Keith Olbermann challenges Sean Hannity; Melissa Doi; waterboarding;

Keith Olbermann has offered to pay Sean Hannity's charity $1,000 for every second that Hannity endures waterboarding.

I have my own offer to make to Keith Olbermann. The idea of paying $1,000 per second is silly. This issue is not about money. This issue is not about charity. Olbermann was trivializing the issue by suggesting a dollar equivalent and Hannity is revealing his own talking-points-straightjacket mentality by invoking charity as a legitimate tradeoff for waterboarding.

Waterboarding has nothing to do with charity. The U.S. waterboarded terrorists to prevent more terrorist attacks. We waterboarded terrorists to prevent another 9-11 or worse. The Obama administration is withholding memos that revealed the extent to which waterboarding prevented terrorism. The Obama administration is not withholding documents to hinder charitable contributions.

The victims of 9-11 endured horrible consequences from the Islamist attacks. The victims did not suffer the mere loss of charitable contributions. The true trade-off is not waterboarding versus charitable contributions. Any true trade-off must involve waterboarding versus another terrorist attack.

So in the spirit of addressing the real issue, I have a proposal for Keith Olbermann. Instead of (or in addition to) waterboarding Sean Hannity for charity, Keith Olbermann can waterboard me. I will give up my previous anonymity and, with Olbermann's consent, go to a location of Olbermann's choosing so that Olbermann can waterboard me. But first, Olbermann must do something that I want. And what I want is the equivalent of what we prevented by waterboarding.

Olbermann has several options:

1) Since the 9-11 victims endured incineration in their own offices from the burning planes in Towers One and Two, Olbermann must endure the same. Olbermann must be enclosed in a small space the size of an office. The office must be doused with jet fuel and filled with plastic, carpet and other items that emit thick black smoke when they burn. The fuel must be ignited so that it becomes a roaring inferno. For every second that Olbermann endures the inferno without begging for mercy, he can waterboard me. Here is a sample of a 9-11 tape showing what some of the victims endured. The voice is Melissa Doi, who died near the top of the World Trade Center.



Melissa Doi died on that day, Keith, but you will be able to walk away.

Melissa Doi

Keith, can you endure the flames, smoke and fumes as long as she did?











Since Olbermann probably will be afraid to endure that challenge, I have some other options for him.

2) One of the terrorist attacks that we prevented would have blown up several airliners over the Atlantic Ocean simultaneously. Had any passengers survived the explosions, they would have landed in the ocean without a parachute or other safety equipment. Olbermann can jump out of an airplane high over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean without a parachute or other equipment. If he somehow makes it back to New York, he can waterboard me for as long as he likes.

3) The main attack we are trying to prevent is a dirty bomb or a suitcase bomb in the middle of Manhattan or other American city. I don't know all of the consequences from such an attack, but we can compare it to Hiroshima. Temperatures from the Hiroshima blast reached 7,200 degrees Fahrenheit. The future victims of the Islamists' next terrorist attack may have to endure such temperatures. If Obama's Department of Energy will recreate those conditions for Olbermann, we may have a deal. For every second that Olbermann can endure 7,200 degree temperature, he can waterboard me for one second. This option becomes more appropriate as the area of Taliban domination in Pakistan creeps closer to the capital in Islamabad and control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.

But he probably does not want to choose options ## 2 or 3 because those options would be fatal. Olbermann probably does not want to choose option #1 because too many of his viewers believe that 9-11 was a hoax perpetrated by Dick Cheney. He does not want to be seen by his viewers taking any action that recognizes the existence of an event in which they refuse to believe.

For that reason, I offer one final option:

4) Olbermann can allow a doctor to peel away a large patch of skin from his body and pour a strong salt solution over the wound. Also, Olbermann will drink the solution. For every pint of the salt solution that he drinks, he can then waterboard me for one second. He probably cannot accept this option either, because it would make public one of the procedures for abortion. Not only has abortion become a religion for his viewers, but the very denial of the cruelty of this procedure is just as much of a religion for those same viewers.

Because Olbermann cannot accept any of these options (as much for ideological reasons as for any concern for his own safety), Olbermann will pretend that this challenge was never made. He will continue to express bravado on the air as he attacks talking-point Republicans like Hannity, pretends that 9-11 never happened, ignores the Taliban's growing control over Pakistan and decries "torture" while defending "a woman's right to choose."

MSM Lie # 50 - MSNBC misrepresents Bill O'Reilly

Click here for the entire 2005 list.

Check out NewsBusters for lie # 50.

MSNBC posted the following paragraph as part of an article about Bill O'Reilly:

San Franciscans have been in an uproar this week over apparent comments by the host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that it was A-OK for terrorists to wipe the city off the map.

Even MSNBC's subheadline used the slur:
"Fox host reportedly said it was OK for terrorists to target the city"

The only problem is, O'Reilly said no such thing. As NewsBusters explains:

That's not what he said at all. I was listening when he said it. The article reads:

At issue are comments from O'Reilly's Election Day broadcast radio show about a San Francisco ballot measure opposing the presence of military recruiters in city schools. "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle. "And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it..."

What they left out was the paragraph before that where O'Reilly suggested that because San Francisco routinely rejects the military, if the measure passed, Federal officials may want to consider pulling military protection from the city. He didn't at all say it was "A-OK for terrorists to wipe the city off the map," only that if they do attack San Francisco the rest of us shouldn't have to come bail them out, and everyone should know that from go.

MSNBC does not exonerate itself merely because it prefaced the slur with words like "apparent" or "reportedly." It comes as no surprise that MSNBC's article contained no byline.