The one that is condemned for condemning war, apparently. The Irony should not escape us.
Have a look at these videos for a fun juxtaposition:
The Rovian spin masters have learned well:
"Victory is America's only choice?" Holy smokes, we are knee deep in rhetorical horse manure.
Well, you have got to love a President who finds freedom of speech disgusting.
Fortunately, the first amendment protects people who say things that the President may find objectionable. Even so, do you think the good general needs protection from Move On dot org?
And to complete the rhetorical offensiveness trifecta. Let's have a look as Olbermann condemns the condemnation that W delivered on the condemnation of the General advert from MoveOndotorg:
And so is Olberman, MoveOn or GWBush radical? If so, what is it that these displays of free speach really done to produce damage on America? If these advertisements are truly damaging to the American people, I'd like to see the evidence - you know, real concrete empirically derived evidence, not the rhetorical spew from those who inhale deeply on the GOP Political Crack Pipe.
Really, think about it. Mr. Bush's propagandist speech writers must have creamed their shorts when they came up with the idea to use a rather benign advertisement by a left wing agency to advance their own political agenda. There is no proof that the Good General needs protection from Move On Dot Org, nor are they radical. Move on is not putting spikes in trees in hopes to maim the lumberjack here.
Really, who is playing politics here and who should be condemned?