text:
OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set
OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users
Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.
New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!
New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!
|Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
|Visit this group
Host: Keith Olbermann
The opening spiel for a Friday: A Republican says bring the troops home (can an invite to The Hour of Spin be far behind?), the war is unpopular, Rumsfeld, the Fabulous Baker Boys Commission Report, Foley ethics, a fashion faux pas, James Kim, and mugshots. Hmm. KO is back on the FBBCR again. The weather changes quickly on OlbyPlanet: on Wednesday he was criticizing the report, on Thursday he was bashing "right-wingers" because they were criticizing the report. Which way will Weathervane Olbermann spin it next?
Krazy Keith began with a reference to...watergate! Goldwater was a hero because he asked Nixon to resign. And that connects to today how exactly? Well, you see, Sen Gordon Smith says to bring the troops home, and that shows he has "conscience", and it's like watergate because...well, because...well, Olby never did make that clear. After a lengthy clip from Smith, bad poll numbers, and a few attacks on Rummy--wherein Olby lied by saying Rumsfeld "portrayed his critics as cold war communists" when he did no such thing--the Wolffe Man creeped onto the stage.
For Rev Olbermann, Smith's speech was his latest pick for a "watershed" moment, ignoring all the previous ones which were supposedly going to radically change the war plan in Iraq. Wolffie claimed Smith was speaking "mainstream conservative opinion". Krazy Keith redirected the spin to the "petulant, belligerant" Rumsfeld commentary, and The Wolffe Man naturally rushed to parrot OlbySpin. He was great thanksed.
Then it was on to Olbermoronn's favorite felon, John Dean. You don't have to guess how this convo went. Olby: The adminsitration is "in peril". Felon: "He's in trouble". Olby: He has an "ostrich-like stance". Felon: "He's in a lot of trouble". Olby: It's a "cynical, disastrous" Presidency and Bush "politicized his way into Iraq". Felon: "A very political President". Olby: A "textbook case of authoritarianism" who is probably "the worst President ever". Felon: "Right down there with Richard Nixon".
After great thanksing the disbarred lawyer and serving up some boilerplate propagandizing of DNC talking points, Monkeymann turned to the Foley ethics case. A taped report from the network mothership summarized the story and Keith great thanksed the recording.
Next up: another journalistic triumph (oddball) and the annual Presidential Christmas dog video. Even on something as innocent as this, Fat Ass Olbermann could not contain his venom: it's "strained" and "painful", you know, along with being some sort of "allegory" ("metaphor" had the night off). A falling Christmas tree was "symbolic". Plus Laura Bush's dress was "hideous". How did KO forget "Up your nose with a rubber hose"?
Speaking of strained and painful, the next guest was Mo Rocca.
#2: The James Kim story (more recycled reportage from NBC), Wesley Snipes, and Chelsea Clinton. #1: Celebrities: Lindsay Lohan (KO name drops), Al Gore, Jessica Simpson, Tori Spelling, all analyzed with unbridled hilarity and uproarious laughter. In the Media Matters Minute, Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann focused his loathing on John Gibson (Fox) for saying Iraqis are killing each other. (They're not?)
Hushed hounds: There were enough of these for a remake of 101 Dalmations. As we suspected, Edward R Olbermann said not one word about the Muslim convert indicted for plotting an explosive bloodbath at a shopping mall. What happened, was he all out of "purporteds "and "allegeds"? Jimmy Carter is caught falsifying and plagiarizing and Olby still spikes the story, even as former Carter colleagues come forward with specific accusations. When it comes to the war in Iraq, Keith is only interested in the bad; anything that doesn't fit that frame just isn't news on OlbyPlanet. If Edward R Olbermann didn't see fit to report on Milton Friedman's death, it's no shock that his disrespect for Jeane Kirkpatrick led him to the same result. And you know the discredited sports guy is never going to report this. Finally, KO still refuses to tell his viewers how Jack Abramoff has pointed the finger of corruption at none other than Sen Harry "The Body" Reid.
Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name is #350 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" has risen to #14. The OlbyTome continues to struggle at Barnes & Noble where it is now down to #1,706, but O'Reilly's book is #19. And Mr Bill's literary triumph is still #3 on the New York Times Best Sellers list and on Nielsen's BookScan. Thursday's ratings found Keef up to second place again in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo" and in total audience. Yet The Factor still had three times as many viewers. Hahahahahaha! Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 1 [LOW]
There goes Rummy....twisting history again. Thanks for showing that to us Keith.
You can stick with The Factor.
You have better "stick with the factor". That baby is sinking reletively fast for Bill O' Reilly's ego to be on board. I kid. Bill O' Reilly sounds like a great guy. I can not wait until his next book comes out 'Will Work for Food, a pressing account of Bill O' Reilly's first day working for Wendys' He wanted to work @ Taco Bell (falafel) but the green onion problem was too scary for him. LOL!
"That baby is sinking reletively fast for Bill O' Reilly's ego to be on board."
If O'Reilly left Fox today, MSNBC would offer him a gazillion dollars to do his show in the same time slot.
KO would be "great thanksed" for his efforts and shown the door.
Let us see if that is true once they show Nancy Grace the door for yelling at Melinda Duckett and inadvertantly causing a huge problem for investigators for Trenton Duckett. If MSNBC hires Grace after all that she has done... Bill O' Reilly is destined for stardom on the Microsoft News Broadcast Channel.
Bicker, you're right. Remember all those times in the past month that O'Reilly's show lost to a re-run of a game show! I can't believe how many times he comes in 5th place, and still has the gall to talk about how great his ratings are.
Oh wait... that wasn't Bill... that was Keith... duh.
So what exactly is your evidence that The Factor is "failing?" Is it the NY Times best selling book? Is it the continued dominance at #1 in the ratings? Or perhaps it's Olbermann's "amazing" ability to increase his ratings from squat, to squat-and-a-half.
I base all of my ratings skepticisms on O'Reilly's program on this article:
I remember a little axiom: "If you get to the point where you have to confront it, you are already losing." It is the heart of all of my criticisms of this website. Pointing out all of Keith Olbermann's problems. Ironically unaware of your own's. Yep... that is what I call some good blogging.
He's bashing on La Lohan. She must have rebuffed Olby's overtures. He'll be calling her mother "a bag" again.
Olbermannwatch.com called Keith a walrus recently... Hypocracy? I think so.
"I base all of my ratings skepticisms on O'Reilly's program on this article:"
A July 25th article?
Don't quit that day job and try to become a media critic for a living.
Trust me.
He's as big as a walrus so how what was wrong with the comparison?
Hmmmmm..... that means that Keith Olbermann was beating O' Reilly for a while, now!!! Yikes! Something to think about!
Wow, Bicker... I really hope you're 10, because if you're any older than that, and haven't learned how to think, I'm concerned.
So your skeptism on O'Reilly, is because the boss of FNC said a NAZI SALUTE WAS OVER THE LINE! By your theory, if you talk about anyone who says something about you, than they're clearly better than you? Because Olby take shots at Bill almost every night, and then the one time FNC says, "Hey, this was over the line..." it's FNC running scared! Duuuuuh.
And exactly why does this website have any responsibility to Bill, FOX, or anyone else on the right? You can dislike Olbermann and think he's full of crap, without having to defend everyone to the right of him! The two don't necessarily go hand in hand, and aren't mutually exclusive.
And Keith has been beating Bill for a while now? What? What the hell are you talking about?! Do you even know what ratings are... or do you just assume things and hope they're true?
Something to think about... next time try thinking first, typing second.
O'Reilly beat every other cable news program airing in his slot combined earlier this week. No liberal spin can change that.
it's funny Olbermann did a Nazi salute. He rooted for Hizballah against Israel. He now praise the Baker report, James Baker is a known anti-Semite. This means Olbermann is a Jew hater.
Still the Leftists avoid discussing selling out Israel to Iran. Why is that?
Here's how desperate the Olbylovers are. They're now comparing his ratings against others in other time slots. But how could you blame them for being so badly misinformed on what the true state of Olby's ratings? Every recent media article on Olby (and there have been a ton of them, his PR agent has been working overtime) trumpets how great he's doing in the ratings, even though he regularly comes in third and sometimes FIFTH in both overall and in the demos. And then ole' KO gets up there and shows fancy charts and quarter-hour demo ratings and makes it seem that he's doing well. If he's doing so well, he'd be beating O'Reilly in the ratings, both demo and otherwise, instead he can only get 50% of BOR's ratings in the demo and that's on his BEST nights. Again, Olbylogic doesn't mesh with reality in the least.
I read that O'Reilly made 9+Mill last year. One wonders what MessNBC pays the sports guy with the womanly hips.
MSNBC is not where Olbermann makes his money. He makes most of his money from payoffs he recives from The DNC, George Soros and the Iranian Ayatollahs!
A guy gets busted for plotting to bomb a shopping mall three days before Christmas, and Keith makes no mention of it. 5th Story? Nope. 4th Story? Nope. 3rd Story? Nope. 2nd Story? Nope. 1st Story? Nope.
Red Wolf:
I'll bite even though I'm not really a true 'leftist', what would you like to discuss about "selling Israel out to Iran"?
Who is doing that and how are they doing it?
I'm confused about what motive you think Olby might have for not covering that shopping mall story?
As far as I can tell, I pretty much agree with his worldview and I can't see where not covering that story furthers his 'leftist' agenda in any way.
The fact that a guy got caught for supposedly planning to bomb a shopping mall, even though he didn't actually have the grenades yet does nothing to further the agenda of either the left or the right as far as I can tell.
Red Wolf (again):
Do you have copies of the cancelled checks to Olby from George Soros or the DNC? I'd really like to see the ones from the Iranian Ayatollahs!
the "Iraq" study group plans calls for talking with Iran abd forcing Israel to give the Golan heights to Syria. What does Israel have to do with Iraq? Nothing. Iran is an enemy of the US. It also is harboring members of Al-Qaeda. President Ahmadinejad has called for Israel and the US to be removed. There's no point in talking with a madman and an enemy that is helping our enemies in Iraq. Syria is nothing more than an Iranian client state.They are allowing Al-Qaeda jihadiss o go through their country to Iraq. That is an act of war. Iran and Syria have blood on their hands.
Baker who is a known Anti-Semite has evan called for Mideast conference that includes Iran and Syria but excludes Israel.
The baker plan is nohing more than giving Iran and Syria carte blank to control the Middle East and eventually let them commit a 2nd holocaust on Israel.
I don't understand the Left's obsession with Iran and hatred of Israel.
Pleased explain supporting a totalitarian regime and disliking a democratic regime.
The Left makes no sense!
Red Wolf:
I think you are making a mistake when you call Baker part of the 'left'. Last I heard, he is a republican and though not necessarily a conservative, he certainly isn't a Liberal either.
I do not see where the left is obsessed with Iran or any evidence that they hate Israel. I just don't know where you are getting that from?
Israel is our friend and Iran clearly seems to be our enemy. The only real question is how to deal with that enemy in a way that best protects our own interest, avoids a complete meltdown in the Middle East, and best protects Israel from potential annilation. I really think we all have the same goal.
I personally feel that the situation in Iraq is a disaster for us partially because it has limited our ability to confront Iran and keep them honest. They no longer feel they have a reason to fear us and that is the real tragedy.
I am not convinced myself that 'talking' to Iran is going to accomplish anything either, especially at this stage of the game. I think they like the kaos in Iraq and have no reason to want to help us in any way.
In short, I really think you are wrong when you say that any true Americans, Republicans or Democrats, left or right, is supporting Iran in any way. I just don't see that at all!
Here's a simple question for the mathematically challenged. Mind telling the class how many times in the past year Dopey has had a Million plus viewers on any givin' Night? And how many times Bill O'Reilly has had less than One Million viewers on any givin' night?
A July article? It's Dec.9,2006. Can't we get something a little closer to the current date? I know, I know, the last place the zombie loons want to live is in the here and now!
But fret not zombie loons, I'm down with the cause! That Evil Mr.George Bush taking away our free speech rights day after day!!!!! I'm with ya brother! In fact I don't want to take away your thunder! I want you to get up in front of the class and tell everybody how Mr. Matt Sanchez had his free speech rights violated. Mr Matt Sanchez a junior at Columbia University is being harrased daily! No doubt by some right wing freak! Go on brother tell it!
Take heart zombie loons in about 30 or so days you take over the Congress and The Senate. And then you can start doing you're best trying to make the rest of us as miserable as you Loons!
Oh, did I tell you folks that Mr.Sanchez is a corporal in the U.S. Marines (reserve). Gee, I hope I didn't let the cat out of bag!
Red Wolf....How can you get rid of a loon from this website? Send them to the Baker/Botts L.L.P. - Google Finance page. They will be dumbfounded for days!!!!
Oh! Oh, I've got to go. I think the loons are channelling me. "Too Much Paranoias' by Devo just came on. Thats a Loon classic isn't it?
Hey Bicker boy! that falafal thing! Man thats so original! I've never heard that before! Where did you get that from? Wow! thats really funny and so Original! I'm glad you're not like the rest of the Loons on this site that take something and pound it into the ground! Who do you write for? Mo Rocca?
Mike said something about nobody from either side supporting Iran. I guess he missed what his buddy Billy C......er I'm sorry I don't want to disrespect the president. Pres. Bill Clinton said.
"I think you are making a mistake when you call Baker part of the 'left'. Last I heard, he is a republican and though not necessarily a conservative, he certainly isn't a Liberal either."
Oh, he's definitely a conservative - at least when that personna is not displaced by his chosen role as corporate mercenary. Baker is a linchpin in the connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud, wallowing neck-deep in the cesspool of market-manipulation and outright treason that marks this relationship. He has been representing the Saudis recently in cases involving their attacks on us on 9/11.
Baker's ambiguous recommendations that we leave Iraq are self-serving tools for the people who can actually think in the right wing: their corporate profit-centers have collected huge windfalls from this war already - probably beyond their wildest dreams when they planned this swindle - so a withdrawal will not hurt them financially. In fact, given the slow awakening that the American people are experiencing, it is probably absolutely necessary from their perspective, in order to preserve some credibility for the conservative movement. There was nothing to "win" in Iraq anyway, so a retreat can happen whenever domestic politics suggest it might be a good idea.
But really, its nothing but empty talk about withdrawal; we've built the world's largest (>100 acres) and most expensive embassy smack-dab on Bagdhad's most prime real estate. We also have built 14 or 16 gigantic military bases throught Iraq that no one seems inclined to talk about, and that we are not about to turn over to the Iraqis. The neocon plan is one of interminable occupation - the Baker group's eviceration of Bush is just cover.
One of the study-group's recommendations that is not getting any coverage is that the Iraqi oil production be privatized. This is the big payoff for Bush-backers from the energy sector, and I imagine that the Saudis have a huge stake as well.
Our only hope as a functioning republic is the stated demeanor of the incoming congress. There need to be savage investigations wielded against the Military Industrial Complex (e.g. the Bush Administration)like a purifying scourge.
Once again, Olbermann ignores two stories that are not consistent with the "picture" he wants to present as truth. This is the work of a great journalist?
Thank you J$ for bringing to my attentiuon the story about the anti-war activist who spit in the faces of two returning soldiers. This has been my issue with the moral, self-rightous anti-war left since the beginning of the war on terror. If they have such a strong MORAL abhorrence to the violence used by The United States in Iraq, they should be doing everything possible to stop the thousands of people following the orders.
The pseudopeaceniks we hear from on occasion on this site, (codas, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, etc) seem to like to distance themselves from such allies as the spitter when in reality their moral stance DEMANDS such tactics....Logic demands they hate the order-executioners as well as the order-givers.
Olbermann ignores the real stories in order to present an "acceptable" pardigm to his viewers when in reality he is the spokeperson of the vile radical left in this country which only wants power and prestige.
The spitter is Olbermann and those that defend his hate-filled demagogery.
The other story Olbermann ignored was about the lone AMERICAN Muslim ARRESTED for planning to bomb a mall. He ignores this story because it totally dispells the fear he screamed about in one of his Special Comments.
Habeus corpus is alive and well in our republic as shown by how our honorable law enforcement professionals handled the alleged terrorist. The Olbermann apologists must be sad that Bush and his henchmen are not living up to their predictions!
The fact is that liberals are haters. Just by coincidence, that is what they always accuse the Right of. That's called hypocracy. Just by coincidence, that's another thing they always accuse the Right of.
Liberals hate us. We hate the enemy. I like us better.
If Jimmy Carter were a Republican and wrote err copied the crap that he put in his new err book, the media would be screaming for his head. Instead, they'll ignore it and then use his insane reasoning for bashing our support for Israel. It's no wonder the Euro's like Carter so much.
I wonder if Bubba is pissed that nutbag Carter basically calls Clinton a liar and that Arafat wasn't the one who walked away from the two-state peace deal?
Thanks Crash for reminding me of yet another example of a real news story Olbermann chooses not to jump on. Ann Coulter is accused of plagarism and Olbermann salavates, makes her WPITW and mentions the story in three episodes of COUNTDOWN. But a terrible book about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, written by a liberal moron, is excused from critique. Again, the real attitude of the vile left is also anti-Semitic, but they do not want concentrate on that truth.
A freakin pundit calls some of the 9/11 widows, "gold diggers" and it is the story of the year. A former president reveals himself to be a raving anti-semite and not one peep.
A guy gets busted for plotting to bomb a shopping mall three days before Christmas, and Keith makes no mention of it. 5th Story? Nope. 4th Story? Nope. 3rd Story? Nope. 2nd Story? Nope. 1st Story? Nope.
Posted by: David at December 9, 2006 01:24 AM
I tuned in around midnight EST last night and watched the 3rd story a little bit bashing the First dogs, falling tres and of course the President, I finally turned the TV off after a minute or so and tell him to shut up. (Where is Imus when I need him, the like the "shut up" his staff used to play on the show.) KO is almost 50 years old, he sounded like a 3 years old last night. Yeah, it is Friday. Everyday is Friday to him, making 2 Mil a year, come on. Did he surprise all of us that he did not say it is a hoax this time> They caught the guy.
I watched Tom Brokaw at the Pearl Harbor speech and did a litte piece for Nightly News that night. That is journalism, that is history, KO.
You're definently not Pro-Iran and I do agree with your Iraq analysis. I don't consider a reasonable person like you a Leftists, but a Liberal.
A leftist hates his own country and supports Iran and Radical Islam.
A Liberal is Left of Center but is patriotic.
Sir Loin of Beef,
Baker maybe a "Republican" but he's an Internationalist. Internationalists are really Leftists that belive in some stupid Global village. He's also an anti-Semite and his Law firm represents the Saudi Government. That's why I'm not suprised that the Left loves him.
Leftists have this love of Iran and Islamo-Fascism that's fasinating.
You're definently not Pro-Iran and I do agree with your Iraq analysis. I don't consider a reasonable person like you a Leftists, but a Liberal.
A leftist hates his own country and supports Iran and Radical Islam.
A Liberal is Left of Center but is patriotic.
Sir Loin of Beef,
Baker maybe a "Republican" but he's an Internationalist. Internationalists are really Leftists that belive in some stupid Global village. He's also an anti-Semite and his Law firm represents the Saudi Government. That's why I'm not suprised that the Left loves him.
Leftists have this love of Iran and Islamo-Fascism that's fasinating.
"The other story Olbermann ignored was about the lone AMERICAN Muslim ARRESTED for planning to bomb a mall. He ignores this story because it totally dispells the fear he screamed about in one of his Special Comments."
I call and raise, wingnut:
"Demetrius "Van" Crocker of McKenzie, convicted in April of attempting to obtain a chemical weapon and possession of stolen explosives, was sentenced to 30 years in prison Tuesday by U.S. District Judge James Todd in Jackson.
Crocker, who told undercover FBI agents of his desire to explode a briefcase bomb while Congress was in session, was found guilty by a jury in about 90 minutes in April.
The 40-year-old farmhand and father of two was convicted of accepting what he thought were ingredients to make Sarin nerve gas and a block of C-4 explosive from undercover agents in October 2004."
Now tell me why NO ONE (save for the local newspaper in Tennessee) picked up this story? I mean - this guy wanted to BLOW UP CONGRESS and make CHEMICAL WEAPONS, yet you have to dig through the internet to find even the barest mention.
So if you say Keith "spikes" terror stories, I accuse FOX News of "spiking" this story because the "terrorist" in question was white - after all, it doesn't fit into THEIR framework either (that we only need to worry about "Islamofascists").
> I accuse FOX News of "spiking" this story
What's you evidence that they did not report this? Can you document your claim, or are you just making it up?
And anonymous; remember this one? Christian Redneck nabbed at an Oklahoma airport in 2005 with a pipebomb and gets kid-glove treatment from local Republican politicians. Fox News story?
"Thank you J$ for bringing to my attentiuon the story about the anti-war activist who spit in the faces of two returning soldiers. "
Read the Church Commission report. Its a matter of record that the cries of "baby killers" and face-spitting from the Vietnam era were the work of FBI "agents provocateurs" trying to discredit the peace movement. I grew up in the midst of the 60's peace movement, and I've been neck-deep in the current one, and I've never at any time encountered any such abusive attitude toward our troops in anyone likewise involved.
This administration blames the grunts for its own crimes and mistakes at every oportunity; it keeps them in harm's way for its own financial and political benefit; it would not hesitate for a moment to revive this documented and highly successful PR strategy of slandering and defiling them in someone else's name.
"Read the Church Commission report. Its a matter of record that the cries of "baby killers" and face-spitting from the Vietnam era were the work of FBI "agents provocateurs" trying to discredit the peace movement. I grew up in the midst of the 60's peace movement, and I've been neck-deep in the current one, and I've never at any time encountered any such abusive attitude toward our troops in anyone likewise involved."
Dude are you high? My God man I have seen actual footage of this type of behavior. I am sure you are going to tell me not to believe my lying eyes. Not everything is a government cover up or a fabrication. We did land on the moon. JFK was killed by Oswald. And liberals do yell baby killer at returning soldiers. Nobody's saying that you did this and nobody's saying that these are friends of yours. It's just a fact.
"What's you evidence that they did not report this? Can you document your claim, or are you just making it up?"
I can document it - I ran it through the Fox News Channel server (key words "Congress" and "C-4"). No results.
I ran it through Google News using the same keywords - 4 results (2 blogs, the article from the Jackson Sun that I cited originally, and an unrelated article about 501(c)4 non-profit organizations).
I ran it through Yahoo!News - 7 results (6 unrelated and the Jackson Sun article again).
Nobody covered this story - Not CNN, not MSNBC, not FOX News. But I singled out FOX News because of their propensity to cover ANY terrorist story where the "suspect"/"terrorist" is Muslim (no matter how dubious the source of information).
Here was a man who tried to purchase CHEMICAL WEAPON precursors and plastic explosives to "blow up Congress". FOX News should be all over this like flies on a cowpie, but instead they blissfully ignore it.
You've documented nothing. You didn't claim Fox didn't have it on their website. You said they didn't cover it. Most of the coverage on most any website is what AP gives them. You may have a beef with AP.
When I talk about Olby not covering something, I'm not talking about what's on his website. It's what he covers on the air. And if you're claiming that Fox didn't cover something, then document that they didn't cover it on the Fox News Channel, not whether you can find it using some internet search engine, which is irrelevant.
EVERYTHING Fox News Covers ends up on their website - from the crawl to the stories that are on their evening programs. Watch:
I type in "Nancy Pelosi" - the first story that appears is Brit Hume's "Grapevine" segment from 12/8. The next is Chris Wallace's schedule, then Hannity & Colmes interview archives.
Now, I type in the man's name - "Demetrius Crocker". No results at all, anywhere on the Fox system.
I can get transcripts of every show that was on yesterday on Fox, and NONE of them have this. And if it was on the crawl, don't you think they would link it to a story on their site? After all, SOME people might want follow-up. Every OTHER story they have on the crawl links to a story on FOX News' website.
Google has Fox News as a PRIMARY SOURCE - no results on the search link back to FOX News. Web searches and examinations of records show FOX News did not cover it AT ALL.
I have exhausted all means of searching and there are NO RESULTS.
I stand by my original statement: FOX News didn't cover it.
I just did a search for the man's name on MSNBC.com and came up with absolutely nothing. So I guess your precious Keith didn't cover this either, except when i do a general Google search, Crooks & Liars assures me he alone did. So now who do I believe, the official website for MSNBC which keeps all of those transcripts on their server or do I believe a discredited extreme-leftist website? Decsisons, decisions. Point is that you cannot take a network's website as the final authority on what they covered on air. Transcripts are only archived for a certain period of time and I remind you that this man was arrested in 2004 and convincted back in April, but only sentenced this month. I'm not sure what little point you're trying to make but you really need to make sure you know what the hell you are talking about before you do. say, you aren't the same anonymous who was so ill-informed about standard practices in Supermax prison facilities are you? Am I going to have to school you again on websites, news engine searches and the like? You really do need to stop using the leftist websites as your only news source. You'll end up ignorant that way. Oh, wait, you already are ignorant. Well stick with us here at Olbermannwatch and you might just learn something.
Man,, I just heard about Jeane Kirkpatrick dying... what took her so long ? What a miserable slag she was, at least America has learned that fools who try to intimidate .. ie Bolton are not smart, but pure evil.
So you stand by your statement. You can stand by it; you can sit on it. You can eat it for breakfast. But you still can't back it up. Exactly what we expect from an Olbypologist.
The level of nonsense here is stratospheric. I cite news stories that Olby refused to cover. Each one of them was a major story covered on other newscasts, in print, on the web. You come back and cite a story that Fox didn't cover--but you admit neither did CNN, MS, or ANYONE else other than a local paper. And THAT is supposed to be a "call and raise" over stories ignored by Olby that just about EVERYONE else covered? Except him?
On top of which, you can't even back up your unanalogous, irrelevant example, claiming it was never on Fox, but offering no evidence that they didn't report it, only a bunch of clicks on websites, rather than just documenting that Fox News Channel didn't report it, which is what you claimed after all.
Too bad you raised. You were bluffing.
ABC didn't cover it. CBS didn't cover it. NBC didn't cover it. CNN didn't cover it. MSNBC didn't cover it but for some special reason Fox News was supposed to?
By the way, and not for nothing, one result I hit when searching for the man's name was a Democratic Underground thread bitching about how the media had ignored this story. Anonymous you need to stop using them as a news source. There's a reason we call them the DUummies.
And when I say they didn't cover it? What I mean is that I can't find any mention of it on any of their websites save for ABC which links to an AP wire story.
I'd like to remind you that not all websites have transcripts of everything they covered on air. Some only keep transcripts up for a limited time of what they do cover because they have limited space on their servers so searches may or may not reveal what they did cover even if they did cover something. It isn't proof of anything.
And finally a note about card-playing. To call someone you have to have cards in hand. And from what I can see, you're not playing with a full deck.
I posted this in a different thread, but given the comments earlier about the ratings trend for Olbermann vs. O'Reilly, I'll repost here... It's the ratings growth differential for the two shows from Novemeber 05 to November 06... taken DIRECTLY FROM NIELSON (just in case you Olbermann bashers would accuse me of lying.)
Primetime Mon-Fri (Overall Viewership)
Primetime Mon-Fri (25-54 Viewership)
8PM Olbermann vs. O'Reilly (Overall)
O'Reilly -18%
Olbermann +54
8PM Olbermann vs. O'Reilly (25-54)
O'Reilly 0% (no change)
Olbermann +76%
James, when you start at the bottom, any increase at all will look impressive. The truth is that O'Reilly still has at least two million more viewers a night that Olbermann does and twice to three times as many ratings in the demos. To date, not once in nearly four years has Olbermann come close to beating O'Reilly for a single hour. NOT ONCE. I'm sure that CNN and MSNBC would love to have Fox's "falling" ratings. Put them both together on most nights and they still don't have as many viewers as Fox.
Brandon said, "To date, not once in nearly four years has Olbermann come close to beating O'Reilly for a single hour. NOT ONCE. "
True. I'm not arguing that. But, things are changing. Plus, keep in mind OReilly has years worth of a head start on Olbermann to build an audience.
FNC is coming back to Earth - period. People are seeing it as the propogandizing, smear network it is.
You have just "outed" yourself, and not for the first time, as a dingbat.
Yeah, uh-huh. And just how long do you think it's going to take Olbermann to "best" O'Reilly? How about never? Does never work for you? Look, MSNBC has been around for 10 years, almost as long as Fox News. They've never been a threat to Fox's ratings and they never will be, not if you leave Olbermann on for another four years. And that's very doubtful to happen because he has this nasty little habit of wigging out, getting pissed off, and walking out the door. Don't get too attached to him, he won't be there for the long-haul and the long-haul is what it's going to take for them to even come close to Fox's ratings and I don't see that happening ANY TIME soon.
Brandon said, "MSNBC has been around for 10 years, almost as long as Fox News. They've never been a threat to Fox's ratings "
You see, Brandon... what you don't get is WHY FNC has been #1. It's not because of it's stellar journalism. A report from last year said "Daily Show" viewers were more informed that FNC viewers.
No, FNC is and has been in first because of it's propoganda machine. "America's Newsroom," constant graphics with the American flag, no criticism for the US government or the Bush administration. Which does nothing but draw rabid conservatives who watch FNC religously and believe it's message is scripture.
But, with the fall of the GOP, so is falling FNC.
MSNBC may well NEVER take over the overall ratings. And, I'm fine with that. I'm just happy that people are realizing the lies and half-truths that FNC is throwing out there.
The fact that they ARE seeing those falsehoods is evidenced by the fact that people are turning the channel. More and more all the time.
Dream on James. Your posts show zero original thinking on this subject except what you hear Olbermann crow on air and what you read at the liberal blogs. Not one cable news network has come close to beating Fox. Not one. Put CNN & MSNBC together and they can't best them. Sure, some people aren't that interested this year because it wasn't a presidential election cycle. I predict viewership will begin to pick up in the next 18-months as we enter another presidential election cycle. And the falsehoods you claim Fox has? It's well-documented here, on a nightly basis that Olbermann tilts stories, omits key facts or otherwise ignores them to suit his agenda. Even with the great PR campaign push that is presently underway for him, the best he can do on some nights is fourth-place in the ratings. If you think he's your God and Ratings-savior, I'm here to tell you, he ain't it. Fox isn't going anywhere. They'll still be ratings champs a year from now, two years from now, five years from now. Cable audiences move in increments, at best, of 10 to 20,000 viewers per night and it would have to take something very dramatic to push them off the cable map since they regularly have MILLIONS more viewers than CNN & MSNBC put together.
My point is this - FOX News has made a LIVING covering EVERY "Muslim terrorist" story wall-to-wall, no matter how dubious or incredulous the story is. They even ran that sham documentary about the "Muslim threat" the weekend before the election. But when we have an ACTUAL person who tried to get REAL explosives and REAL WMD precursors being sentenced, they don't cover it.
The fact that nobody else covered it isn't relevant because nobody has gone to the lengths FOX News has to propound the "we are in danger from terrorists" theme.
The citation I used was to the Jackson Sun, the newspaper of record in the area of Tennessee where this man was convicted. I even gave you the link in the first post, Brandon. The fact that you can't find it speaks to your inability to operate a search engine, not mine.
Here's the link again:
I found the link you cited Anonymous, how do you think I knew when the man had been arrested and tried and convicted if I didn't find his name? I found several PRINT organizations who had covered the story, albeit Briefly, including USA Today. What I failed to find were direct links to him on any of the news organization websites, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or Fox. You can argue that they all ignored it, but you can't argue that Fox alone ignored it. And as I've already mentioned, the lack of my finding it or not finding it on any of those websites does not necessarily mean that any of them ignored it as website search engines aren't a final authority on anything in terms of what a network did or didn't cover.
And honestly, If you want to ignore that Fox only covers Islamic-related terrorist stories, then you also need to ask why the same is also true for ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN as well as Fox because that's what the "evidence" here that you're trying to cite would seem to support. But again, as I've reminded you, a news engine search on a website is likely to tell a far different story about what a network did or didn't cover than the offical on-air records would.
I've seen any number of mentions of Islamic-related terrorist arrests since 9/11 on ALL of the news networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC so it simply isn't true that only Fox reports those kinds of stories. They all do. I've seen terrorist specials, "Inside Al Quaeda" and the like on CNN and on MSNBC. So it isn't even true that only Fox carries specials on Islamic terrorists.
You need to take a deep breath and educate yourself instead of relying upon the hysterical theories of the extreme leftist websites which have no bearing in reality.
Oh and Anonymous? One more thing. You have a very crucial part of this story VERY and TOTALLY wrong. Crocker NEVER obtained "REAL" ingredients for his plot as you hysterically and wrongly claim above. He was busted when he tried to complete a transcation for what he believed to be ingredients to make Sarin nerve gas and a block of C-4 explosives. The people he was trying to buy the goods from turned out to be federal uncover agents who promptly arrested him.
As you all see. Anonymous proves my point. The Left always defend Islamic supremists.
"You need to take a deep breath and educate yourself instead of relying upon the hysterical theories of the extreme leftist websites which have no bearing in reality."
And you need to stop being a patronizing a--hole. I'm not a child - and you wonder why I get so angry. It's when nimrods like you act like I'm seven years old and don't know my ass from third base.
I do legal research for a living. I know every in and out of every major search engine as well as legal engines like Westlaw and LEXIS. I'm not relying on "extreme leftist websites" - I'm relying on the facts. And the facts say that FOX (which has made their CENTRAL FOCUS the Global War On Terror) SPIKED A TERROR STORY because it wasn't within their framework (the man wasn't Muslim).
Again, that CNN and MSNBC didn't cover it ISN'T RELEVANT because they haven't made the GWOT their main narrative. FOX has. That's the difference.
But you argue like a child.
You are dismissing CNN & MSNBC because it's not convienient to your argument, which in and of itself is built upon a false premise. You said that there were no "hits" on the Fox News search engine which meant that Fox didn't cover the story. Now you're trying to claim you used Lexis and Westlaw (which I thought was only a legal website but whatever). So which is it? You need to make up your mind.
The fact is that NONE of those news websites mention this story. But you blame Fox alone and claim that there was some sort of major sinister plot at play here in what you allege is there failure to cover the story (which again hasn't been proven).
It's apparently never occured to you that this simply wasn't a big story because the guy had already been arrested in 2004 and already convicted in April, 2006. He was simply sentenced this week. Big whup. Not many newspapers carried the story either from what I could see. I don't see you claiming that they are all biased and therefore are trying to ignore certain stories. You're letting the networks and newspapers off the hook that you want to let off the hook and are only trying to indict Fox News here. You are entering into a hunt for evidence to support what you want it to support and ignoring anything contrary to the opinion that you have already drawn from the "evidence" you claim to find or not find.
Sorry but you need to go back to school and learn how to do research properly and also on how to prepare a good argument. No wonder you have so much free time, you're probably unemployed aren't you?
I would agree that when you make a story your bread and butter... but, don't follow up on it, there's a problem.
As long as I've been a journalist, you know you're supposed to follow up your big stories. Nothing has been bigger at FOX than the wars (plural) on Terror and in Iraq.
To not follow up on this story, when it has been the crux of what that organization as focused on was - at best - sloppy journalism or - at worst - ignoring facts that go against the company line.
> I do legal research for a living.
Hahaha! I'd fire a researcher who, when asked to determine what was broadcast on any particular day, didn't go to the only relevant evidence--the broadcasts themselves--but poked around on the internet and called that "research".
> I can get transcripts of every show that was on yesterday on Fox, and NONE of them have this.
Really? Did you do so? Oh by the way, Mr Legal Researcher, the sentencing took place on Tuesday, not yesterday. If you're a researcher, you must be working for the law firm of Howard, Howard, and Fine.
Krazy Keith looks like he works for the law firm of Marx, Marx, Marx, and Marx. But after eating Zeppo, Harpo, and Chico he looks like Groucho but three times too big.
Why does the Left defend Islamic Supremists?
James, you're taking the word of Anonymous that Fox did indeed fail to follow up on that and that remains far from proven. Anonymous originally stated as proof of their claim that Fox had ignored the story that they'd gone to the Foxnews.com website and done a search and came up empty so therefore it must mean that they didn't cover it. When I pointed out that all the other news organizations didn't have a mention of it either on their websites that according to Anonymous-logic that must mean that they all ignored it too, Anon then stated that CNN & MSNBC were exempt and it didn't matter what they did or didn't do because they don't do terror stories.
When I pointed out that CNN and MSNBC have done any number of specials and stories on terrorism, and that CNN in fact scored huge ratints earlier this year on a special on Osama Bin Laden, Anonymous backed up again and suddenly claimed to be a professional (hah) researcher who had consulted Lexis and Westlaw.
In summary, Anonymous hasn't proven conclusively that Fox ignored the story. They haven't proven conslusively that any other organization covered the story. And the 'facts" that they cited about the story were in fact, WRONG. The person convicted never obtained "REAL" ingrediants as Anonymous so hysterically and ignorantly claimed, they only believed they were buying genuine ingredients from federal agents posing as dealers.
This Anonymous "researcher" can't even get the basic facts of their story right and they can't even stick to a story about what their sources are. Then when presented with the possibility that CNN & MSNBC also might have failed to cover the story, they wanted to exempt them from the discussion because they weren't after them, just Fox so nothing they do matters.
And Anonymous wants to know why I treat them like a child? Because of childish, immature, ill-informed and poorly researched bs like that they've posted here this evening.
Red Wolf--the left also believes that Jose Padilla should be held in a minimum-security facility where he can enjoy golf and massages and yoga. They also wish Fidel Castro a happy birthday and a speedy recovery and congratulate Chavez on his "win" in his most recent "election.
Who knows why. They damn sure can't tell you as evidenced on full display here tonight.
"Sorry but you need to go back to school and learn how to do research properly and also on how to prepare a good argument. No wonder you have so much free time, you're probably unemployed aren't you?"
"I'd fire a researcher who, when asked to determine what was broadcast on any particular day, didn't go to the only relevant evidence--the broadcasts themselves--but poked around on the internet and called that "research"."
YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU CAN BOTH f--- OFF AND DIE! I AM A TOP-FLIGHT RESEARCHER! I WOULDN'T BE WORKING NOW IF I WASN'T! I WORK HARDER THAN EITHER OF YOU MOTHERf---ERS AND I WILL NOT HAVE MY WORK MALIGNED BY A PAIR OF JACK-OFFS LIKE YOU!
ANGRY? YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT I'M ANGRY! I WORKED MY ASS OFF AND WAS A TOP STUDENT IN COLLEGE! I DID THREE YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE AND EARNED THE SECOND-HIGHEST DEGREE OF MERIT FROM THE NATIONAL FORENSICS LEAGUE! DON'T TELL ME HOW TO DO MY f---ING JOB - YOU'RE NOT MY EMPLOYER AND THEY HIRED ME *BECAUSE I GET THE DAMN JOB DONE*.
Brandon said, "James, you're taking the word of Anonymous "
- You're absolutely right. However, I was speaking in hypotheticals. But, not knowing the facts, I shouldn't be passing judgement on it. So, you're totally right in that instance.
I will still point out, that the wars on terror and in Iraq have been FNC's bread and butter. IF they didn't follow said story, that would be to their discredit... more so than the other outlets in this instance.
But, again, having not done any of the leg work myselft, my entire point of view is speculative and hypothetical.
Of course they love their homies. You expected otherwise?
Why do you support Islamic Supremists?
You are sounding kind of "unhinged". That's par for the course for you Lefties.
I guess you will tell Islamic terrorists to "f--- OFF AND DIE" when pigs fly or something.
Why do you support Islamic Supremists?"
I don't. Why do you insist that anything but FULL-THROATED SUPPORT OF A DYSFUNCTIONAL POLICY is "supporting Islamic extremists"?
I never said I supported Bush's policy. I just asked a simpley question and you didn't answer. Instead you asked a question with a question. That's what Muslims do. That's how similiar Muslims and Leftists sound.
Red Wolf,
A Leftist would rather die than give a direct answer to a direct question. It's almost as if they already wanted to die anyways, and take us along with them.
Anonymous, you really do need something to reduce your stress-levels. I guess it must be all that "hard work" you're putting in. But the fact remains you weren't able to produce solid research that supported your claims here and if this is evidence of the quality of your work, I feel sorry for your alleged employer. Yeah, we got it. You hate Bush. You hate Fox News. Yada Yada Yada. But either come to the table with solid facts or don't bother to sit down to the table to play.
"But the fact remains you weren't able to produce solid research that supported your claims here and if this is evidence of the quality of your work, I feel sorry for your alleged employer."
You seem to have issues with violence too, wanting to choke and slug people and all. Perhaps if you and Jose Padilla did some yoga together it would help you relax?
You will never catching Anonymous slugging an Islamic terrorist in the face. He doesn't hate them enough.
Well... if FOX News puts everything they cover on air onto it's website (as many pro-FOX people have said here)... and Anonymous has been unable to find any reference to said story... it stands to reason they did not cover it.
And if FNC did not cover it, they were in serious error. As were other media outlets... but FNC especially as the wars on terror and Iraq are their key coverage topics.
So, it's not "finding of evidence that they burried the story"... so much as the "lack of evidence that they ever covered it at all."
I also searched at ABCNews, CBSNews, CNN, and MSNBC. I came up empty on all the searches, so by using the logic (faulty) of Anonymous, that means that they all failed to cover it too. So either it was deemed a non-story for some reason, or as i more likely suspect, a news organization's webs site is not a thorough or reliable source on what they did or didn't cover on air. And indeed, when confronted with this reminder, Anonymous then tried to claim it didn't matter at all if CNN or MSNBC didn't cover it because CNN & MSNBC don't cover terrorist stories, which is complete and utter BS. Both do indeed cover terror-related stories and have produced specials on terrorism. And James, I remind you that CNN has a feature they call, "Security Watch" and were very fond of telling their audience that they'd get all the info they needed to know to keep themselves safe. Sorry but the "Fox focused on terrorism" BS doesn't wash with the facts of what I know to be true about CNN.
So you hold Fox News to a higher standard than anybody else. I am shocked! You are sounding kind of partisan. According to the Left there is one set of rules for the Right, and another set of rules for everybody else. So silly.
Of course lost in this entire diversionary tactic is the fact that it's the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann who routinely spikes and fails to cover major news stories that are covered by major news organizations, just because they don't comport with OlbySpin. Pointing fingers everywhere but at Krazy Keith doesn't change the fact that he's the one who's responsible for the biased, slanted, distorted picture painted every weeknight on The Hour of Spin.
Rico said, "So you hold Fox News to a higher standard than anybody else."
No, Rico. You're cherry picking, like the radical right loves to do. If you would choose to cite everything I said, (which the radical right hates to do) you would see I said,
"And if FNC did not cover it, they were in serious error. As were other media outlets... but FNC especially as the wars on terror and Iraq are their key coverage topics."
See... they were ALL in error. But, FNC especially since the wars are their bread and butter.
So, in this case, FNC SHOULD be held to a higher standard. If the wars are what they are such experts at (as they claim), they should cover this particular story before the other networks.
It's obvious you're not a journalist, so I wouldn't assume you have the basics from which to understand my point. But, that's as simple as I can make it.
johnny, I would love to see just how lonely your life really is.
Why do you think that the main objective of Fox is to cover the war on terror? Do you watch Fox regularly? I don't know the answer to this- what time frame is Fox News' "bread and butter"? Is it a specific show? What kind of stories are usually covered during the times that supply the most money?
You still just made up a new rule on the fly, and this rule only applies to Fox. That is pure partisanship. You don't get to say that they are more in error than anybody else. If Fox has the war on terror as their key coverage point that is their rule for them. Nobody hired you to make sure they do that.
If Krazy Keith found out more info on the six imans on the airplane deal and started criticizing them, and thus not following his own implied rule, I would be the last to criticize him.
Your missing the point. Olbermann and the Radical Left always defend the Islamic Supremists. They worship a report done lby James Baker who's an anti-Semite as if it's gospel. Why. How come the Left always defend a Religious Fascist state like Iran but condems Israel and Evangelicals?
Olbermann does indeed have a history of ignoring stories that NBC and every other show on MSNBC is all over when they are somehow unflattering to liberals or don't jive with the "facts" he presents on Countdown. But of course, James and Anonymous and all the rest of the Olbyloons have no problem with that whatsoever and don't consider it a journalistic failing at all. Nope, he's celebrated as "Edward R. Olbermann" for it. Sorry James, if you think Olby is some sort of modern-day Murrow, than your "professional" opinion is sadly lacking.
"They worship a report done by James Baker who's an anti-Semite as if it's gospel."
Absolute dishonesty!
"It isn't just that the Baker-Hamilton Report committed the crime of suggesting in passing that it might be beneficial for the U.S. to increase its efforts to forge an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Even worse (to them), it also suggested that there might be benefits for the U.S. if we tried to achieve some sort of cooperative understanding with Israel's two remaining formidable enemies -- Syria and Iran. Treating Syria and Iran like anything other than new Nazi Germanys to be bombed and crushed is the greatest neoconservative sin there is.
We're told that these two countries are so hateful and insane that the mere idea of doing anything other than bombing them into submission -- or, even better, out of existence -- is 'unrealistic.' Neoconservatives argue this even though, as Baker himself pointed out during his friendly chat with Larry King this week, Iran already cooperated with the U.S. in stabilizing Afghanistan (because a stable Afghanistan was in their interests), and Syria was cooperative on multiple post-9/11 fronts until the neoconservatives succeeded in convincing Bush to treat them like lepers, thereby forcing them into the arms of the Iranians.
It may (or may not) be true that Syria and/or Iran are intractable when it comes to hostility towards Israel (those who argue this previously said the same about Egypt). But it is clearly false -- empirically proven to be false -- that those countries are dedicated to 'waging war' on the U.S. and would thus refuse to cooperate no matter how much their interests were served by doing so. Those two countries are the implacable enemies of Israel, not the U.S., but many neoconservatives want to abolish any such distinction." - Glenn Greenwald.
"Empirically proven to be false?" Who did the proof on that one? I want footnotes, too.
We should help forge an "Israeli-Palestinian agreement?" That already happened, remember? It's called the Oslo Accords of 1994. Except
there is no peace. WTF?
In 2000 Israeli Prime Minister Barak(an idiot leftist) offered Arafat 96% of the land he said the Palestinians wanted. Arafat turned him down and started the intifada instead. So much for the diplomatic strategery.
And I wouldn't quote Glenn Greenwald too much. He was outed earlier this year as a notorious sock puppet!
Obviously, like all Leftists you know nothing of the History of Iran. Iran in 1979 seized the US embassy. In 1983 Iranian backed Hizballh bombed the Marine compound in Beirut. Iran has close links with Al-Qaeda through Al-Zawahiri who's Egyptian Islamic Jihad was supported and funded by Iran. Bin Laden's son is in Iran and they don't deny it. Iran is not just calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, but also America.
I don't understand the Left why do you guys support Religious Fascists like Iran and against the Israel which Muslims, Christians , jews and Others have equal rights?
Why, why the Left's obsession with Iran?
Iran is an enemy and they have American blood on their hands. Israel is good ally. Why be nice to an enemy but betray a freind.
Michael savage is right, Liberalism is a mental disorder!
Read this Lefties!
Here's the key
"Some Iranian leaders and officials, including President Ahmadinejad, also believe that Iran now has the opportunity to deal with Washington from a position of strength, for the first time since the 1979 revolution."
Iran feels it's ego boosted.
Also Lefties explain why you guys support a report written by an anti-Semite?
Answers please!
Why doesn't Keith discuss anymore about the Flying Imans in leiu of the new facts?
Because like a good Dhimmi Leftists he views tham as allies!
Same reason Olby won't report on the Jimmy Carter controversy. The same reason he won't report on Reid. Or Abramoff. Or anything that is anything less than flattering towards a liberal. Or himself. What a guy.
"The same reason he won't report on Reid. Or Abramoff."
When in doubt, play the Harry Reid/Jack Abramoff bit.
Well it gets a laugh at parties...too bad it's all smoke and no fire.
Red Wolf,
Wow, you are a MORON. That's why we liberals worship a report by an anti-semite. It's because you live in a fictional world that the rest of us aren't admitted into. We only catch glimpses through your insane and totally irrelevant rantings on a sight designed to attack and smear a man who you all agree is less than significant. It's far more than pathetic.
Sincerely, very very sincerely,
James Baker told Bush 41 "f--- the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway. He thinks that Israel is the center of all problems. His lawfirm Baker Botts represents Saudi Interests. He's an anti-semite.
It's funny the Left worhips this man's report which calls for selling out our one ally in the Mideast to make the Iranian Ayatollahs happy.
So how is this fantasy when it's reality?
Sorry for using your name it was an acident.
Cee writes:"Thank you J$ for bringing to my attentiuon the story about the anti-war activist who spit in the faces of two returning soldiers. This has been my issue with the moral, self-rightous anti-war left since the beginning of the war on terror."
It's always funny how Cee and the other right wing idiots take an example of a few and lump all antiwar people with them.
All the while ignoring the disaster that has been this republican presidency.
This Congress and president has denied proper armor and health benefits to soldiers ,,,not to mention sending them to war with a pack of lies that continue today..when they try to sell us how successful this war has been...or make up numbers of the amount of enemy killed etc etc.
The Pat Tillman tragedy is a perfect example how much this administration really cares about our fallen heroes..when they lied about how he died and then tried to cover it up...just to get a few more days of spin on this war.
This and so much more is ignored by Cee and the right and yet they feel they are standing on the moral high ground with their posts...when all they prove is how they continue to put party over country.
Why haven't these people who think they stand on the moral high ground not lamblasted the repugblican Congress who has refused to investigate the war profiteering that has been costing us taxpayers billions of dollars.
Many soldiers have spoken out how demoralizing it is to see Halliburton workers making 20 times the amount of money they do and doing the exact same job.
Not to mention the $billions missing in Iraq.
Has the president ever even spoken out on this travesty...has the Republican Congress called for investigations??????
Not a whimper !
So spare me your righteous indignation about hypocrisy,because you look like total fools when you aren't crying out for justice with what your boys have been doing with the above examples that are really hurting our troops and demoralizing our country.
As a followup to my above post, the blindmen at this site and Cee should read John Dean's book,"Conservatives Without Conscience."
If anyone knows about republican abuse of power, it is Dean.He witnessed it first hand and concluded in his previous book that this administration's evil deeds are "Worst Than Watergate."
The current book will force you to look in the mirror and it will make a bigger folly out of your "radical left" diatribes.
Bob, it's so much easier to generalize a group of people you dislike than to rationally discuss foreign and domestic policy that affects the lives of millions.
What are the chances KO will do anything with Rosie O'Donnell recent little stunt where she mocked Asians or with the re-election of Dem.congressman William"cash in the frezer"Jefferson?..my guess nothing he'll just launch into another bitter attack on O'Reilly.
"And I wouldn't quote Glenn Greenwald too much. He was outed earlier this year as a notorious sock puppet! "
Yeah,particularly when those quotes negate the
last floating straws being grasped at by the neocon drowning rats at this site.
Bob ignores the entire point of my 12/9 posts.
Keith Olbermann (remember, this is OLBERMANN WATCH) caters to the radical left. This contention is time and again presented by Robert and J$. Comments are then posted by indivduals, like Bob, defending Olbermann's point of view while others post about the hypocrisy or biases of other individuals to try to deflect attention away from facts. I call these individuals Olbermann apologists because they usually try to show Olbermann's (as well as their own) positions as either mainstream or accepted by most normal people.
Well, my example of Olbermann manipulation obviously hit a nerve with some. Instead of condemning the woman's actions, Olbermann apologists change the subject away from their minority's bad behavior and bring up those wonderful D talking points.
How can a journalist who claims objectivity and has a segment called, "WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD," not mention this pretty bad behavior? The ONLY explaination is that WPITW, in fact the entire COUNTDOWN enterprise, is for the benfit of a narrow group of people holding very liberal views. The story of leftist anti-war activity in Syracuse would not fit into Olbermann's manufactured product.
Furthermore, it is my contention that those, who are not pacifists, that believe the Iraq war is morally wrong are hypocritucal if they do not do all in their power to stop the war. Selective condemnation of leaders of certain political affiliations is not truly being a peace activist....Bob is a perfect example of someone who only condemns R's but allows D's and "the troops" off the hook for their participation in a violent immoral activity. Same with Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....he is a self-described "extremely commited anti-war activist," but excuses the killing of the troops propagating the war. This is the result of illogical and rhetorically immature "cubbyholing," that is so popular amonst secular ethicists today. They call it "nuanced" when they casually pick/choose moral condemnation of people doing the same exact behavior....but it really is an intellectual cop out!
So I guess what that nice lady did to the soldiers is okay with Bob because it pales in consequence to the list of immorallity (all arguable BTW) he claims as fact in his last post.
"like all Leftists you know nothing of the History of Iran. Iran in 1979 seized the US embassy"
I know enough to know that American history in the region did not begin in 1979! The bliners worn by neocons in this regard are exasperating!
The Iranian revolution and ouster of the Shaw could have been a great step forward for world democracy; but for a variety of historical reasons - largely the fault of the United States - it was not.
The anti-American aspects of this movement owed its vitriol to the fact that our CIA had conspired with the British secret service to destroy a nacent democratic movement in Iran in 1953- at the behest of American and British oil interests. Don't try to deny this - the sequence of events are well-documented and unequivocal.
We unseated the elected parlimentary government under Mosadeq and installed the royal rule of the Shah, whose subsequent human rights abuses are legendary. This was the second time in the 20th century that a western power did this in Iran: in 1920 the British nipped a post-war democratic development in the bud in favor of a monarchy under Reza Shah's daddy.
The anger and hatred seethed under the draconian rule of the Shah, until it boiled over during the revolution and the revolutionaries lashed out at those who took their liberty 25 years earlier. Had we openly dealt with the Iranian students at that time in recognition of their status as an aggreived party (instead of dealing with the AYATOLLAHS in SECRET like the Reaganites did - giving them power and status by providing them with illegal arms that solidified their control), and had we not petulantly armed their neighbor Saddam and pushed him as our proxy in his destructive attack on Iran in the 1980's, perhaps relations would be better now - almost certainly they would be better now.
But no neocon acknowledges this history - Perle and Frum's book on terrorism in the middle east likewise begins in 1979 with no mention whatsoever of any event preceeding the hostage crisis. Dilletantes like these cause nothing but disaster.
"Same with Sir Loin of Milquetoast.....he is aself-described "extremely commited anti-war activist," but excuses the killing of the troops propagating the war. This is the result of illogical and rhetorically immature "cubbyholing," that is so popular amonst secular ethicists today. They call it "nuanced" when they casually pick/choose moral condemnation of people doing the same exact behavior....but it really is an intellectual cop out!"
Did you all catch that: I am a hypocrit for "excus(ing) the killing of the troops propagating the war." Time and again cee's discussions in this regard revert to heaping all the responsibility on the troops. I've tried to explain to him the concept of "command responsibity" which recognizes that the training, stress and discipline of a functional modern military removes much of the moral onus from the individual soldier for their duty-related actions; and intensifies such scrutiny to the higher levels of the chain of command.
A week or two back cee said something along the lines of: "you object ro the killing, but you forget that its marines, sailors, and soldiers doing the killings". I'm sure that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Meyers, and Pace could not be happer with such a perspective.
But cee persists in insisting that anti-war voices focus their protests on the troops on the ground, and let the architects of the disaster totaly off the hook. Sorry, but you guys are covering that ground enough already.
"Dude are you high? My God man I have seen actual footage of this type of behavior. "
Once again; read the Church Commission report. This type of behavior DID occur - but it is explcitly documented in official government records as having been enacted by FBI opperatives trying to discredit the antiwar movement. I'm sure part of this state provocation involved filming their performances for wider distribution.
and also once again...read the Church Commission report before you respond with more uninformed incredulity.
I never asked anyone who has moral objections to the Iraq war to excuse the leaders....However, liberals only have moral indignation for the leaders while using silly rhetorical framing to justify their lack of moral courage to end the killing. The "command responsibility" canard is a tactic used by shallow anti-war activists to try to portray themselves as reasonable...."I'm against the war but for the troops."
How can Sir Loin of Milquetoast, who time and again screams against the immorality of the "military-industrial complex" excuse the small "cogs" in his imagined villian....THE TROOPS, who keep the war machine going....They volunteered to work for the complex after all, those immoral people. In fact, time and again, Loin wants me to become another cog to allow the MIC chugging along! CAN WE ALL SAY, "CONTRADICTION!"
You see, Loin's moral construct is loose sand at its foundation. He is not "committed," to peace, he is committed to a political issue. The issue is getting domestic political power for the representatives of his views.
At one time, honorable political rivals did not use war as a tool to attain domestic political advantage. That time is long past (on both sides of the political spectrum BTW) and now this tactic is routinely accepted. Loin is just following the trend like the liberal lemming he has consistently shown himself to be.
well, cee;
We need to have a military in the nation state system that characterizes human governance today - you will find few people who disagree with this fact. The citizens who temporarilly relinquish their liberties in such service are not the ones determining their actions; the leaders who decicde how the military is used are required to consider the validity and necessity of such uses.
I don't know how stupid or evil you have to be to continually ignore this point.
On another point; you're a dotor - they need doctors in Iraq, or even in Germany to help those horribly wounded in this travesty. Get off your ass and do your part in your war.
During countless discussions in weeks past I have asserted to cee that I would serve in the military in the event of an existential threat to the United States. I'm a little old, but would probably be inducted in the event of a dire emergency. I've also reproduced, so I'd be willing to face the worst dangers of such a conflict in the hopes of saving my children from facing such a sacrifice.
cee has on a nmber of ocasions corretly countered this statement by identifying its absolute hypothetical quality. He is right - talk is cheap; who knows how I might actually respond should I percieve an imminent existental threat to my society? I have not seen it in my lifetime.
But one thing is for certain - we know how cee has reacted in just such a situation - he has said again and again that these "Islamofascists" represent an existential threat to us, but remains in his pajamas posting innanities on "Olbermannwatch". He is the very definition of "chickenhawk coward".
How can Sir Loin of Milquetoast, who time and again screams against the immorality of the "military-industrial complex" excuse the small "cogs" in his imagined villian....THE TROOPS, who keep the war machine going....They volunteered to work for the complex after all, those immoral people. In fact, time and again, Loin wants me to become another cog to allow the MIC chugging along! CAN WE ALL SAY, "CONTRADICTION!"
Posted by: cee at December 10, 2006 09:08 AM
Once again, cee, its not the troops' fault! We could have 50 million soldiers in uniform and no war need begin, or turn sour and self-destructive. It is political will among the electorate and our leadership that characterizes how we use our essential military forces. But cee once again plays the "they volunteered" card to excuse any abuse or misleading of our troops, and expicitly advocates making them the scapegoats.
I might fault recent military volunteers for being overly credulous of our leadership, or for being ignorant of global events and patterns - but our government improperly invests huge sums into their powerful propaganda machine the objective of which is to produce such misinformed cannon-fodder. The responsibility for this chaos lies with those who have intentionally orcestrated it.
I just cannot get over this self-serving view point.
Sir Loin has pretty thoroughly responded to Cee's ridiculous points.
But when Cee says:".he is a self-described "extremely commited anti-war activist," but excuses the killing of the troops propagating the war. This is the result of illogical and rhetorically immature "cubbyholing," that is so popular amonst secular ethicists today."
Among countless other (non) points ....
Secular ethicists ? Cee...you have your head so far up your ass you must really be enjoying the view.
..."secular ethicists" is just cee's euphemism for concerned people in the "reality-based community". Cee bases his ethics on a very personal, self-serving interpretation of iron-age texts of bronze-age mythology -that and his own very comfortable domestic conditions.
It never fails to amaze how Cee and the other neo-cons believe what their president is telling them even though he has been wrong about almost every aspect that deals with the Iraq war.
I'm sure the reality of this letter from a marine will go in one ear and out the other, and then they will continue to believe the administration's propaganda, but there is certainly a strong lesson to be learned from his experience:
Philip Martin has been a Marine for 2 years. He is in the infantry (a "grunt"), and spent 7 months in the al-Anbar province of Iraq. He went on more than 180 combat patrols in and outside of the city of Fallujah, where he was hit with 2 IEDs (luckily never injured) and was involved in a number of firefights. He is currently stationed in Twentynine Palms, CA, and due to return to Iraq for a second deployment in April 2007. He is 21-years-old.
He says ...
"The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people. Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many Americans as possible. I know that the vast majority of Americans would not be happy with the Canadian government, or any other foreign government, liberating us from the clutches of George W. Bush, even though a large number of us would like that, and forcing us to accept their system of government. Would not millions of Americans rise up and fight back? Would you not rise up to protect and defend your house and your neighborhood if someone invaded your country? But we send thousands of troops to a foreign country to do just that. How is it moral to fight a people who are just trying to defend their homes and families? I think next time I go to Iraq perhaps I should wear a bright red coat and carry a Brown Bess instead of my digitalized utilities and M16."
Ya think Cee and the neocons would learn anything from this marine?...No...My guess is that it's so much easier for them to believe the lies and rhetoric of the Bush cabal when they say," Freedom is on the march "!
If you think you know more about the conditions in Iraq than Mr. Martin, you can personally send your rebuttals directly to him. His email address is :
..well, we know cee wouldn't "rise up and fight back", now, don't we.
All this points out is that we should have truly gone through Iraq with overwhelming force. You must differentiate between the decision to go to Iraq and the decision of how to occupy. I know this is hard for you to understand but people did not need to "believe" the president in order to go to Iraq. All that one needed to know was that Saddam had violated numerous security council resolutions, including throwing out weapons inspectors and firing on US aircraft. Firing on our aircraft is an act of war. Just as the bombing of the USS Cole was an act of war.
The problem lies in the implementation. When we decide to go to war we should actually go to war. No accomadations for museums or mosques. No telling people we are coming to Fallujah before we get there. While casualties may be higher in the short run, I guarantee it would be better than the slow drip of casualties over an extended period of time. Not to mention much less risk to our soldiers. War is hell. We should have brought them hell.
One soldier's story isn't enough. You are basically using an anecdote.
Let's take a vote of all our troops in Iraq. Does the majority rule here? What percentage of US troops in Iraq have to support the mission before you, Bob, would say "OK, OK, they support the mission!"?
"We should have brought them hell."
As opposed to the walk in the park we've brought this country now.
We've not only decimated this country ,we've destabilized the whole region.
The one thing the Crash-test Dummies still don't get is that we invaded a country that didn't attack us.
And Rico...No..I'm not using an antidote. It's his exact words.Did you miss the quotation marks?
And you're denying what he is saying ?...when what he said has been backed up by countless others who have been to Iraq ?
The Iraqi people want us the hell out of their country. This past election proved America wants us out....yet the neocons like Rico and Crashtest Dummy want us to stay.
I'll buy you the ticket...time for you to pick up a gun and go to Iraq .
The Iraqis want us the hell out of Iraq. This past election proved America wants us out of Iraq.
Crash-test Dummy and Rico want us to stay.
How sweet of them.
Time to pick up a gun and go to Iraq and fight.
I'll buy you the ticket.
Like a typical Leftist you just won't answer my questions.
What percentage of the troops in Iraq have to support the mission to negate what that one soldier said? If you can't tell me what the rule is then what one single person says does not mean anything. One other single soldier in Iraq was a Muslim and threw a hand grenade into a tent a couple of years ago, killing his fellow Americans. I don't care what that person says about the mission. Do you?
The simple truth is that there are no rules for you people. There is just "Bush sucks, the Iraq deal sucks".
"The problem lies in the implementation. When we decide to go to war we should actually go to war. No accomadations for museums or mosques. No telling people we are coming to Fallujah before we get there. While casualties may be higher in the short run, I guarantee it would be better than the slow drip of casualties over an extended period of time. Not to mention much less risk to our soldiers. War is hell. We should have brought them hell."
We have brought them hell, dipshit -just more slowlyn than you advocate.
You are setting up a straw man. Despite the fact that the invasion itself was unwarranted and unjustifiable, there was a time following the fall of Saddam when the current chaos could have been prevented and something aproximating a civil society could have been been resumed in Iraq. No more hellish blitzkrieg - as you advocate - would have been necessary.
Jay Garner was in the process of planning elections in late spring of 2003, and he promised a focus on Iraqi firms in regard to reconstruction contracts. This early end to the feeding frenzy was not an accceptable option for the neocons and their corporate sponsors, so they fired Garner and installed Bremmer - who derailed Garner's planned June 2003 national elections and proceeded to disarticulate each and every surviving institution of Iraqi society and hawk it off to the highest bidder.
A little bit of honest dealing and self discipline could have fulfilled stated objectives ("a stable democratic Iraq"), but the intrinsic voracity of his neocon cabal made such an outcome mosible.
Rico says :"The simple truth is that there are no rules for you people. There is just "Bush sucks, the Iraq deal sucks".
Thank you, Rico for explicitedly stating what the American people clearly said in the previous election.
Chopped Liver,
Hey dumbass the reason Iraqi firms didn't get contracts was because they never had to build anything up to American specs before, except for maybe saddam's palaces. I am sure we can hand out mud hut and tent building contracts to them. I know its all an evil conspiracy by Haliburton and Bush and the Saudi Royal family. Btw where the f--- did the dipshit comment come from? I tool you around every time we chat. Does that help your self esteem? Feel better? You misinterpret everything that is ever stated on this blog including the point of more force and no tolerance for insurgency in the beginning would have saved lives; Iraqi and American. It would have dissuaded others from migrating to Iraq and would have established control. But of course, all your tiny little mind interprets is "evil neocon, I must think the worst of him". "Talking to you is like an alien talking to a fungo."
Quit talking out of your ass - you have no idea what you're talking about. Mud huts? Why don't you shut the f--- up until you have some valid concept of the complex countries you want us to invade and occupy.
More force..the right thinks we should have used more force in Iraq.
WE attacked and invaded a country that didn't attack us...so we should have blown more women and children to smithereens.
President Bush obviously didn't think so..when he proclaimed:"Mission Acomplished"!
You chickenhawks really make me sick.
You've always been wrong about this war..You've been told by retired generals, troops themselves,imbedded war reporters,Commissions designed to get at the truth etc etc. ....anyone who really knows what's going on but isn't afraid of the recriminations that the liars in the White House will heap upon them for poking holes in their fabrications.
No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary you continue to believe the "official White House version".
Doesn't putting party over country make you think...even a little ?
Anyone can find someone of standing who supports their argument line....like this rebutt to Bob's Marine, I post something from MSNBC (no less)....
Some nice quotes....
Interviewer: If you had to pick one, what is the one thing the American public doesn't understand about Iraq?
Matt Orth: That there were WMD and the people talk about them all the time.
Interviewer: What is the one thing that makes you angriest about news coverage of the conflict?
Matt Orth: Most news networks will interview us during combat and completely change what we said just to have better ratings. That means the American public does not get the true story on what is taking place in Iraq.
Interviewer: Were you aware of the public's generally negative attitude about Iraq while you were overseas?
Matt Orth: Yes, we all knew that the American people thought negatively about the war but we didn't care because the media is telling different stories about what is really going on, how could they know the truth unless they were over here fighting the fight?
So how does one reconcoile this Marine's view to the previous post?
I would say retreating would not be this Marine's preference.
It is a lie that the administration or "the neocons" have control over the information coming from Iraq.....in fact many returning troops are surprised about the pessimism of the general public about the war and this seems to always surprise the media who has been negative since the fall of Saddam's statue.
I am not a neocon. I am someone who wants the United States to succeed in Iraq and not surrender as we did in Vietnam. The Iraqi government, like the South Vietnamese, deserve our support as long as they pursue the goal of a stable, democratically ruled society. To desert them now or before they have attained that goal would be dishonorable.
From today....
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.
When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."
That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.
Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.
I guess Reyes will just do what all liberals and Democrats do anyway....
1. Blame The United States and Israel for the terrorism executed by radical islam.
2. Say there is no threat from radical islam because they are misunderstood and their populations are taken advantage of.
So who needs a basic understanding of the realities of Islam in order to be the next Democratic leader of House Intel Commitee?
Great...I am sure you will not see this on COUNTDOWN tonight!
Robert and J$, get that muzzelled mongrel ready!
Many of our CIA agents were quizzed about the political situation in Iraq..Most couldn't tell you the difference between a Sunni, Shiite or shitkicker.
These are the people who are controling information and reporting back to the president.
Is there any wonder that we are so f---ed in Iraq ?
Cee writes: "So who needs a basic understanding of the realities of Islam in order to be the next Democratic leader of House Intel Commitee?"
One of the areas we are so lacking in the intelligence field are Arab interpreters...people who speak the language.
We only have a handful.
The Bush administration has fired some of these very people we need so desperately.
Because they were gay.
ANother victory for the moral crusading right wing.
Think Cee or any of the right wing poseurs would ever condemn that ?
Yeah right !
"So who needs a basic understanding of the realities of Islam in order to be the next Democratic leader of House Intel Commitee?"
Well, considering that most of the top counterterrorism officials the FBI, as well as two of Reyes' fellow Intel Committee members (Republican Reps. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia and Terry Everett of Alabama) are also clueless, I'd say that the problem is a bit bigger than you describe it. Besides, the President admitted HE didn't know the difference BEFORE we went into Iraq. What does that say about him, cee?
Bob defends his ill-informed, naive, anti-Semitic and wussy Dems with stale, over-used and careless attacks on the administration. Tit4tat instead of adressing the idiocy of Pelosi et al.
I thought America had voted for a "new" course....I guess Bob is saying Reyes and Pelosi are just like Bush and Rummy?
Cee also writes: Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.
It's funny how all of a sudden Cee is the supreme watchdog over Congressional impropieties, whereas the past 6 years Cee has given the GOP "do nothing Congress" a complete pass.
Can you say "partisan hack " ?
Is it any wonder why he and the other republicans who write here are not taken the least bit seriously or have any credibility at all !!!!!!!
One thing you will learn about me is that I will scream just as loud if the Democrats don't do their job.
This is the total opposite of Cee and his fellow republicans.
But it's hysterical that Cee is already finding fault with the majority party in Congress..when they haven't even taken over the reins yet.
They don't take over until the new year.
As I said, 6 years of failures given a pass by the neocons like Cee...and now he's the great American watchdog !
Sure Bob.....you are a political lap dog just like your hero, Keith Olbermann.
Again, ignore the foundational defects of the left of this country by complaining about the right's problems...."pot calling the kettle black."
The problem with the left is that they want the islamic terrorists to win. It is not a matter of incompetency or error, Bob.....You and your ilk hate America and want defeat.
Mistakes made by Bush and the Republicans could be fixed, but they won't be fixed by the left because they want the failure....hence Rep. Reyes.
I guess Bob is saying Reyes and Pelosi are just like Bush and Rummy?
Putting words in my mouth...How sweet of you !
No Reyes and Pelosi haven't lied to send us to war, botched the war and have tens of thousands of innocent peoples blood on their hands.
No Reyes and Pelosi didn't look the other way when Congressmen were sending inappropriate emails to minors.
And as I said..they haven't even taken over yet you putz.
Time to get real and put things in perspective and also time to evaluate your deep seated predjudices against Democrats and your tunnel vision when it comes to republicans.
Also time to evaluate why you continue to put party over country.
You have let this administration run roughshod over this country in countless ways with barely a peep in protest...if at all.
A true patriot cares about his country and is vigilant and extremely tough on the ruling party.
Look in the mirror. Can you say you have done that ?
Have you condemned Congress's refusal to investigate all of the war profiteering,the fact that there hasn't been any checks and balances during this republican reign of error ?
Have you held Bush accountable for his many lies and bad judgements ?
When you do, only then will you be taken seriously...only then can you call yourself a patriot !
Again...Bob says you, you, you.....
Nothing in defense of his radical party's anti-semitism, anti-American attributes. All red herrings to distract away from the real agenda of the left.
I disagree with every premise you feel is a fact followed by a question mark, Bob. Take a break from the Kool Aid.
My judgements of your political ideology is based on facts and history....even current leading liberals' books and editorials which I have discussed ad nauseum. Even Keith Olbermann is a great example of the shallow, self absorbed philosophy of the left that proves my judgements correct every day at 9pm.
So Bob, let's just wait and see then what the hate-America-first crowd brings to the table in solving the challenges before the world. So far, so bad.
Bob- Get off your soapbox...you're starting to sound like David Gregory. This site is about Olbermann and his lies and bad judgements. Take your political pontificating elsewhere.
The problem with the left is that they want the islamic terrorists to win. It is not a matter of incompetency or error, Bob.....You and your ilk hate America and want defeat.
OK...thanks for bringing to light where you stand and what a total a--hole you are.
Anyone who thinks as you ( the above statement) proves you haven't a clue and are in the same "partisan hack" category as Rush Limpballs and Hannity.
Whew ! What an idiot you are !
Also..you discount that the GOP have been in control the past 6 years. They have had the reponsibility of what has occurred..not the minority party.
So you really have revealed your deep seated predjudices and biases and proved once again...you do not care about your country....only giving the worst president in history and the do nothing Congress a total pass.
You should be ashamed of yourself !
Worst President in history? Last I checked, the economy is doing great (without a phantom internet bubble like your hero Clinton had), we haven't been attacked in over five years, and we're on the offensive against terrorism.
Save the Kool-Aid comments. Those are the facts, and given the constant negativity people like you constantly ooze throughout this great country, I'd say Bush has done an admirable job under the toughest conditions any President has inherited since FDR.
I disagree with every premise you feel is a fact followed by a question mark, Bob.
Has Congress invesigated the war profiteering?
Have they investigated the billions "missing" in Iraq?
Have they investigated the lies that brought us to war ?
Have they investigated Bush administration underreporting of deaths in Iraq?
On and on...
Or are you just going to say...none of this happened?
Anyone who can say the left wants the terrorists to win is capable of saying anything.
Cee said: "mistakes made by Bush and the Republicans could be fixed".
Maybe; but its gonna be awful tough to do, and its gonna take a long, long time!
Bush's "mistakes" include, but are not limited to creating a totally un-necessary counter productive war that has cost us plenty in lives, injuries, treasure, and respect. It is going to cost us dearly in all the ways below.
A. It has cost us stature in the eyes on the entire world and done nothing but INCREASE hatred for us in the Muslem world. Thats no way to "win" the war on terror.
B. It has cost us untold Billions in national treasure that we don't have and are currently borrowing from other future potential adversaries (you call that buying security?).
C. Unthinkable tragedy and misery for 3000 soldiers and their families.
D. 20,000 + seriously injured troops, many if not most will need care for the rest of their lives. Many, many more with phychologocal problems resulting from their deployments. This will cost untold billions for years to come. Who's going to pay for all that?
E. We would have been able to confront Iran and Hisballah far more effectively today had we not gotten bogged down in that incredibly stupid and totally counterproductive elective war.
F. Bush and the Repubs are almost single handily responsible for creating the nasty partisan devide we now face...you know, Bush; the self proclaimed "uniter". And to think Bill Frist has the nerve to go out calling for "Bipartisanship"
I could go on and on, but whats the point.
You really should read and take to heart Bob's post just below yours, because he is 100% correct.
Yea, the economy is doing "great" (but only for the wealthy).
But you know what, it's kind of like a middle class family living off increasing credit card debt. They fool themselves into thinking they are doing just "great"...until they finally get swallowed by their own debt.
I'd say Bush has done an admirable job under the toughest conditions any President has inherited since FDR.
Toughest conditions?..like a surplus and a balanced budget that Bush squandered BEFORE 9/11?
You're funny !
30 % of the country agrees with you...and 70% doesn't.
Does it make you think at all?
Probably not !
"We're on the offensive against terrorism"
Bush has destabilized the Middle East, created more terrorists...so says ex generals and anyone allowed to speak freely.
Just today in the paper it was reported that The Taliban has created a stronghold on Afghanistan....due to Bush's obsession with destroying Iraq.
Just this past week it was reported for the 6 year in a row the poor have gotten poorer under your fine president.
The economy is doing great ...for those who the economy has always done well for.
The difference between you and me is that I deal in facts. You deal in red state propaganda.
What you call "negativity" is just reporting the facts. Unfortunately under this president, most of these facts are negative.
You would think that after this election , you would have taken a deep solid look at your partisan hackery and realized that this president has been a miserable failure.
Want to talk environment?
Want to talk proper armor for our soldiers?
Want to talk habeous corpeous?
Didn't think so.
Take your lies and your propaganda and have a red state party with the small 30% of those too stupid to know better or too anal to admit they've been wrong !
The Kool aid is going, going, going.....
Mike.... the nice list (except F) you have there can be explained by three words......
Ongoing Islamic Terrorism
And F can be explained by the fact that since 2000, 20% of this country has been agitating against a man who they refused to call Mr. President. Why? Because they claim he stole the election in Florida. The Bush haters have caused the great polarization we see today.
This 20% is represented today by the likes of Bob....left wing fanatics who hate Jews, Christians, Republicans and anyone who likes to try to participate in a free market economy to better themselves. Having a 100% secular mommy state that mandates behavior for the average citizen 0-death while the elite continue their navel gazing in narcissistic luxury is the never ending dream of these zealots.
A slim majority of Americans may have elected to give a slim majority in the congress to the party beholden to the above mentioned cabel, but I trust their radical ideology will once again show them for who they really are.
I could also go on and on, but I know your mind is made up as well....so what's the point?
And anon....the talking points about lies about WMD, etc. have all been addressed....They are examples of propaganda meant to distract from real enemies that want to kill people. "Fiddl'n while Rome burns" comes to my mind.
So get back to me in 2 years when this current politicking you guys love to pose as real solutions to real problems comes to a head in yet another exciting Presidential race.
You are all doing Olbermann proud!
Typical Mike...wakes up every day and relishes complaining about everything in the world instead of offering any solutions. It must be boatloads of fun living in your world, Mike.
Want to talk habeous corpeous?
Yeah....it's alive and well, you moron, just like I posted 4 days ago.....
"The other story Olbermann ignored was about the lone AMERICAN Muslim ARRESTED for planning to bomb a mall. He ignores this story because it totally dispells the fear he screamed about in one of his Special Comments.
"Habeus corpus is alive and well in our republic as shown by how our honorable law enforcement professionals handled the alleged terrorist. The Olbermann apologists must be sad that Bush and his henchmen are not living up to their predictions!"
Want to talk environment?
Yeah...I do....you support scientific DOGMA, Bob....keep an open mind, dude!.....
"UN downgrades man's impact on the climate"
Ok, and have we done anything to warrant a downgrade or is this just because the previous analysis was wrong again?
I've been having this same discussion for 6 years with the deaf dumb and blind.
Every day there is further proof of what we've been saying about the war has been correct.
Every day there is further proof that the Bush Administration has lied their way thru the last 6 years.
Every day there is further proof that it is going to take generations to undo the damage created by the most incompetent administration in history.
A reasonable person who has been "carrying water" for this gang of thugs should be able to finally admit if they really care about their country..that they've been wrong.
You don't have to start loving Democrats but after what the GOP has done to this country and the world if you care at all about your nation you have to hope the democrats can do better...AND SUPPORT THEM.
But no....even before they take control you are already starting where you left off in 1992 where you are working to derail anything before they have a chance to get anything under way.
Just remember, after 9/11 George Bush had most of the world in his corner.All he had accomplished to date was that he was the acting president when we were attacked.( if you can say "acting" with the amount of vacations he took )
He had the support of democrats and republicans alike.
He had the whole world in his hands !
George Bush alone squandered that good will. George Bush alone alienated the USA from the rest of the world with his arrogance,blunders and incompetence.
He dropped so far from that peak that the GOP running for office this past November didn't even want to be associated with him. Wanted no part of him.
So spare me what a fine president he is...b/c it just isn't so.
If you care anything about your country, you will give the democrats the support the world gave George Bush after 9/11.
If you don't, it will say a lot more about you than I'm sure you're willing to admit.
"The economy is doing great ...for those who the economy has always done well for."
Class warfare...classic leftist zealotry....
Not gonna fly....
I saw thousands of average people on my TV news act like crazed lunatics, waiting in line for hours and running down narrow store isles....all likely working class joes, and slam down $300 (I believe) for a luxury item.....some computer game.
I do not see people standing in live for soup, jobs or millions of homeless on my street.
The media can bring anything into your home, but the relaity is that for most Americans, they can live the selfish, luxurious lives they want....even if they have 20k on a credit card, Mike!
They can buy the LCD TV, the DVD, the fancy car, go away for vacation, buy the Ipod and all the other useless materilistic stuff that continues to drive the economy. Bob thinks we live in 1930's America! Give me a break!
Ain't gonna fly.....your economic fear is just going to have to be sung on some other website. I see an America still engaged in vibrant self indulgence.
Look at our waistlines for goodness sake!
He had the support of democrats and republicans alike.
He had the whole world in his hands !
What a load of cr*p.
Rhetoric only which when called upon was a worthless as your post, Bob. The liberals were out with Israeli/American conspirisy theories 2 days after the attacks....that 20% hate group already to destroy this country.
Your 20%, Bob.
Do not lie about the history, Bob. The radical left in this country was ready to do anything to quell the necessary reaction to the worst domestic attack from a foreign entity in history.
They polarized this country, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Your 20% did not support the Republicans, how could you ask for anyone to support the Democrats, now?
Do not make me laugh!
It is absolutely amazing how many of you have mentioned the potential mall bomber non-story as if it has any relevance whatsoever to Bush's 'Iraq' solution.
That was not Al Queda or any other terrorist 'group'. It was a lone and obviously incompetent sympathyzer. We had one of those in this area about a year ago on the Campus of UNC. Some sympathyzer idiot actually tried to run down students in the campur brickyard and only succeeded in causing a few minor injuries. That was a non story too.
Law enforcement handled it fine in both cases.
What in the h#*l does any of this have to do with the Iraq argument?
Want to talk environment?
Yeah...I do....you support scientific DOGMA, Bob....keep an open mind, dude!..
Funny again....you're the one with the closed mind.When you are "to the right" of the oil companies, you know you've fallen off the edge.
Here's an interesting news item for you.
Energy Firms Come to Terms With Climate Change
By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 25, 2006;
While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.
The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in the works. They are also working to change some company practices in anticipation of the regulation.
"We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?"
Cee is to the right of the oil companies.
Plus the environment is more than global warming.
So you want to talk environment, huh?
So you're aware of the clean air laws that Bush dismantled.
You're aware how Bush has let industry run roughshod over federal environmental laws.
You're aware of how 8 NE states had to sue the government b/c Bush wouldn't do his job in enforcing the few clean air laws we have left.
you just might...but I'm sure you wouldn't let on.
B/c we know your MO is to
make excuses for Bush...continue to carry his water !
I care about having a world that my grandkids can breathe clean air in.
Cee is more concerned with keeping republicans in power. Damn the world.
Cee & Redstate:
What is it about being wrong that you guys continue to deny or excuse? This baffles me. Thats why I'm here. I read all of your arguments and none of them hold any water, yet you persist!
We were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again in Iraq. You people act as if that just isn't important, and you keep attacking the people that were right. You people prove that humans are just not logical creatures.
For the record, I voted for Bush in 2000. However, I voted for a candidate who said he did not believe in foreign Military adventurism. I voted for a self-proclaimed believer in "compassionate conservatism", and I voted for a man who said he believed in fiscal conservatism. At the very least, he mislead us in all of those things.
I am not a Republican or a Democrat, but I know failure when I see it.
The most baffling thing about you guys is not your Worldview, but the way you keep defending this administration. Bob Woodward rightfully called it "State of Denial". What in the world would it take for you to condemn one of your own as a failure?
Ain't gonna fly.....your economic fear is just going to have to be sung on some other website. I see an America still engaged in vibrant self indulgence.
Your posts are so meaningless..everyone of them.
Cee is denying that there are poor in America.
He is a pure right wing idiot.
A poor person CAN sometimes afford to eat at McDonalds...and get fat doing it.
Next ?
I work with poor people. There is incredible poverty in this country.
Cee from his ivory tower disagrees.
Moron !
The ecomony isn't in good shape, Mike? Am I wrong, wrong, wrong on that? You're so condescending and pessimistic. I feel sorry for people like you.
And I still happen to believe that Iraq was the right choice...I really don't give a crap about the polls and don't need them to tell me how to think. The war didn't wrap up in three weeks like your fast-food mentality would have liked, but I firmly believe that we would be fighting terrorists over here if we didn't go on the offensive there.
Saddam thumbed his nose at 18 UN resolutions, had attacked his neighbors in the past AND gassed his own people. If we allowed him to stand idle, he most certainly would have found a way to obtain weapons again and continue to make the Middle East extremely unstable. As for Al Qaeda, they most certainly would have concentrated their human resources on attacking the U.S. again instead of making Iraq a central front (Bin Laden has stated such, but why listen to him?).
But instead of looking for solutions, you continue to use your pathetic 20/20 hindsight on just about everything.
"Ain't gonna fly.....your economic fear is just going to have to be sung on some other website. I see an America still engaged in vibrant self indulgence."
Tell that the poor schlub like me who's got $25K in credit card debt from necessary medical expenses (that my insurance wouldn't cover) AND $150k in student loan debt (because you can't get a decent job without a college education). Thanks to Bush and the do-nothing Congress, the credit card companies can screw me (thanks to the Bankruptcy Bill) and student loan companies can screw me (under Bush, the cost of a college education has risen 40% - incurring more debt on people who go).
Do not lie about the history, Bob. The radical left in this country was ready to do anything to quell the necessary reaction to the worst domestic attack from a foreign entity in history.
So the necessary reaction was invading Iraq?
How's that working out ?
Proving cee is full of shit is like shooting fish in a barrel.
next ?
Yeah Bob, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society was going to take care of those poor you have fake concern over....you wjust ant another failed bite at the apple.....a mommy state and power is what you want at the expense of freedom for the majority.
Again Mike, there is nothing wrong in standing up to Islamic Terrorism......that's what is the cause of the problems in Iraq....not our brave men and women on a great mission with a noble intent.
Red stater says:"And I still happen to believe that Iraq was the right choice...I really don't give a crap about the polls and don't need them to tell me how to think."
Polls?..how about a ton of ex and current generals ?
How about troops that can speak freely after they finish their stints in the service?
and a few courageous ones that dare speak out while they still serve.
How about every reasonable person on the political scene?
Nope...red stater isn't going to let reality get in the way of his views.
Bush's decision to go into Iraq has PROVEN to be the worst foreign policy move in our nation's history.
Yet red stater still thinks it's a good idea.
The mindless 29% who agree with Red stater are having a pre Christmas party tonite.
Served will be the pheasants that were thrown in the direction of Dick Cheney's gun.
This 29% believe Cheney is a big game hunter.
Anon says: "there is nothing wrong with standing up to Islamic Terrorism".
True, but there is something very wrong with flailing about and attacking the wrong enemy. You end up in a worse position than what you started with.
Bob, you ignore so many people, like the Marine I mentioned above, who say you're full of it.....They want to win in Iraq and see it as a noble cause. You have not PROVEN anything. If we quit like you and the radical left want and withdraw, it will be a disaster.
Iraq was an enemy of our country under the rule of Saddam Hussein...he is soon to be executed (also forbotten under the zealot left's ideology), and we must help those wanting to serve their fellow Iraqis in peace to stabalize their country. If it take 20 years, I am willing to do it because it is noble....just as South Korean security is a noble cause, just like South Vietnam's freedom was once thought to be an honorable cause.
I will gladly be in the minority when the minority is right....like it is currently on Iraq.
Yes, you are very wrong, wrong about the ecomnomy being in good shape!
- You show me a booming economy AND a balanced budget.
- You show me deficits that are coming down instead of skyrocketing at an alarming rate. How long do you think this can keep up?
- You show me an economy where REAL wages are up and not just for the upper 20%. Real wages are down for most of the middle and the lower classes.
- You show me an economy that actually makes something...like we used to do! How long do you think we can consume what the rest of the world is producing for us?
- You show me an economy that isn't borrowing from China and other future potential adversaries at record rates. Believe it or not, this is potentailly a greater threat than Islamic Terrorism.
Finally Redstate, do you REALLY believe that an economy or a Federal Governmant that isn't even paying it's own way can sustain itself indefinitely?
Good news everyone.Progress in the war on terror.
We've got a new slogan !
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration is already backing away from most of the 79 proposals put forth by the Iraq Study Group. But while Bush isn't ready to follow the group's recommendations, he's ready to adopt its slogan, "New Way Forward." The president may not be into things like facts, truth, or reality, but he loves a good slogan. Of course, that's been the problem during this entire fiasco -- the substitution of rhetoric for policy -- the belief, even at this late date, that reality can be changed simply by changing the language used to describe it. Bush makes a big show of his religious faith, but what's truly impressive is his incredible faith in the power of PR, and, accordingly, his lack of faith in the American people.
but who cares what the American people want !
We have a president who is a scholar in foreign affairs, who studies night and day learning about the region. He knows best.
Actually Bush is our most ignorant president ever, a president who didn;'t know heads of countries names or the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite.
That is the man the Neocons are following...that is the man who has been discredited to almost everyone in the world...except the true believers like redstater and Cee.
Mike...you're making way too much sense.
You're confusing Cee and Red Stater.
Cee says: "Iraq was the enemy of our country under Saddam"....and your point is?
Is your point that we should have our professional army attack every 'enemy' or potential enemy? Sounds self destructive to me!
Lets see, among known enemies, there is Iran, North Korea, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon....and oh yeah, there's lots or terrorists and terrorist schools in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and dozens of other places.
Lets go after em all. OK fine. Lets WWII this thing! Bring back a draft, start rationing gas, every able body needs to enlist, all remaining production plants should switch over to military productiion, and for God's sake, buy bonds and pay more taxes. Lets git em all!
Are YOU personally willing to make great sacrifices for this cause? I really don't believe you are!
Mike- have we gone after every country? No. You democrats like to work in generalizations. What a bunch of simpletons. Go cut and paste a response from one of those liberal blogs.
My responses come from me and are based on common sense. I don't do liberal blogs!
The point you keep ignoring is that going after Iraq made NO sense at all. There was NEVER a serious threat to us. We HAD them in a box. Saddam was actually an enemy of Al Queda too. We would be in a far better position today if we had just kept them in the box we already had them in.
We cannot begin to come up with a solution to todays problems if 30% of the population remains in a "State of Denial" and refuses to admit a mistake or fault their 'decider' for making it for them.
Something HAS to be done in Iraq different than what we are doing now. Does anybody disagree with that? Either we ramp the thing WAY up or we find a way out.
Bob, you ignore so many people, like the Marine I mentioned above, who say you're full of it.....They want to win in Iraq and see it as a noble cause. You have not PROVEN anything. If we quit like you and the radical left want and withdraw, it will be a disaster.
Pssssssssst...cee...iraq is already a disaster...or maybe you missed the past 2 years.
Also..you fundamentally don't understand how and why troops say what they do.
A soldier's duty is to follow orders.A soldier's job is to serve the president.In order for them to have any motivation at all to get up in the morning, they have to believe in these orders...and even if they don't, they are commanded to follow them.
Plus, anyone who is in the service has already bought into that the president knows best.
Taking that mindset, do you really think we're going to hear the truth about what is happening in Iraq from the troops.
They are taught to shut their mouths and follow orders.
Plus they know what will happen to them if they DARE SAY ANYTHING BUT company policy.
Which is why when you hear more and more soldiers speaking up , like the one I posted yesterday saying why the Iraqis hate us and it's understandably so, it's a real eye opener.
Plus they know what the political climate in this country is like under this administration about speaking out and dissenting.
You have to take with a grain of salt what active soldiers and generals say.
Listen to what they say AFTER they leave the service...after they don't have to follow orders any longer.
I can't ever remember in my life more generals and more right wingers speaking out against a president and against a war.
Have you ?
Do you think it's a coincidence that out of the 6 Iraq vets that ran for Congress 5 of them were against the war?
Do you think it's a coincidence that one of the most fervent groups against this war are EX AMerican Iraq War generals?
Or maybe you just don't think.
From your posts, it appears that you are incapable of thinking for yourself, incapable of changing your opinion based on the evidence at hand, that you just swallow everything this administration tells you...like a good soldier.
Plus...the troops reading material has been censored and any antiwar material or liberal sites and blogs are blocked from them by the good ole military.
Right wing propaganda is permitted, however.
As Goober used to say,"Surprise, surprise,
surprise !"
"The point you keep ignoring is that going after Iraq made NO sense at all."
Well, Mike; except when you look at the 300 + billion dollars of our money that has been funneled to well-connected companies like Halliburton, Vinnell, Northrup Grummon, Bechtel, ect. in return for NOTHING AT ALL. Then it makes all the sense in the world. Its the perfect war-profiteer scam because "progress" in the Iraq war is irrelevant to America - they can keep it up as long as we put up with it.
The arrogant and condescending left knows no bounds. A man home from his mission expresses satisfaction and commitment to the cause he and his buddies fought in, and you dismiss his nobility as coerced.
I expect this disrespect, however, from a group of self-important elitists who hold onto tired and failed ideology that was the cause of most of the strife of the last century.
Read the article, idiot, the Marine I mentioned is home and has written a book about his service. He has no axe to grind....But no matter what the opinion, it is not your position to judge a person's story only because you morally disagree with their mission.
And it is interesting how no one refutes my argument that the radical left in this country promotes anti-American and anti-Semitic theories about 9/11 and the war on terror.
Also, please stop the whinning about the national debt, low wages and cost of living.....This is liberal speak for "we need to take more of your money via increased federal taxes".....More taxes will not solve these problems in the long term. Cutting of government spending and lowering taxes will solve these problems but of course the left needs that money to hold onto their power....so forget that.
So you REALLY believe the National debt is no problem? You think this is some abstract figure that means nothing in real life? You believe that your children won't have to payu this debt....one way or the other? AMAZING!
If you really believe that "cutting of government spending will help solve these problems, then WHY IN BLAZES do you keep standing up for a president who has created the biggest government on record with the biggest decifits ever created....and....never saw a spending bill he didn't like!
To keep using the argument that "cutting taxes will create more tax revenue" is like an employer telling an employee that cutting his salary is going to somehow help him pay his bills. It's a self serving, wishfull argument that has never been proven, because it is unprovable!
I am NOT for high taxes, but I AM for a government that brings in enough revenue to pay it's own bills. It's nothing but common sense, and there is nothing 'Liberal' about it!
No one disputes your argument that "the radical in this country promotes anti-american and anti-semitic theories about the war on terror" for a good reason! DUH...the key word here is 'radical'.
The 'radical' left AND the radical right are, by definition "anti-American". Radical ANYTHING is almost always bad!
You are not arguing with the 'radical left' in this blog! Not one thing either Bob or myself has said is either 'radical' or "anti-American".
We have no issue with a soldier's pride in his mission and his accomplishments. He SHOULD be proud...our military, for the most part, has aquited itself superbly.
What we have a problem with is the incompetent leadership at the TOP! The ones who define the wrong mission or screw up the planning of the mission. The individual soldier does not choose his mission, nor should they.
We the people, on the other hand, should choose leaders whose competence and performance match that of the fine Military they have been chosen to command!
I continue to be amazed at how you people seem incapable of separating the two!
"I expect this disres of pect, however, from a group of self-important elitists who hold onto tired and failed ideology that was the cause of most of the strife of the last century."
Speaking of failed ideology does anyone know when iraq is going to become a shining beacon of democracy for the rest of the middle east? I think if we can just hang in there a little longer, spend a little more money, sacrifice a few more lives; this thing will turn around.
in fact, I think iraq will be the greatest democracy the world has ever seen. arabs will throw down their arms and embrace our way of life. The first thing iraqis will vote on is a name change. They will call their country utopianville!! Shias, sunnis and kurds working together, hand in hand will build, a mnument for George Bush. The palestinians will stop attacking jews... Republicans will hold hands and sing "I'd like to buy the wrold a coke and keep it company."
Mike and Bob,
Will Keith talk about the Holocaust denial conference in Iran. No, because him and the Left view Ahmadenijad as their hero.
Will he discuss the students protesting him no!
As for the Iraq vets against the war, my cousin just came back from Iraq and he said most of them were cowards and that Leftwigroups offered vets, like my cousin money to come out against the war. I met several vets from Iraq and their more mad at not being allow to fight than he war itself.
I will give you guys this, Led by George Soros and with their control of the media, the Left is better organized and have a great propaganda machine.
I support the concept of the war but not the execution. After 9/11 Bush should've mobilized the full resources of this nation and built a massive war machine, 10 million men. He should've done war time cencorship of the press and then smash, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. We should've fought WW2 total war style abd decimate those nations. We would put fear into the heart the Muslim world and never again would they challenge us and we would've set them back generations!
And it is interesting how no one refutes my argument that the radical left in this country promotes anti-American and anti-Semitic theories about 9/11 and the war on terror.
NO ..we just ignore idiotic statements you make...you make so many of them.
I support the concept of the war but not the execution. After 9/11 Bush should've mobilized the full resources of this nation and built a massive war machine, 10 million men. He should've done war time cencorship of the press and then smash, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia. We should've fought WW2 total war style abd decimate those nations. We would put fear into the heart the Muslim world and never again would they challenge us and we would've set them back generations!
Red Wolf is just plain f---ing crazy... A violent nazi-like madman!
Yeah, Red Wolf...Let's just kill everyone in the world, except the people in the USA.
But Wolfey probably wouldn't stop there, he'd
probably then shoot for the blue states .
Wolfey won't be happy until it's just him and Jethro sitting on their front porch holding their shotguns.
Wolfey needs to get laid...or maybe even a lobotomy.
There's Delay on Hardball saying really foolish and naive things. And to think this fool was the Republican Majority LEADER?????
You are the one who confused "antidote" for "anecdote". You ain't that smart.
Watch out! If you get into a 'debate' with Rico, he'll try to tell you how, when, and what to debate...and then he will whine if he doesn't like your answer!
Mike- Your economic arguments are so negative that Paul Krugman would read them and say, "Damn, that Mike sure is bearish on the economy."
Last I checked, the federal deficit was coming down twice as fast as originally predicted in 2004. "Rising at an alarming rate"? Nope, wrong again, but why let facts get in the way of a good crying session, which you've perfected on this board.
This economy has rebounded nicely from a recession inherited by the Bush administration and the devestating terrorist attacks...you remember those, don't you?
Since August 2003, more than 7 million jobs have been created - more jobs than all the other major industrialized countries combined. Our economy has now added jobs for 39 straight months, and the unemployment rate is 4.5 percent, down 0.5 percent from the same time last year.
Real Wages Have RISEN 2.8 Percent Over The Past Year. This means an extra $1,687 for the typical family of four with two wage earners.
Consumers Plan To Spend More Than $800 On Gifts This Season. The estimate is the "highest early November reading Gallup has seen since 2000," suggesting a "strong holiday season" for retailers.
Real After-Tax Income Per Person Has Risen By 9.4 Percent – $2,777 – Since The President Took Office.
Real Consumer Spending, Supported By Strong Job Gains And Rising Personal Income, Rose At An Annual Rate Of 3.4 Percent In The First Three Quarters Of This Year.
Consumer Prices Fell For A Second Straight Month In October. Consumer prices dropped by 0.5 percent in October, led by a 7 percent fall in energy prices.
Our Economy Has Grown A Solid 3 Percent Over The Past Four Quarters – Faster Than Any Other Major Industrialized Country.
Productivity Has Grown At An Annual Rate Of 3 Percent Since The First Quarter Of 2001, Up From A 2.4 Percent Annual Rate During The Preceding Five Years. Growing productivity has helped America lead the world in manufacturing, producing almost twice as much as second-place Japan last year.
But everything sucks, right Mike? It's easy to complain, but when somebody actually points out facts like aforementioned, he or she is seen as a blind GOP optimist who only supports the rich.
When you have something positive to say (which you haven't done on any of your rambling posts), feel free to share. Otherwise, good luck getting that Executive Producer job on Countdown.
So you support Iran a regime that denies the holocuast? Why is the Left so supportive Mahmoud Ahmadenijad?
As for calling me mad, FDR did during WW2 what I wish this loser Bush would've done.
Countering RedState:
Adjusting for inflation, hourly wages are only 0.9% higher than they were in November 2001.
Only 45% of Americans in the private sector have a pension, down from 50.3% in 2000. Similarly, private sector employees with health insurance dropped from 63.6% to 59.5% over the same period.
Families had to spend 13% of their disposable income to pay off their debts - the highest percentage since 1980.
Houses put on the market stay on the market for 6.6 months, the longest period of time since 1995.
Household debt averages 129.3% of disposable income (deficit spending amongst the people).
The poverty rate increased from 11.3% in 2000 to 12.6% in 2005.
You just don't like being asked questions. Typical leftist trait. Questions are asked to determine what you really think, about such things like "What's it all really about", "How do things work", "what do I want to happen". Pretty shocking stuff. But you never answer a question straight. You always block it off to the side, just like a leftist. You never want to reveal how you think. I know why.
How're you doing? I'm doing economically good.
What do you think of Iran's holocaust denial conference.
What do you think of Iran's holocaust denial conference.
Red Wolf:
I think a delusional madman who happens to be the 'President' of Iran is behind that. However, I don't think he really believes the Holocaust never happened...but who knows what that fool really thinks! What did you expect me to say about that?
Also, I think it is ridiculous for you to suggest that Olbermann supports that fool in any way. However, if you ever convinced me that he does, I would quit watching him.
"What do you think of Iran's holocaust denial conference."
It's a tempest in a teapot - nobody's gonna listen to what comes out of it because Ahmadenijad stacked the deck to get the result he wants.
It's a farce, but it's not worth making a stink because that lends it legitimacy.
And YOU think you "answer questions straight"?
Questioning how I might react if some idiot slapped me at work and trying to relate that to my view of 'war', or thinking you can determine "how I think" with ridiculous questions like that is convoluted thinking, at the very least.
And guess what....you ain't that smart either!
Olbermann may not publicly support Ahmadinejad, but by not going after him with the same venom and condescencion that goes after our own President with (attacks I'm sure you cheer in your living room, Mike), then it's the same thing as supporting him.
This is a man who is brainwashing an entire country into believing that six million people weren't murdered during World War II, and Keith Olbermann is going to ignore it so he can have another Bush-bash with his man crush, Dana Milbank. And guys like Mike will be laughing along without a care in the world about the threat Iran is because, well, at least he's anti-Bush too!
Olbermann may not publicly support Ahmadinejad, but by not going after him with the same venom and condescencion that goes after our own President with (attacks I'm sure you cheer in your living room, Mike), then it's the same thing as supporting him.
This is a man who is brainwashing an entire country into believing that six million people weren't murdered during World War II, and Keith Olbermann is going to ignore it so he can have another Bush-bash with his man crush, Dana Milbank. And guys like Mike will be laughing along without a care in the world about the threat Iran is because, well, at least they're anti-Bush too!
That is the kind of charge that makes it clear you and I have a different view of what the function of the media actually is.
They are not there to alarm us any more than we are already being alarmed abouyt this madman. We've got Glenn Beck doing a pretty good job of being an alarmist as it is.
As an example, it would be pretty silly for me to sit here and rail against Ahmadinejad, but he is not MY president. I could sit here and rail against The North Korean leader too, but that would sound just as silly.
I think Olbermann starts with the assumption that Ahmadinejad is a madman, and that he doen't need to convince Americans about that.
In other words, he sees his role as holding his OWN government accountable in it's decisions about how to confront such external threats.
Why doesn't the Left like Olbermann condemn the Holocaust denial conference in Iran?
If anything I've been on Ledftists blogs like Think Progress and Daily Kos and have seen nothing but support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Olbermann does support Ahmadinejad. He never dondemns him and actually once defended him!
Why doesn't the Left like Olbermann condemn the Holocaust denial conference in Iran?
If anything I've been on Ledftists blogs like Think Progress and Daily Kos and have seen nothing but support for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Olbermann does support Ahmadinejad. He never dondemns him and actually once defended him!
Red Wolf:
Anon 5 posts above explained it better than I can!
So why no Leftists condemnation of it? Maybe because it would paint their Iranian allies in bad light?
"So why no Leftists condemnation of it? Maybe because it would paint their Iranian allies in bad light?"
Maybe because only a MORON believes the Holocaust never happened. If they convened a panel to say the sky is green, despite all evidence to the contrary, is there news value in that?
"We need not waste time or effort answering the deniers' contentions. It would be never-ending to respond to arguments posed by those who freely falsify findings, quote out of context and simply dismiss reams of testimony. Unlike true scholars, they have little, if any, respect for data or evidence. Their commitment is to an ideology and their 'findings' are shaped to support it." - Deborah Lipstadt, author, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault On Truth And Memory
Seattle is the USA's most literate city for the second year in a row, according to an annual ranking called America's Most Literate Cities.
The rankings, now in their fourth year, aim to rate the 70 largest U.S. cities not on whether their residents can read, but whether they do.
It considers several measures in six categories: newspaper circulation, number of bookstores, library resources, periodical publishing resources, educational attainment and Internet resources.
•The most literate cities tend to be more liberal, a comparison with voter preferences in the 2004 presidential election suggests. Miller found that cities that voted for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., in general rank higher than cities that voted for President Bush.
Let's see, Olbermann, with the German last name, decided it would be amusing to flash a Nazi salute at a gathering of tv news critics. His fans first claimed the photo had been photoshopped and the incident never happened. That is, until Olbermann himself admitted to it on the Leno show and came up with some bogus, BS reason he did it. That's who you're worshipping here: a Nazi sympathizer who refused to apologize for his highly offensive Nazi salute.