It is nice to see that the bitter Olberian sands can lead to such pearls! Once again a triumph and a must-read, Mr. Dollar.

I love Keith. The only bright spot on an otherwise dreary network.

Libby, You must enjoy watching Keith as he toss softball questions to all his one sided guest. like I said before KO is the Larry King of MSNBC.
the left side of my neck gets sore when I watch "air america TV"

I thought the big development was the following (quoted from Media Blog on NRO):

Drudge's pipeline to the Vanity Fair offices has paid off again — this time with the scoop that, according to former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Woodward long before Scooter Libby told Judith Miller

Does KO have no sense of irony? It was worth sitting through this dreadful show just to see him whine about how others are taking his comments out of context. Every time O'Reilly opens his mouth, there's Keith with his own "inaccurate, journalistically reckless stuff." But I guess he's OK with that...

It always amazes me how people as hateful and spiteful as Olbermann can continue living day to day without having a mental breakdown as the side they cheer for continues to rack up defeat after defeat.

I guess it's because Olby et al. live in a fantasy world normally and only rarely are jolted from their delusions.

OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN

Olbermann tells the truth while you upper class white bread Bush-licking a--holes refuse to see the damage your King George has done against what was once a free and democratic country.

If this is the best they can do (below), I think we have got them right where we want them.

OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN

Posted by: Jimbo at March 13, 2006 11:22 PM

Olbermann tells the truth while you upper class white bread Bush-licking a--holes refuse to see the damage your King George has done against what was once a free and democratic country.

Posted by: Jimbo at March 13, 2006 11:24 PM

Mitch, does your testicles itch when Keith tells the truth on Live TV. Go back to your bunker and have a felafel.

Anonymous,

O'Reilly's audience are illiterate and are most likely rapist and drug dealers. Olbermann's audience are college-educated, read books and have higher IQs than your President.

The Feingold story was hyped big, had little information, and then it just dissolved away!

Lot of anticipation and build up. Then a lot of implication that torment was being done to Feingold.

Specter was interrupting, being rude and nasty. Cheney had no right to speak. Frist had no right to speak.

Then the story just vanished! No more information or background at all! There was so much more to it.

Then Fineman buried the story completely by saying what you mention -- that most of the Democratic leadership didn't want Feingold coming out with this now.

What?!

Olberman gives some insight
1)Fineman is a bad guy for not bringing ribs back to the "home office" WHAT HOME OFFICE?
2)An individual is automatically guilty based on the word of a security guard. WANNABE COPS
3)He is an expert on the level of fatigue in people. GIVE ME A BREAK and he knocked Frist for diagnosing Schivo on video!

Neither KO nor Howard Fineman explained that there is no such thing as "censure" of a President in the constitution.

But there is precedent. Andrew Jackson was censured by the Congress. The Democrats offered censure as an alternative to the impeachment of President Clinton (the offer was rejected, but not claimed to be unconstitutional).

2)An individual is automatically guilty based on the word of a security guard.

Have you worked retail? My mother has, and she has worked closely with Target "loss prevention". Target's loss prevention department is one of the best-trained and well-equipped private security forces in the country. And if (as the charging document indicates) he's looking at 25 incidents where he tried to run this scheme...well, that's a mite suspicious and really can't be explained away by credit card mistake.

GIVE ME A BREAK and he knocked Frist for diagnosing Schivo on video!

Because no professional doctor would ever attempt to even guess at a diagnosis based solely on a videotaped segment. Frist was roundly criticized and should have been sanctioned by the Tennessee AMA for his conduct (as it was unprofession under the tenets of medicine).

> But there is precedent.

There's precedent for suspending habeas corpus, rounding up Japanese and interning them, outlawing abortions, and a lot of other stuff. Do you claim that these "precedents" prove any of this is lawful or constitutional?

Perhaps you also believe that the President has the authority to issue a censure of Congress? There's as much constitutional authority for that as for the opposite. But Olby, who will leap on any suggestion that the President is exceeding his authority, ignores the analogous argument when it's someone criticizing the President.

Okay, let's put it this way - what, other than being a public rebuke, does a censure actually do?

It has no force of law and does not curtail any Presidential authority. It's the same as the "ceremonial" legislation that Congress passes all the time (such as recognizing a famous person for an achievement or declaring today National Toothpaste Day or somesuch).

All it does is, by concurrent resolution, say that the Congress formally disapproves of the President's actions.

Johnny Dollar, you're getting really confused here. You act like Senator Feingold, proposing a censure of the President, is unconstitutional.

A censure is really just an acknowledgement that the President broke the law, and that Congress isn't happy with him, nothing more.

I, for one, love Russ's moxy! Even Pelosi didn't back him. Olby might want to bury the story in the future as it hurts people like Hillary the most (that's why Russ is doing it, by the way -- he wants to be President)!

> A censure is really just an acknowledgement that the President broke the law

So now it's the function of Congress to try people and find them guilty? A "Censure" by Congress is precisely what I called it in the first paragraph I wrote: a stunt. There is no constitutional authority to censure a President; the constitution gives Congress that authority to censure its own members, not a separate but equal branch of the government. Congress has no more authority to censure a President than the President has to censure Congress. That's the facts, despite Olby's attempts to cover them up.

Johnny,

I can't believe that you actually support a Congress that lets the most stupidest man in the solar system destroy personal freedoms for an exaggerated idea of security. Your King George reminds me of President Logan on 24. Both are doofuses.

Johnny $,
So Olby's covering up an illegal congressional activity? Don't you feel a little stupid having to make things up to try to prove your indefensible accusations? Where does that equate to an Olbermann cover-up? First of all, you are wrong. A Censure is the only mechanism that a Senator can officially use for this activity. Articles of impeachment are initiated in the House of Representatives. But thats not even the point. Quit making things up to try to prove that Olbermann's broadcast are not a "breath of fresh air" in the otherwise administration appologist's atmosphere.

Well, I hate to say it, but the olby-backers have accomplished their mission: they have rendered this comments section virtually useless.

For umpteenth time, if you want to talk about George Bush, there are PLENTY of places to do so. This site is about Keith Olbermann. You guys can't successfully defend him, so you change the subject. When that doesn't work, you bombard this page with as many nasty, nonsensical attacks as you can.

This comments section is not useless, it is instructive. Lefties abhor debate on their own sites. However, here they have no choice. This site exposes the intolerant, holier-than-thou and belligerent Olbermaniacs. Who could ask for anything more? "Olbermannwatch," exposing the left via "useful idiots" daily!

This comments section is not useless, it is instructive. Lefties abhor debate on their own sites. However, here they have no choice. This site exposes the intolerant, holier-than-thou and belligerent Olbermaniacs. Who could ask for anything more? "Olbermannwatch," exposing the left via "useful idiots" daily!

The real sin KO committed was burying the lead story on the censure resolution. He, along with the other liberal media, often do that when the lead story is favorable to the republicans or to Bush.

I watched the whole deal live when it was on CSPAN. And CSPAN repeated it a couple of times that night.

Basically, all Spector did was ask for a copy of the resolution, so he could address it in a responsible fashion. That's not a crime, as the media and KO portrayed it. It's routine.

What Spector wanted perhaps was to have a floor debate after Feingold's long diatribe---anticipated by Spector. Apparently, Feingold didn't wish to defend his assertions and stormed out of the chamber, even as Spector was asking that he stay to debate the matter.

This is outrageous. feingold drops a bomb like that and runs out. And Spector was portrayed as the bad guy in the media, and especially on Countdown--which was no surprise.

Lefties abhor debate on their own sites. However, here they have no choice. -- Anon
---
OK, let's leave aside the obvious lie that that is and look a few posts before to :
"if you want to talk about George Bush, there are PLENTY of places to do so. This site is about Keith Olbermann. You guys can't successfully defend him" -- Billy

Yes, debate isn't allowed on left sites, just here! LOL!
The only thing that is allowed or wanted on this site are comments that erroneously bash Olby. Is that why all defensuve arguments are limited to only Olby and defenders aren't allowed to address anything else in defense like GWB or if a majority of people do the same thing? That is not debate!

BTW, here's an example of RW debate tactics on left sites:
"it really does make wonder where all these loser libtards come from..............maybe France?
keep bitching losers."
"SOS, don't use the term cuntflap. It's kind of hard to be one when Dr. Matt has a mouthful of dick."
"stupid [name], that still doesn't prove that he lied. stupid cunt lib loser."
It has been my experience that actual debate only occurs on mod to left sites.

So now it's the function of Congress to try people and find them guilty?
---JD
Yes, it is. Look it up. It's a little document called the United States Constitution.
However, rather than go to the extreme and, quite frankly, silly idea of impeaching a standing President for what some would consider a minor breach of the law, Congress (as well as many other different govs) has Censure.

There is no constitutional authority to censure a President; ---JD
Exactly! No authority, no force, so what's your problem with it? There's no constituional authority for the Congress to call the President an idiot but it could do that, couldn't it?

the constitution gives Congress that authority to censure its own members -- JD
Actually, it doesn't. Now it does give Congress the authority to make its own rules, so, using your standard logic here, you are lying.

That's the facts, despite Olby's attempts to cover them up. -- JD
This is what I love the best. So Olby doesn't give an in-depth 3-hour long discussion on what is and isn't constitutional or even how the idea of censuring the President came about in the first place, so, therefore, he is trying "to cover [the facts] up." Why should he bother, the average Countdown viewer is much more intelligent than a Fox News viewer, we don't need things to be explained to us in pedantic terms. Now, he also didn't explain how chocolate ice cream is made, so, therefore, he is obviously trying to cover up the fact that chocolate ice cream is delicious!

Finally:
Olbermann did not tell his viewers that Democrats, including Joe Lieberman and Harry Reid, also said they were not supporting it. And they did so before the motion was even offered! Our #5 question on the Countdown: why was this omitted?
OLBERMANN: So who was Russ Feingold talking to this afternoon? And, if what you say is correct, why didn‘t some other members of the Democratic Party hit him in the back of the head with something and knock him out for a couple of hours?

FINEMAN: Well, they didn‘t do that, but they maybe tried to anesthetize him a little bit. I was talking to some of the top Democratic leadership in the Senate and their staff, and they were not in a hurry to have this vote.

Now, part of that is timing, Keith. They want to stretch this conversation out, perhaps, have it continue all the way through the fall, not play the big card of this censure motion.

But I think also they‘re a little afraid of it. The Democrats are still gun-shy on the question of taking the president on directly on aspects of his homeland security program, of which this is deemed politically to be a part.

Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, did not come out and call for a full-scale floor debate on Russ Feingold‘s censure motion. Reid wants to have committee hearings, he wants to have maybe an independent panel look at it. He doesn‘t want this floor fight now, which indicates to me the Democrats aren‘t confident of the politics of it.

Hmm, that certainly sounded like to me that the Democrats "were not supporting it" even, gasp, beforehand. It also seems like it wasn't omitted except in your reporting.

It's not the function of the US Senate to declare somebody guilty without a trial. It's not even the function of the Senate, or a US Senator, to levy a charge against the President. That has to be done in the House. And say what you will, there is no basis, in the constitution or in the rules of the Congress, for "censuring" a President.

> No authority, no force, so what's your problem with it?

Who said I had a problem with it? Feingold can introduce a motion to make today National Kumquat Day, for all I care. What's missing in Olby's handling of it is the fact that it is a meaningless political stunt.

> Actually, it doesn't. Now it does give Congress the authority to make its own rules

Precisely. What is so hard to understand about that?

> the average Countdown viewer is much more intelligent than a Fox News viewer, we don't need things to be explained to us in pedantic terms.

Especially when those explanations are so inconvenient vis-a-vis Olby's nightly talking points. Like the fact that all these people expressed disagreement with the motion "before it was even offered", yet Olby only reported on the Republicans. Remember, that was Olby's Big Angle, so big that he repeated it over and over. And yet he didn't mention a single Democrat who had done the same thing, leaving it to Fineman to obliquely say something that you say "sounded to me like" it might have been the same things the Republicans did. Well then if it was the same thing, WHY DIDN'T HE REPORT IT THAT WAY? Because it would have watered down his spin point? That was only our #5 question and I still haven't seen an answer for that., let alone the other four.

So this site is basically used to destroy the first amendment rights of a journalist who also has the right to question an administration that excels in incompetence and fails in diplomacy, intelligence, and a respect for humanity.

It's anti-Keiths like you who support spying on innocent Americans instead of spying on actual terrorists like Bin Laden, the KKK, the Unibomber
and those who bomb churches. You want to sacrifice freedoms that we tried to maintain for centuries for a security that barely exists and for the mad dreams of a group of dictators like Bush and Cheney.

You must really want to destroy our country.

Our #1 question on the countdown: why did Keith Olbermann cover every development in the case except this one?

Maybe because it doesn't advance the story. Despite the heavy "positive" spin that Bloomberg puts on the judge's ruling, it really does nothing to help the Libby defense. If you read the actual memorandum of the decision (found here: http://talkleft.com/libbycompelmem310.pdf), then you would see that Libby only has access to these documents to "refresh his recollection". He does not get to present them at trial.

Then in the footnotes:

Footnote 3 - Libby cannot have access to communications made by news reporters with regards to Valerie Plame nor information on news reporter's knowledge of Plame's status prior to July 14, 2003.

Footnote 6 - claims that Patrick Fitzgerald is operating in bad faith by withholding material evidence are "baseless".

Footnote 21 - the defense that Libby offers must be his recollection, not simply whatever documents were sent over from the CIA.

Footnote 23 - despite the "bad memory" defense, the filings made by the Libby team to this court seem to contain substantial amounts of specific information...

Footnote 25 - National security issues may preclude the information requested from being used at trial.

The only thing they "won" on was that the graymail tactic argument was dismissed. Not much of a victory. Not much of a story either.

> Maybe because it doesn't advance the story.

Maybe? Maybe like all his other headline stories on the Leak Case, repeatedly trumpeting every little hiccup in the case that might be seen as bad for Libby? Until a story comes around that goes a different way, and then he doesn't trumpet it, he doesn't highlight it...he doesn't even REPORT it. Yeah, that's balance, Olby style.

"Anonymous" wrote:

"The only thing that is allowed or wanted on this site are comments that erroneously bash Olby. Is that why all defensuve arguments are limited to only Olby and defenders aren't allowed to address anything else in defense like GWB or if a majority of people do the same thing? That is not debate!"

Your comments aren't censored here (unlike many lefty sites). You can say what you want, and others can say what they want in return. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "debate"? You also claim this site wants only "comments that erroneously bash Olby." Nothing could be more incorrect. J$, and many of the other posters, back up their claims with data. Just look at the J$ posts with your eyes open.

Jimbo wrote:

"So this site is basically used to destroy the first amendment rights of a journalist who also has the right to question an administration that excels in incompetence and fails in diplomacy, intelligence, and a respect for humanity."

I fail to see how this site affects Olbermann's "First Amendment Rights." Why don't you explain that one in more detail.

My point trekkie, was not necessarily to knock security guards, although I have had plenty of experience with them, but to point out what a hypercrite Olberman is.He worries so much about the 4th amendment violations (illegal search without probable cause)and yet disregards this guys 5th amendment rights to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence

My point trekkie, was not necessarily to knock security guards, although I have had plenty of experience with them, but to point out what a hypercrite Olberman is.He worries so much about the 4th amendment violations (illegal search without probable cause)and yet disregards this guys 5th amendment rights to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence

OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN,
OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN, OLBERMANN,....

Very nice Jimbo. Try as you might, I doubt you will get your wish and be censored here, even if your vapid posts just take up space.

Olbermann and his master George Soros sucks!

This blog is crap and you guys are so ignorant it's beyond belief! Why don't you target someone who is filled with lies like O'Reilly or Limbaugh? Oh yeah, you have your tongues so far up Bush's ass and your heads up your own to know what the truth is.

Just keep dragging the country down into the Dictatorship it's becoming and make sure to celebrate when we nuke and slaughter the next "terrorist" country. And uh, don't forget to get that Draft deferment application for you and your kids in on time.

American Nightmare is really Keith Olbermann's Gay lover!