you forgot to mention in the media matters minute-the FRENCH PRESIDENT WAS named a nominee in the worst person in the world because he walked out of a meeting or something like that (i was half paying attention)because a guy spoke ENGLISH instead of FRENCH

WOOOOHOOOO---Talking about intellectual...
Larry the cable guy is the next scheduled guest on hannity & COLMES. Fox News is really trying to rally their base tonight!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a little worried. KO said we may have to change the name of Russian salad dressing to.
Freedom salad topping. Is this true I sure hope not.......

HA! HA! HA! Boy! I gotta tell ya that Blewfire he must have em' on the floor over at Keitholbermann.whocares Comon' Blew gives us that O'liely worn out line again! Oh HA! stop it you're killing me! what a card! Yeah I gotta tell ya Larry The Cable Guy couldn't hold a candle to you're comedic genius or the ever hilarious Mo Rocca! Oh stop it, somebody call a doctor!

Of course Olby was off his game tonight. What was he gona do? Start off with Rummy laying the smackdown on Jamie Mc Entyer? No Jamie works for CNN.

Since Olby,Schamster,and that other no-name from last night Do a good impression of Moe,Larry,and Curly. Should we consider Craig Crawford as Shemp?

By the way Puck. Where was Mo Rocca tonight? I wonder. Right now I'm listening to Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio.I really like her show, how bout you Puck? Your favorite liberal BLUEFIRE...

Let me start by saying that I think Keith is actually doing a decent job covering the Barry Bonds fiasco in baseball. Better than ESPN even, although I think that is probably more because of his ego being bruised from his brutal firing by the Bristol boys than real news. Think there's any significance to his repeatedly referencing ABC News docs, email, reports lately (i.e. since his return to ESPN radio)?

I understand the argument that KO doesn't want his show degrading into argument and shouting, but does that mean that he can never have a guest with an opinion different from his own? Shouldn't a strong host be able to control the conversation, like Matthews usually does on Hardball? And why is it that KO has such a limited number of guests (or "correspondents")? Schuster, Crawford, Rocca, Musto, rotating nights, with a sprinking of ACLU, NARAL and NOW members (not to mention the Air America staff)?

Lastly, 3 references to "his movie" leading into the bit about Randy Quaid suing the Brokeback guys? A night after letting everyone know he knew Laura Ingram "socially." I understand full disclosure, but there is a difference between that and pure bragging.

Mr. Scott I wouldn't -admit- to knowing Ingraham if I were stranded on an island with her for 20 years. Let alone brag about knowing her. That is unless she were to take her Radio show to the beautiful and safe city of Baghdad and broadcast her show from there for a month. If she would put her money where her mouth is than I would admire her. But, I kinda doubt that will ever happen. Your favorite liberal, Bluefire.

Scott-- It is useless to ask any of the libs on this site why KK won't feature any dissenting opinions on his show. They will simply give you the canned pretextual excuse that Olby does not want "shouting" and "arguments" on his program (when they deign to answer your entirely legitimate question at all). Read my (rather long) post on the subject of the real reasons behind KK's refusal to let people on the air who don't share his opinions (it is under the "Idol Speculation" section towards the bottom of the page). Meanwhile, look for a steady parade of sycophants to continue to appear on The Hour of Spin.

As a compassioned human being, I really feel sorry Keith Olbermann. He has a mental diability and we shouldn't make fun of him for that. It's a shame we have a society that makes fun of handicapped people.

To the Lefties, you all should stop taking this man serious. He has an illness and if you guys were real fans you'd send letter to Keith to seek help.

Trekkie: None of the above applies to you.
I may disagree with your views but at least you try to be civil and logical. For that I respect you.

To Nonfactor and Bluefire, Please help Olbermann I hat to see a handicapped person insulted!

The Condi Rice thing would have been fine had the guy not stopped and admitted that he screwed up. As soon as he did that, he threw a big ol' spotlight on it. If he had just kept rolling along, a few people would have gone "did he say what I thought he said?" and that would have been the end of it. But by calling attention to it, he pretty much forced the management to can him.

We don't recall either of them complaining about the many signing statements recommended by Janet Reno's Justice Department or implemented by the previous administration.

I don't recall the Clinton Administration actually using any of them. Nor have I heard a court of competent jurisdiction uphold them as valid since the President can only sign or veto bills.

Not one word about Saddam's people meeting with Usama Bin Laden. Not one word about their plans for further "cooperation". Not one word about Iraq's goal to find new channels to "activate their relationship" with UBL.

Maybe because it's all discredited and worthless. Saddam was a secularist dictator who didn't want to give up influence to the radical Islamic elements fronted by Osama. Even if he did, Osama's friendly relations with Iran were a severe deterrent considering the strong hatred Saddam held for the mullahs in Tehran.

I noticed that we are not talking about the fact that KO brought about the news about that right wing ding a ling that started that right wing blog at the wash post quit his job after just four days. Why??? He got busted for plagiarism. His name was Domenech. Now I am am sure all you right wing ding a lings are just SHOCKED that a right winger would ever do anything like that, aren't you?

yo BLEWfire,

The best advice given me by my grandfather was if you are going to engage in a battle of wits, make sure your opponent is armed. I want proof that, at a minimum, you have a high school education before engaging in a serious conversation with you again.

> I don't recall the Clinton Administration actually using any of them.

Of course not. That's because Olby and his ilk didn't think they were a big deal until a Repub was President. If you listened very closely, you may even have heard Crawford reference how previous Presidents used them as well. Keith didn't explore that point at all. Shocker.

> Maybe because it's all discredited and worthless.

I see. ABC News translates a bunch of Iraq government papers and documents, Keith decides that only one is worth reporting on, and for the rest, YOU decide they are "discredited and worthless". Now why exactly is the ONE KO focused on newsworthy and why are all the others, that disagree with your preconceptions, discredited and worthless? Or are you just using Olbermann News Judgment: if it doesn't agree with me, it's not news?

YO RICK---
I never thought of this as a battle of wits, or even a debate. I like to look at more as an open exchange of ideas. If I wanted to engage in a battle of wits I certainly wouldn't come to a site like this. I feel that would be an insult to my intellect.Your favorite liberal BLUEFIRE.

JD:

OLBERMANN: Do they have any reason to suspect--[SIGH!]--that you were talking to a terrorist?

THOMAS NELSON: Well, one of my clients has been designated as a specially designated terrorist, so I think that was part of it.

Olbermann then harrumphs and moves on.

Priceless.

Since Nelson's answer didn't fit into KO's script which has as its plot "Bush's America 1984", Olbermann had to ignore the response and go on with his next predetermined line of questioning.

And really, doesn't every Countdown show follow the above script? Anything that differs from KO's little worldview is ignored while anything, however insignificant, that appears to reinforce his Orwellian story line is seized upon and repeated and repeated and repeated ad nauseam.

Hey, if Olbermann wants to be an advocate, that's fine. But let's dismiss once and for all any idea of the show being an objective or impartial review of news.

There's certainly legitimate criticism of the national security (and other) policies of this White House. But you won't find them on Countdown.

SMG

Of course not. That's because Olby and his ilk didn't think they were a big deal until a Repub was President. If you listened very closely, you may even have heard Crawford reference how previous Presidents used them as well.

That's not what I meant. I meant whether or not they were used in the sense that they affected how the policy was enacted.

I see. ABC News translates a bunch of Iraq government papers and documents, Keith decides that only one is worth reporting on, and for the rest, YOU decide they are "discredited and worthless".

No, I didn't decide that. The 9/11 Commission, in it's final report, found no substantial ties between Saddam and al-Qaeda. This was after examining hundreds of classified documents and intelligence information.

One of the documents found purports to be an account of a meeting between Saddam and Osama in 1995. Except the document is handwritten, there are no official marks or stamps and there is no independent evidence that the document is contemporaneous with the date written on it. There's no way to prove independently that: the document is from 1995 and that what it describes happened.

The documents that claim to link Saddam and Osama can't be authenticated, so their claim is worthless.

Oh, but the document about the Russians and our war plans is so authentic and verifiable that Olby reports on it, but none of the others? Only the one document that reflects negatively on the administration is verifiable enough for Olby, or for you? The fact that it was found among the official documents of the Iraq government doesn't give it, say, a bit more import than the conclusions of the 9/11 commission, which were based on less data?

By the way, Bob Kerrey of 9/11 commission fame thinks rather more of these documents than you or Olby. He said they represent significant new information about UBL and Saddam. But then again, he didn't get the memo that they are worthless.

The documents that claim to link Saddam and Osama can't be authenticated, so their claim is worthless.

Sticks fingers in ears, repeats "la-la-la-la, I can't hear you."

From a proud member, I'm sure, of the reality-based community.

Of course, if someone claims to have found a document that says that Bush was involved in the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, this same crowd's standard of proof would immediately disappear.

They'd be waving the document and shouting with glee, "Bush did it!!, Bush did it!!".

One (impossibly high) standard for Saddam and OBL; one (impossibly low) standard for that Bushhitlerchimp.

Incredible really.

SMG

The Iraq-Russia connection has more than just these documents to back it up (via AP):

"The Pentagon report wasn't the first to raise questions about Russian help for Saddam's regime at the time of the invasion in March 2003.
At the time, Gazeta.ru reported that two retired Russian generals visited Baghdad less than 10 days before the U.S.-led offensive and speculated they were advising the Iraqi military. The report showed photographs of them receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta, a newspaper believed at the time to have well-placed contacts in Russia's military and intelligence spheres, reported in March 2003 that Russian intelligence agents were holding daily meetings with Iraqi officials.

The U.S. administration accused Russian companies of shipping prohibited equipment, including anti-tank missiles, night-vision goggles and electronic jamming devices to Iraq, possibly via third countries. Moscow vehemently denied the allegations."

I'm using the same standard of proof that any court of law would use - no court would admit this "handwritten document" as evidence because it's credibility is dubious at best and there is insufficient corroborating evidence to authenticate it.

Ya know, I don't care if you are on the right, left, or in the middle. If you don't know that the 911 commision was nothing more than a white wash to cover up the whole episode you may be a little unstable. Everyone person on the commision was hand picked. Yet they were considered an "independent" body. Also on the subject of those papers I don't hear much about how Saddam was conserned that he was having trouble getting his message across that he had noooooo wmd's.

I don't hear much about how Saddam was conserned that he was having trouble getting his message across that he had noooooo wmd's.

Sorry, you can shed tears from Saddam; I'll shed mine for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis he gassed and raped and tortured and brutalized.

It's not like he had a track record of dishonesty or repeatedly acting like he continued to have WMDs (harassing weapons inspectors, not allowing his scientists to be interviewed outside Iraq, not having the documentation on where and when the WMDs were destroyed, et cetera, et cetera).

The inspection regime as passed by the UN required that Iraq document where and how they had destroyed all of their WMDs. Promises or statements that they were all destroyed were insufficient. Saddam had over a dozen years to show what he had done with the WMDs that were documented to be under his command.

This he failed, repeatedly, to do.

Additionally, he was supposed to destroy all WMD components or programs that could be used to builds those weapons. This, as both the Kay and Duefller reports show, he did not do.

On top of those failures, Iraq was forbidden by the UN to fund or assist international terrorists. As the recently revealed documents indicate (as well as other evidence), Saddam failed this standard as well.

Sorry, Saddam isn't the victim here despite all of your protestations to the contrary.

SMG

To SGM---For some reason I get this funny feeling you believe what Rush sez. And you believe news max, drudge, and fox news. I hope I'm wrong.

Bluefire:
I hope I'm wrong.

Given your track record on matters, yep, wrong again.

It hasn't been a very good six years for you, no?

All verbal jousting aside, why is the Left (and, of course, I'm generalizing) always quickly willing to believe the worst accusations about Bush and his Administration while fiercely doubting accusations posed against Saddam and OBL?

Okay, be cynical or even hostile to Bush. That's the tribalism of politics. But this incessant willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to Saddam or Bin Laden is puzzling (and troubling).

SMG

The Scoreboard: Thursday, March 23

25-54 demographic:

1. O'Reilly 363,000
2. Grace 279,000
3. Zahn 153,000
4. Olby 116,000 [LAST]

Total Viewers:

1. O'Reilly 2,247,000
2. Grace 785,000
3. Zahn 646,000
4. Olby 375,000 [LAST]

% Total Audience:

1. O'Reilly 56%
2. Grace 19%
3. Zahn 16%
4. Olby 9% [LAST]

Our Olby is a consistent performer.

I'm sure you got those numbers from TVNewser. Have you ever noticed how the kid who runs the site ALWAYS points out when Olbermann rarely finishes third or second, but never says a word when he finishes last?

Yo SGM-
Now let me ask you this. If Bush had a (D) at the end of his name would you still be defending him like you do? I highly doubt it. But I will say this,if Bush were a Democrat, I would still
be as discouraged, perhaps more so. I almost expect this from a Rep. He never takes blame for anything no matter how wrong he is. Remember when it came out about his DUI? Instead of just saying, Hey I made a mistake, and that is all in the past. What did he do? He lashed out at the fact that the report was even told. By the way did you sart to feel sorry for the Iraqi victims before or after Rum Rum went and was all kissy face with Saddam.

Bluefire:
Yo SGM-

As you have a tendency to do, you didn't respond to a previous question.

To wit, why does the Left (generally) quick to believe charges about Bush and the Administration and (generally) equally quick to dismiss charges about Saddam and OBL?

We have had a series of recently uncovered (or released) documents that apparently show Saddam having quite an interest in OBL. And vice versa. Moreover, the documents reveal (again, apparently) the extensive support for terrorists by Iraq.

One would hope this latter revelation would lead to the end of the statements by those saying that there was "no terrorism" when Saddam was running the country. Well, "no terrorism" inside Iraq; lots of terrorism supported and funded by Iraq.

Is all the above a fiction?

And of more interest, you said that the 9/11 commission was a hand-picked whitewash of the attacks.

What did they cover up? Gorelick and Ben-Veniste and Hamilton et al? A whitewash implies a coverup or a ruse.

I'm curious as to what you think happened that day?

Bush knew about the attacks ahead of time? The Jews knew? Or what?

SMG

Scott:

I hate to break it to you, but

#1, KO wasn't fired from ESPN

#2, he's working for them again in a limited capacity, Monday through Friday.

To SGM-
First of all I don't know what happened on that day, and niether do you. Or do you? First of all when critical reports about Bush come out they are, nine times out of ten backed with hard facts and evidence. However when I hear a report on WMD'S found in Iraq, or Saddam and Bin Ladan where joined at the hip, or everything is peaches and cream in Iraq they always come from a small segment of news media with a clear right wing agenda. I hope I answered your question.

First of all I don't know what happened on that day, and niether do you. Or do you?

I accept the 9/11 Commission's general version of events. I have no other way of knowing. Although, obviously, some of the details could be (and apparently are) wrong.

However, I seem to recall you calling the entire exercise "a whitewash". Presumably you know more about the events that day then the commission does since you think they didn't uncover the truth.

So, again, what do you think happened that day?

Re the dichotomy on the left to believe any and every report inculpating the W.H. while similarly dimissing those against OBL or Saddam.

What is interesting is that you folks immediately dimiss allegations against OBL and Saddam before the charges are even vetted. And immediately believe the worst about Bush et al.

No examination of the charges. Just knee jerk reactions.

Bush = guilty, Saddam/OBL = not guilty.

A reasonable person would say upon hearing about a new charge, "Well, let's see what the allegations are. Do they make sense?"

But the left immediately rejects these new reports before they are even examined.

And frankly this line that the secular Saddam would never work with the secular OBL belies history, both past and present.

If the history on world affairs shows up anything, it amply illustrates how nations engage in self interest regardless of ideology. Odd alliances between competing regimes have occurred repeatedly throughout history.

Stalin and Hitler or Stalin and FDR or China and the USSR or Israel and the USSR (in the 40s and 50s) or China and Pakistan or North Korean and Libya and on and on.

Do you seriously think that all of these documents showing contacts between Iran and OBL or Iraq and Abu Sayyaf, the Moslem terrorist group in the Philippines, are fake?

Okay, enough from me. Your turn and then I'll move on. JD has more important things to do with this site than to allow folks to bash each other in the comment section.

Thanks, life is much more than politics.

SMG

First of all I don't know what happened on that day, and niether do you. Or do you?

I accept the 9/11 Commission's general version of events. I have no other way of knowing. Although, obviously, some of the details could be (and apparently are) wrong.

However, I seem to recall you calling the entire exercise "a whitewash". Presumably you know more about the events that day then the commission does since you think they didn't uncover the truth.

So, again, what do you think happened that day?

Re the dichotomy on the left to believe any and every report inculpating the W.H. while similarly dimissing those against OBL or Saddam.

What is interesting is that you folks immediately dimiss allegations against OBL and Saddam before the charges are even vetted. And immediately believe the worst about Bush et al.

No examination of the charges. Just knee jerk reactions.

Bush = guilty, Saddam/OBL = not guilty.

A reasonable person would say upon hearing about a new charge, "Well, let's see what the allegations are. Do they make sense?"

But the left immediately rejects these new reports before they are even examined.

And frankly this line that the secular Saddam would never work with the secular OBL belies history, both past and present.

If the history on world affairs shows up anything, it amply illustrates how nations engage in self interest regardless of ideology. Odd alliances between competing regimes have occurred repeatedly throughout history.

Stalin and Hitler or Stalin and FDR or China and the USSR or Israel and the USSR (in the 40s and 50s) or China and Pakistan or North Korean and Libya and on and on.

Do you seriously think that all of these documents showing contacts between Iran and OBL or Iraq and Abu Sayyaf, the Moslem terrorist group in the Philippines, are fake?

Okay, enough from me. Your turn and then I'll move on. JD has more important things to do with this site than to allow folks to bash each other in the comment section.

Thanks, life is much more than politics.

SMG

Hmm, a double post.

It was so good the first time that the system repeated it.

Nice judge of quality that comments system.

No, Bluefire, given a second chance to answer, you still didn't answer SMG's question. The question (paraphrased)was why does the Left reflexively believe any story which leaves an unfavorable impression of President Bush but makes excuses for or overlooks the horrific deeds of UBL and Sadaam (or when faced with irrefutable evidence of unspeakable atrocities by these terrorists, a favorite tactic of far lefties like Krazy Keith is to try to draw moral equivalence between the United States and terrorist regimes. Ted Kennedy tried to do this when he announced that Sadaam's torture chambers were re-opened under "U.S. management", giving the impression that the aberrent behavior of a few military personnel who tried to humiliate and embarrass enemy prisoners was equivalent to the torture of hundreds of thousands of Iraqui citizens who were put through wood chippers, had fingernails pulled out, limbs chopped off, heads cut off with rusty sawblade, you get the idea).

Also, Bluefire the reason that news that shows a connection between Sadaam and al Queda is not featured on the MSM but is found in a "small segement of the media" (to use your phrase) is not because this faction has a right wing agenda. The MSM and people like KK are agenda driven. If they were not agenda driven, you would be seeing these developments. Media outlets such as The Weekly Standard and Fox have featured commentators like Stephen Hayes who have unearthed recently released documents from the Office of the Director of National Inteligence which are critical in assesing Sadaam's interest in terrorist groups. One such document described efforts by the Iraqi Intelligence Service to strengthen relationships with Saudi opposiiton groups, one of which was the "Reform and Advice Committee". That group was run by, guess who? Usama bin Laden. Evidence has also emerged that Iraq under Sadaam was running camps in which they were training non-Iraqi Arabs in terrorist techniques. This is verifed by a recently released study from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia and by the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Marines.

Another liberal poster stated earler that the 9/11 Commission conclusively establshed that there is no link between Sadaam and al Queda. Nice try, but no dice. What Commissioner John Lehman said on this subject is: "There may well be--and probably will be--additonal intelligence coming in from interrogations and from analysis of captured records and so forth which will fill out the intelligence picture. This is not phrased as, nor meant to be, the definitive word on Iraqi Intelligence activities" And such "captured documents" have emerged which have "filled out" the intelligence picture.

Even if you libs think all this is rubbish, why won't KK have a commentator like Stephen Hayes on his program to discuss the merits of the evidence that Hayes has found establsishing a link between Sadaam al al Queda? I have discussed this question at length in earlier posts. It has nothing to do with KK wanting to avoid "confrontation". He just can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with him.

Hmmm
Blewfire says he was listening to Randi Rhoades and his post is at 10:36 p.m. Gee thats funny since SHE IS ON THE AIR BETWEEN 3 AND 7 E.S.T. But then again like I said before Libs never let the facts get in the way of a good bash. Yes blu I listen to you're crazy friends at Air. Ya know I heard this rummor that Randi once got so stinkin' drunk at a office Christmas(I guess for you that would be Holiday) party that she dropped her draws and peed on the tree in front of everybody Is this true? WOW! what a crazy girl. No wonder she always sounds so stable on the air. By the way have they found a new home in New York yet? I can't belive that the Liberal capital of the east coast is giving such crappy support that Randi and Al and the rest could lose their flagship station at w.l.i.b. April 1st! HO! HO! HO! Ya know on second thought if I really want off the planet Liberal speech I'll turn on the King W.B.A.I. 99.5! I mean really Blu why deal with second rate air america when you've got the mothership of psycho babble!

Hmmm
Blewfire says he was listening to Randi Rhoades and his post is at 10:36 p.m. Gee thats funny since SHE IS ON THE AIR BETWEEN 3 AND 7 E.S.T. But then again like I said before Libs never let the facts get in the way of a good bash. Yes blu I listen to you're crazy friends at Air. Ya know I heard this rummor that Randi once got so stinkin' drunk at a office Christmas(I guess for you that would be Holiday) party that she dropped her draws and peed on the tree in front of everybody Is this true? WOW! what a crazy girl. No wonder she always sounds so stable on the air. By the way have they found a new home in New York yet? I can't belive that the Liberal capital of the east coast is giving such crappy support that Randi and Al and the rest could lose their flagship station at w.l.i.b. April 1st! HO! HO! HO! Ya know on second thought if I really want off the planet Liberal speech I'll turn on the King W.B.A.I. 99.5! I mean really Blu why deal with second rate air america when you've got the mothership of psycho babble!

damm that server error again

And such "captured documents" have emerged which have "filled out" the intelligence picture.

Documents that can't be authenticated or corroborated (either by a witness or by independent evidence) and, under almost any type of evidentiary standard, are worthless.

Documents that can't be authenticated or corroborated (either by a witness or by independent evidence) and, under almost any type of evidentiary standard, are worthless.

Because, of course, Hitler would never align himself with Stalin. Or the North Koreans with Libya or other Muslim nations. Or China with Pakistan. Or the USSR with India.

Or a thousand other historic examples, both recent and past.

No, history shows us that nations never promote their self interest over against their own ideology. Ideology trumps everything.

Oy.

SMG

Dear Mr. Puck,
Are you trying to imply I wasn't listening to Randi when I said I was? First of all if you go to her site and look at her air times they are different all across the Nation. Second of all it is not me, or the media, but bush himself that said that 911 and saddam are two different events. I know he also sed, When we are talking about wire taps, we value the constitution. We obtain a warrant for our wire taps. Well, that turned out not to be the case. But oh well. Now as for Osama, I am in the same boat as bush on that one. In as much, like he said, I dont know where he is. I really don't think about him. Any other questions? Your favorite liberal Bluefire.

Because, of course, Hitler would never align himself with Stalin. Or the North Koreans with Libya or other Muslim nations. Or China with Pakistan. Or the USSR with India.

"Do you have a theory, or are you just spraying Cheeze Whiz into the wind?"

Nice dodge, by the way. I talk about authentication and you give me a monologue about world history.

At best, it's still speculation. Possibility does not equal probability. Anything is possible, but few things are probable.

Nice dodge, by the way. I talk about authentication and you give me a monologue about world history

With that retort, I assume you have corrected your leftwing, excuse me, progressive allies who have sung from the "Saddam would never assist OBL" songbook?

That's odd, I don't see any of your posts here correcting them.

As to your "authentication standard". Well, if Saddam's defense attorney asks for the impossible, he'll be able to get his client off on the charges.

Perhaps Saddam needs to dump Ramsey Clark for you?

Really, you want American courtroom or legal standards on this stuff? That's for determining the guilt or innocence of folks, an impossibly high standard when examining material of this sort. There is absolutely no way that we can assemble all of the "witnesses" or evidentiary material or show chain of custody to prove the authenticity of these documents.

I'm sure you must know that.

Since we are all in happy agreement that Saddam could work with OBL (see above), then one may ask a negative. Why would these documents not be accurate or authentic?

Cui bono?

What purpose would it be for the Baathist Regime and Saddam to falsify information to show that he was indeed working with Bin Laden?

So far, we've only seem a small fraction of this material. If more and more material indicates a continued and substantive relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the authentication standard is going to have to be greatly re-examined.

SMG

Trekkie:
That "Perhaps Saddam needs to dump Ramsey Clark for you?" from me was a real cheap shot.

It was tongue in cheek but clearly over the line.

Allow me to take it back.

My apologies.

SMG

Sorry, Trekkie, you need to go back to the drawing board. The post January 1997 document describing the efforts of Iraqi intelligence under Sadaam to strengthen ties to terrorists, including UBL's "Reform and Advice Committee" has been studied by a Pentagon task force which has concluded that the doucment appeared authentic. This fact was reported not by Fox News or some right wing warmonger but by the New York Times, not exactly an institution disposed towards reporting news favorable to the Bush administration.

Not disposed towards reporting favorable news to the bush administration???? Ever hear of one
Judith Miller??? Everyday before the invasion she had the cover of the NYT covered with mythical accounts of wmd, and other fairy tales.

Ever hear of one
Judith Miller??? Everyday before the invasion she had the cover of the NYT covered with mythical accounts of wmd, and other fairy tales.

And, of course, Miller also wrote about Iraqi WMDs during the 1990s based on information she received from the Clinton Administration.

Remember the nineties? That's when Democrats were saying that Iraq was a threat to the US and the region, that it had WMDs and that, as Mr. Clinton told us, "they would use them again."

And that, as the Democrats argued, we needed regime change in Baghdad.

Remember those years?

Were all those fairy tales too?

SMG

The post January 1997 document describing the efforts of Iraqi intelligence under Sadaam to strengthen ties to terrorists, including UBL's "Reform and Advice Committee" has been studied by a Pentagon task force which has concluded that the doucment appeared authentic.

From the New York Times article in question - June 25, 2004:

"Mr. bin Laden 'also requested joint operations against foreign forces' based in Saudi Arabia, where the American presence has been a rallying cry for Islamic militants who oppose American troops in the land of the Muslim pilgrimage sites of Mecca and Medina.

But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons." (emphasis mine)

You've got the story backwards, sir. If Osama bin Laden wanted help from Saddam Hussein, this document merely indicates that a communication occurred (a point that the 9/11 Commission conceded but found as inadequate to claim a cooperative agreement was reached). It does not indicate that Saddam responded to said inquiry in any way, shape or form.

SMG

Apology accepted. I know you were trying to be facetious, so I did not take offense. However, I do appreciate that you felt I would take your barb the wrong way.

You aren't telling the whole story, Trekkie. This document tells of a meeting between an offical representative of Sadaam's government and UBL in Sudan in February of 1995 which was approved by Sadaam. UBL asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces". According to the document, Sadaam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Sadaam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open in the future based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation. The Iraqi document then notes that UBL had to flee Sudan for Afghanistan and that Iraqi intelligence noted that "the relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location". An ABC analysis of the document indicates that "The document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere . . . this document indicates that the contacts were approved personally by Sadaam. It also indicates that the discussions were substantive in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and, that the Iraqis were at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broacasting the speeches of Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor."

Given that the doucment claims that bin Laden proposed to the Iraqis "joint operatations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after that meeting, terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquaters in Riyadh killing 5 U.S. military advisers.

Also, Trekkie you did not not even address the terrorist training camps in Iraq under Sadaam and the payment of monies to the surviving families of terrorist suicide bombers.

It's interesting that one of the big lies that libs like to perpetrate against the President is that he is "incurious" about the world around him and only intersted in his own preconceived ideas. And yet, here we have some very strong evidence that Sadaam and bin Laden were coordinating in some fashion and you libs just want to wave it off-- no curiousity at all, no need to investigate further, we already know the answer.

This document tells of a meeting between an offical representative of Sadaam's government and UBL in Sudan in February of 1995 which was approved by Sadaam.

Oh. It's that document. Read my posts upthread. I already addressed this as saying that it cannot be wholly authenticated. Even the Pentagon says that it appears authentic, not that it is authentic.

A handwritten note with no identifying characteristics, no markings or stamps and nothing that can say with reasonable certainty that it is real is mighty thin. It's not circumstantial, it's etherial. Again, possibility does not lead to probability.

Dose anybody remember this quote???

Victory means exit strategy, and it is important for the President to explain his exit strategy.
(Gov) George W. Bush (Tex) Republican

Bush's exit strategy?

He told us just last week. His exit strategy is to let the next president clean up the mess he created.

Oh yeah! Such a "mess" in Iraq as elections take place, the Iraqi army increases in size and our casualties decrease. I guess you read all the liberal magazines that claim a civil war is going on. Only problem is nobody from Time magazine told the Iraqis that.

Of course, this is Olbermannwatch, by the way, but don't let that interfere with the contents of your posts.

I guess you read all the liberal magazines that claim a civil war is going on.

"It's not a state of civil war yet, but we're on the verge of it," - Jabir al-Jabari, journalist for one of Baghdad's newspapers.

"Iraq is in the first steps toward civil war," - Bassem el-Shiek, editor-in-chief, al-Dustor newspaper.

"The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak." - Iyad Allawi, former prime minister of Iraq.

"By the standard that political scientists use, there's been a civil war going on in Iraq since sovereignty was handed over to the interim government in 2004," - James Fearon, Stanford University (specialization in studying modern internal conflicts).

"Iraq is a communal civil war. The overwhelming majority of the insurgents in Iraq are indigenous, and the small minority who are non-Iraqi members of Al-Qaida are able to operate only because Iraqi Sunnis provide them with safe houses, intelligence and supplies." - Stephen Biddle, senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations

Shall I go on?

Trekkie- Hey yo, I guess it's true you learn something everyday. I was just looking through my arabic to english translation book and found this translation. AL JAZEERA=FOX NEWS.

Shall I go on?

Well, it certainly seems to be a civil war to me.

What we have is an armed minority trying to overthrow a democratically-elected government and install a dicatorship where they would run things.

And after gaining, or more accurately for the Baathist remnants, regaining power, they plan to snuff out all opposition and install a fascist dictatorial regime.

More troubling for us, since the Baathists were willing to work with al-Qaeda before they were removed from power, it's certainly plausible to assume that they would work with that terrorist group again.

A victory for these thugs would be disastrous for the vast majority of Iraqis who want some form of self-government. And it would be equally disastrous to the pro-democracy movements in the Middle East.

And worst of all, it would be disastrous for us.

I hope that in your desire to defeat Bush, that you would recognize that his defeat in Iraq would be an equal loss for all of us.

Yes, yes, criticize how he has conducted things. Charge him with incompetence all you want.

But let's be clear: Bush is not the cause of problems in Iraq. The Baathist thugs and terrorists are.

Your political enemy here may be Bush and the Republicans. But our common enemy is those in the Middle East and elsewhere who would gladly cut your and my head off. Or provide assistance to those who would lop our noggins off.

SMG

But let's be clear: Bush is not the cause of problems in Iraq. The Baathist thugs and terrorists are.

I will grant that to a degree. I would argue that the current policies of "staying the course" and "standing down as the Iraqis stand up" are exacerbating the situation.

It's time for a new strategy - Rumsfeld has to go because his "Pollyanna perspective" is hampering the President's ability to see the reality of the situation.

I would argue that the current policies of "staying the course" and "standing down as the Iraqis stand up" are exacerbating the situation.

How is that exacerbating things?

Eventually, I think we all agree, the Iraqis themselves will need to take over much of the security of their country. We can only do so much. After all, after defeating the Nazis and Imperial Japan, to pick two obvious examples, we eventually turned things over to a new government made up of Germans and Japanese.

Zarqawi acknowledged in a message that was intercepted late last year that an Iraqi police and military force would be impossible to defeat because a home grown force is best capable of weeding out the insurgents. They know the lay of the land, so to speak.

And because he and the Baathist could not defeat either the US or an Iraqi security force, their only alternative is to Lebanonize Iraq. Create a sectarian or civil war (I'm using those words interchangeably and I probably shouldn't) between the Sunnis and Shi'as.

Looks to me like we essentially have revenge killings by Shi'a groups against their former Sunni oppressors.

It's pretty clear to me that they no longer have any thought of rallying the Iraqi people behind some sort of nationalist uprising against the American occupiers. That's not happening.

Since they can't create anything, if you will, they want to burn everything down. And after the country has been ruined completely, they'll step into the vacuum.

SMG

Ok, Trekkie, to bring this full circle. You say there is no Sadaam-al Queda connection. I say there is evidence to show that there is. You say my evidence is not good enough for you. Fine. We can have that debate and if you disagree, that's OK (even if you ignored some of the non-documentary evidence for this proposition). The point that I have been making in repeated posts to this site, in hopes that one of you libs will finally give a serious answer, is that Krazy Keith refuses to have guests on his program so that a genuine debate about the issues can take place. All it is is a self-congratulatory liberal love-in. The standard line is that poor Keith might be subjected to "confrontation" and arguments", so only ass-kissers and boot-lickers to KK's point of view can be allowed. Of course, this is a ridiculous argument. Conservatives come in all stripes. There are liberals who are hot tempered and want to shout down those who do not agree with them and there are conservatives of this persuasuion as well. There are also conservatives (I have named them in earlier posts) who could be invited on by KK who would present the conservative side of the argument without shouting and combativeness, so that would eliminate the alleged concern about tainting the program with untoward arguments and shouting. So, again, what is the REAL reason KK will only allow bootlickers and ass kissers on his program? Here's why: Keith's viewpoints are so loony that any competent conservative commentator would slice him to ribbons and embarass him. And KK knows it. KK's mental stability is also very questionable and there is also the very real possibility that he would become unhinged just having to be in the presence of a conservative who challenges him. You can see on his program on an almost daily basis seething with anger at conservatives. Can you imagine what he he would do if a conservative actually confronted him? Poor KK, what a loser.

Salome- not sure you actually read my post.

1. Keith was suspended for an unauthorized appearance on The Daily Show (the original one with Craig Kilborn)in which, among other comments, he called Bristol the most god-forsaken place on the planet. Shortly after, he left ESPN because he "failed to reach agreement with the sports network on a new contract and will be leaving." That's a quote from his agent. If ESPN wanted him back (by the way, how many 5-1/2 year contracts are there?) they would have been able to keep him. Its close enough to a firing for most.

2. Read my post. It says he is on ESPN radio.

3. What does any of that have to do with the heart of the post? Is it just an attempt to change the focus away from criticism of KO without offering any factual argument against what was said?

Here's why: Keith's viewpoints are so loony that any competent conservative commentator would slice him to ribbons and embarass him.

You're entitled to your opinion, sir. I just happen to believe it's wrong.

KK's mental stability is also very questionable and there is also the very real possibility that he would become unhinged just having to be in the presence of a conservative who challenges him. You can see on his program on an almost daily basis seething with anger at conservatives.

If I'm reading this right, you're basing his "mental instability" on his "anger at conservatives". That's a very loose standard - if you draw it out to the extreme, nearly half the country is angry at conservatives. Are all of our mental states questionable?

Well, I have never seen you express yourself in person, but if you presented yourself like KK, then yes, I would say that a good possbility exists that you are mentally questionable and I would hesitate to predict what you might do if your opinion was challeneged. I base this on personal experience. I have has personal conversations with people who have an interactional style reminsecent of KK-- the feigned heavily dramatic looks of amazement, of righteous indignation, the seething,the sophomoric attention getting antics without regard for how bizarre and inapproriate. I would love to talk to the therapist he admits that he has been going to. (Can you imagine if the roles were reversed and O'Reilly admitted going to a therapist? Can you imagine home much Olby would play it up and beg viewers to see it as evidence that O'Reilly is a bad person? But, O'Reilly never brings up this facet of KK's life. I don't think O'Reilly hung the moon, but he certainly doesn't creepily obssess about KK the way KK obsesses about O'Reilly.

First of all going to a therapist is not a crime. Sexual harrasment is. Also if Billy were to make fun of people going to therapist he would offend perhaps what, 98% of his followers. But thats not why I'm here. I am here to remind everyone that when bush took office he had a $236 Billion buget surplus to play with. As of now we have a $400 billion dollar defict. That dose not include his Iraq follies, or what will be added to the deficit in the next three years. But his drones just keep on, keepin on.

Bluefire, I can throw this right back at you. You can tell me about the budget deficeit for the 100th time and I can tell you about the extraordinary budgetary challenges our country has faced for the 100th time (the Iraq conflict, Katrina, Rita). There are web sites left and right arguing this from every conceivable angle. If talking about KK is "not why [you're] here", then you should go to some other site. This site is dedicated to discussing the last place hero of the cable TV world, Krazy Keith. So, c'mon, let's talk about something more intersting like Keith's mental stability. Whaddya think, BF? You think Keith is stable or not? I think he's a volcano ready to erupt. BTW, never said going to a therapist is a crime. My only point is that Olby hates BOR so much that he would bring up this info to try to taint BOR, if BOR had in fact seen a therapist. I was trying to demonstrate a point about KK's sick behavior

Dear Mr. Hank-
I am grateful to your ignorant responce. But can you do me a favor, and pass me the KOOOOOLAIDE!!!!

My only point is that Olby hates BOR so much that he would bring up this info to try to taint BOR, if BOR had in fact seen a therapist.

No he wouldn't. BOR would just retaliate that KO has seen a therapist as well, so the story would be nullified. It would have no value and would be perceived as the cheapest of cheap shots.

If anything, such a story would destroy Olbermann's credibility because it would reinforce the very story that BOR perpetuates on his own show: that MSNBC will say and do anything to smear him.

You must be new to Countdown-- KK has been trying to smear BOR for years. BOR usually just ignores him, which frustrates KK, so he tries it some more. This is the sort of thing that keeps him in last place

My read on that O'Reilly affair is that it was a mutual thing until she tired of it and recorded him.Extorting 10MM from FOX was the denoument.

Thanks for all those quotes Trekkie! Perhaps if the mainstream media and its pals click their collective heels three times and wish really hard, "on the verge" of civil war will turn into the real thing! Perhaps the definition of "Civil War" is needed here. You see, the media throws the term around wildly hoping morons will just eat it up without asking, "what is a civil war?"

Civil war: A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020gl.htm

By my count Trekkie, the terrorists have NONE of the criteria. Oh, I'm sure you're thinking about how to try to give them a few of these criteria like a good little jihadi right now Trekkie. Admit it. You are wondering, "do they control territory? Do they enjoy foreign recognition?" You see Trek, I know you better than you know yourself.

Fact is, there is no civil war, and all these people claiming Iraq is on the "verge" of civil war are making this crap up. Sure, there are terrorists and mercenaries killing people, but the Democratically elected Government is fully in charge, and is not breaking apart. The vast majority of people in the country want peace. What does it mean to be "on the verge" Trekkie? The media has been saying that for the past three years:

http://www.antiwar.com/lind/?articleid=3120

" July 22, 2004
Civil War In Iraq?
by William S. Lind

Observers continue to ask, "Will Iraq descend into civil war?" The answer is that civil war is already underway in Iraq."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-01.htm

Published on Thursday, January 22, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
CIA Officers Warn of Iraq Civil War, Contradicting Bush's Optimism
by Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay

Believe me, I can go on and on. The same crap month after month. Elections come and go barely covered, the Iraqi military steps up and that is barely covered, one golden mosque gets bombed and the media swarms declaring civil war.

Your desire for failure in Iraq is of course grotesque Trekkie, but you will necessarily feign horror at the mere mention that you aren't a true patriot.

Just continue the dumb fight for the next three years as Iraq's Democracy continues to take shape. Will it be a great country? Probably not. Will it be a grave threat to the United States? Probably not. Will it be better than Iran, Syria and Libia? Probably, which was the whole point going in.

There will always be two camps on this issue --

1. Action needed to be taken, no Democracies exist in the region and unless one is created, the madness will escalate

2. Action did not need to be taken, and it was none of our business

I fall into camp ONE after 9/11. Iran's new "leader" just proves the point. I could also mention that Saddam refused weapons inspections and shot at our aircraft, but that wouldn't bother you one bit Trek. You'd say, "let's go to the UN," the same people who have done such a grat job in Sudan and in Iran!

Anyway, Trekkie, there are two reasons why this is a stupid discussion:

1. This is OLBERMANNWATCH dedicated to the lowest rated cable news host in primetime

2. Bush is President, Cheney and Rumsfeld aren't going anywhere, and you are a mere Trekkie taking up space on Earth when you should be in orbit.

To KFK--
This being an election year, and me being a liberal. I hope and pray that what you say is true about Rum Rum and Cheney not going anywhere. Please tell me that is a true statement. Please tell me it is. Because I know Rove has been trying to get rid of Cheney for the longest!!!!!!! Could you imagine if they were smart and moved lets say Dirty Rice into the V.P spot. I think the #'s for the republicans would go up at a minimum of 10 points. KFK I give you the last word, go......

Dirty Rice?? Wow, that's really low. That kind of stuff doesn't belong here. Take your racism elsewhere.

Oh, I'm sure you're thinking about how to try to give them a few of these criteria like a good little jihadi right now Trekkie.

Your desire for failure in Iraq is of course grotesque Trekkie, but you will necessarily feign horror at the mere mention that you aren't a true patriot.

You know, KfK, I have been nice and reasonable. I have let you say your piece and make fun of me all you want.

But there are limits to my ability to take a joke. These are not funny - they are crass and they are insulting. You question my patriotism? How dare you. You laugh and call me a "good little jihadi"? Well, I'm not laughing. And if I knew who you were, I'd back that up with a right cross to your jaw.

You don't know me, you don't know my values, so SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Boo hoo hoo Trekkie!

Your "horrified indignation" manoever is less than convincing. If you are honest, you will admit that this sentence was prophetic:

You are wondering, "do they control territory? Do they enjoy foreign recognition?" You see Trek, I know you better than you know yourself.

As for the hyperbole, you know it as such. You may be alot of things, but blind is not one of them. You know when a comment is meant for effect. In fact, you do not hesitate to respond with an equal degree of hyperbole.

My main point is that your ideas, which unfortunately are the a priori assumptions of mainstream media reporters, are hurtful to our mission. The individuals sent to perform the mission pay the price.

Taking the terrorist propaganda effort and rebroadcasting it to the world as truth is nothing short of helping the terrorists. Reporters will tell you that terrorists try to set off bombs to take advantage of the news cycle, and tend to do so near the Green Zone, but these events are reported as if they were not staged to affect public opinion. Jihadis destroyed the golden mosque to create tension and get the media to cry "civil war." It doesn't help when the gullible drive-by media not only takes the bait but chums the waters.

If what I say bothers you so much then you have a real problem, because what I am saying is the truth. Read this post in ten years and you will realize what a dopey tool you were in 2006.

Hank how in the world dose that have ANYTHING to do with race. Or are you just trying to play the race card? When you warmonger, that is dirty. When you are brilliant but you kow-tow to a bunch of lies, that is dirty. When you repeat the same thing over and over again, even know you know it's not true, that is dirty. Also I sed if she would become the V.P the numbers would go up by ten points!!!! Meaning that she would be a giant bonus for the party!!! So you think if a person claims another person would be an added bonus to something, that means that person is against that person because of their race??? Got KOOL AIDE???? Also that is why so many republicans want her to run. So that everytime the dems call her out they can IMPLY, oh see there the Dems are against her race. Meanwhile, it would be the Repulicans using her for her race. And as it seems so far she is waaay to smart and sees through their little game. And looking at your response to mine I'd have to say she is right. Hank you grt the last word. Go......

Sorry . . . I thought this was a site about Keith Olbermann, but I was mistaken. Does anybody know how I can find the comment threads on Olbermannwatch?

If you can't figure out the racial implications of your calling Condoleeza Rice "Dirty Rice" then you have even less sense than I thought you had. Ask one of your liberal sensitivity trainer friends. They'll explain it to you.

If you can't figure out the racial implications of calling Condoleeza Rice "Dirty Rice" then you have even less sense than I thought you had. Ask one of your liberal sensitive trainer friends. They'll explain it to you.

Sorry Hank, didn't know I had to break it down to a second grade level. -Her actions are dirty- And I am sure you are aware of this. You also read my first comment, had no idea how to respond, so you just used the race card. Thanx for showing everyone you are as ignorant as anyone could expect a right winger to be. I would ask you if you were from a RED state, but than you will say that I am attacking some minority or something. I was wondering if you think that the rapper Dirty old Bastard is self hating? Or better yet, what about NWA, are they racist against theselves. Do they hate themselves, as much as you hate yourself????

OK, be my guest. Go ahead and walk up to an African-Amercian person and tell them you think they are "dirty" and let them know that you intended no racist implications, you were only criticizing their "actions" and let me know whether your explanation is believed. LOL.

Dear mr hank, I took your advice, called my girl
friend. Told her she was dirty, she just laughed.