I getting a mite dizzy with all the spin.

You have remarkable equilibrium, JD.

I saw a minute of the show and was horrified. They had a close-up on Keith that magnified every blemish and bizarre facial expression, and his make-up was unsettling. I must admit I haven't seen the show in a while, but I remember the camera man staying safely distant from Keith. I already had a hard time watching. Now it is impossible.

This has been day 1,044 since Bush declared
Mission Accomplished in Iraq.

"Mission accomplished" referred to the end of MAJOR combat operations (in other words, the coalition had taken the country from Saddam and his military). The occupation and "insurgency" are a separate matter. How many times are you Moonbats going to point to words on a banner as having some profound meaning? This just makes you all look like dopes (so keep it up)!

By the way, this is OLBERMANNWATCH jackass. How about talking about Olby here and heading to a lefty site to spew your banal propaganda?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

[i]By the way, this is OLBERMANNWATCH jackass. How about talking about Olby here and heading to a lefty site to spew your banal propaganda?[/i]

funny.

It's quite amusing to watch Nonfactor, Teckie and Swashbuckler breakup their circle jerk to visit this website.

Swashbuckler: ?Treckie?

Treckie: ?Yes Swash?

Swashbuckler: ?Are you there Nonfactor??

Rub, rub, rub ??

Nonfactor: ?Almost?

Swashbuckler: ?Well girls, it?s almost 9:00. Let?s head over to OlbermannWatch so we can post a really ?pithy? comment. Hee, hee, hee ?. I made an O?Reilly funny. Keith would be so proud?

Nonfactor: ?Gotcha Swash. I am cleaning up and typing as we speak.?

Treckie; ?What would our lives be if we could not post on this sight??

Swash, Treckie, Nonfactor: ?Thanks Johnny?

Three vapid a--holes passionately in defense of their hero?.. another vapid a--hole.

Comon' Non

With the exception of maybe the last sentence. Even you had to think WTF was funny. I did? By the way what was the cookie? Jill Perry? Or Bluefire?

Do you think JD was three minutes late because he really had to drag himself to the tv to watch this? JD is a remarkable person.

Three vapid a--holes passionately in defense of their hero?.. another vapid a--hole.

I beg your pardon?

Dude, what is your problem?

What you said is not funny. It's degrading and insulting. And if you had said that to my face I would have decked you.

Not having heard it, for some reason we get the idea that KO may just be overhyping this a bit, merican Bar Association last week issued a statement expressing concern that commentators had "crossed the line in using this tragedy to needlessly, gratuitously and viciously attack" judges. "They are not killers as some have called them, nor are they activists bent on pushing an ideological agenda. They are simplybased solely on his track record

You have a former supreme court justice, a republican nominee, warning that our country may be experiencing the early stages of dictatorship - kinda hard to overplay that. I'm in law school, and one thing i've learned is that unlike some of the jagoffs who spout off on these boards, judges parse their words extremely carefully. She knew what she was saying. Go read what she said. i don't care what your politics are, this is newsworthy.
------------
Much was made of O'Connor's criticisms of people who dare criticize judges.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today" - Delay

http://www.justicesunday.com/

This is about marginalizing the third branch of government because sometimes their decisions may not jive with a certain ideology. THis is about the rule of law. THis is about Article III of the constitution.

------------
t's unclear just how outraged the former Justice really is, given that she has been widely quoted as saying she timed her resignation from the high court to make sure a Republican President would name her replacement. But that was not mentioned.

This is the kind of circle-jerk political argument i love. OK, i'll accept your premise that she wasn't reall that "outraged" because how outraged can she be at repubs if she waited to retire?

1. This administration has strayed so far from trad. repub values (smaller government, lower taxes, practical foreign policy and practical monetary policy, among other things) in favor of social concerns, and maintaing power at any cost (including pandering to the religious right) that it bears little resemblance to great republicans of days of old, Eisenhower, for example. I'm a democrat, but i'm a democrat who firmly believes in the two-party system. Ideally, as well in practice through our history, you get a consensus gvt with two parties. The nut-jobs on both sides get pushed out in favor of more mainstream choices. It appears the now the nutjobs are increasingly in control (google cladue allen news).

2. OK - so if rumrors of her retirement delay were true - so what. THat was 2000. No one had any reason to believe he would be anything other than the fair, decent republican his father was. What a difference 6 years makes.

She said any reform of system is debatable as long as it is not motivated by "nakedly partisan reasoning" retaliation because comgressmen or senators don't like the result of the cases. Courts interpret the law as it was wrtten, not as the comgressmen might have wished it was written, and "we should avoid the country falling into dictatorship at the end by avoid these beginnings"

Wow. A Reagan appointee.
-----------

O next went to politics, running a pulled online ad from an obscure Republican candidate that focused on culture war issues. Keith, of course, picked up this story from one of the blue blogs. We don't recall him ever focusing on over-the-top online ads from the left, and there have been plenty. The discredited David Shuster made an appearance from a GOP confab to speculate about politics '08.

can you point me to one of those "over the top" ads from a democratic nominee to a major office. US Congress or higher.

--------------

Now you sound like O'Reilly

Differences in silver spoon W and his daddy:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Quote by Bush Sr.

And I suppose "senior" wasn't born with a silver spoon.Please remember Prescott handed George a bunch of money from his war profiteering

True, eddie, true. But the claim can be made that aside from the usual connections and education his blue-blood background afforded him, Sr. made the most of opportunities and worked for, and deserved what he got.

I don't think anyone can seriously say that about W. His is stricly a pawn in the machinations of others.

Yes, but the sad thing is that I think Junior really believes he is doing God's will.It is ironic that the civil liberty that allows us to have this conversation is the very thing being destroyed by that will.

that's prolly what scares the shit out of me the most - the god thing. I live in the south, i was raised methodist in catholic schools, but these people, and thier misuse of religion, has completely turned me off all orgainzed religion.

A separation of church and state exists to protect religion from politics as much as politics from religion.

Treckkie said:

Dude, what is your problem?

What you said is not funny. It's degrading and insulting. And if you had said that to my face I would have decked you.

Dude? ?.. Who the F are you Spicoli? If the truth hurts your feelings, too bad. Your hurt feelings got me all broke up. Finally, if you want to deck me, let me know. I will gladly give you directions so that you can come and try.

Mccain=Gun control/ Giuliani=Pro-choice /Fried Rice=Pro-Choice, I was wonderin who the Wing Ding Bing a Ling's are gonna vote for in 08????

Amazing level of discourse now that a few lefties are here. This is why private clubs exist in America.

Hey Bush is giving India nuclear secrets in exchange for Mango's...mmmmmm I like mango's.

Private clubs? What a smart way to avoid distasteful conversation! But what religious or ethnic last name is Anonymous? How can we judge your eligibility?

Dear Eddie Kay,

In typical liberal fashion, you smear private clubs as somehow inherently unfair or racist. Rather, private clubs (in these modern times) mainly serve to keep out a--holes, which was the point of my post. You, being the useful idiot you are, made my point with your ill-thought-out, knee-jerk post. Suffice it to say you would not qualify for my private club even if your name was Ted Kennedy (you know, Ted Kennedy the passionate liberal who belonged to that exclusive all-male club).

You made the analogy not me.Do you think name calling raises or lowers "the level of discourse"?
Why don't you address the discourse you complain about or have you already decided that anyone who is not in lock step with your discourse should be excluded.Please give yourself a name,any name if you wish to continue this discourse.

Trekkie said:
"What you said is not funny. It's degrading and insulting. And if you had said that to my face I would have decked you."

Funny, that's what most people say about Olby.

Put these in order---
1.Delay indicted.
2.No wmd's found.
3.Katrina response.
4.Cheney shoots hunting buddy.
5.Illegal NSA spying.
6.Bush declares he don't know, or care where Osama bin forgotten is.
7.Bush is briefed that Osama is determined to attack U.S.A with aircraft.
8.Top Republicain's claim they don't know Jack-- Abramoff that is.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on, but hey I think you get my drift.

Bluefire:
Hmm, some of your bullet points are, shall we say, a bit of a stretch (Bush told of OBL's desire to attack the US with aircraft; no, the W.H. was warned about the possiblity of terrorist hijacking planes in order to ransom the passengers for the release of prisoners).

Others aren't too bad. The incompetency complaint has merit.

But, please, if you think President Kerry or Dean would have us in better shape, you need to re-read your history.

My gawd, if liberals were running things we'd still be debating in the UN whether we could attack the Taliban. Because, of course, the "world community" must be with us in order to take military action.

As muddled as the Bush Administration has been, they are leagues ahead of any Democratic presidency that I can think of.

SMG

My gawd, if liberals were running things we'd still be debating in the UN whether we could attack the Taliban. Because, of course, the "world community" must be with us in order to take military action.

Same old right-wing distortion: Take a John Kerry quote, misconstrue the hell out of it and then say that EBOL LIBERALS want us to play "Mother May I" with the U.N. before we do anything. That's simply untrue and you know it. So knock off the fear-mongering.

Trekkie:
Take a John Kerry quote, misconstrue the hell out of it and then say that EBOL LIBERALS want us to play "Mother May I" with the U.N. before we do anything. That's simply untrue and you know it. So knock off the fear-mongering.

Sorry, my friend, I'll say whatever I want to say at this site per the standards and limits of the person running the blog. He has the final word; not you.

As to my "fear mongering". I must say that if you're concerned about "fear mongering", I suggest that there are other more egregious examples (e.g., Bush's America is like Orwell's 1984 or the W.H. is taking away all of our liberties, et cetera) posted here and directed at the Bush W.H. by liberal/left posters.

Doesn't that "fear mongering" bother you?

Second, I didn't miscontrue any quote from John Kerry at all. I didn't quote Kerry or refer to any of Kerry's views. And I did not and do not believe that Kerry (or most liberal democrats) believe that we can only use force after authorization by the UN.

However, there is a sizable portion of the liberal internationalist community that believes that the US may taken military action on any larger scale only when we have the agreement or contribution of other nations. And that if we don't have the sufficient size or number of allies, that the use of force must not be undertaken. That requirement - having "X" number of allies - means that our actions are dependent on the weakest member of that coalition who will effectively have veto power over our response.

That simply is not a wise use of American power or a realistic understanding of how the world works.

Third, there is a sizable element on the liberal/left side of the spectrum - an element I was referring to - that believes that the US (and every other nation) should give up much of its sovereignty, in some cases all of it, when it comes to the use of military force.

And that the US should only be allowed to use force when the UN Security Council approves of such action.

It is, of course, not everyone on the left and I, as any reasonable person could comprehend, never said that Kerry subscribes to that thought.

But the larger point remains: that many leftist internationalists believe that the major cause of disorder in the world emanates from the influence and power of the U.S. in affairs and, most important, that there isn't a problem in the world that cannot be solved by the US walking away from it.

Case in point: Iraq.

And really, if you're trying to bully people (and please, this isn't 7th grade; the bully tactics stopped working when we all turned 13), at least use your own name.

SMG

His name IS Trekkie. He walks the Trekkie walk and talks the Trekkie talk. How DARE you claim Trekkie is not his real name.

Alright I was only able to make it through 15 minutes of the great Olby Q&A on c-Span last night so. I Only have one Question. Olby said he has signed fourteen contracts so far. Does that mean he was fired 13 times or told to get lost 13 times?

And I don't know, judge for you're self but. The way he looked on t.v. last night. Is the ghost of Steve Allen trying to take over his body? Ted Baxter tries to keep taking over his brain. Wait! Ya know in some strange way that could be an improvement!

You know, puck, if you're attention span was a bit longer than a block of cheese, then maybe, just maybe you might have gotten the answer for the question you just asked.

I don't think puck has a short attention span; it sounds as if he may have a weak stomach when it comes to watching Olby pontificate about his alleged high moral standards and journalistic ethics.

Has anyone seen Olby's MSNBC blog today? It's hilarious. He claims Lloyd Grove (NY Daily News) selectively used Olbyquotes out of context and claims Grove and his assistant should be fired for doing so.

Pot, meet Kettle.

I don't think puck has a short attention span; it sounds as if he may have a weak stomach when it comes to watching Olby pontificate about his alleged high moral standards and journalistic ethics.

Has anyone seen Olby's MSNBC blog today? It's hilarious. He claims Lloyd Grove (NY Daily News) selectively used Olbyquotes out of context and says Grove and his assistant should be fired for doing so.

Pot, meet Kettle.

I'm an Irishman who wandered onto this site in an attempt to discover who this Keith Olbermann fellow was after reading about someone recieving a nasty phone call from Fox security for mentioning his name on Bill O' Reilly's radio show. The comments section is of the standard I've come to expect from American blogs of this kind of political persuasion, i.e. lots of puerile name-calling and massive leaps between "evidence" and conclusions (from boths "sides", may I add), and I normally wouldn't bother adding my 2 cents.

However, I would really like to know how quoting Bill as saying "You know, in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth. That would be the sane thing to do..." without the rest of the comment counts as spin. He doesn't say anything in the rest of the quoted comment that contradicts his assertion that it would be sane (and therefore presumably reasonable and morally correct) to murder 68 million people because there is suspicion their rulers want to acquire technology that the US has had for decades. I'm not saying I agree with or like Olbermann as I know nothing about him, but I totally fail to understand how anyone with an ounce of concern for their fellow man can see a bloodthirsty comment like this as justifiable. Whatever "spin" Olbermann indulges in, it surely can't compare to the kind of institutionalised spin that warps peoples' hearts and minds to the extent that they see a comment like this from an established public figure as in any way acceptable. Dammit people, that's Final Solution-style talk! When you start seeing genocidal mania (because genocide is what O'Reilly reckons a sane world would indulge in) as excusable, there is something very, very wrong with your standard of public discourse.

Czarner:
Dammit people, that's Final Solution-style talk!

You're misinterpreting - based on a partial recounting of O'Reilly's comments - what he (O'Reilly) was saying. This is a great example of how someone's comments are twisted to score poltical points. Olbermann does this a great deal.

The problem - one that caught you - with Olbermann's quotation is that he didn't include the entire context of O'Reilly's statement. I was listening to O'Reilly when he made the above comment and he was specifically referring to the Iranian government and the thugs who run it, not the entire populace. The comment was made during a hour-long discussion of the Iranian government and its attempts to build nuclear weapons and how the US and the world should respond to those actions.

As you probably know, the Iranian leadership has called for the destruction of Israel, has been supporting international terrorism, has been brutally suppressing its own people and, most recently, has openly threatened the US for referring the issue of its nuclear program to the UN Security Council.

To repeat: O'Reilly was not calling for the eradication of the entire Iranian populace. He was arguing that the rest of the world - much like in the 1930s - could have and should have made a concerted effort to stop brutal regimes acquiring weapons of mass destruction before they began using that arsenal.

SteveMG:

Hmmm, I've reread the quote + yep, it STILL says, "in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth. That would be the sane thing to do... But we can't do that."

How can it be any clearer? How can you possibly understand "blowing a country off the face of the earth" to be equivalent to "stopping a country's leadership from doing bad things"? I realise it's out of context, but I fail to see how vicious rhetoric like this can be indicative of anything less than a psychotic and genocidal mindset on the part of the speaker, regardless of his other, more measured comments. People who have respect for the lives of other people do not talk about blowing other countries off the face of the earth, least of all on national radio.

However, going with your logic on this, don't you think it's possible that the Iranian leadership's comments about Israel might have been taken out of context too? Did you hear the entire speech? If not, then according to your logic it's very possible that you are unwitting victim of spin from your own side. Isn't it possible that the Iranian president's speech was about stopping the Israeli leadership from launching attacks on it; certainly most of the Arab and Persian populations percieve Israel as a great threat to their own security. Mind that I'm not supporting his comments, but merely pointing out that by your logic you can't make any judgements on what he meant by a couple of lines from a speech in isolation.

Another important point - you say that Iran has "openly threatened the US for referring the issue of its nuclear program to the UN Security Council". However, this does not tell the whole story. Last weekend, US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said in a speech, "The Iran regime must be made aware that if it continues down the path of international isolation, there will be tangible and painful consequences". Later in the week, Javad Vaeidi, the deputy head of Iran's national security council, said, "The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain. But it is also susceptible to harm and pain." It is clear to me that the Iranian "open threats" were made in response to prior American "open threats" but you make it seem as if the Iranian comments were provoked purely by a diplomatic move on the part of the US. Isn't this exactly the kind of spin you dislike so much when it is used against your own heroes? Or do you think that it's ok for the US to threaten a nation, but not ok for that nation to respond in kind? Either way, we have a severe case of double standards here.

Czarner:
Sorry, O'Reilly's comments (or anyone's for that matter) cited above cannot be isolated from the entire context of the discussion. As you well know I'm sure, one can take a single sentence - or even several sentences - from a longer commentary and completely turn the meaning of the comments on its head.

Again, the comment from O'Reilly emanated from the larger discussion of how we (the US, the West) should respond to the actions and statements of the Iranian government. O'Reilly was specifically referring to the Tehran regime and not the general populace. Any fair reading of the statements based on the entire program - it was an hour long show - cannot conclude anything else.

As to the nature of the Iranian regime and comments from Ahmadinejad and the other mullahs running the country, I must say I am stunned at your ignorance of the history of that government since the revolution in 1979 when the mullahs seized power.

The double standard is, I must say, with your shameful defense of that brutal regime and its threats against my country and others.

As I did with the O'Reilly comments, I am reading them in light of the larger context in which they were made. The Iranian regime is a brutal repressive government that has funded and supported international terrorism since the revolution in 1979.

As such, comments about their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map, that the Holocaust was a fiction used by the West to suppress the Arabs, that the US will suffer for its support of sanctions for Iranian violations of IAEA requirements, et cetera make sense.

The Iranian government here is not the victim of some unfair actions by the US. They have a long history of supporting terrorist groups that have murdered many Americans. The reponses and statements by my government must be considered in the context of that longer history.

Again, context matters.

I must say, in conclusion, that this kneejerk anti-Americanism emanating from leftist circles in Europe is getting a bit tiring. Time to grow up and recognize that the chief threats to world peace do not come, believe it or not, from the US but from oppressive regimes like Iran.

SMG

SMG:

So it is ok for Bill O'Reilly to talk about wiping other countries off the map because you think he doesn't really mean it? Why did he say that then? Was it supposed to be comic relief? You have made no attempt to explain why you think such violent words were justifiable, you just keep saying that wasn't what he really meant. I can accept that it is easy to twist someone's words by quoting them out of context; I certainly cannot accept that words like those quoted above can come from the mouth of anyone who has any respect for human life. I have never heard Bill O'Reilly's show and know little of his opinions, but if someone ever said to me they thought a country should be blown off the face of the earth, in ANY context, I would feel perfectly justified in ending the conversation and judging the person to be a bloodthirsty idiot. To me, it is a sad indictment of your own mindset that you consider rhetoric like this excusable, even (it seems) acceptable.

I was interested in engaging in a discussion on spin and inflammatory rhetoric as forms of propaganda. This is what I was doing in my previous post. It seems to me that that is what this blog is about, though it is obviously limited in its scope due to its partisanship. You accuse me of defending Iran - please tell me where I did so? I merely pointed out your double standards in adjudging what constitutes propaganda; that distortions, oversimplifications, and spin are not acceptable when employed by those whose opinions you don't agree with, but are fine when used aginst those you consider your enemies. This is simple hypocrisy.

What little I know of the mainstream American news media comes from a year recently spent living in Poland, where my only access to English news for most of the time was CNN International. Coming from Ireland, a country ranked 4th on the World Press Freedom index and where objectivity and balance are striven for (if not always achieved) by much of the national media, I was shocked at the blatant propaganda that constituted much of the "news" reporting on this station. I was even more apalled to learn that this is a watered down version of CNN in the States, and that this is considered a "leftie" (whatever that's supposed to mean) station in your country.

Anyway, you obviously have no desire to look beyond the very limited picture of the world presented to you by your extremely partisan media, so I have no wish to discuss the nature of global politics with you - it would be pointless for me to try to convince you that the world is not as simple as you have been led to percieve it. As a pointer though - why don't you look into the history of Iran prior to the revolution and read about the regime the Americans had installed and supported from 1953 to 1979? You might just learn something about the kind of "freedom" and "democracy" the US has been exporting for the last 50 years, and the real reasons why there is so much opposition to your country's influence in the Middle East. As you say, buddy, context is all important.

Goodnight.

Czarner,

You wrote, "don't you think it's possible that the Iranian leadership's comments about Israel might have been taken out of context too?"

You are right. During the "World Without Zionism" student conference (remember, the conference name is taken out of context) in October 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech:

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks."

If taken out of context, this can easily be misconstrued.

On December 8, 2005, Ahmadinejad gave an interview with Iran's Arabic channel 'Al-Alam' during a summit of Muslim nations in Islam's holy city of Mecca. The interview contained the following remarks:

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps," Ahmadinejad said. "Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe—like in Germany, Austria or other countries—to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

Again, taken out of context, this is dangerous propaganda.

I agree our focus should be on the United States. A country like the US is a danger to all dictatorships and oppressive regimes, and as these are the majority of third world countries, the US is in the minority. Let's allow the United Nations to run things for once -- after all, the UN is mainly comprised of totalitarian and socialist regimes, and thus represents the majority of countries out there today. How can one country, which elects representatives of the people to make decisions, be allowed to dictate what occurs in countries where the duly anointed rule with an iron fist?

I must know Czarner, do you work for Amnesty International, the UN, the IAEA or Human Rights Watch?

Czarner:
Fascinating.

I simply explain O'Reilly's comments, comments that you acknowledge you never heard.

But despite not hearing them in its fullest form - and despite never hearing O'Reilly before - you're quick to characterize him as a proponent of genocide.

And yet when we have comments (repeated statements over the past 25 years) from the Iranian regime calling for the destruction of Israel, calling for the destruction of the US, calling Jewish people dogs and pigs, you lecture me for not understanding the fuller context of those statements.

Quick to condemn O'Reilly; and equally quick to excuse Ahmadinejad.

Bizarre.

And then you get upset for me accusing you of apologizing for the Iranian regime.

Which is what you did.

I'll gladly defend O'Reilly's single comment in its fullest and proper context.

And you can (gladly, I assume) defend Ahmadinejad's (numerous and repeated) comments in their fullest and proper context.

Not surprising that leftwing Europeans would have assume the worst about America (and Americans) and give the benefit of the doubt to anti-America regimes and anti-Americans.

Typical. It's only been that way for about half a century.

Good night.

SMG

Trekkie, Non factor and Swashbubler are the same person.
Don't be fooled people.
They're rich spoiled losers!

Trekkie, Swahbumbler and Non Factor are the same person.
Just some George Soros loving losers!

Czarner is a loser!

Czarner is a loser!

Good afternoon SMG + Anonymous.

I hope you don't mind if I reply to your comments together in one post; you seem to be coming from the same perspective anyway. First of all, I note with disappointment that neither of you have attempted to explain EXACTLY what you think O'Reilly meant when he used the phrase "to blow Iran off the face of the earth". I gather from your comments that you think he meant "to change the leadership in Iran", but I can't be sure because you haven't clearly stated what you think that comment meant, though I've heard plenty about the context that comment was made in. If he did mean that the leadership in Iran should be changed, then why did he say Iran should be blown off the face of the earth? These are two very different ideas and no amount of spinning can make them equivalent.

For example, if I were to talk for an hour on national radio about how much I dislike the current Irish government, and what reasonable tactics should be used to ensure they don't maintain power in the next election, and were to suddenly blurt out in the middle of this, "What we should really do is round them and their supporters up and shoot them!", would you consider that unimportant and unworthy of comment? If O'Reilly really didn't mean that Iran should be blown off the face of the earth, then why hasn't he apologised for saying so?

Secondly, Anonymous gave me a quote from Ahmadinejad which was of roughly equal length to the quote from O'Reilly at the top of the page in which Ahmadinejad says that "the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map". Please tell me how this is any more vicious or dangerous than saying Iran should be blown "off the face of the earth" (other than the fact that O'Reilly is a very influential national radio host who helps mould the opinions of those who support the current American regime, and Ahmadinejad is a basically handpicked public figurehead who helps mould the opinions of those who support the current Iranian regime). Inflammatory, bloodthirsty, genocidal rhetoric is imflammatory, bloodthirsty, genocidal rhetoric, regardless of which part of the world it emanates from.

Thridly, SMG is being dishonest when he accuses me of defending or apologising for the Iranian regime. Please qoute my comments which defend the Iranian regime and explain how they do so, rather than simply saying "Oh yes, you did!". We're not in a pantomine here. In fact, I EXPLICITLY stated "I'm not supporting his comments" in relation to Ahmadinejad - I dislike tyrannical and oppressive regimes of ANY kind, no matter who's friend or trading partner they are.

My interest was in pointing out your hypocrisy (or ignorance, but your comments since make it sound like hypocrisy), on a website supposedly dedicated to exposing spin, in treating almost identical comments by O'Reilly and Ahmadinejad in a totally different manner and in saying that Iran "openly threatened the US for referring the issue of its nuclear program to the UN Security Council" when in fact the Iranian government representative in question was parroting a threat made by a US government representative to Iran some days earlier. I condemned O'Reilly, and not Ahmadinejad, because this blog entry defended a comment by O'Reilly which I see as indefensible; the Iranian president's comment was not under discussion, so why should I condemn it?

Fourthly, to answer your question Anonymous, I don't work for any of those organisations; in fact I am not affiliated with any political groups. I have to disagree, though, that "the US is a danger to all dictatorships and oppressive regimes"; she has shown herself throughout recent history to be a staunch ally of dictatorships and oppressive regimes when it has been in her geopolitical and economic interests, and in fact had a (usually covert) hand in installing many such regimes throughout the "developing world". That is not to lay the world's problems entirely at her door; I'm well aware that many other powerful countries and empires in this century have behaved in an equally disgraceful manner to further their own economic interests. This is the way of our modern world, and it definitely will not change unless people learn to see through the intense propaganda (that has, of necessity due to communications innovations, achieved a level of sophistication unparalleled in human history) that bombards us, and stop lying to themselves about the "noble" intentions of their leaders.

Gaius Baltar - smart guy. There's no response to that kind of wit.

Um, that should have been "I'm well aware that many other powerful countries and empires in THE LAST century behaved in an equally disgraceful manner to further their own economic interests." And that's not the only bit I'd like to change either...

Czarner, you're a phoney.
How much does George Soros and His Al-Qaeda buddies pay you to write your crap!

Czarner, you're a phoney.
How much does George Soros and His Al-Qaeda buddies pay you to write your crap!

Czarner:
I'll try this one more time and allow you the last word (if you wish). From there, we'll part our separate ways. I think the gulf between our two views is too great to allow further substantive discussion. You appear to be somewhat of a follower of Noam Chomsky or those with similar one-sided views of American history and foreign policy. To be sure, there is much in our past to be ashamed about (what great power doesn't?). But we've also done much good; far more good than bad (compare the US record as a superpower with any previous ones).

Two quick responses.

You said:
(1) I note with disappointment that neither of you have attempted to explain EXACTLY what you think O'Reilly meant when he used the phrase "to blow Iran off the face of the earth".

As I have stated before (actually twice), the comments by O'Reilly re "blowing Iran off the face of the earth" came during an hour-long discussion about the actions of and statements by the Iranian regime calling for, among other things: the destruction of Israel, the destruction of the US, et cetera.

O'Reilly EXACTLY meant the removal of the Iranian government and not the destruction of the entire Iranian populace. In fact during the radio show (I wish I had a transcript), O'Reilly had a guest expert on who discussed how much of the Iranian POPULATION, especially the younger people, disliked the government and the radical mullahs.

I don't how more explicit I can say this: O'Reilly was calling for the removal of the Iranian government. Government, government, government.

If you're still disappointed, then perhaps the problem lies with asking too much?

You said:
(2) Please quote my comments which defend the Iranian regime and explain how they do so

And in your same post, you say:

I condemned O'Reilly, and not Ahmadinejad because the focus of the discussion involved O'Reilly's comments.

First, I didn't say that you "defended" the regime. I said you were apologizing for Ahmadinejad's comments re the destruction of Israel.

And you did more than not condemn Ahmadinejad. You posed the thesis that it was possible that his comments calling for the destruction of Israel were somehow taken out of context, a la my defense of O'Reilly.

For some reason, you can't (or won't) accept the possibility that O'Reilly's comments - comments that I actually heard - were wrenched from their larger context but you then pose the possibility that the Iranian President's comments were taken out of context.

Why the, as you like to say, double standard?

Even worse, you argued that the Iranian government's threats against the US were merely responses to previous threats (as you called them) by Ambassador Bolton, who I guess must be the latest American monster that the European Left has conjured up to explain all sorts of international problems.

Ambassador Bolton's comments, you failed to note, came in response to the repeated violations of international law by the Iranian regime re their nuclear program and, more important, the 25+ year long war the Iranian mullahs have waged against the US. This includes their repeated calls for the destruction of the "Great Satan", their funding and training of terrorists who have killed hundreds of Americans (Beirut bombing, Khobar Towers bombing, et cetera) and their continued support for terrorists in Iraq that kill Americans and Iraqi civilians almost daily.

You seem to think that the US wants this conflict with Iran. That somehow we wish to repeat our terrible policies in the 1950s which overthrew the elected government of Tehran.

But this is a different time and a different world. The Cold War is over and the need for the US to engage in realpolitik is over. Believe me, the US doesn't wish to have to confront Tehran militarily.

But we also cannot - must not - allow that fanatical regime - or any brutal dictatorial regime that has threatened us our the world - to acquire nuclear weapons.

Enough from me.

SMG

Czarner is down and out.
I proclaim the winner by Knock Out
SteveMG!

SMG -

Reasonable comments. I agree that the gulf between our views is too huge for us to agree on prety much anything (as I said in an earlier post, though in an admittedly more barbed way), but that doesn't mean we can't learn anything from each other. To respond to your responses:

1) There's quite a bit of misunderstanding going on between us here so let me see if I can rectify it. I am very aware of the context O'Reilly's comments came in as you've pointed this out repeatedly, and I can assure you that I believe you and am not so entirely stupid as to miss that basic a point. The difference between us here is that the fact that he made such a comment at all, in any context, is something I find deeply shocking - hence my posting a comment here in the first place.

This might have something to do with our respective backgrounds; if a public figure were to make a comment like that about blowing another country off the face of the earth in ANY context on a national broadcast in Ireland, they would be condemned from every angle and political viewpoint, whether or not they meant "the Iranian government" when they said "Iran". Maybe in the US such (to me) shockingly violent and inflammatory language is more acceptable in public discourse than it is in my home country, I don't know.

Or maybe it's a linguistic issue - maybe in the States to say, "to blow Iran off the face of the earth" can be interpreted to mean destroy the regime. To my mind, it's a very inappropriate metaphor as you blow people off the face of the earth, not regimes (and he did say Iran, not the the Iranian regime, which to me at least are not the same thing), but I'll hold my hands up and admit that I can't be sure it's not an acceptable and appropriate way to talk in the States. If it is, then fair enough (though it must get pretty confusing if, when referring to a country by name, you can actually be taken as talking solely about that country's government).

2) I stand by my point here. You didn't hear the full speech by the Iranian president (and neither have I) ,so if it is inappropriate for me to take a line or 2 from Bill O'Reilly's speech and interpret them in that way then it is also inappropriate for you to do the same for Ahmadinejad. My comment was not and is not intended to be a defence of the repressive fundamentalist regime in Iran, but an attack on your methodology.

If you don't think that Bill O'Reilly really meant he'd like to wipe Iran off the map if he had the power to do so then what makes you so sure Ahmadinejad really meant he'd like to wipe Iran off the map if he had the power to do so (not that either of them would ever have the power to do so - they're both just influential public figureheads who say the appropriate things to shore up politcal support for their masters)? Does your information about Iranian intentions come directly from the mouths of Iranian leaders, or is it filtered through media run by those who consider Iran an enemy (or, at least, a potential enemy) of the US? If the latter, is it not in their interests to present Iran in the worst possible light, for the sake of consistency should a conflict arise? Everyone knows how well Fox did out of the Iraq invasion.

Again, I'm no fan of the Iranian regime, and would love to see the local populace rise up and overthrow them and get themselves back to where they were in 1953, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe every single piece of information about their evildoing that comes from the mainstream press. Don't you remember the lies, spin, and hyperbole about Iraq prior to that unfortunate invasion?

Also, I find your description of Bolton as an "American monster that the European Left has conjured up to explain all sorts of international problems" hilarious as he was "conjured up" and installed in his current position by the Bush regime, not by Europeans. To be honest, I don't think the press he gets is any worse than the press any other represntative of the Bush administration gets, but it's a fact that he did make those threats before Javad Vaeidi made his, and it's obvious from the phrasing of Javad Vaeidi's threats that they were at least in part in response to Bolton's, whether you agree or not with the validity of Bolton's comments.

I was going to leave it at that but a quick spin around google revealed the following transcripts from previous editions of Bill O'Reilly's show (sorry for still going on about this, but I think it's important):

June 17th 2004

O'Reilly: "Because look ... when 2 percent of the population feels that you're doing them a favor, just forget it, you're not going to win. You're not going to win. And I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses.
Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them because you know when you have Americans dying trying to you know institute some kind of democracy there, and 2 percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up.
And this teaches us a big lesson, that we cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Just as we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."

So here Bill says that Iraqis are "prehistoric" people who he has no respect (or, presumably, compassion) for and then extends this analysis to all Muslims, who the US should just "bomb the living daylights out of" if a confrontation is necessary. Doesn't sound to me like the guy particularly cares about targeting regimes rather than citizens.

March 31, 2004 (in a show entitled ""Problems continue for the U.S. Military in Fallujah. Why doesn't the U.S. Military just go ahead and level it?")

O'REILLY: I don't care about the colonel, I don't care about the people of Fallujah. You're not going to win their hearts and minds. They're going to kill you to the very end. They've proven that. So let's knock this place down.
COWAN: Let's get out of the way and let Iraqis knock it down, so we don't lose any more American lives.
O'REILLY: I don't believe, I absolutely don't believe they can do it. General, how do you see it?
VALLELY: Well, we've got to do it together. We've go to do it quickly. We've got to sanitize that whole city. And keep in mind, Bill, you set an example when you go in there to do that. And when do you that, you get respect. And that's why you go to be tough.
O�REILLY: All right, general, is there any...
VALLELY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) clean it up.
O�REILLY: You know it, the colonel knows it. The colonel and I are disagreeing on the tactics, but we know what the final solution should be. Why hasn't the U.S. command done this? And why do they continue to absorb the level of terror that is coming out of... this isn't a big town. We're not talking about Cincinnati here. Right? It's not a big town?�

Here the purportedly non-genocidal Bill talks about wiping Fallujah (and all its people) off the map ("I don't care about the people of Fallujah... So let's knock this place down") as the "final solution" to the problem. But I guess it's sheer coincidence he used a term whose association with genocide has been burned into our collective consciousness to talk about what the US military should do, right?

I think, SMG, that these comments (along with his comments after 9/11 about destroying Afghanistan's infrastructure and starving its civilian populace if they didn't rise up and overthrow their government) poses a pretty strong case for arguing that when Bill O'Reilly makes comments that sound genocidal on the surface, it's a fair bet they're genocidal underneath too, as he has a history of making such comments. Maybe the quote about Iran that got me on my high horse was out of step with his other comments, but that doesn't mean he didn't mean what he said - ever heard of Freudian slips?

Well, thanks for the discussion SMG. I appreciate your time and effort. I realise we're never going to agree on our picture of world geopolitics (for example, I don't agree in any way with your explanation of Bolton's motivations for making those comments), but you've certainly given me food for thought (or else I wouldn't have spent so much time and energy on this) and I hope I've done the same for you.

One final thing that should genuinely interest you - here's a link to an article from December 2005 which talks about a report published by the U.S. Army War College which recommends pressuring Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons program, rather than putting diplomatic or military pressure on Iran, in order to get Iran to cease pursuing nuclear technology. It's called "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran" and if you stick that title into Google, you can download the full report from the Department of Defence in PDF format. I'm going to have a read through it now. I wonder why there's been so little mention of that report in the mainstream media? ;)

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2005/ss_israel_12_14.html

Thanks again for your time, and best wishes, Czarner

Gaius Baltar - Silly little cheerleaders belong on the sidelines of football games, not political discussions. If you want to add something to the conversation then by all means do so, but these inane and pointless comments of yours are only making you look foolish and immature.

Are you an Islamic Nazi sympathizer Czarner?
I mean why do you care so much about those Nazis.
In WW2 we levelled Germany and Japan.
Was that unjust?

Czarner, my intellectual knowledge surpasses your little peasant peanut brain.
I don't have to lower myself to your pathetic level.
I just laugh at everyone schooling you in here.
I am a genius you are ignorant.
Same goes for Nathan Arizona, Trekkie, Non Factor and Swash!
My intellect far exceeds all of your brain matter put together.
I am a giant you're all peons!

Once again Czarner and the Olbermaniancs can't answer my challegnge.
Ha ignorant peasants!

This thread is now closed.