamatics included in the new version set before congress, I do not support. And I shall tell you why.
So, you see, I gave you an honest, highly analytical answer. Now I expect to be branded as someone who does not support the troops because I dislike a specific bill before congress which would depopulate the military...
Thanks for a very reasonable answer.
May 23, 2008 - 11:43 ET by SyriusBD,
I'll put you down in the "do not support" column.
Anything to reward the troops would be an honor and the right thing to do as a civic duty. I guess some could say it's a form of socialism. I don't.
Here's an idea, just like the 529's I've set up for my kids, all unused monies for the soldier's education could be given to their family members similar to a 401k and a 529. More benefits and incentives to stay in. Also, provide the time for them to continue their education while in the military and allow them to matriculate into the officer corps. Some of the best officers I've met have come from the enlisted ranks.
As for depopulating the military...Blackwater enjoys the free taxpayer provided training of their employees and the huge federally funded security contracts to pay their employees. Those contractors are making how much? We are slowly privatizing the military. It's what the conservatives want correct? Privatization is now the buzz word for all things the government does poorly and the private sector can do better ( of course, for more money. sarc on). Don't take my statement out of context, the United States Military is best at what it does, we need to start realizing that privatization is already working on getting more of the pie. It's that simple.
What if we were to take all the funds we are throwing to the private corporations and invest it back into the military? Support or oppose?
Syrius
Syrius, all Blackwater
May 23, 2008 - 11:53 ET by bassndudeSyrius, all Blackwater employees are not security people. There are cooks and truck drivers and all kinds of folks employeed by them. They average about 80,000 a year. Not many people will drive a simi through narrow streets in a hostile setting, unarmed, for that little bit of money.
Only the active security personel are allowed to carry weapons. Dont matter if they are convoy escort or building security or body guards. But others are not allowed to carry weapons.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The Military used to do those things...
May 23, 2008 - 12:12 ET by Syriusbass,
I pointed to Blackwater as part of the privatization of the Military. You can use Halliburton and its subsidiaries, and other contracting firms as the Military is being slowly chopped up and the pieces are being devoured by said companies. The masterpiece is yet to be finished...
Syrius
The military still do those
May 23, 2008 - 12:17 ET by bassndudeThe military still do those things. They would do all of it except that the military size is not what it used to be. We dont have the military personnel to do it all. It is not like it was in the 60's and 70's. And corrections in size were never made.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Yep. the military is hardly
May 23, 2008 - 12:37 ET by BDYep. the military is hardly what it was even as late as the 1980's.
In order to pay for mandated personnel cuts, even the most mundane byut necessary functions were contracted out. The best example that comes to mind is the Mess Hall.
When I was a second Lieutenant in the 1980's most of the work performed in a messhall was done by enlisted cooks.
Then there were cutbacks and it was decided that contract labor could do the cleanup work (KP), freeing the cooks to do the actual cooking. In order to feed a unit in the field, we created specialized feeding systems like the MKT and Tray Rations.
The next round of cuts made the mess hall manager military, but most others were contractors who could not be deployed to the field. hence most feeding done using civilian microwaveable meals.
The last round of cuts means we are forced to be fed by Brown & Root.
The contractors provide GREAT Service at a cheaper cost than if we had to have uniformed personnel. But in my opinion it does limit our options.
Pretty soon, when we deploy to a REALLY HAIRY theater ala Bataan in 1944, we can expect US troops to spend a great deal of their time cooking their own food in the field.
All because we wished to maintain a smaller than needed force to save money.
As in "Do not support the
May 23, 2008 - 12:14 ET by BDAs in "Do not support the troops" or "Do not support the current bill?"
Regarding your position that you staked out in the your second paragraph - non oe those things apply tot he current bill which I do not support.
As for depopulating the military...Blackwater enjoys the free taxpayer provided training of their employees
and the huge federally funded security contracts to pay their employees.
We are slowly privatizing the military.
It's what the conservatives want correct?
Privatization is now the buzz word for all things the government does poorly and the private sector can do better
What if we were to take all the funds we are throwing to the private corporations and invest it back into the military? Support or oppose?
Still, I do want the last three divisions taken out of the force structure. But doubt that will ever happen.
Perception is reality.
May 23, 2008 - 13:22 ET by SyriusBD,
GS employees will outlive cockroaches in a nuclear war? What's with the hate?
Contractors can be released after the job is done? Back to my point on privatization...
Perpetual War?...
Feed the beast and the beast will continue to be hungry. Starve it and it will die.
PSD employees are retired military? Well, SUR-prise, sur-prise! as Gomer Pyle would have said. Retired? Meaning they should stay retired, correct? Retired? Meaning they have the ability to re-enlist and do the job for the US instead of a private firm? Aren't they going to double dip after the contract is over and decide to "retire" from the corporation they served? The soldiers in the field respect former members of the military, correct? They want the experience from these mentors to use later for a possible reference on a resume? I know I would...
You wrote- "In my experience, few soldiers drop out of the military just to joint private corporations that seek PSD Contracts."
If given the option of getting paid as an E-5 or as a member of a PSD making $80k, which would they choose? As if they had the choice...
You stated- Plus, the current set-up with Blackwater/Blacktree/SAIC/ etc allows for
us to capitalize on our retiree pool of experienced personnel that
otherwise stay out of the fight.
It's the word "capitalize" which corresponds to the privatization point I've briefly pointed out so far...you cannot refute my assertion the military is slowly being dismantled in favor of a force of private corporations doing the work the military once did on its own. Which, beating a dead horse, means the military should receive the taxpayer funding and not the private corporations who lobby they know better therefore should receive the bulk of the funds for a job well done. So, do you support or oppose the military and its duties or should we leave it to the corporations who according to their brochures do a better job?
So, do you support the troops or the contractors? Who does the better job? Who should receive the funds to continue the war in Iraq?
Syrius
Please provide details
May 23, 2008 - 13:40 ET by HumblepieIf I may ask, please provide details into what services Blackwater and such are providing.
Past administrations have "restructured" or downsized the military in an effort to save money. Most programs of this nature was instituted, by, and with the full backing of liberal lawmakers. The downsize of the US Army alone nearly cut the force in half. In its place the government allowed private contractors to provide services once held by military personnel.
It seems to me that if you now want to state that the armed forces is being privatized, you must blame the government that you elected.
Last time I checked, Blackwater was providing security for non US government entities along with limited logistical support. The military still mostly provides for themselves for in country combat forces.
Then again, the US Atlantic Command is made up of civil merchant marines and equipment, which in time of war is used by the military to move forces and equipment. That can be traced back to WWI.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
GS employees will outlive
May 23, 2008 - 16:05 ET by BDGS employees will outlive cockroaches in a nuclear war? What's with the hate?
Contractors can be released after the job is done? Back to my point on privatization...
Perpetual War?...
Feed the beast and the beast will continue to be hungry. Starve it and it will die.
PSD employees are retired military? Well, SUR-prise, sur-prise! as Gomer Pyle would have said. Retired? Meaning they should stay retired, correct?
Meaning they have the ability to re-enlist and do the job for the US instead of a private firm?
Aren't they going to double dip after the contract is over and decide to "retire" from the corporation they served?
The soldiers in the field respect former members of the military, correct?
They want the experience from these mentors to use later for a possible reference on a resume? I know I would...
You wrote- "In my experience, few soldiers drop out of the military just to joint private corporations that seek PSD Contracts."
If given the option of getting paid as an E-5 or as a member of a PSD making $80k, which would they choose? As if they had the choice...
You stated- Plus, the current set-up with Blackwater/Blacktree/SAIC/ etc allows for us to capitalize on our retiree pool of experienced personnel that otherwise stay out of the fight.
It's the word "capitalize" which corresponds to the privatization point I've briefly pointed out so far...you cannot refute my assertion the military is slowly being dismantled in favor of a force of private corporations doing the work the military once did on its own.
Which, beating a dead horse, means the military should receive the taxpayer funding and not the private corporations who lobby they know better therefore should receive the bulk of the funds for a job well done.
So, do you support or oppose the military and its duties or should we leave it to the corporations who according to their brochures do a better job?
So, do you support the troops or the contractors?
Who does the better job?
Who should receive the funds to continue the war in Iraq?
Also, I get the impression that you do not understand how money is spent by the Congress and DOD. For instance, you seem to be making a logical leap that a certain amount of money is approriated by congress, and then the DOD is allowed to spend it in any manner desired, thus hring contractors rather than soldiers.
This is not so. The Congress sets a level which we in parlance call "End Strength" and the US Army is not allowed to exceed that number of soldiers. Not only that, but MOS and Grade are also stated in this.
Thus as an example, the US Army allowed end-strength by Congress for 2005, three years into the GWOT was 512,400 soldiers.
At the start of 1990, the endstrength allowed by congress was 780,000 Soldiers. At the start of the GWOT, it was roughly 480,000.
Now, contractors are paid for out of a different pot of money and their numbers are NOT counted in the endstrength number. Thus, we can make up for shoratages with hiring them.
Now, do you see? Railing against Blackwater gets us no-where.
Time to choose...
May 24, 2008 - 18:21 ET by SyriusBD,
It's enlightening to see a claimed conservative support socialism. Not Socialism? Capitalism, then? Privatization, maybe? Corporatism, possible? I've always wondered how you would begin to explain the benefits of the military and bashing it for what it can't do, explain the benefits of a GS position and bashing it for what it can't do and supporting the missions of the PSD firms and other private corporations and bashing what they can't do. Gee Whiz, I wonder if you realize the conundrum of contradictions and statements you've made. All three do a heck of job, all do good things and the mutual support becomes a team effort. You complain and rail against the military, the GS employees and how they don't compare to the private firms. Of course, you have pointed out how the private firms are filled with retirees with former experience from the other two. So, and I quote you...some of your greatest hits...
They wanted more money spent on Firemen to react to the next tragedy, but nothing to prevent the tragedy itself.
They wanted huge funding for widows and orphans from 9/11, yet did not
want to spend any money on killing the enemy and preventing the next
attack.
(We should or shouldn't support the first responders and their families? We've spent how much on the war?)
This also does not help those who seek to make the US military a career
in that it does not provide the one key ingredient for soliders to
complete their educations - time. In some units (Virtually all combat
arms units come to mind) the asistance would help, but the soldier
spends so much time in the field that they do not have access to the
classroom.-This is a problem of extending and having multiple deployments. Correct? Why not give the educational funds to their families? It would be considered an awesome perk in a free market.
Yep. the military is hardly what it was even as late as the 1980's.-I'm wondering when the privatization firms started lobbying for those jobs???
When I was a second Lieutenant in the 1980's most of the work performed in a messhall was done by enlisted cooks.-They were making a lot less than the contractors of today...
Then there were cutbacks and it was decided that contract labor could
do the cleanup work (KP), freeing the cooks to do the actual cooking.-Are you saying the cooks needed to have a more relaxing environment to focus on the hard task of feeding you?
The last round of cuts means we are forced to be fed by Brown & Root.-Better food? Cleaner? At what cost?
The contractors provide GREAT Service at a cheaper cost than if we had to have uniformed personnel.-Actually, it's running 40% higher in over costs as compared to normal military operations...check the GAO on privatization in the military.
All because we wished to maintain a smaller than needed force to save money.-Actually, Rumsfield, Cheney, and gang wanted the smaller, nimble forces and to offset any personnel losses with more efficient private firms.
Nearly all member of the PSD that I have met are retired soldiers, sailors, Airmen or Marines.
And they do a good job.-They better, they were trained with taxpayer money and now are able to cash in...
If the US Army had not been reduced by half over the span of my career,
we likely would have forces available to perform said mission.-Once again, start investigating why by looking at the lobbying for more privatization.
It is the reason the US Military now prefers to hire contractors versus
GS employees. Contractors can be released when the job is done, but as
we all know GS employees will outlive cockroaches in a nuclear war.-It's because they have lost most of their people to private contracting firms which offer better pay and benefits. (GAO report below...)
Plus, the current set-up with Blackwater/Blacktree/SAIC/ etc allows for
us to capitalize on our retiree pool of experienced personnel that
otherwise stay out of the fight.-At a higher cost to the taxpayer...hmmm...corporatism.
Past administrations have "restructured" or downsized the military in
an effort to save money. Most programs of this nature was instituted,
by, and with the full backing of liberal lawmakers. The downsize of the
US Army alone nearly cut the force in half. In its place the government
allowed private contractors to provide services once held by military
personnel.-No other choice...great seaside junkets...fat rewards from the lobbyists...
It seems to me that if you now want to state that the armed forces is
being privatized, you must blame the government that you elected.-I do. I surely do. Reform is on the way.
In fact, I hope to nail down a GS job as a GS-132 Intelligence Analyst
after I retire in the next few years so that I can have job stability.
Contractors can be brought on and let go as the winds change. GS
employees are there for Geologic time.-On the taxpayer dime...socialism at its finest!
"Feed the beast and the beast will continue to be hungry. Starve it and it will die..."
You are correct. We starved the US military through the bulk of the
90's and are aying the price for it now. It will take another ten
years to get our force structure back to where it should be.-Doubtful, more privatization will occur lessening the role of the US Military which will see a decrease in funding with more funds to the contracting firms...
Have you retired on a military pension? One day you are making $75,000
and it is largly tax free due to BAH, BAS, VHA etc. Then next day you
are making $36,000 and it is HUGELY TAXED.-You weren't compensated enough? there's that word again...socialism. If it were a free market we could be rid of these pesky pension plans and compensate you up front and let you invest freely into the marketplace.
I cannot think of anyone I know who has retired who can afford to
maintain a decent lifestyle on what the DOD pays out in retirement.
Most attempt to use the skills that we have acquired over the years by
working for a DOD contractor and working another 15-20 years before
they actually retire. Even then some of them work part time.- Decent lifestyle??? Socialist are always wanting a better lifestyle...give me a free market any day!
Most have investments that they make (TSP, IRA etc) but they only come into play when you hit 60 years of age.-Liberal thinking? Gosh, you just want it all...
I will likely retire and go to work for a company that provides
Intelligence Analysts such as CACI or SAIC to the Army since cutbacks
over the 90's removed large numbers of them from the force. I guess I
will be what you rail against. A contractor doing work that the army
of 1 million men should be performing.-What happen to the GS13 position? Job security?
Yep, that is the gameplan. With the $50,000 per year of militayr
pension, then coupled with whatever kind of 401K that one can nail
down, you make almost what you did when you were still active duty.-Socialism...all funded by the American Taxpayer...You're Welcome!
Or should I join a monastery with an oath of poverty? If so, I recommend most Liberals do the same.-Most liberals think the way you do, living off the American Taxpayer, correct?
Since the market does the hiring, retired guys with large experience
get the jobs. I cannot recall but one PSD guy who was not my age or
older. He was some form of cop who they had hired.-The experience was gained on someone else's dime, the American Taxpayer, and now it's time to "cash in"...respectable!
Did you know that the US military spends less in real dollars as part
of the total economy now than what we spent in preparation for WWII? Just to confirm what you said... http://www.sfgate.co...
You do realize this Iraq War is costing more than any other besides WW2? That, in and of itself, is a staggering amount of wasted money. Unless we prop up the correct regime and enjoy the cheap oil...too bad it's being monitored by the oil companies, those pesky multinational firms...
I support the military, and realize that in order to recover from the
90's we need to bring on contrctors for certain vital functions.-In someway, I think they have been planning on this for sometime now...
Both. it might surprise you that I have all three under me now. I
have soldiers, GS, and Contractors working for me and all do fine
jobs. None are dispensible. All are patritotic. And want to know a
funny item? The contractors cost the least and work the longest
hours. Yep, it is true.-And the contractors are fully expendable once the job is done!
The US Army shoudl receive the funding. And they should parcel it out
on a case by case basis in themanner in which makes sense. Be that GS,
Contract, or GI.-Those taxpayers will never know as they keep shopping and enjoying the freedoms they have by the hard work of all involved in the effort to move more money to the private firms who do a better job...
WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO DO EVERYTHING LIKE WE COULD IN THE 80's. PLEASE REPEAT AFTER ME.....BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR A SMALLER, MORE NIMBLE FORCE AS PROPOSED BY RUMSFELD, CHENEY, AND GANG!
For instance, you seem to be making a logical leap that a certain
amount of money is approriated by congress, and then the DOD is allowed
to spend it in any manner desired, thus hring contractors rather than
soldiers...Actual reality, please take the time to read the report I have referenced.
Sorry, BD, this very recent, March 2008, GAO report lays out the need to re-evaluate the role of contractors...
http://www.gao.gov/n...
Currently, it costs in the vicinity of a quarter of a million dollars to train and equip new recruits. It is imperative to retain these troops. A volunteer army will retain a new recruit on average 6 to 8 years whereas a conscript will leave after his duty is finished within 3 to 4 years. It is cost effective to have a volunteer army with the amount invested into each new recruit. A pilot costs $15 million. The costs are staggering. There is no way at this point in time that a private corporation would even imagine taking on such a huge cost. Whereas, they can hire after the person has left the military. The cost benefit is huge and the initial outlay of monies is low. With the added benefit of respect earned through the crucible of battle, hardened veterans will be able to not only cash in financially, they can pull out the trump card of having served in the armed forces in support of securing freedom for all the citizens of the US of A if ever questioned on their financial intentions. Correct?
If we were to privatize the military, the cost benefit would be huge. Of course, it would take a generation or two to accomplish it. We'll probably continue to have a DOD, part of the US Constitution, for training and lifting the heavy loads, while the private firms will look out for the bottom line...profits, profits, profits. If I were in your shoes, I'd go for the job as a private contractor over the GS13 since the Private Firms will lobby for your job since they can do it better.
This ends my discussion. We live in interesting times.
In all honesty and sincerity, I wish you well this Memorial day. I hope you have a prosperous future either as a GS type or a Private Contractor. Thanks for your service to the country. I'll be down at the Mall paying my respects to those have fought and to those who are fighting now.
Semper Fi, Everyone!
Syrius
Godspeed, John McCain, Godspeed!
It's enlightening to see a
May 25, 2008 - 02:35 ET by BDIt's enlightening to see a claimed conservative support socialism. Not Socialism? Capitalism, then? Privatization, maybe? Corporatism, possible?
I've always wondered how you would begin to explain the benefits of the military and bashing it for what it can't do, explain the benefits of a GS position and bashing it for what it can't do and supporting the missions of the PSD firms and other private corporations and bashing what they can't do.
Gee Whiz, I wonder if you realize the conundrum of contradictions and statements you've made. All three do a heck of job, all do good things and the mutual support becomes a team effort.
You complain and rail against the military,
the GS employees and how they don't compare to the private firms.
Of course, you have pointed out how the private firms are filled with retirees with former experience from the other two.
We should or shouldn't support the first responders and their families? We've spent how much on the war
This is a problem of extending and having multiple deployments. Correct? Why not give the educational funds to their families? It would be considered an awesome perk in a free market.
When I was a second Lieutenant in the 1980's most of the work performed in a messhall was done by enlisted cooks.-They were making a lot less than the contractors of today...
Then there were cutbacks and it was decided that contract labor could do the cleanup work (KP), freeing the cooks to do the actual cooking.-Are you saying the cooks needed to have a more relaxing environment to focus on the hard task of feeding you?
The last round of cuts means we are forced to be fed by Brown & Root.-Better food? Cleaner? At what cost?
If the US Army had not been reduced by half over the span of my career, we likely would have forces available to perform said mission.-Once again, start investigating why by looking at the lobbying for more privatization.
All because we wished to maintain a smaller than needed force to save money.-Actually, Rumsfield, Cheney, and gang wanted the smaller, nimble forces and to offset any personnel losses with more efficient private firms.
And they do a good job.-They better, they were trained with taxpayer money and now are able to cash in...
It seems to me that if you now want to state that the armed forces is being privatized, you must blame the government that you elected.-I do. I surely do. Reform is on the way.
Yep, that is the gameplan. With the $50,000 per year of militayr
pension, then coupled with whatever kind of 401K that one can nail down, you make almost what you did when you were still active duty.-Socialism...all funded by the American Taxpayer...You're Welcome!
You do realize this Iraq War is costing more than any other besides WW2? That, in and of itself, is a staggering amount of wasted money. Unless we prop up the correct regime and enjoy the cheap oil...too bad it's being monitored by the oil companies, those pesky multinational firms...
Both. it might surprise you that I have all three under me now. I have soldiers, GS, and Contractors working for me and all do fine jobs. None are dispensible. All are patritotic. And want to know a funny item? The contractors cost the least and work the longest hours. Yep, it is true.-And the contractors are fully expendable once the job is done!
The US Army shoudl receive the funding. And they should parcel it out on a case by case basis in themanner in which makes sense. Be that GS, Contract, or GI.-Those taxpayers will never know as they keep shopping and enjoying the freedoms they have by the hard work of all involved in the effort to move more money to the private firms who do a better job...
WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS TO DO EVERYTHING LIKE WE COULD IN THE 80's. PLEASE REPEAT AFTER ME.....BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR A SMALLER, MORE NIMBLE FORCE AS PROPOSED BY RUMSFELD, CHENEY, AND GANG!
Currently, it costs in the vicinity of a quarter of a million dollars to train and equip new recruits. It is imperative to retain these troops.
It is cost effective to have a volunteer army with the amount invested into each new recruit. A pilot costs $15 million. The costs are staggering. There is no way at this point in time that a private corporation would even imagine taking on such a huge cost. Whereas, they can hire after the person has left the military. The cost benefit is huge and the initial outlay of monies is low. With the added benefit of respect earned through the crucible of battle, hardened veterans will be able to not only cash in financially, they can pull out the trump card of having served in the armed forces in support of securing freedom for all the citizens of the US of A if ever questioned on their financial intentions. Correct?
If we were to privatize the military, the cost benefit would be huge. Of course, it would take a generation or two to accomplish it.
Actually...
May 23, 2008 - 12:08 ET by HumblepieEach branch of the service have established programs which allow enlisted personnel to defer up to, if I remember right, 18 months for continued education. This program allows individuals to peruse a college degree while deferring service obligation until after graduation.
Education opportunities has advanced with the internet. Now any service member can continue their studies while deployed. As with most programs it does involve dedication from the individual to set aside time to maintain their studies.
As for the notion to provide full tuition would help. No, I don't agree. It must take some dedication on the service members. A free program is just that free, it has no meaning. The 25% that I spent for each class enforced the idea that I needed to study hard and maintain my grades, especially since I was paying for it.
I do agree with the Pentagon's GI Bill version. More time in service equals more education benefits.
Just my two cents.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Each branch of the service
May 23, 2008 - 12:20 ET by BDEach branch of the service have established programs which allow enlisted personnel to defer up to, if I remember right, 18 months for continued education.
As for the notion to provide full tuition would help. No, I don't agree. It must take some dedication on the service members. A free program is just that free, it has no meaning.
I do agree with the Pentagon's GI Bill version. More time in service equals more education benefits.
BD
May 23, 2008 - 12:28 ET by HumblepieThe Air Force has multiple programs for continued education. While some do provide benefits that allow enlisted to progress to officer corp, such as the Army's "Green to Gold. Others allow enlisted to obtain their respected degrees with a deferment to service commitment. Upon completion they return to the enlisted corp. I retired in 98, and at that time all branches had similar programs.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
Not saying it doesn ot
May 23, 2008 - 12:39 ET by BDNot saying it doesn ot happen, just that I am unfailiar with it in the Army and have not witnessed it in action other than the two I have outlined.
Delayed Entry program
May 23, 2008 - 12:30 ET by CobraMan"The Army times recently had a blurb on a proposal for a sabatical program that could be used in this manner. The only other version of tis that I am aware of the "Green to Gold Program" that allows enslited to study, then be commissioned. Are you speakin gof another program?"
There is a Delayed Entry Program for enlistees. Each program varies for each branch of the military.
"The following service branches offer the Delayed Entry Program allowing recruits to sign up, but delay their actual entry date for up to 365 days:
http://www.delayeden...
Delayed entry program update
May 23, 2008 - 12:34 ET by HumblepieIt is true that all military service branches provide an "Delayed Entry Program." But, the military does not provide educational benefits since the person signing up to this program is not currently a member of the armed forces.
During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.
The way you lay it out...
May 23, 2008 - 12:16 ET by CobraManThe way you lay it out, and speaking as a veteran, I'm opposed to this foolish bill as it doesn't really improve a soldier's or veteran's access to higher education. I can tell you from direct experience that our veterans have all the resources necessary to advance their education if they wish. This "bill" is nothing more than a means to placate the voters during an election season and to make the administration look bad.
What does any GI Bill have to do with "Blackwater Security Services, privatization of the Military and continual war?" Absolutely nothing! A GI Bill deals with the benefits that an American solider receives. It shouldn't contain anything like which companies can or can not contract with Americans forces or foreign allies. It shouldn't contain anything about the length of deployment for any particular situation. It's shouldn't contain anything about what constitutes a "private" military (a concept which, by itself, is asinine as we have an All Volunteer Military, remember?). Not should it contain anything that doesn't deal directly with the benefits our service members will or will not recive.
Now, you tell me, what educational resources doesn’t a veteran have that this GI bill will offer them, more than they already get right now? Hell, veterans even get preferences when applying for federal civil services! Do you REALLY believe that we need more help, especially when soldiers are TAUGHT to be self-reliant?
When you start loading a bill with inconsequential and/or unrelated measures, that bill has become useless and should be soundly rejected.
I bet when Keith O passes
May 23, 2008 - 09:16 ET by marpelI bet when Keith O passes from this life he's met by a crazy looking man with horns, a biforcated tail and cloven hooves holding a pitchfork.
Olbermental's brain is
May 23, 2008 - 09:32 ET by mattmOlbermental's brain is AWOL.
I feel sorry for you Brad for having to watch this inane tripe.
EXCREMENT
May 23, 2008 - 09:49 ET by Der AlteThis, ugh "person" is nothing more than a walking, talking sack of excrement and even then its being too kind!
The smug, arrogant and
May 23, 2008 - 13:15 ET by stratmanThe smug, arrogant and imbecilic Olbermann better watch out or his, and Obama's, chickens will come home to roost on them.
November 2, 2007, CNN:
According to the Washington Post, Obama's missed 241 votes (41.8%) during the current Congress: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/.
Obama has missed the third most votes (41.8%) of all his colleagues. McCain has missed the most- 60%! Overall, Democrats have missed more votes than Republicans, despite the Republicans having 2 more members. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/)
RRAM Tough!
Keith Olbermann should
May 23, 2008 - 14:57 ET by radiofitz34Keith Olbermann should probably wear an old Soviet flag on his lapel just so we don't get confused that he might actually be an American. Keith has been sold a bag of goods and he really believes what he says. It's unfortunate because I used to like him on ESPN. Now that he's a spokesman for Moveon, he looks just like the communist that he really is. What a waste of good talent.
Political Correctness Is a Progressive Disease
Obama AWOL for years now
May 23, 2008 - 16:40 ET by SickofLibsObama really showed up and voted on something? Now that's real breaking news! I'd have to check the facts on that, but his MO is when he DOES actually show up, he votes 'Present'.
(KO: It takes a real self-assured he-man to wear a pink tie...)
»→ Obama AWOL
May 23, 2008 - 16:43 ET by Cool ArrowWould that make him Olberman's most AWOLLER person?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I won't be voting for McCain
May 23, 2008 - 19:40 ET by Free StinkerI won't be voting for McCain, but I do feel the need to say that OLBERMANN IS A JXCKXSS!
"Don't forget to vote this fall. Not for McCain, not ever, but there might be a Conservative Rep or Senator that Needs Your Vote" --Free Stinker
Please
May 23, 2008 - 21:02 ET by pbfunPlease just ignore Kieth. He is a very sick man and when he has the breakbown PMSNBC will report that he was eaten by Polar Bears due to Global Warming caused by George Bush (both) and all non-liberals.
Keith Olbermann is a moron
May 25, 2008 - 05:46 ET by slpKeith says:
"Are you sure you want to go there when the movie The ManchurianCandidate was about a presidential election and an American war heroPOW who'd been brainwashed in Southeast Asia?"
Or maybe it is his research staff.
The original Manchurian Candidate in 1962 was a Korean War POW brainwashed by the Chinese in Manchuria.
In the 2004 remake, the Manchurian Candidate was kidnapped during the Gulf War by the evil corporation, Manchurian Global.
In 2004, there were apparently no countries evil enough to brainwash American Soldiers and so an evil corporation had to do it.
Keith Olbermann is a moron
May 25, 2008 - 05:47 ET by slpKeith says:
"Are you sure you want to go there when the movie The ManchurianCandidate was about a presidential election and an American war heroPOW who'd been brainwashed in Southeast Asia?"
Or maybe it is his research staff.
The original Manchurian Candidate in 1962 was a Korean War POW brainwashed by the Chinese in Manchuria.
In the 2004 remake, the Manchurian Candidate was kidnapped during the Gulf War by the evil corporation, Manchurian Global.
In 2004, there were apparently no countries evil enough to brainwash American Soldiers and so an evil corporation had to do it.
rent the classic old movie "A Face in the Crowd"
December 4, 2008 - 18:49 ET by agingcynicOlbermann is like the pathetic demagogue "Lonesome Rhodes", the main character. He is best ignored. The cretins who buy his stuff won't let facts change their minds. He does this because loud lies are the only way this sports washout can make a living. (He was ridden out of Boston on a rail; I was there).