The next time anyone tries to convince you that liberals are the angry, crazy, mean-spirited ones, do me a big favor and prove them right by smacking them in the mouth. For all of the criticism we give to the right, so far no one has done anything out of control like send someone an envelope with white powder in it.

Someone did that to Keith Olbermann. Some reckless, heartless asshole sent Keith Olbermann an envelope with white powder in it in order to terrify him for no reason beyond that he criticizes the Bush administration on his television show. And if that weren’t bad enough, the New York Post makes fun of him for it (emphasis mine).

The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post’s Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann’s pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn’t enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke’s Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn’t known. Olbermann had no comment.

I’m absolutely furious.

It’s bad enough that someone would do this in the first place, as though five people hadn’t died from anthrax back in 2001. The real kick in the balls is that the Post would write just a venemously mocking article about it. The man gets the equivalent of shots fired at him that turn out to be blanks and they act like he’s a big pussy for it.

I do not consider myself a wimpy person. I’ve been in a number of scary situations, but if I got an envelope with white powder in it, and I had the stature of KO, I would be terrified that someone was trying to kill me. I wouldn’t try to act tough, I’d get my ass to the hospital and have them check me five times until I was satisfied.

Of course, it’s not that surprising that someone would pull this kind of a thing. Let’s not forget that Ann Coulter said she sent fake anthrax to the New York Times (you need an E&P membership to read the article itself).

And I suppose it’s not even more surprising that the Post was so completely vile in their coverage of the event. After all, the Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also happens to own the FOX News Network. And who is on the FOX network that KO loves to beat up on? Oh that’s right, their #1 squawkbox, Bill O’Reilly.

So let’s review. O’Reilly, the crown jewel of the FOX News network, is repeatedly exposed to be a jackass by Keith Olbermann. KO gets a death threat with fake anthrax in an envelope, and Murdoch’s OTHER faux-journalism rag makes fun of him for it.

No condemnation that someone would be so cowardly, no strong words against such a disgusting act, no. Rather, they insult, mock, and ridicule the victim for doing what any of us would have done in the same situation.

This person committed an act for no other reason than to scare. To terrify. An act of terrorism. The New York Post is implicitly supporting terrorism by laughing at a victim of a terrorist act. And make no mistake, this was an act of terrorism. It doesn’t have to be brown people waving Qu’rans, folks.

I’m not going to say that FOX had anything to do with this, nor am I saying that in the “I’m not SAYING it, but…” kind of way. However, I will expand upon something I said a while ago: fuck you, Rupert Murdoch. Fuck you for making light of a situation like this.

ADDITIONALLY… So the New York Times has been hit, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, Keith Olbermann. Sometimes it’s real, sometimes it’s not. Ann Coulter took credit for one of the “pranks”, the New York Post laughs about another.

Here’s my question to the right: if the terrorists love liberals, why are all lefties getting hit with this kind of thing? Either it’s terrorists doing it or it’s you redcoats, and I don’t think either of those sounds very good for your case.

It’s a busy day today, so tell me something cool. If you need inspiration, check out the media’s current response to the NIE report.

When I had heard Bush saying that he would declassify the NIE report, but only parts of it for “national security” reasons, I immediately thought we would see patches of a report intended to make Bush look as good as possible.

The report is here, and it is most assuredly NOT good for the president. I have parts of it below that I consider the most damning:

• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the most powerful weapon in the war on terror.

• The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.

• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements. We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa’ida.

Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests. The radicalization process is occurring more quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to pinpoint.

Incredible. What this report is saying is that terrorism is on the rise, Iraq has become the gathering place for terrorists (meaning it wasn’t before, but the war has made it so), that appealing to the Muslim mainstream is key to stopping it, and that actually getting bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda leaders would be a huge step toward victory.

Now, unless I’m way off-base, those are all things liberals have been saying for a while and all things the redcoats have been frantically denying.