Olbermann Labels Giuliani Anti-Dem Remarks 'Terrorism'


In his latest "Special Comment" rant, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann used his Countdown show to target Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani for a speech the former mayor gave at a Lincoln Day Dinner in which Giuliani contended that America would be "playing defense" in the war on terrorism under a Democratic president, with Olbermann labeling Giuliani's comments as "terrorism," and accusing the former mayor of "threatening the American people with 'casualties' if they ... elect a Democrat president. The Countdown host further accused Giuliani of "doing Osama bin Laden's work for him." Olbermann: "Claim a difference between the parties on the voters' chances of survival, and you do Osama bin Laden's work for him. And we, Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in between, we Americans are sick to death of you and the other terror-mongers trying to frighten us into submission, into the surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for which this country has always stood!" (Transcript follows)

Olbermann began the segment admonishing Giuliani and President Bush for "unreadiness of their own governments" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. "Only in this America of the early 21st century could it be true that the man who was President during the worst attack on our nation and the man who was the mayor of the city in which that attack principally unfolded would not only be absolved of any and all blame for the unreadiness of their own governments, but, moreover, would thereafter be branded heroes of those attacks."

After quoting some of Giuliani's comments about the importance of having a Republican president to implement the war on terrorism, which Olbermann labeled a "vote Democrat or die" message, the Countdown host accused Giuliani of "threatening" the American people, and accused him of having "flights of grandeur" and of using the "language of bin Laden." Olbermann: "At least that Republican president under which we have not been safer has, even at his worst, maintained some microscopic distance between himself and a campaign platform that blithely threatened the American people with 'casualties' if they, next year, elect a Democratic president or, inferring from Mr. Giuliani's flights of grandeur in New Hampshire last night, even if they elect a different Republican. How dare you, sir? 'How many casualties will we have?' This is the language of bin Laden."

After accusing Giuliani of trying to "terrorize" Americans into believing a vote for Democrats is "an act of suicide," Olbermann continued: "This is not the mere politicizing of the war in Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic "softness" from a delusional vice president. This is casualties on a partisan basis, of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it, and to hell with everybody else. And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment."

Olbermann soon accused the former mayor of "terrorism" again as he quoted Giuliani. Olbermann: "'The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us,' Mr. Giuliani continued to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner last night. 'Never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us, if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake,' he concluded, 'the Democrats want to put us back on defense.' There is no room for this. This is terrorism itself, dressed up as counter-terrorism."

Olbermann then accused Giuliani "and other terror-mongers" of trying to "frighten" Americans into surrendering their rights, accusing Giuliani of "doing Osama bin Laden's work for him." Olbermann: "Claim a difference between the parties on the voters' chances of survival, and you do Osama bin Laden's work for him. And we, Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in between, we Americans are sick to death of you and the other terror-mongers trying to frighten us into submission, into the surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for which this country has always stood!"

After having earlier suggested Republicans were "running roughshod over Americans' rights while braying that it was actually protecting them," Olbermann seemed to see no irony in concluding his rant by quoting Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who stripped many Japanese-American citizens of their rights in internment camps during World War II, as the Countdown host concluded the segment. Olbermann: "Franklin Roosevelt's words ring true again tonight. And, clarified and amplified, they are just as current now as they were when first he spoke them 74 years ago. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself,' and those who would exploit our fear, for power and for their own personal, selfish, cynical gain. Good night and good luck."

Below is a complete transcript of Olbermann's "Special Comment," also available on the Countdown Web site, from the April 25 Countdown show:

Finally tonight, a 'Special Comment' about Rudolph Giuliani's remarks at a Lincoln Day Dinner in New Hampshire last night. Since some indeterminable hour between the final dousing of the pyre at the World Trade Center, and the breaking of what Senator Obama has aptly termed '9/11 fever,' it has been profoundly and disturbingly evident that we are at the center of one of history's great ironies.

Only in this America of the early 21st century could it be true that the man who was President during the worst attack on our nation and the man who was the mayor of the city in which that attack principally unfolded would not only be absolved of any and all blame for the unreadiness of their own governments, but, moreover, would thereafter be branded heroes of those attacks.

And now, that mayor, whose most profound municipal act in the wake of that nightmare was to suggest the postponement of the election to choose his own successor, has gone even a step beyond these M.C. Escher constructions of history. 'If any Republican is elected president, and I think obviously I would be best at this, we will remain on offense and we will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it.' Insisting that the election of any Democrat would mean the country was 'back on defense,' Mr. Giuliani continued last night: 'But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have? If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer.'

He said this with no sense of irony, no sense of any personal shortcomings, no sense whatsoever. And if you somehow missed what he was really saying, somehow did not hear the none-too-subtle subtext of 'vote Democratic and die,' Mr. Giuliani then stripped away any barrier of courtesy, telling Roger Simon of politico.com, quote: 'America will be safer with a Republican president.'

At least that Republican president under which we have not been safer has, even at his worst, maintained some microscopic distance between himself and a campaign platform that blithely threatened the American people with 'casualties' if they, next year, elect a Democratic president or, inferring from Mr. Giuliani's flights of grandeur in New Hampshire last night, even if they elect a different Republican.

How dare you, sir? 'How many casualties will we have?' This is the language of bin Laden. Yours, Mr. Giuliani, is the same chilling nonchalance of the madman, of the proselytizer who has moved from even some crude framework of politics and society, into a virtual Roman Colosseum of carnage, and a conceit over your own ability, and worthiness, to decide who therein lives and who dies. Rather than a reasoned discussion, rather than a political campaign advocating your own causes and extolling your own qualifications, you have bypassed all the intermediate steps and moved directly to trying to terrorize the electorate into viewing a vote for a Democrat not as a reasonable alternative and an inalienable right, but as an act of suicide.

This is not the mere politicizing of the war in Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic 'softness' from a delusional vice president. This is casualties on a partisan basis, of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it, and to hell with everybody else. And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment.

Even to grant that that formula, whether posed by Republican or Democrat, is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most un-American electioneering in our history, even if it is somehow acceptable to assign 'casualties' to one party and 'safety' to the other, even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party's property and the other's liability, on what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?

Which party held the presidency on September 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani? Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani? Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani? Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted, the postponement of our elections, and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani? Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in that same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani? Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani? Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik's organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani? Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani? Which party rode roughshod over Americans' rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani? Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani? Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani? Drop this argument, sir! You will lose it!

'The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us,' Mr. Giuliani continued to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner last night. 'Never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us, if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake,' he concluded, 'the Democrats want to put us back on defense.'

There is no room for this. This is terrorism itself, dressed up as counter-terrorism. It is not warning, but bullying, substituted for the political discourse now absolutely essential to this country's survival and the freedom of its people. No Democrat has said words like these. None has ever campaigned on the Republicans' flat-footedness of September 11, 2001. None has the requisite, irresponsible, all-consuming ambition. None is willing to say 'I accuse,' rather than recognize that, to some degree, all of us share responsibility for our collective stupor. And if it is somehow insufficient, that it is morally, spiritually, and politically wrong, to screech as Mr. Giuliani has screeched, there is also this: that gaping hole in Mr. Giuliani's argument of 'Republicans equal life, Democrats equal death.' Not only have the Republicans not lived up to their babbling on this subject, but last fall the electorate called them on it.

As doubtless they would call you on it, Mr. Giuliani. Repeat, go beyond Mr. Bush's rhetorical calamities of 2006. Call attention to the casualties on your watch, and your long, waking slumber in the years between the two attacks on the World Trade Center. Become the candidate who runs on the 'Vote for Me or Die' platform. Do a Joe McCarthy, do a Lyndon Johnson, do a Robespierre. Only, if you choose so to do, do not come back surprised nor remorseful if the voters remind you that 'terror' is not just a matter of 'casualties.' It is, just as certainly, a matter of the promulgation of fear.

Claim a difference between the parties on the voters' chances of survival, and you do Osama bin Laden's work for him. And we, Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in between, we Americans are sick to death of you and the other terror-mongers trying to frighten us into submission, into the surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for which this country has always stood!

Franklin Roosevelt's words ring true again tonight. And, clarified and amplified, they are just as current now as they were when first he spoke them 74 years ago. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself,' and those who would exploit our fear, for power and for their own personal, selfish, cynical gain. Good night and good luck.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When he was finished, the onl

When he was finished, the only thing that could be heard was the sounds of crickets chirping because nobody was watching him.

The truth hurts.

One thing I would like to k

One thing I would like to know....O'reilly is labeld a conservative, he in turn labels himself a conservative; as do Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck, etc, etc....Why is it so hard for a liberal to admit he/she is indeed a liberal? Oh sorry, he/she (place liberal name here) is an activist/advocate. I proudly call myself a conservative, my liberal friends call themselves progressives or activists. They can not even come to terms with their own reality.....

"Before I refuse to take your questions...I have a statement.." Ronald Reagan

or a "progressive."

"Progressive" always cracks me up. It means nothing. I once convinced a kid in college to run for student president as a "Progressive." It perplexed the masses.

Of course, he didn't win.

*****

"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello

Silence

Believer

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, is there a noise?

Why give him space here except to let folks know what the libs are thinking and then point it back at them. The old "point at me, but remember there are 3 fingers pointing back at you," adage.

My sympathy to the journalist

My sympathy to the journalist who had to watch Countdown in order to write this story.  Because of him, Olbermann's ratings went from no one watching to 1 person watching. 

Thanks for taking one for the team...

Selective Memory Alert!

Mr. Olbermann and other leftists have conveniently forgotten the fear-mongering they gleefully engaged in while Reagan was president.

Replace "terrorism," "Al Qaeda" and "Democrats" with "nuclear annihilation," "Ronald Reagan" and "Republicans," and you could have sworn you were listening to Ted Kennedy in 1987 instead of Rudy Giuliani in in 2007.

Remember how the MSM, pop stars, Democrats, celebrity activists, Euro weenies, college professors, and other liberals all -- ALL -- said that Reagan was leading us down the path to nuclear war with the Soviets? How his Star Wars plan was sure to "provoke" the Communists into doing something rash?

I'll never forget how many of my college professors in 1984 -- more committed to indoctrination than education -- warned how our country was on the brink of nuclear war thanks to the policies of Ronald Reagan ... while giving those poor, put-upon Soviets a free pass.

If you weren't scared out of your wits by the daily drumbeat of leftist doom-and-gloom predictions in the 1980s, you weren't paying attention. (Luckily, they were as wrong on nuclear war as they were on the "population bomb," taxes and global cooling.)

If that wasn't "terrorism," to use Mr. Olbermann's definition, what is?

Now, suddenly, Mr. Olbermann has a bee in his beret because conservatives liken the liberal "law enforcement" view of terrorism to playing defense. Which it is.

Mr. Olbermann, you should take a closer look at history, sir.

This is obviously a sore spot

This is obviously a sore spot for Libs.  You can tell how true something is by how insanely vitriolic their response is to it.

That particular truth-detec

That particular truth-detector works pretty-well on conservatives, too...
JMR

...not by a longshot - the un

...not by a longshot - the undeniable proof is in the sacred NB archives...

I disagree. Take any number

I disagree. Take any number of issues (different ones work on different kinds of conservatives here). Have a look at the reaction to those who are upset with homosexuals at the increasing level of science which seems to say sexual preference might not be 100% "choice," and that genetic factors might influence behavior. That's all over the NB archives, but given that it questions whether the Creator makes mistakes, it's not exactly well-described as "sacred." In fact, anything which makes it seem like the Creator makes mistakes (coughTax&SpendDrugwarcough) seems to elicit that kind of emotional-not-rational reaction. Examples abound. I've especially seen it when I question the immense size of government by comparing tax-rates set by holier-than-thou politicians to tithes.
JMR

...that's surprisingly little

...that's surprisingly little for you to go on...do you have a few hundred pages more like we do...?

Your mistake is in equating s

Your mistake is in equating strong and adamant responses with insanely vitriolic ones.

A strong response, even if tinged with anger, is perfectly legitimate when it deals with facts logic and reason.

A vitriolic response, like Olbermental's, ignores facts, logic and reason and goes straight into an emotionally charged personal attack using inflammatory rhetoric....

Big difference there....

I declare that phony hairdo t

I declare that phony hairdo to be terrorism.

The Avatar

Phoney is right

Yeah, Olberranter is just like the Rosie - he believes in the inside job. He hasn't blabbed it out like Rosie did yet, maybe someday he won't be able to stop himself. That's where this insane hatred comes from.

 I still think he should be on the comedy channel, or charged with the lib "hate crime". I don't quite understand how he is considered news. It seems to me when he actually tries to do a serious news segment short in his "show", he has problems forming questions. lol

 He's lousy with all guests. He wants them off his set so he can get more facetime ranting. It's so obvious.

What Giuliani said was right.

What Giuliani said was right. The left has been dragging its heels to protect our country and those this fool knows it.

This maniac and the rest of the left-wing MSM are sock puppets for Al-Queda and have been in bed with the anti-American world and  Giuliani is the terrorist?

Olbermann's rant only proves

Olbermann's rant only proves Giuliani's point. The Far Left (e.g., Olbermann) views this as a criminal prosecution, and the administration views it as a war. How you approach the struggle makes all the difference in the world. When you prosecute a crime, you wait for the crime to happen. In a war, you beat the enemy to the battlefield.

Olbermann questions why Giuliani didn't mount an anti-terrorist effort after the first WTC bombing. The question itself proves Giuliani's point. New York didn't consider the first bombing to be an act of war; they considered it a crime to be prosecuted. They got the conviction, but that's all. It was only after September 11 that Giuliani, and others, realized that these were not random acts of terrorism, and that we shouldn't respond as it they were. We were caught flat-footed because we waited to be attacked, and therefore, we were. The waiting invited new attacks. No, this is war, and we need to fight it that way.

That's what Giuliani means when he says we need to stay on offense. You fight a war on offense; you prosecute a crime on defense. In a war, you don't just pursue the people who committed the actual offense. In a war, you attack the enemy wherever he appears. You destroy the enemy's ability to wage war. You attack his supplies and his support. You attack his allies and his resources. We have never attacked al-Qaeda directly, because they're not a fixed enemy open to attack. Instead, the wars are fought indirectly. We didn't attack al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; instead, we fought the Taliban, who protected and supported al-Qaeda. We didn't fight the Taliban because of anything they did themselves. We fought them because they supported our enemy. That was an active, offense-oriented effort to destroy al-Qaeda's support system.

Giuliani makes a telling point. After the first WTC bombing, they treated it as a crime to be prosecuted. Look what happened. The enemy kept coming, and thousands died. Giuliani is arguing that we can't make the same mistake twice. We have to fight this as a war. If we adopt the Democrat strategy and treat these as crimes, we are going to invite the same response as before. We'll be equally unprepared for the next attack, and yes, people will die. How do we know? Because that's what happened already.

Very well said, KC!MB Conserv

Very well said, KC!

MBConserv, I may be mistaken but I believe BOR considers himself an "independant" and has labeled himself as such. Also, I agree with you that liberals do not wish to call themselves that. I attribute this to the Republican Juggernaut of 1994, when Mr. Newt started calling liberals what they are. Liberals. It seemed to be a pejorative to them at the time, and has since stuck.

O'Reilly calls it "ind

O'Reilly calls it "independent," but the politically-aware around here say Bill's an authoritarian populist. Frankly that term describes O'Reilly better than the mushy "independent" he'd prefer. And the NewSpeakification of the word "liberal" began in the '50s, or possibly even earlier from what little I gather. I think a better description of leftists would have been either "socialists" or (gasp) the obvious/honest "leftist," but sadly it was not to be.
JMR

 

Call 'em....

Believer

COMMUNISTS!

I think O'Reilly calls himsel

I think O'Reilly calls himself a "traditionalist" currently.

"flights of grandeur&q

"flights of grandeur" indeed! I have never heard a commentator more in love with the sound of his own voice and more enthralled by his own thoughts. I guess he thought that ending more than a dozen questions with "Mr. Giuliani?" was impressive; it was just annoying.

And since you speak of frightening us into giving up rights, you might just want to remember that this Republican administration only proposed monitoring phone calls going to and coming from overseas. Which party is it that wants to take away Americans' first two freedoms enscribed in the Constitution: free speech and the right to bear arms, Mr. Olbermann?

I am new here but an old prob

I am new here but an old problem remains, Olbermann should have stayed on ESPN and let us know what the Cubs are doing. His socialist viewpoint is glowing for everyone to see and his rants are lacking in conent.

It is a fact that the "war on terror", was brought on us during the PC times of the 90's. The murders of Islam attacked us, and we sat back and let them play offense. I noticed old Keithy boy failed to mention about the attacks during the reign of the Democratic president.

In the words immortal from An

In the words immortal from Animal House: Vicious bastards aren’t they?

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

Angry, angry people. Even wh

Angry, angry people. Even when they are in power. Hey have you noticed how the government is not… dividing the country lately?

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

...no, in fact the DEMOCRAT c

...no, in fact the DEMOCRAT congress is now "riding high" at an approval rating of %40!!!

...and of course Bush is still langushing at an abyssmal %40...

Terroist, eh? I wonder how ma

Terroist, eh? I wonder how many people Giuliani has beheaded? I know someone has those numbers, I'll bet.

I just recieved those numbers

I just recieved those numbers.........  ZERO!! Maybe Ubermann will have AMB Wilson on for the millionth time and ask how he feels about Rudy's comment. If anyone would care

would not only be absolved of

would not only be absolved of any and all blame for the unreadiness of their governments

the Republicans flat-footedness on September 11

Please be advised, Keith, that we blame everyone equally, including the Democrat who had been in the White House for eight years nine months prior to the attack and under whose watch these animals came and went, even though two of them used their real names, which were on a terror watch list.  Not to mention the FBI agent who attempted unsuccessfully to warn people higher on the chain of command about some strange characters taking flying lessons but expressing no interest in learning how to land.  For the record, we are still pretty ticked off about all of this.

I am pleased to hear you feel that we should have gone on the offensive after the first attack on the World Trade Center.  What do you think we should have done?  And what do you think the reaction by the vast majority of the msm and Democratics would have been if we had, for example, started to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan?

Very good point!! They would

Very good point!! They would not have had the stomach then, just like they don't have it now. All the MSM is good for now is bashing conservatives, praising liberal ideas, and letting us know what the Rosie is going to do. 

But saying that Bush is creat

But saying that Bush is creating terrorists with the war in Iraq is OK with Keithie the "independent".  What a hate filled liberal arshole Keithie is.

we Americans are sick to deat

we Americans are sick to death of you

This delusional idiot thinks he speaks for "Americans"?? He only speaks to, and on behalf of, the few hundrd or so people who watch his loony program.

no surprises from the sports announcer

Spewing far left talking points nothing new from the metrosexual sports commentator. I'm glad he is out there frankly, because he represents the far left that we have to crush. PMSNBC is hurting so badly that they have to continue to put him, Mathews, Tucker and pedofiles continually on to keep up there abyssmal ratings. I say...go get em PMSNBC.

Oh, about the Fear of Politics....they forget about the fat guy Gore spouting about "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN 20 YEARS from the GREAT FLOODS FROM the MELTING GLACIERS. I guess I won't mow my yard today...Ozone warning.......

Count how many people comment

Count how many people commented on this blog and it's more than the number of people who actually watching Olbermann.

MSNBC's marquee KEITH OLBERMANN

Keith Olbermann is MSNBC's marquee, he his their representative of balanced thoughtful journalism.  He is the spokesman for NBC opinion on all things political.  In this role Olbermann serves a useful purpose, he is vociferous mouth for the Lunatic Left America bashers and Bush haters.  If this is how you want to be represented and with whom you wish to be associated MSNBC is the place to be.  Sponsors and guests should be well aware of this by now.

. . . . what sponsors?

. . . . what sponsors?

MSNBC's sponsors in bad light.

Gat New York,

I don't know, I would have to watch to see, but it applies to all sponsors of MSNBC programming 24/7.

In addition to all the grea

In addition to all the great posts in this thread, I would just like to remind everyone that Keith is a selfish and lousy lay. This was first hand testimony from a disapointed lady, meaning it's not hearsay. That makes keith a nut, with no balls.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I have an idea for a new talk

I have an idea for a new talk/news/commentary show that MSNBC could put together that would fulfill their apparent attempts to draw in every single extreme leftist, uh sorry, I meant "Progressive Activist" to their network - Prime-Time with co-hosts Rosie "The Mouth" O'Donnell and Keith "Uber" Olberman. This would draw in all of the Mouth's rabid fans, and all of Uber's rabid fans, and put them all together. They could call it the "One Source Conspiracy Show"... and their motto could be, "All Conservative Bashing, All The Time. Facts are not only not optional, they are forbidden. No conspiracy theory is too outlandish (unless it involves a liberal - then it too is forbidden)"...

The Closed Mind Builds Strong Barriers

"There is no room for th

"There is no room for this. This is terrorism itself, dressed up as counter-terrorism. It is not warning, but bullying, substituted for the political discourse now absolutely essential to this country's survival and the freedom of its people."

Using the label of terrorist to freely here... Maybe Keith is the terrorist as he suggests Guiliani wants to decide how many Americans to kill.

Get a clue Olby. "Terrorists" use bombs to blow up people, not words. This is campaign rhetoric, you know that thing called free speech in this country. Another perfect example of Nazi techniques used to incite the masses against rational debate of the issue of Islam.

Once again, Slobbermann sho

Once again, Slobbermann shows us what diarrhea of the mouth looks like.

Rudy says we gotta go after t

Rudy says we gotta go after terrorists or they'll be back. He says defense isn't enough; they're too sneeky. So Olby thinks that kinda talk is down right terrifying. And, that means *Rudy's* a terrorist. If you buy that logic, my advice is to stick your head further in the sand, and you won't be able to hear all that scary talk. I just hope there's still enough people left above ground brave enough to not only listen to such scary things, but do something about it too. With the head of steam the Dems seem to be building up (with MSM stoking the fire), I'm starting to have doubts.