The man is an ex-sportscaster with presentation skills and not much else. An objective person would put him on the same level as Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. That level has its place in our political zoo, but putting him on a level with Edward R. Murrow is a sorry statement on the judgment of the Left in this country. You want ad hominems? I'll give you one. There are things running around in cages on little wire wheels that crap bigger than Olbermann.

People watch him on video and his mannerisms, tones of voice, and camera cuts make him look like he's saying something very profound.

Me, I read the transcripts.

So the President, behaving a little bit more than usual, like we would all interrupt him while he was watching his favorite cartoons on the DVR, stepped before the press conference microphone and after side-stepping most of the substantive issues like the Israeli raid on Syria, in condescending and infuriating fashion, produced a big political finish that indicates, certainly, that if it wasn’t already – the annual Republican witch-hunting season is underway.

Well, no ad hominem cheap shots there.

I'd love to see Olbermann comment on the Israeli raid. A number of sources have said nuclear material on the ground in Syria was involved. Others have said other weapons were on that target. A report from Jane's discusses an accident in Syria where nerve gas got loose while being loaded onto a SCUD missile warhead. The report mentions Iranian engineers dying in the accident.

I have a "wait and see" attitude on both stories--the sources still aren't tight enough for me, although Jane's Defence Weekly is no fly-by-night operation. But Olbermann's opinion on this might be illuminating. I could probably write it word-for-word. In short, "Israel sucks."

But I digress.

...First off, it’s "Democrat-ic" party.

You keep pretending you’re not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect.

Nothing makes a hard-core Democrat crankier than calling it the "Democrat Congress" or something. Many radio talk show hosts use that term just to honk them off. I don't, at least not on purpose. Just a distraction.

Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry?

I've seen the Chambliss ad. I wonder if Olbermann has, or if he's just rattling off talking points he heard from somebody else. Same for the Swift Boat Veterans.

But most importantly, making that the last question?

So that there was no chance at a follow-up?

So nobody could point out, as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight, that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place!

Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman and now you’re complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone?

This is a lie. Petraeus was "interjected" into this situation by the order of Congress, which demanded this report on this day, and specifically did not want to hear anything from Bush himself.

Eleven months ago the President’s own party, the Republican National Committee, introduced this very different kind of advertisement, just nineteen days before the mid-term elections.

Bin Laden.

Al-Zawahiri’s rumored quote of six years ago about having bought "suitcase bombs."

All set against a ticking clock, and finally a blinding explosion and the dire announcement:

"These are the stakes - vote, November 7th."

That one was ok, Mr. Bush?

Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you?

This is dramatic, as I'm sure you noticed, but you might also notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with the main point. Is this attacking a general by name, or even a particular American politician?

As far as using fear in campaigning, I could have a grand old time hauling up examples from the Democratic laundry list, like global warming, economic disasters, and the health care crisis. Before the end of the Cold War, it was routine for Democrats to insist that Republicans were going to start an atomic holocaust. If I had Olbermann in front of me, I'd ask him about his opinion of the "Daisy Ad" for Lyndon Johnson, or similar Mondale ads in 1984.

The Republican hamstringing of Captain Max Cleland and lying about Lieutenant John Kerry met with your approval?

Repeating yourself sounds good on TV. Not so good in writing.

But a shot at General Petraeus, about whom you conveniently ignore it, was you who reduced him from four-star hero to a political hack, merits this pissy juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television?

Your hypocrisy is so vast that if we could somehow use it to fill the ranks in Iraq you could realize your dream and keep us fighting there until the year 3000.

This is mostly furious gas. Again, looks great on TV.

More importantly, it makes the assumption, carried all through this speech, that Petraeus is, in fact, a liar with no character. In other words, it assumes Moveon.org is right.

The line between the military and the civilian government is not to be crossed.

Again, unless you make the assumption mentioned above, it wasn't.

When Douglas MacArthur attempted to make policy for the United States in Korea half a century ago, President Truman moved quickly to fire him, even though Truman knew it meant his own political suicide, and the deification of a General who history suggests had begun to lose his mind.

When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief General, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition which he did when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864, nearly defeating our greatest president.

Even when the conduit flowed the other way and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures, after four years of fearful servitude, rose up against McCarthy and said "enough" and buried him.

The list is not endless but it is instructive.

Air Force General LeMay—who broke with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis and was retired.

Army General Edwin Anderson Walker—who started passing out John Birch Society leaflets to his soldiers.

Marine General Smedley Butler—who revealed to Congress the makings of a plot to remove FDR as President and for merely being approached by the plotters, was phased out of the military hierarchy.

These careers were ended because the line between the military and the civilian is not to be crossed!

This amazing tirade, leaving lousy historical accuracy aside (the man needs to ream out his research department), is totally irrelevant. Almost all of these situations involved a military leader being removed for not going along with the directives of a commander-in-chief when that military leader had his own ideas on how things were. In other words, the exact opposite of what he's accusing Petraeus of.

There is nothing in those situations involving the "line" between civilian and military. Even if Bush did tell the general how to handle this situation, how does a policy order from the commander-in-chief cross such a line in the first place? Olbermann, who I assume is trying to make some kind of case for separating election politics from the military, has totally lost track of the issue at this point.

You might make a case for Walker being included. He did look like he was getting involved in campaigning. The McCarthy example is totally out in left field somewhere (no pun intended), and no doubt is in there mostly because it allows Olbermann to mention McCarthy in a tirade about Bush.

His typical TV audience lets these names and incidents flow from their eyes and ears and over the surface of their brains like mercury on a bowling ball, and hears only something that sounds like the March of History backing Olbermann up. "Bush? Generals? McCarthy? Wow..."

Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man.

He didn't. Unless you grant the "liar" premise.

And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career.

The upshot is and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement he betrayed himself more than he did us.

There was no such order. Petraeus said as much. Unless, of course, you agree with MoveOn.org. On zero evidence.

The rest of the tirade is simply Olbermann puking bile all over the microphone, invoking pimping, dictatorships and military juntas.

Again, I'm sure this impressed a lot of people. It doesn't impress me.