a decision to go to war and a desire to go to war are two different things.

No serious person except for loons (and if you listen carefully you can hear their little fingers typing as you read this) believes that Bush wanted to go to war. He believed, rightly or not, that we needed to remove the Iraqi regime.

Having to do something and wanting to do something are two entirely different things.

As all of us learned once our parents kicked us out of the house.

SMG

a decision to go to war and a desire to go to war are two different things.

No serious person except for loons (and if you listen carefully you can hear their little fingers typing as you read this) believes that Bush wanted to go to war. He believed, rightly or not, that we needed to remove the Iraqi regime.

Having to do something and wanting to do something are two entirely different things.

As all of us learned once our parents kicked us out of the house.

SMG

The worst prob with Countdown is that it bumps valid criticism of the government off the table.

It seems to be getting a little more extreme. For a moment I thought I say Andrea Mitchell winch tonight.

For a moment I thought I saw Andrea Mitchell wince tonight.

That must mean her botox is wearing off. Does it bother anyone else that a woman so dopey and leftist had the ear of Greenspan all those years?

OK, I am new to this site and I love it! Please tell me which Olbermann cover-up is 40 days old. Thank you!

I agree with some previous posts that Olbermann is getting a little bit extreme.....almost to the point that he wants the bias to be recognized. However, the problem arises (for MSNBC) when their reporters appear on his show to report a story. It further hurts their credibility and exposes the bias that exists in NBC because these same reporters appear on other shows (ie Today, Nightly News, etc). I think we just need to let the ratings do the talking and remember one ratio, 7:1(2.3Million to 400,000), that is the number of viewers O'Reilly averages per night versus his competitior , KO. I have stopped watching Countdown completely because it is frustrating to sit there and watch a person undermine our President and not be able to respond. I prefer to get a synopsis of his show from this website instead.

Great Job, keep up the good work!!! Let the Countdown of KO's ratings begin....400,000, 399,999, 399,998.....!

ObserverDan, all you have to do is go back 40 days and read the article in our archives. To make it a bit more expedicious, look at February 16.

johnny dollar thank you.

Why did you intentionally misquote Fineman in regards to "criminaliz[ing]" illegal immigration?

He didn't say that? Then what did he say?

Johnny

I didn't catch the whole Schivo repeat. But You said he didn't mention Jackson. Olby may have cut that part out. Check the original text if you can. Somewhere I remember Schivo saying Jackson's name and Olby doing a quick step..

it's bad for Republicans.
Are you claiming its not?

Howie twice referenced Republicans trying to "criminalize" illegal immigration.

Let's get the facts straight, JD. Fineman said Republicans were trying to "criminalize the presence of illegal immigration." This implies more than the fact that illegal immigration is illegal, it also brings in the point about making it illegal for people to aid and abet illegal immigrants, which, IIRC, is one of the proposals before Congress. He further clarified it later by pointing out that "criminalizing the presence" endangers the concept of the silly "guest worker" program put forth by Bush.

another one of those memos that he finds so conclusively authentic
Why shouldn't he? It's certainly believable. It even confirms the Downing Street Memo (which the MSM, for the most part, ignored). You left out the fact that Andrea Mitchell pointed out that the memo had not been 'contradicted' and that it had been "confirmed from one other source"

a decision to go to war and a desire to go to war are two different things.
Have you bothered to read the memo? You certainly didn't post anything from the memo to contradict KO. Instead, it seems KO was spot on (from the memo):
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Which, BTW, was the same thing the Downing St. memo said.

In the #4 slot, a recycled NBC report dealt with port security.
First I've seen about it. That's all you have to say? Nothing about how wrong KO was for airing a report about how the government failed to notice attempts to get a dirty bomb through security, or how the administration has failed to guard this country like they claimed they would?

And Olby finally got around to mentioning the Moussaoui trial again. Of course it was only a few sentences.
Few? Nice spin there. Technically, few is a small or limited number. So 'few' would be correct if you compare it with a large number. Most people see it as a little more than a 'couple' but he certainly said more than a 'few' sentences.

Radmod, if you would post under one name instead of changing your handle within the course of a half hour, it would be easier to carry on a conversation.

> it's bad for Republicans. Are you claiming its not?

I didn't claim anything. I said that's the spin he chose. It's not the only analysis out there. Read Mickey Kaus, a Democrat who has a different take on it.

> You certainly didn't post anything from the memo to contradict KO.

I didn't say KO contradicted the memo. I said KO contradicted himself, claiming that the memo was evidence that Bush was wrong when he said "No President wants war". That's because he slyly equates deciding that war is inevitable with WANTING to start a war. That's either lazy, sloppy, ignorant thinking, or deliberate spin. Guess which one I think it is.

> Fineman said Republicans were trying to "criminalize the presence of illegal immigration."

How is that different from what I wrote? The presence of illegal immigration is "illegal" right now. IT ALREADY IS A CRIME. Maybe if I use CAPS you will be able to absorb that information more fully. Fineman acts like all these illegals in our borders are not criminals, and only the evil Republicans want to turn these law-abiding pacificists into law-breakers. They are ALREADY law-breakers. Their very presence in this country is a CRIME.

I'm surprised I have to explain this stuff.

> he certainly said more than a 'few' sentences.

One portentious, irrelevant introductory sentence. Four sentences on the trial. Two more on Richard Reed. Zero sentences explaining to people why he reported on the judge throwing out the aviation testimony last week but never reported when the judge put it back in.

Interesting posting about the Schiavo interview, also ridiculous.
it's time for another visit to the Countdown archives for news not from yesterday, or even last week. Here we see you imply that KO is regurgitating old news for his own benefit. You have completely left out that (from MSNBC) "Michael Schiavo ... sit[s] down for their first network interview with NBC News’ Matt Lauer to tell their side of the story" and that he has a book out.

KO kept calling this Schiavo's "first cable interview", pretending like he had never aired part of it before.
a) It was Schiavo's first cable interview, and
b) Pretense is an opinion, in this case, a faulty opinion.
It was clear to me that this was an old interview (I had never seen the original, nor knew it existed). Earth to JD, when you score something like "Schiavo's first cable interview" you play it up as much as possible. You're damned near required to, to stay in the business.

oops, left out a blackslash. Mea culpa.

KO kept calling this Schiavo's "first cable interview", pretending like he had never aired part of it before. Which he did, back in early February, only to be slapped down by NBC President Steve Capus, who ordered him to hold it until the Today Show interview ran.

Since you mention it in the second sentence here, you obviously know the reason KO was calling it "Schiavo's first cable interview". Of course the truth is not dastardly enough for you, so you have to throw out the unfounded "pretending like he had never aired part of it before".

Tell me, does Keith Olbermann ever do anything not underhanded and evil in your opinion, or is your world completely black and white?

Do you ever compare the reasoning behind this site with your accusations of him? Pot, kettle, black, my friend.

I fully support constructive criticism, but the displays here are just mean-spirited, short-sighted, and laughable.

Radmod, if you would post under one name instead of changing your handle within the course of a half hour, it would be easier to carry on a conversation.
I don't when I'm being myself. You know why I posted just a question.

I said KO contradicted himself, claiming that the memo was evidence that Bush was wrong when he said "No President wants war"
Actually, you didn't say that at all. Instead, as you are doing now, you are saying that 'want' and 'decision' are two different things. That is true. However, 'decision' doesn't come into play. Bush said he didn't 'want' war yet the memo clearly indicates otherwise. Therefore, KO was correct and there was no contradication. The key, in case you missed it, was the "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That, with the previous 'want', indicates desire not necessity.

How is that different from what I wrote?
I see you completely ignored what I wrote. If you want to prove you are correct that what you said and what Fineman said then contradict what I posted, just don't repeat yourself.

I'm not really surprised I have to explain this stuff to you. That is, I know you know that's how things work, but I'm not surprised that you are not responding to my comments correctly.

@ JD

Am enjoying your clarifications of the whoopy-cushion arguments of radmod and ilk.

It's an interesting exercise contrasting the left's response to this reported British memo against their response (such as it is) to the memos and documents reportedly showing connections between Iraq/Saddam and al-Qaeda/OBL.

The Iraqi documents, the argument goes, must be fake, or inaccurate, or exagerrations, or a thousand-and-one other excuses. But the British memo is an accurate, 100% characterization of Bush's mindset and inner thoughts.

So we have on the one hand folks doing triple rhetorical somersaults to exculpate Saddam Hussein and on the other hand the same folks abandoning all critical thought (if we can even call it that) to inculpate George Bush.

Because after all, for many on the left, the real enemy is George Bush and not Islamic terrorism.

Amazing really.

SMG..

No, we don't have to do rhetorical somersaults to interpret the difference between these two sets of documents. We don't need a crystal ball, or to hold them up to a fancy light. One set has had its authenticity knocked down by government officials - on the record.
Another set has been confirmed as authentic by government officials - on the record.
You seem to see "one memo over here, another memo over here" / that doesn't make them comparable.

Think for yourself, simpleton.

Hillary Clinton's immigration comments, which KO developed into a "what would Jesus do" formulation. Other politicians have raised that question regarding abortion, gay marriage, or a myriad of social issues,

I already explained this vis-a-vis Senator Clinton's remarks: when you rely on Scripture to criicize or praise a policy, there is no conflict. If use use Scripture as the foundation to create new policy, there's a problem.

Included a mention of Tom Delay--When you are indicted of a felony in Texas you are not permited to continue to carry a weapon. Tom Delay has been indicted on felony charges, and is still under investigation. It all stems from this administration being suspect of outing a covert C.I.A agent Valerie Plame. Remember her???

I had not realized until our anonymous poster (and isn't it interesting that the most "interesting" posts are always done anonymously?) above told me that any and every document that comes out of Iraq from now to eternity showing connections between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda is completely and totally false.

The material just cannnot be believed.

Because "government officials" told us so (I assume he means, in part, the 9/11 Commission).

Despite the fact that these "government officials" never saw or examined these documents. Since the documents have just been released.

And despite the fact that some of these "government officials", having heard of these documents for the first time, have reconsidered their earlier statements.

And despite the fact that, as we all know, historians and scholars and "government officials" are always updating history or a recitation of the past based on the discovery of new materials, new documents, new evidence.

And, of course, "government officials" have never been wrong before.

But on the other hand, this British memo reporting on the inner thoughts of Bush, now that's a completely accurate document outlining Administration policies and decisions before the war began. It's a totally objective and empirically-based report on US policies.

In no way it is inaccurate or wrong.

Can all the above really be true?

Sorry, I think I'll pass on this one.

Next?

SMG

> You have completely left out that (from MSNBC) "Michael Schiavo ... sit[s] down for their first network interview with NBC News’ Matt Lauer to tell their side of the story" and that he has a book out.

Why should I talk about Schiavo's interview with Matt Lauer when it wasn't shown on Countdown? Countdown ran Olby's interview, not Lauer's.

> b) Pretense is an opinion, in this case, a faulty opinion.

Well, if Olby told his viewers this was a rerun of something he first aired almost two months ago, perhaps you can point that out in the transcript.

> I'm not surprised that you are not responding to my comments correctly.

Hmm. What would be "correctly"? How about if I said: "I retract everything I said. Keith Olbermann is the most fair, unbiased journalist on tv and radmod has completely demolished everything I've written"? Would you call that a "correct" response? All I have to do is swallow Krazy Keith's spin, propaganda, and slanted presentations, and then my response suddenly becomes "correct"?

That's not how it works.

I'm taking bets on whether Rep.McDermott (D) will be the worst person in the world. I know its a slam dunk. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002895236_webmcdermott28.html

I just looked out my office window and no pigs were flying.
----
Out of curiousity, what is the defense for why KK never names a dem or lib as worst person? I'm sure there is an anwer, I just can't imagine what it could possibly be.

Americans are tired of investigations and scandal. The best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and integrity to the White House.
George Bush-September 15,2000
Sometimes I swear this guy is a prophit.

Americans are tired of investigations and scandal. The best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and integrity to the White House.
George Bush-September 15,2000
Sometimes I swear this guy is a prophet.

Sometimes I swear this guy is a prophit.

Sometimes I swear this guy is a prophet.

The above is the blog posting equivalent of hitting your head on the door as you leave the room.

Nothing really more to say except, "Damned, that's quite a bump on your head."

Be careful out here, Bluefire, I have a prophecy that one day you're going to really hurt yourself.

Your loss is, dare I say, our profit.

SMG

Keith Olbermann finished third out four in the latest quarterly 25-54 ratings. In a very humorous spin move, MSNBC's underworked P.R. department is touting this as a "win over CNN's Paula Zahn," a superior journalist in every respect. Pro-MSNBC sites like TVNewser are spinning the same way. Sadly, the facts are that Olbermann finished third, while clearly benefiting from February's Olympics. Here are the facts about Olbermann's lackluster performance.

Quarter 1: 25-54 demographic.

Bill O'Reilly: 450,000
Nancy Grace: 167,000
Keith Olbermann: 164,000
Paula Zahn: 158,000

Geez - Speaking of hurt, I can see who the TRUTH really hurts.
(Dare I say)---No you wouldn't. Not if you were smart.

olbermann loses ratings, again - where are you getting those numbers? TV Newser has it at:

Countdown averaged 164,000 total viewers in the quarter, up 41% from Q1 2005. Zahn averaged 158,000 demo viewers (down 33 percent), according to MSNBC. Bill O'Reilly averaged 450,000 in the demo (down 24 percent).

Olbermann also beat Headline News star Nancy Grace in the demo. According to program ranker data, Grace averaged 154,000 demo viewers...

olbermann loses ratings, again - where are you getting those numbers? TV Newser has it at:

Countdown averaged 164,000 total viewers in the quarter, up 41% from Q1 2005. Zahn averaged 158,000 demo viewers (down 33 percent), according to MSNBC. Bill O'Reilly averaged 450,000 in the demo (down 24 percent).

Olbermann also beat Headline News star Nancy Grace in the demo. According to program ranker data, Grace averaged 154,000 demo viewers...

Geez - Speaking of hurt, I can see who the TRUTH really hurts.
(Dare I say)---No you wouldn't. Not if you were smart.

Oy. My post was entirely tongue-in-cheek.

I guess that self-inflicted bump on your head from the prophit/prophet post is making you woozy.

SMG

TVNewser corrected those numbers hours ago. Grace had 167,000 in the demo, which beats Olbermann and relegates him to a third place finish in a period where MSNBC experienced significant ratings boosts from the Olympics.

TVNewser corrected those numbers hours ago. Grace had 167,000 in the demo, which beats Olbermann and relegates him to a third place finish in a period where MSNBC experienced significant ratings boosts from the Olympics.

Hahaha

"Howard Fineman echo that take. Howie twice referenced Republicans trying to "criminalize" illegal immigration. Um, Mr Fineman? Illegal immigration is already a crime. That's why they call it "illegal"."

Someone needs a copy of Black's Law Dictionary. The word criminalize doesn't refer to something being illegal, it refers to the degree to which the law is enforced and offenders prosecuted. For example, if marijuana were "decriminalized" that doesn't mean it would be legal. It means the law would be rarely enforced and the punishment for anyone caught would be lessened, probably to just a misdemeanor.

Sigh. Ignorance.

I am sorry but you are very mistaken. A crime is a crime, whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony. To de-criminalize means to remove criminal sanctions, not lessen them. If the penalty for rape is reduced from 10 years to 5 years or even 90 days, rape has not been decriminalized. If the penalty for illegal immigration is raised from a misdemeanor to a felony, that does not "criminalize" it. It's already a crime.

That's why even misdemeanors are part of the CRIMINAL statutes. Of course, I only prosecuted criminals for 25 years, so perhaps my ignorance of the subject is superseded by your insights.

I really wish I knew what flavor of Kool Aid you right wing nuts drink. I cant believe you actually argue the point of decision and desire when everyone knows the killer Bush wanted to go to war. You all are a bunch of losers.