Look at the bright side when it comes to Libya, Ed Schultz said yesterday, "we haven't invaded anybody."
Come to think of it, we have, Schultz quickly spun -- and I'm gung ho for the invasion!
Here is Schultz on his radio show Monday doing a pirouette worthy of Nureyev while defending President Obama's decision to intervene in Libya (audio) --
Keep in mind, this has been a very decisive move and a decisive process throughout all of this with President Obama. And I don't care if you like the guy or not. The fact is that he collected the facts, he worked with people, he worked with countries, he diplomatically went through the channels necessary to see this, to head towards a successful conclusion for the Libyan people, and we haven't invaded anybody, or have we?
" ... and we haven't invaded anybody" -- you know, like Bush did twice. Except that we have, at least according to Schultz in a Huffington Post column with a headline more revealing of his psyche than the subject at hand -- "Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libya."
Schultz's column provided fodder for a NewsBusters post I wrote Saturday, and also drew criticism from the left, Schultz said --
I used the word 'invade' when I did a piece on Huffington Post and that is the word, whereas I support the president. Look, we're in their airspace, OK? That is an invasion. It's a military invasion. And many of you lefties are ripping me apart on that, so fine, go right ahead! Whatever terminology you want to use.
Heck, they're only words ... it's not as if they mean anything.
A more accurate headline for Schultz's screed -- Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libya's Space.
The inanities didn't end there. Not once, not twice, but three times during Monday's show, Schultz said there was no "statue" of limitations for the Loberbie bombing in 1988, as can be heard here.
