So, Mayfield tells the President that:

I don't think anyone can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very, very grave concern.

and Olbermann believes that means that the President was definitely told that the levees would fail or be breached.

Even if we substitute the word "breach" for "topped", Mayfield told Bush that he couldn't say whether or not that would occur. He didn't tell Bush that it would occur; he didn't know. Bush was told, in this scenario, that Mayfield didn't know whether they would be breached.

So even using "topped" and "breached" synonymously, Olbermann is reaching.

This is a fundamentally unfair criticism of the President on this matter. Lots of blame to assign him and his Administration in this disaster.

But this isn't one of them.

SMG

Awww, poor cons don't like that Bush lied to the American people and good commentators like Keith are calling him on it.

Wow, Bush lied about what he knew the the American People, and you just glaze right over that and say that Keith's delivery of it was bad (when mind you that FOX, CNN, and others on MSNBC did the same).

And if you honestly can't see the humor in Keith's Worst Person in the World segment, something is wrong with you.

Let me correct my big error.

Bush's statement after the hurricane hit and the levees failed was that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees". Not that he wasn't told that they would be breached.

I was under the assumption that he stated that no one told him that the levees would fail and not that they could fail.

According to former FEMA Chief Brown, Bush asked about breaches after the hurricane hit.

Bush didn't tell the truth on this one.

SMG

No one could have anticipated the levees breaching. No one could have anticipated terrorists hijacking planes and using them as missiles. No one could have expected the uprising of a few dead enders in the last throes in Iraq...
Yet Keith Olbermann is wrong? Olbermann pisses you off? What fucking planet do you live on???
Olbermann hosts a TV show. Bush has truly screwed this country and the planet.

Who are these NonFactor and Swashsucker characters? I guess old Brocky over at Media Matters sent out two of his interns (and yes by the looks of it, these two have earned their Monica credentials with gold old Davey) to tout the company line for Olber.

"What an audacious, brazen bit of spin this is!"

The following was from the undisputed king of spin: the Fox News web site:

"In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage. "

Hmm, there's that word again. But it's from Fox. Well, I guess that's just ducky with you.

Seriously, just skip this topic. Bush really screwed up here. People died while Bush played guitar for cameras. Don't bother with a defense. It only damages your own credibility.

"It was another variation on an old theme: display a screenshot showing a question that was up for discussion."

Of course you skip stating what the caption was (your usual M.O.), a particularly offensive caption since people are dead there in what could very likely be a civil war. You actually could have made a decent attempt at a point if you weren't so eager to insult above all else.

""Worst" was Nancy Grace, for supposedly padding her resume."

Nope, wrong again. What a surprise! She wasn't accused for padding a resume, but for padding the details of her fiance's death. The fiance's death was bad enough, but as Mr. Olbermann's noted, why make the details worse? (I'll continue the explanation: unless you were trying to use the death as a media based opportunity. And you claim she's a conservative. Well then, that explains her actions.)

"He called in Joe Tacopina to analyze the legalities of it and--surprise!--Tacopina took Stern's side."

He called in Joe Tacopina who was--surprise!--a Bush supporter for the 2004 election. Stated this on Imus. While this wasn't relevant for this interview, it should be noted for those who think only liberals are welcome on Countdown.

It should also be noted that I mentioned in yesterday's blog's comments that Mr. Olbermann had an entertainment magazine employee discussing legal matters instead of an attorney. Today, voila, an attorney appears. Thus, it is possible this space might, however remote the possibility, may have the ear (or eye) of a certain Countdown staff member. If the host of this site, with ego so immense and talent so miniscule, could just grow up and offer legitimate constructive criticism without so much arrogance, he might find purpose in an otherwise unfulfilled existance.

Oh, what am I thinking? Your boss wouldn't allow maturity, would he?

"Who are these NonFactor and Swashsucker characters? I guess old Brocky over at Media Matters sent out two of his interns (and yes by the looks of it, these two have earned their Monica credentials with gold old Davey) to tout the company line for Olber. "

Can't argue on the facts, eh? So I guess you only resort is libelous character assisinations.

My apologies: I meant "assassinations"

As Popular Mechanics reported:
"The response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall."

And that:

"While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state."

As a resident of the Gulf Coast who travelled through some of the coast area after the hurricane hit, I can't emphasize enough how devastating this hurricane was. Huge swaths of the coast, from Louisiana to the western reaches of Alabama were just wiped out.

The Bush Administration deserves a D- for their response. I'm certainly not going to defend them. But I can't see how much of the most severe damages - including loss of life - could have been mitigated once the storm hit. It was just too strong and too destructive to deal with.

And because of the unpredictability of these storms (I've been through about 15 of them), it's impossible to pre-position much supplies or aid. If you place material in the wrong place, you run the risk of the hurricane destroying the supplies.

But the easiest thing to do is just blame Bush, I guess. The neocons, the cons, whatever. But wait until the Democrats re-gain power; let's see them deal with some of these problems.

SMG

Hey Truth( Is that really you Davey or Olby).

"He called in Joe Tacopina who was--surprise!--a Bush supporter for the 2004 election. Stated this on Imus. While this wasn't relevant for this interview, it should be noted for those who think only liberals are welcome on Countdown."

Just did a search of the FEC.gov contribution database and could not find any contributions by this individual to any republican. I could go on IMUS and say I am the Pope but that does not make it a fact. Nice Try.

I watched the segment with Olby and Wolffe and good old Obly was trying to draw the analogy with Bush and Nixon and the Rose Mary Woods incident with the tapes. What the hell does Nixon have to do with this?

Now if this is what you consider a character assassination, to bad.

The tapes are damaging. Even more damaging is the fact that now that everyone is looking at them, the White House decides to release transcripts from the following day. Transcripts that were "lost" and "unavialable" when the Congressional committee tasked to look at Katrina preparations asked for them. But now that the President has to explain himself, they suddenly appear as if conjured from thin air?

The President's credibility on disaster prep was already shot long before today. This just makes it worse.

As for the Fox News bit - Cavuto's theme was that the media jumped in and started calling it a civil war. Well, what should we call what's happening in Iraq? It fits the very definition of a "civil war" - a conflict in which two factions of the same country battle for control of the country. Not to mention that CNN, MSNBC and Fox News have been calling it excatly that for the past week and a half.

> you just glaze right over that and say that Keith's delivery of it was bad

It wasn't bad. It was wrong. He lied about what was in the video. Why don't you watch it again and point out where anyone talked about breaching the levees?

> Hmm, there's that word again. But it's from Fox. Well, I guess that's just ducky with you.

Try to understand this, although I know it's difficult for some. This is a site about Keith Olbermann. It's not about Fox News, except when Olby decides to smear them. If it were about Fox, I'd point out that the article you reference is just a reprinting of the Associated Press story, which also quotes nobody from those tapes talking about a breach. But is this site about how the AP reports? NO. It's about Keith Olbermann, making up news, fictionalizing the news that is in those tapes, just so he could run the old bush "breach the levees" clip again.

> Of course you skip stating what the caption was (your usual M.O.)

For a guy who calls himself "the truth" you are pretty good at not telling it. I went through the whole business of quoting the caption and comparing it with the actual discussion the last time Olby and his friend David Brock used this trick. I'm not going to do it every time because: 1. once the ploy has been exposed, readers who can grasp things will know how the trick works, and B. I don't have the time.

> Joe Tacopina who was--surprise!--a Bush supporter for the 2004 election

Oh wow. Irrelevant fact #89.

>It should be noted for those who think only liberals are welcome on Countdown.

When they invite Joe Tacopina in to defend the Bush administration and argue against The Liar's spin and propaganda, then you have a point. When his only purpose is to serve Olby's talking points of the evening, and is not allowed to say anything that might reveal a conservative point of view, that is numbingly immaterial.

> it is possible this space might, however remote the possibility, may have the ear (or eye) of a certain Countdown staff member.

The first thing you said that makes even one minute of sense, but not for the reasons you state.

> If the host of this site, with ego so immense and talent so miniscule

That's pretty bold talk for someone who's never even met the host of this site, and knows nothing about him. Or do you know more about Mr Cox than you are saying?

> Cavuto's theme was that the media jumped in and started calling it a civil war.

It was? Who was involved in the discussion? What did they say? How do you know? Did you watch the segment? Let me answer that for you (if I'm wrong, I'll apologize): NO!

The level of discourse here has gone down the tubes since Brock's Brigade (as good a name for them as any) showed up here to provide "balance". You call could at least make a token effort to stay on topic and address issues logically. Here's a suggested issue for you to rattle around tonight:

Why did Keith Olbermann rewrite the words of Max Mayfield? Why did he claim that the tapes show the President being warned of a "breach" when they only showed him being warned of a "topping"? Was it just so he could rerun that old "breeched" clip of Bush's?

I invited the guys from BB to take their best shot at this. And please, do not cite other news sources that adopted the same spin. If everyone on the planet said the same thing, that still wouldn't make Olby right. Have fun.

yours truly, johnny dollar

You know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of all the other stuff that the liberals try to pin on Bush but never sticks. As far as Im concerned you can take these "tapes" and toss them in the pile of other crap that wouldn't stick like the downing street memos, Bush lied about Iraq, warentless wiretaps and now this.

You know I seem to remember some of you saying that if you don't like Olby then change the channel. Well if you don't like Olbermann Watch why not go to another website?

Johnny Dollar - I did watch the Cavuto show, and that is exactly what they were talking about. You criticize someone for not watching a show when it appears you haven't even watched it yourself.

A breach of the levees, to me at least, means the same thing as a topping. I can see why Keith said it, if levees are breached water has broken through them, and if they are topped then water has gone past the top of the levees.

I can't believe even conservatives can be defending President Bush here for lying about him having any knowledge about what would happen to the levees.

Donna Fiducia just reported on a Fox News Alert that the tape shows that the President and Chertoff "were warned that Katrina could breach levees...". Was she spinning as well? I guess you'll just have to start Fiduciawatch.

You guys should also remember that the big conservative newspapermen like Robert Novak and the network newscasts will likely ignore the story. They are simply apathetic that peoples's lives had been endangered by an unresponsive administration.

In the posts to come, I expect even more attacks against me. The Katrina comments proves we can get things done. And that kind of power threatens the right wing media establishment which loathes us because we hold them accountable for their selective reporting and spin. Outlets like Fox continue to cheap-shot liberals and Democrats on a daily basis. The boss over there, far-right puppet master Rupert Murdoch, has virtually destroyed that network as a credible source of information.

I am so over that uncle tom buck o neil and crybaby keith.I am a liberal but if he is the best we can we are in trouble.

I challenge anyone to show me a worse excuse for news and i still watch it.

you are so right about the stern turnaround and so wrong about the uberbitch grace.

Well I just watched the video about Bush being briefed on Katrina from Foxnews.com and they did the same thing as Olby. In the caption for the video it says "Officials told president hurricane could breach levees, risk lives, but he assured them the government was ready, video shows" but in the video itself the hurricane expert never says breached he says topped.

For you liberals who dont know the difference lets do an at home study. Fill up your bath tub with water. Once filled all the way to the top put something really big in the tub. See how the water goes over the top of the rim and gets some onto the floor? That's what the hurricane expert said could happen. Now take a big hammer and smash a big hole in the side of your tub. Now see how all the water got all over the floor? That's what happened in New Orleans but it's not what Bush was told. MSNBC and Fox News and probably CNN all screwed up, I read a report from BBC who never uses the word "breach" so they may be the only sane ones in this instance. The fact that Ray Nagin was "shocked" when he saw the tape should give you a clue of how unimportant this story is.

Wow, eddie, if you're a liberal as you say you are, you're a flat out disgrace. Buck O'Neill is a baseball hero.

Yeah, Bush just lied again to the American public, and we have conservatives coming out of the woodwork saying it's no big deal, and arguing whether the President was still telling the truth because he heard one guy on one tape say that levees could be topped... Get over it, he lied, he's lied before, and he'll probably lie again. Quit defending him and just admit that he's screwed up a few things and get on with it.

Well if he is a hero he doesn't act like one "thanks for having old buck come over" give it a rest keith.you don't have to be a liberal or a baseball fan to know two phonies.

> I did watch the Cavuto show, and that is exactly what they were talking about. You criticize someone for not watching a show when it appears you haven't even watched it yourself.

Well you're wrong on that. I did see it. And I could answer the questions about it, like how many people were on that segment and who they were. So far everything you told me can be found on the Media Matters website. And of course, now that Cavuto has been rerun, you could be backdooring your experience of having viewed it earlier. But if you really did watch it, I apologize. But if you did, you didn't watch it very carefully if that's what you thought Cavuto's theme was.

> Donna Fiducia just reported...
> In the caption for the video it says "Officials told president hurricane could breach levees...

Just after I tried to explain to you people not to argue that "so-and-so did it, so it's OK". Please try to focus, like a laser beam. Did Olby misrepresent what was in the video or not? Did he say "breach" when the tape only said "topping"? Was it just an excuse to drag out the old Bush "breach the levees" clip? If you're going to defend Olby, please do so on the merits of what he did, not the "everybody does it" defense. The AP may be responsible for the original misreporting, but it was Olby who ran the tape and, both before and after it aired, deliberately lied about what it contained.

Johnny while you and I both know the difference between topping and breaching the liberals on this site only hear what they want to hear and that's Bush telling a lie. I mean I make a post about the difference between topping and breaching and what does nonfactor say? "Bush lied." I challenge any liberal to tell me where in the video anyone tells Bush that the leeves could be breached. If that is anywhere in the video then I will join you in calling Bush a liar. Now seeing as how I've seen the video and the word is not used I wish you good luck.

Johnny while you and I both know the difference between topping and breaching the liberals on this site only hear what they want to hear and that's Bush telling a lie.

This is like a riddle I heard once: a man jumps off the top of a thirty-story building. Halfway down a stray bullet strikes him in the head and kills him before he crashes into the sidewalk. Suicide or homicide? The answer is homicide, but often people say "does it matter? Either way the guy's dead".

Bush is told that the levees might be topped and that it's a grave concern. The levees breach instead. Topped or breached, does it matter? The city is still flooded. People still died.

Bush was told they were concerned about the impact of the hurricane on the levees. He had the opportunity to ask questions at the briefing. During the entire briefing Bush asked zero questions.

And you didn't adress my point about the "found" transcript the White House leaked after the AP story hit.

Okay, the conservatives here are going to claim that Bush didn't lie under the pose that "breach" and "top" are two completly different things.

But say the administration comes out later in the week, or even later after that, and admits that they did have prior information, then what?

And why would it be a grave concern if the levees were topped? The man obviously meant topped as (according to dictionary.com):
# To go over the top of.
# To exceed or surpass.

Bottom line - Bush knew, but still claimed he didn't, just as many things before have been lied about.

Olberman is the magnet for viable crutique by conservative,He reminds me of the old adage "this be the worst treason,to do the rirht thing for the wrong reason".The irony is that with all 190,000 viewers his disingenous self promoting rantins draw this anount of talk about him,And I plead guilty.

Just after I tried to explain to you people not to argue that "so-and-so did it, so it's OK".
-----
Ah, I get it, Johnny DeutchMark, we can only argue what you tell us and not what is correct.
How fair and balanced of you.

But say the administration comes out later in the week, or even later after that, and admits that they did have prior information, then what?

And why would it be a grave concern if the levees were topped? The man obviously meant topped as (according to dictionary.com):
# To go over the top of.
# To exceed or surpass.

If they come out weeks later and admit they had prior information? Sounds like spin to me sir. You want to see it your way so you set up a hypothetical situation where you are automatically right? Yep that's some grade A spin, KO would be proud.

But what's the difference between topped and breached? Well topped would mean only the water higher then the leeves would enter the city, breached means all of it enters. Like I said with the bathtub, if you let the water overflow it's not as bad as smashing a hole in the side so that it all comes through.

I give this story 2 weeks before it turns out to be as important as the downing street memos.

you are one excuse-makin motherfucker

congratulations on taking spin to new heights with your "breech v. topping" argument. You don't really think that, do you? If you do, you're an idiot. If you don't, you're a bush-apologist jerkoff.

Why didn't Olbermann use the words the man said? Why did he rewrite the man's words?

topping is breaching and vice versa. You can only mince words for so long. Would you rather they directly said "the 17th st canal will breach."

When levees are topped, the integrity of the whole structure is compromised, then they BREACH. your argument equates to one saying "well no one said people would be CRUSHED to death by a falling building, they just a plan would fly into a building. "

topping and breaches are as much cause and effect as anything. When a levee is submurged, it breaches, and if it doesn't you know the likelihood it will is greatly increased. even if you are lucky and it doesn't, you've still got a pretty big problem on your hand.

You are REALLY REALLY streching here, and i think you know that.

if you follow your logic, and buy into your argument, then our president is a dolt who has to have EVERYTHING s p e l l e d out for him. slowly and carefully. Fine, i buy it. Bush is dumb. You win.

One more quick question b/f i go to bed - what is you're excuse for the transcripts that the white house would not give to the cong. investigation committee, but made public today. what reason besides damage control can you possibly give?

god - you idiots are keeping me up:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_27.html#083003

breaches and topping

I just "discovered" this sight and it does my heart good to see the Olbermeister's stupidity being take to task. I watch his sorry excuse for a show in small doses just for fun. Mr Olber is a never ending source of amusement and moments when I just stare at the TV screen with my mouth open thinking to myself how can someone so very juvenile and anal have his own TV show.
Yesterday's self inflicted Olbergasm over the pre- Katrina meeting was just another example of how Olbernut goes spastoid over any anti Bush news. I know he is just in lockstep with the rest of the left wingnuts but his TV "show" gives him unfettered voice to whine and rant in his darling metrosexual way.
I find myself thinking everyday after his "show" "how can a man like this have a TV show"?? His very obvious jealousy about his rivals ratings is like watching a five year old sniveling. If not for fact that I loathe Herr Olbermester so much I would almost feel sorry him. He is truly pathetic.

I think Olbermann and all you moonbats are right! Although Nagin and Blanco did nothing, and had to be told by Bush to evacuate the city in advance, this is all Bush's fault. Olbermann needs to concentrate on Bush and Bush alone as he is the one who makes all decisions. Of course he is a chimp and a dope, but he still is the one who should know what to do in a local crisis rather than the brilliant Democrat local politicians. He should also understand levee dynamics better than the people who live in the area and are in charge of public safety and maintenance of the levees.

I can see why Olbermann and his proxies here are so focused on Bush. After all, as the Mayor of the city, and as the Governor of the State, you do not have to be responsible for anything that happens. Obviously, Nagin and Blanco merely lived in the State and had no information on potential levee problems prior to Katrina. Nobody need ask Nagin and Blanco about breeching and topping! They just work in Louisiana. They aren't the bosses! Bush is the boss. Wherever something happens in this country, Bush needs to be held accountable. The sole focus on Bush is both necessary and warranted! Never mind the fact that BUSH HAD TO TELL NAGIN TO EVACUATE IN ADVANCE:

In accordance with the “City of New Orleans Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan” – a blueprint drawn up to deal with emergencies like this one – all “Authority to issue evacuations of elements of the population is vested in the Mayor.” The document specifically states, “The person responsible for recognition of hurricane related preparation needs and for the issuance of an evacuation order is the Mayor of the City of New Orleans.” This outline does not mention any specific federal government’s role in disaster relief, instead carving out roles for state and municipal governments.

The National Hurricane Center called Nagin Saturday night asking him to evacuate New Orleans, and President Bush also begged him to get his people to safety. As mayor, the final decision was Nagin's. He was expected to issue such an order 48 hours before the storm made landfall; however, the storm touched down and the levees gave way less than 48 hours after his proclamation.

Moreover, he is to see that “Special arrangements will be made to evacuate persons unable to transport themselves or who require specific life saving assistance.” Yet some 205 buses, and perhaps a greater number of large transit vehicles, were left stranded in a flooded parking lot. University of New Orleans professor Shirley Laksa had calculated some 125,000 residents do not have private transportation.

No no no -- all wrong! Bush lied and people died! HE KNEW and HE DIDN'T EVACUATE and HE IS THE CULPRIT!

Bush was aware that an evacuation was necessary and he pushed for one. Nagin and Blanco delayed, then bumbled through the aftermath. "Go to the Superdome" they cried. Then they kept supplies out to "encourage people to leave"! The already-corrupt police force fell apart. The former police chief now lives in ANOTHER STATE. Nagin lived in a hotel with cronies and spent his time telling us 10,000 were dead (lie), murderers roamed the streets killing wantonly (horrific exageration), screamed at Bush and sold out Blanco. Blanco went on TV and promptly cried. Bush wound up cleaning up the mess, but he is the one to blame.

No wonder Olby's ratings suck and Democrats don't win elections anymore.

> Who are these NonFactor and Swashsucker characters?

We are here to bring the truth to you fucked up cons. It's painful for you to see that your hero's administration is totally incompetent. They couldn't make a bowl of cereal without fucking it up, and they'd probably spend a thousand dollars for it. But someone has to help you see the light - and we're here to help.

Keith was giving props to the murderer of a competitor's fiance? That's extremely mean-spirited and a new low for Bad Karma Keith.

All you Bush bashers(KO included)consider this. As bad as you believe this President to be you still can't win. What in the world are you going to do when the Repubs field a "qualified" candidate.

Well, Swash, while you bringing us the truth in your most eloquent and polished style, perhaps you'd like at some point to address the point at hand

About.com dictionary defines breach as follows:

"breach (brēch)
n.

An opening, a tear, or a rupture.
A gap or rift, especially in or as if in a solid structure such as a dike or fortification.
A violation or infraction, as of a law, a legal obligation, or a promise.
A breaking up or disruption of friendly relations; an estrangement.
A leap of a whale from the water.
The breaking of waves or surf."

Is there a real difference between water spilling over a dam and water tearing a dam apart? Can anyone...friend or foe...make a reasonable case in saying that being warned that water could spill over the top of dam is not the same as being warned that the dam could be completely compromised? Wss the warning given by the National Weather service different from the one the media billed as being the warning?

Start bringing folks what you believe to be the truth by addressing the point that the site has made.

Keith was giving props to the murderer of a competitor's fiance?

Um, no. He was pointing out that the facts of the murder as Nancy Grace describes them don't match the facts as shown in the court records. How do you get "gloating" out of that?

Um, no. He was pointing out that the facts of the murder as Nancy Grace describes them don't match the facts as shown in the court records. How do you get "gloating" out of that?

Ah...we've gone from Olbermann via WPITW as being delightfully humorous and ironic to him being a crusading purveyor of truth at any price... And all by means of an MSNBC show conveniently geared towards outing those fallable souls who make up the enemies list of the host's fallable soul...and all aired nationally without a defense from the targeted enemy or from said enemy's friends.

Not exactly the stuff of Edward R. Murrow... or even Bill O'Reilly...

Nancy grace is lying, cross-eyed, screeching
whore.

"Nancy grace is lying, cross-eyed, screeching
whore."

Your Honor, the Prosecution rests...

It's funny watching posters trying conflate the meanings of "topping" and "breaching".

That is the only way to defend Olbermann in this case.

If they meant the same thing, why did Keith have to substitute one word for another?

If the word "breached" had been used, I would have LOOPED THAT ONE SENTENCE, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

But he didn't!! WHY? Because it would call attention to the fact that he DIDN'T say breached!
Instead, he included that comment with other dialogue to distract you from paying close attention to the SPECIFIC comment. Then when it was over, switch the two words. Nice try Keith!

Again, all levels of government including Bush dropped the ball. Bush did a BAD job during Katrina. But no, Bush did not anticipate that the levees would be BREACHED. Fair criticism is fine. Reaching for BS out of your backside is not.

Shame on Mr. Olbermann! I know if I had been the President and had been briefed like this I would have done exactly what he had done-- Go on Vacation! Shame, shame, on Mr. Olbermann for daring to criticize the arrogance, incompetence and deception of the "What me worry?" president.

Shame on Mr. Olbermann! I know if I had been the President and had been briefed like this I would have done exactly what he had done-- Go on Vacation! Shame, shame, on Mr. Olbermann for daring to criticize the arrogance, incompetence and deception of the "What me worry?" president.

Drane,

I'll say it again. How does it make you feel when you lose to this "what me worry", "idiot", "in a bubble" President. What does it really say about you and your side? Not pretty is it?

"Um, no. He was pointing out that the facts of the murder as Nancy Grace describes them don't match the facts as shown in the court records. How do you get "gloating" out of that?"

"Gloating"? Um, who are you quoting? The fact is that Olby made the murderer of Nancy Grace's fiance appear less heinous. Props to the murderer! As Olby put it, the murderer didn't even have a prior record and was "retarded". Olby is one warped mofo. nuf sed.

I haven't been able to get here and respond to a couple of comments that Cecelia made the other day so forgive me for doing it now.
The topic was my statement to the Nazi guy (see below) that libertarians should be closer, right now, to the Dems than the Reps.

>TRUE libertarians are not comfortable with candidate compromise and subterfuge on issues they care about. Liberals and conversatives are content with such election strategy compromises.
That is exactly right. For example, the Dems are proposing legislation that would eliminate third party candidacies. There's a difference between "comfortable with candidate compromise and subterfuge" and knowing it occurs. Yes, I would love it if they didn't compromise/subterfuge however that ain't political reality (YET!). The prob is that your beloved neo-cons are the masters at it while the Dems are just naive babes in the woods.

>She goes on to point out a few issues that Clinton and Kerry and I disagree with (patriot act, gay marriage, wiretapping, etc).
The prob with that is that these are issues that were not created by Dems but by Reps. These are issues that are part of the Rep platform, the things they talk up. Once again, the Reps far, far outweigh the Dems in their attempts to curtail civli liberties.

>As to propaganda, I don't know what's more telling about the validity of your claims to be a "libertarian" the fact that you refer to pundits and a writer as being "journalists"
I guess you missed that I said "supposed journalists". I used "journalists" as a catch all word. Would you rather I use "media spinners"? That's a stupid argument on your part.

>or that you fail to mention a very hot button issue for libertarians from way back. That the Clinton Administration got into trouble for making propagandistic policy infomericals designed to look like real news casts.
You mean like the Bushies are doing now? NOW, that's an important concept. Why would I discuss then instead of now? Are the Dems in power now? That alone should tell you that TRUE libertarians would ally with the party out of power.

But the nail in the coffin of your claim to be a libertarian has to the use of liberal rhetoric of tax breaks for the rich.
Liberal rhetoric? You get liberal rhetoric out of "where is the tax relief they offered? There has been some, mainly for the rich but the real answer is "Nowhere"
That is me simply pointing out that the Reps have NOT provided tax relief even though they are in power, but their masters get tax relief. I want tax relief for all! But if I can't get it for ALL, then I'm sure as hell gonna complain about one group getting it!
>There ain't no libertarians who oppose THAT my friend, let alone libertarians who don't seem to know that the tax cuts effected everyone, including the middle class, the return naturally being higher based upon level of income.
You're getting worse and worse there C. I said that their was 'some' tax releif but not enough. I did not claim there wasn't, but i bet you knew that. BTW, I know alot of libertarians who don't like tax cuts for the rich. Why? Because we know that they are the only ones that'll get them. Take for example SocSec. Social Security is "regressive," in that the poor pay proportionately more, or, at least, more than the super rich, whose payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount. I don't like "progressive" taxes, but I might even hate "regressive" ones more. Maybe I'm a bleeding-heart libertarian?

>A bunch more stuff that I got tired of even trying to read ...

>Individual libertarians make their own distinctions as to which party is worst according to their own pet peeves, etc but they don't use the rhetoric you've used. They tend to argue a pox on both houses... You don't seem to be at all aware of their bells and whistles and what's ignited their outrage since before Clinton.

I guess you also missed my comments like:
[a libertarian] does not ally with a majority party
A libertarian is all about choice

And also the whole point of this, it was in response to the Nazi saying
"Conservatives are my [a libertarian, LOL] fellow Right Wing Allies"
See, WE don't have right wing allies, but, currently, we do side with the liberals because they are out of power and the neo-cons haven't done anything we want with their power. You're politically blind if you didn't know that most libertarians if given a choice would take the Dems, right now, over the fascist Republicans.

Which brings us back to the Nazi. He claims that he is a libertarian nationalist. I have never met a libertarian who claims that. We say 'libertarian', not even 'national libertarian'. The libertarian nationalists are the current name for the Nazi party. THAT is smoke and mirrors.

Nancy Grace goes head to head with Olby. Is it any wonder he attacked her?

KO's bonhomie belies a very angry man who delights,childishly,in ridiculing others.He is especially fond of finding fault with those who have the temerity to challenge him.He is really a pathetic figure.

Which brings us back to the Nazi. He claims that he is a libertarian nationalist. I have never met a libertarian who claims that. We say 'libertarian', not even 'national libertarian'. The libertarian nationalists are the current name for the Nazi party. THAT is smoke and mirrors.

----
yup, truelibert. - that guy is a clown.I think pope might have had this guy in mind:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

"Which brings us back to the Nazi. He claims that he is a libertarian nationalist. I have never met a libertarian who claims that. We say 'libertarian', not even 'national libertarian'. The libertarian nationalists are the current name for the Nazi party."
----

Really? Wow, that's depressing.

I think that there technically is a such thing a libertarian nationalist. Bascially, a hawkish, interventionist libertarian. I think Neal Boortz qualifies. (And, no, I'm not calling Neal Boortz a Nazi.)

It amuses when conservatives automatically think that we are (or should be) on their side just because we oppose socialism, but anyone who thinks that it is not proper to be critical of a President (of either party), even during wartime, is not a libertarian.

The libertarian nationalists are the current name for the Nazi party.

Now wait a minute.  I looked this up.  You left something out.  It's actually "Libertarian Nationalist Socialist Green Party".  Not only are they Nazis, but they are, also, environmental terrorists.

That's different from someone calling himself a "libertarian nationalist".
 

The fact is that Olby made the murderer of Nancy Grace's fiance appear less heinous.

Because the facts of the case as she describes them are horribly inaccurate. Her reputation and her career are built on being this "crusader" for justice because of the fact that her fiance was killed and "justice" (in the mind of Ms. Grace) was not meted out.

But by all accounts, the man who did murder her fiance is serving a life sentence after confessing to the crime. The prosecutor wanted the death penalty, but the man's mental state was enough mitigation. He filed one appeal, a habeas petition which was denied.

That's a far cry from what Ms. Grace has said in the past.

. . . and she's Olby's competition.

Ann Coulter is Nancy Grace's competition. The lunatic fringe...

Pot . . . meet kettle

This latest meme here by the group whose purpose is to bring truth here to Olbermann Watch ... via obscenity laced posts, logical fallacies, and tangential screeds.... is that this is a "hate site".

Evidently Johnny is unaware that he is currently critiquing a MSNBC anchor person... who has become synonymous with characteristics such race, gender, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation.

What should we call this new status for Olbermann awarded to him by the Dungeons and Dragons--- "Make it so, Number One" set?

Title 666? :D

Lets see

a six month old tape that has been in everybody's hands since august. Now were gona bring this up? Are libs stockpiling dopey stuff to try to rewrite history? Naw they would never do that! Let me ask you libs this question. If this and as you're fair(lol) and balanced Olby says this is so damaging to (cue the dopey Ted Baxter voice) the Bush Administration. Why did you people sit on it for six months? And don't say the White House asked you. You already used that line.

And with drunk comments like the sloshbuckler, he must be friends with David Gregory. Nancy Grace has her own show, Ann Coulter? er...uh...oh! is Ann Comming to C.N.B.C.?...cool! Only because Olby couldn't bash in house LOL. Ann beating Olby I'd start hanging out at the G.W.B. just to watch the west side libs throwing themselves off the bridge!

Take for example SocSec. Social Security is "regressive," in that the poor pay proportionately more, or, at least, more than the super rich, whose payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount. I don't like "progressive" taxes, but I might even hate "regressive" ones more. Maybe I'm a bleeding-heart libertarian?>>>

No, you're a bleeding heart fraud.

Good lord! You don't even know the basics of how libertarians view the tax dollars of ANY socio-economic group being used for entitlement programs that arbitrarily transfer, by force of the gun, money from one sector of the population to another!

Let me ask you libs this question. If this and as you're fair(lol) and balanced Olby says this is so damaging to (cue the dopey Ted Baxter voice) the Bush Administration. Why did you people sit on it for six months?

Only the one tape was (accidentally?) released at that time - Homeland Security claims it doesn't know how the AP got a hold of the tape. And the AP is not talking.

As for why they sat on it - well, for one thing at the time it wasn't news. It was a teleconference/briefing. It was frightfully dull within the context of the news at the time. So it probably got recorded and filed by some low-level production assistant, then forgotten in the deluge of information and footage that came out of the storm.

Re: breaching of levees.

"A 41-page assessment by the Department of Homeland Security's National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), was delivered by e-mail to the White House's 'situation room,' the nerve center where crises are handled, at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, the day the storm hit, according to an e-mail cover sheet accompanying the document.

The NISAC paper warned that a storm of Katrina's size would "likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching" and specifically noted the potential for levee failures along Lake Pontchartrain."(Emphasis mine)

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301711.html

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.

Is there any bush supporter who will admit that it was just a dumb statement on W's part. I mean christ, i'm no engineer, but i recall watching the storm come in, laptop in hand, and seeing many refernces to just such an occurrence being a very real possiblity.

Topping of the levees causes breaches. Source:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_27.html#083003

In the Industrial Canal, evidence shows that high water flowed over the tops of floodwalls and through sandbagged gaps, creating breaches and extensive flooding.

Ivor Van Heerden, deputy director of the LSU Hurricane Center, believes the walls at the 17th Street Canal, and possibly in the London Avenue Canal, failed without being topped.

Water rising in the canals would have put tremendous pressure on the floodwalls on both sides. Water is heavy; it weighs about 62.4 pounds per cubic foot. Pile up 10 cubic feet of water and the pressure will be more than 600 pounds per square foot near the bottom of the concrete portion of the wall, even higher at points down near the bottom of the sheet piling base.

The semantics of "topping" vs "breaching" is moot. Topping causes breaching.

Bush was semantically correct. But realistically, he lied.

Where have I heard a similar semantic defense??? Oh yeah!!!!!

With that, Clinton may have been given the room to offer a technically "true" denial to the question of whether he had sex with Lewinsky--even if she happened to perform fellatio on him. The truncated definition characterizes sex in terms of a checklist of body parts, including the genitals, breast and thigh. Oral sex would not necessarily require the President to touch anything on Lewinsky that appears on that list. Strange as it may sound, under one reading of the definition, Lewinsky could have been having sex with him (because she was "touching" the President's genitals) while at the same moment, he was not having sex with her. (At the deposition, Clinton wasn't asked if she had sexual relations with him, just if he had them with her.) Isn't the law a wonderfully intricate device?

"Bush was semantically correct. But realistically, he lied."

Let me guess this study was done after the hurricane hit right? I didn't hear this Ivor guy coming out and saying that the topping will cause breaching did you? It's easy to look back on something and make an assesment.

Ok so you believe he lied fine, let me remind you that he was told about this in a meeting with hurricane experts who never used the word "breaching." And do you expect the guy to be an expert on leeves? Like I said this LSU guy probably did all the research after the hurricane hit. The only lie is FEMA saying they were prepaired and that wasn't as much a lie as it was an underestimate.

It's funny how you can all see the faults in Bush (and I see some of them too) but when it comes to Keith Olbermann well... what faults? Am I right?

http://www.thenationaldebate.com/blog/archives/2005/09/katrina.html

The missing Bob did a very good of debunking 20/20 hindsight... way back in Sept '04.

It's funny how you can all see the faults in Bush (and I see some of them too) but when it comes to Keith Olbermann well... what faults? Am I right?

No you are not right. I never said K.O. had no faults. I simply added insight into the semantic discussion of the differences/similarities between "breaching" and "topping".

Ok so you believe he lied fine, let me remind you that he was told about this in a meeting with hurricane experts who never used the word "breaching." And do you expect the guy to be an expert on leeves?

No, I expect him to show some semblance of caring and perhaps ask what the consequences of "topping" might be.

Add to the sematic argument Trekkies post . . . Bush lied.

Look back at my last post. The Department of Homeland Security sent a report to the White House on the day the storm made landfall that levee breaching was "likely" and specifically mentioned the levees on Lake Pontchartrain.

B/C = semaNtic

http://academicelephant.redstate.com/story/2006/3/1/14464/04525

"True"_Libertarian you will most certainly ...find it relevant...to know that the Patriot Act has been renewed... all the most likely Dem presidential candidates voted "aye"--- Clinton, Kerry, Biden... as did minority leader Reid....as did the vast majority of Democratic congress men and women ....

But as you've argued... they don't REALLY mean it...so why let that sway you..... :D

I've misrepresented Reid. Sorry

Cecelia, do you know why most Democrats are disagreeing with the PATRIOT Act in its current form? They aren't just voting no because they don't like the President.

Nonfactor,

Congress just renewed the latest version of the Patriot Act. It was an 89 to 10 vote.

Yes, Cecelia, after it had been reviewed. It was not in the way it was the first time around, there are new laws that protect privacy in this one. Democrats were always for most of the PATRIOT Act, just a few violations of privacy they were against. Most were changed, and thus it was passed.

Nonfactor,

The Democrats have NEVER voted "no" to the Patriot Act in the sense that they have not ultimately renewed it. That was my point to Untrue_Libertarian in the first place. Both Republicans and Democrats worked to tweak the bill... that's a point that matters when Untrue uses the Patriot Act as an example to his/her charge that Dems are more favorable to libertarian philosophy than Republicans.

Cecelia says
"No, you're a bleeding heart fraud.

Good lord! You don't even know the basics of how libertarians view the tax dollars of ANY socio-economic group being used for entitlement programs that arbitrarily transfer, by force of the gun, money from one sector of the population to another!"

about the following post:
Take for example SocSec. Social Security is "regressive," in that the poor pay proportionately more, or, at least, more than the super rich, whose payroll taxes are capped at a certain amount. I don't like "progressive" taxes, but I might even hate "regressive" ones more. Maybe I'm a bleeding-heart libertarian?>>>

Hmm, yeah, "don't even know the basics of how libertarians view the tax dollars of ANY socio-economic group." I figgured you'd say something like that to any response I made so the response I made comes DIRECT FROM THE NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN WEBSITE.
7TH paragraph down of "Eliminate -- don't privatize -- the plundering"
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_64.shtml

Check it out, you'll see alot of criticism of both parties, but more of the Rep party thus it is wrong to say that they are our natuaral allies.

To the Marxist Islamic loving scum.
I am not a Nazi, I'm a supporter of the Stae of Israel, you guys sympathize with the Islamo-Fascist.
By the way the Nazi's were leftists hense the name National Scoialist!
Hugo chavez the new leftist idol is a Nazi.
I believe in a free society, economic and social values for all that makes me a Libertarian.
However I believe in freedom only for my country and real allies.
All other nations shoild be destroyed or made vassal tribute states.
On social issues I am to the left of Andy Warhol and John Lennon.
On foreign policy, I am to the right of Genghis Khan, Julius Ceasar and Phillip II of Spain.
Real Imperialism by conquest and domination, unlike the Iraq charade is the solution to all of America's social ills.
So to Swashbucket, Non-Person and that other Commie, I am Nationalistic libertarian or Libertarian Nationalist.
Also I'm Hispanic so I,m not a Nazi.
But that what Moaists like you do, accuse any one right of center of being a Nazi.
However the Nazi's were Left wing Racist Socialists.
So the Nazi's are your ideological comrades.
Comrades!

cum on ass cumshot online manga bleach manga amateur father daughter sex father daughter sucking hairy butt hairy butts high heels fetish free medical fetish