Brian Unger isn't from the Daily Show.

I guess we should also criticize Fox News for calling it a 'leak'.

"Now turning his back on news, Unger devoted the next four years of his life to making fun of it as part of the team that launched the award-winning The Daily Show on Comedy Central. As a correspondent and producer on the series, he helped to pioneer the series’ satirical news reports on politics, people, and events around the country."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4472991

His NPR bio mentions "The Daily Show."

Real news, fake news, its all the same. The reporters report what they are reported. Regurgitated reports flood the networks.
Olbermann is much better than Unger, though I have to ask, Why would working on the Daily show invalidate someone's ability to report news? The Daily Show touches on more real news than most real news stations. And look at the guest list, it shows. People on both sides of the crap filled aisle want to visit the Daily Show because it has legitimacy.

Claimed to be an English teacher? I'm confused already and the hate has just started..

Wait.. what's the point of this post? You can always tell when johnny dollar is posting again.

He didn't claim to be an English teacher - he claimed to be the son of two English teachers.

The first words out of his mouth on the show.

But, carry on guys. I'm sure the rest of the info on this site is accurate.

You are correct, he said SON OF two English teachers. But you are incorrect, those weren't the first words out of his mouth. But carry on with your substantive corrections.

It's great to see so many other avid Countdown watchers here, even the ones who don't always agree with KO. Nothing wrong with poking a little fun at O'Reilly now and then. Surely there is room among the Carlsons, Hannitys, Humes, O'Reillys, Scarboroughs and Blitzers for an Olbermann. All in fairness and balance. At least his ratings are increasing, thanks in part to those posting here.

It's great to see so many other avid Countdown watchers here, even the ones who don't always agree with KO. Nothing wrong with poking a little fun at O'Reilly now and then. Surely there is room among the Carlsons, Hannitys, Humes, O'Reillys, Scarboroughs and Blitzers for an Olbermann. All in fairness and balance. At least his ratings are increasing, thanks in part to those posting here.

Now don't have a heart attack, JD, but I actually agree with you.

immediately displayed his ignorance of the language by claiming that the President, when he declassifies documents and releases them, is guilty of "leaking".
Technically, a leak is 'unauthorized' and/or 'confidential'. Presuming that the authorization of the disclosure occured on the 8th as Libby says, and not the 18th as McClellan said, then it would not be a leak.
We are looking at history in the making! Well, the history of language in the making. Language changes throughout time. For example, 'chauvinist' used to refer, solely, to a follower of Chauvin. Now it mean "prejudiced belief in the superiority of one's gender ..."
There is, currently, no succinct term which means "disclosure in a secretive, or underhanded manner" so the media, including CNN, Fox News, WashTimes all use the closest term they can find: 'leak'.

I thought there had been posts, last night, about Unger as the guest-host? I actually didn't like him either. I seem to remember that JD complained that he was cutting off his guests. I didn't think it was intentional but a 'rookie' mistake. Nevertheless it was annoying.

Where was Allison????

I know if it wasn't for this site I would never watch KO. This blog kinda makes it like a show you not only watch, but can partake in. Keep this blog alive. It's like interactive TV. Keep the blog alive and KO's #'s rise. Brilliant idea.
Johnny D, are you really Keith??????

Brian Unger is indeed an alumni of "The Daily Show" his contract wasn't renewed several years ago *yawn*, it's good to see he still is available for Olby's desk.

Meatballs,
Are you really Bluefire?

It's not hard telling who you are, you're the Nazi.

Redman, If I'm a Nazi then your a Maoist. You probably have the little Red book at home right? hey how many people did your idol Mao kill 60 million? Hey the joke is on you because Nazi's were socialists. You probably have Mein Kampf on your living room table! This is the last time I'm responding to Maoist like you!

Redman, If I'm a Nazi then your a Maoist. You probably have the little Red book at home right? hey how many people did your idol Mao kill 60 million? Hey the joke is on you because Nazi's were socialists. You probably have Mein Kampf on your living room table! This is the last time I'm responding to Maoist like you!

to RCOX,
I apologize for my previous post. I'm not going to engage in name calling with these Reds and just stay focus on Comrade Keith. Sorry about that.

What a heartfelt apology Anonymous. You belong in Olberman's hall of fame."I'm not going to engage in NAME CALLING with these REDS" (emphasis added)What an oxymoron!

Such a heartfelt apology Anonymous. You belong in Olberman's hall of fame."I'm not going to engage in NAME CALLING with these REDS" (emphasis added)What an oxymoron!

I wrote that. I'm not even going to repond any more. I'm just going to focus on Comrade Keith.

I know the argument is going around the internets that Bush leaked nothing since he wrote himself an executive order granting himself (as well as Cheney) the authority to "declassify" information classified by other branches of government. Was the declassification de facto simply by leaking it? Or did he apply a date stamp on the written information certifying that it was officially declassified?
It would be interesting to know if in each and every case whether Bush followed a prescribed procedure for declassification, as intelligence agencies have done for years.
Another thought to ponder is: How eager are Republicans to grant similar powers to future Democratic presidents? Exactly what are the limitations on executive orders? Does Bush and will future presidents be allowed to have persons executed without due process?

Buma, you must get your 'facts' from Olbermann. The information in the NIE was not "classified by other branches of government". It was classified by the executive branch, of which the President is the highest authority. He didn't need an executive order to permit himself to declassify something a subordinate classified, but writing one did make the chain of command clear.

Declassification has been done in this fashion for decades. Clinton did it to defend his bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Nobody yelled about him "leaking" classified information, certainly not Krazy Keith. And as we now know, KO didn't utter a peep when the NIE itself was distributed to the press on July 18, 2003. Somehow it's perfectly fine to release the information on July 18, but an eeevil "leak" to do so on July 8.

Hey RCOX I'm suprised Chairman Keith hasn't name you worst person in the world for allowing us a venue where we can meet anti-Olbermann people!

This should put to rest (right) the theories that Michael Ledeen or some other cabal of evil neoconservatives created the forged Niger uranium documents.

Niger Uranium Document Forgers

O'really, I was wondering why KO would name someone worst person in the world when that person just brings in more viewer's to his show by the 1000's? Most likely more!

to RCOX,
I apologize for my previous post. I'm not going to engage in name calling with these Reds

LOL. You need to change that to "previous posts" (with an 's' in case you missed it). Nearly all your posts, besides being wrong, are full of belittling terms.
BTW, describing you, correctly, as a Nazi in a manner that is not invective is not "name calling".

O.K. Maoist.

Radmod, why don't you stick to the issues regarding Olbermann's propaganda. By the way I'm on the right politically, Nazi's were Leftists like you!

I thought "anonymous( the name speaks volumes)was "sorry" for name calling

Sorry Anonymous... Nazis may have aligned themselves with the Socialist brand and the left by name association, but their political philosophy was pure Right Wing Conservatism.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME....
NATURALLY THE COMMON PEOPLE DON'T WANT WAR. THAT IS UNDERSTOOD. BUT AFTER ALL, IT IS THE LEADERS OF THE COUNTRY WHO DETERMINE POLICY, AND IT IS ALWAYS A SIMPLE MATTER TO DRAG THE PEOPLE ALONG,WHETHER IT IS A DEMOCRACY,OR A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP, OR A PARLIAMENT, OR A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP. VOICE OR NO VOICE, THE PEOPLE CAN ALWAYS BE BROUGHT TO THE BIDDING OF THE LEADERS.THAT IS EASY. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, AND DENOUNCE THE PACIFISTS FOR LACK OF PATRIATISM AND EXPOSING THE COUNTRY TO DANGER. IT WORKS THE SAME IN EVERY COUNTRY....HERMANN GOERING
SOME PEOPLE A.K.A LIBERALS ARE A LITTLE TOO SMART TO BE TRICKED. THEN THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE JUST ASHAMED THAT THEY FELL FOR IT, SO THEY JUST.."STAY THE COURSE"

Eddie Kay,
I forgot to put my name in the field so I apologize. I'm trying not to name call but that Maoist Radmod keeps calling me a Nazi. It's really anoying.
I'll stop calling him a Maoist if he stops calling me a Nazi. Besides the Nazi's were Socialists. I hate Socialism. I'd rather stay focused on exposing Comrade Keith for the fraud he is!

To Radmod,
Do you want to continue the name calling or have an ideological debate? Hitler was a leftist like yourself so if I'm a Nazi that makes me an ideological soulmate to you're Maoist ideology.
The fact is like most Leftists you can't intellectually argue with us on the Right without calling us Fascists or Nazis. I'll give you the Fascist label because it is a Rightwing ideology, but Nazis were National Socialists hence your leftist comrades. they were also anti-semetic, I harldly fit that description. I currently date an Israeli woman for the last 5 years and have visited Israel. So your silly name calling is just that ignorant. Ideologically your worst than me, Hitler killed 15 Million and Mao killed 60 Million. Hence me calling you a Maoist is worst than you calling me Nazi. If you call me fascist or Rightist that doesn't bother me since I am on the Right. But Nazis were Leftwing Socialist I am far from that. Why can't you be like Trekkie and debate the issues or defend olbermann.

Trekkie why can't more on the left be like you and not resort to name calling, that's why you're point of view is respected here.

Spaghettilegs and Radmod be more like Trekkie, stick to the issues.

Salome,
The Nazi's were leftists. They had a socialist economy by providing Healtcare and education. The Government dictated economic priorities and Businessesw ere heavily regulated. the differences between Nazis and Communists is that one was a National Socialist and the other International revolutionaries. the Nazis did coopted some Rightwing Nationalism I'll conceed you that point.
Also conservatives supported them because they were rivals of the communists and allowed private businesses to continue, albeit under state intervention. Hitler's car Volkswagon meant people's car. they believed in Socialism for the aryan race and slavery for the rest that would provide that socialist system.
Hugo Cavezis a National Socialist becuse he pursues a Socialist economic model with Nationalists overtones.

Spaghettilegs,
The Islamo-Fascists want war with Israel and the west, so do you think they deserve crticism for their brainwashing of young kids at Madrassas to die for 72 Virgins?
The reason I'm asking is that the American left is quick to attack it's own government or people they disagree with, by the way I respect Pacifists so long as they condemn all wars. I never hear the American left attck the Islamo-Fascists of Iran, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Chinese militarists and that Nazi Hugo Chavez. Why is that.

I'm not labelling you traitor, so please respond respectfully, I'm just curious as to why no crticism of our enemies?

First of all, I lived in S.Korea for many years and have many Korean friends. I often wonder what would have been their fate if the U.S never stepped in to help the South against the North. You asked what I think about children being brainwashed. I think ANY form of brainwashing, by any religion, for any purpose, is dead wrong. I am against, like everyone left or right that comes to this site, any form of terrorist group. That is why I oppose us helping them by creating situations that make it that much easier to gain more members. You spread democracy by practicing it. Secret prisons,tourture, rendition, and dropping bombs are not the best examples of democracy in action. Sometimes you become the monster you are trying to kill. Since 911 would you say we swayed more people to be with or against us? What grade would you give our efforts? As far as Hugo Chavez, what do YOU really know about him? When he was born, how long he has been in politics. Did you ever do an all out research on him, or do you just go by what people on the right, and the media tells you about him??? Can you even name one single Chavez policy? Did you like Saddam when he was a CIA asset for 40 years because he was deemed anti-communist? The CIA likes him enough to send Rumsfeld to Iraq after he gassed his own people. Anyway O'reilly ask me anything you want I will gladly answer.

I'm glad we can have a reasonable discussion.
I do Know a good amount about Hugo Chavez. I have Colombian relatives and from what I read he supports the FARC terroristas by giving them sanctuary. If you try to set up a business in Venezuala now, the governmant must have a stake in it. He's anti-Semetic accusing Jews of killing Jesus. He also supports the Islamo-Fascists in Iran and most off all he's Anti American. He also gives money to Leftists candidates in Latin America to increase his domination of the place. I can continue on Chavez. Bascically he 's Nationa Socialist

My biggest gripe with the whole war is that Bush didn't do what FDR did by mobilizing the resources of the country for total war. In WW2 we destroyed by fire bombing Japan and Germany. I felt the same should've been done to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria. We could've mobilised 12 million like we did in WW2. I honestly don't care what the rest of the world thinks, we have to look after our own interests.
It's funny you mentioned Korea, I would leave let the Chinese and North Koreans have it. The South Koreans don't want us there any way. I've become an isolationist now because I see America in 2006 isn't America in 1941. We have people here that complain about anything the governmant does and that encourages the Islamo-Fascist. So you know what. Let's bting our troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kossovo, Germany and South Korea. Let Russian and China diominate the world. Then you'll see what tyranny is really is about. If other countries beg us to help tell them sorry, you didn't want us to help in the past so not now. Come Home America!

"From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq -- an unnecessary war.

Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda.

I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough. I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html

I did not mean to cause you to jump to the wrong conclusion about me getting my facts from KO. I don't. Virtually everything on KO's show I have already run across that day or the previous day on the internets. But KO has a good way of making it funnier.
I was not inferring that the NIE itself was classified by another branch of gov't, only meant to say that Bush has bestowed upon himself the authority to declassify anything, regardless of which branch classified it in the first place.
What is interesting is that the NIE was "officially" declassified on the 18th. Why was that necessary at all, since Bush used declassification magic on the 8th?

Perhaps because some of it was declassified on the 8th, the rest on the 18th. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Fitzgerald sez that

According to defendant [Libby], at the time of his conversations with [Judith] Miller and [Matthew] Cooper, he understood that only three people - the President, the Vice President and defendant - knew that the key judgments of the [National Intelligence Estimate] had been declassified. Defendant testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials - including Cabinet level officials - were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE, the report about Wilson's trip and another classified document dated January 24, 2003.

So Bush declassified the NIE to VP Cheney and to Libby, who declassified it to Ms Miller and Mr Cooper. The rest of the president's cabinet came along later. Nope, nothing suspect about any of that.

Good, jdogg/rules, maybe now you'll realize that the reason I termed you a Nazi, no matter how apropos it may or may not be, is that your constant 'name-calling' and belittling naming is not the proper way to hold a conversation.
Need I remind you that in your very first response posts as jdogg you called nonfactor a communist and trekkie a maoist? Or as 'rules' you said the same to Dave? Or when 'spaghetti' first appeared you immediately launched into calling him things like "lasagna man" and 'meatballs'?
If you don't like people being abusive to you, then don't be abusive to them.
'nough said.

Buma, you are really stretching to make a Big News story out of the PResident declassifying a document. You don't claim that he doesn't have the authority to do so; you don't claim that he has to inform his cabinet when he does so (although you imply it, without basis). Yet you continue to suggest that this is somehow a scandalous Blockbuster Story. And yet the further declassification of the NIE on the 18th was such a ho-hum non-story that Olby didn't even see fit to report on it at the time. Now THAT'S suspect.

Radmod,
On a lighter note what do you think of Mike Tyson running for President? Anyone can chime in.

Oh, god, you're not serious are you? Mike Tyson?

Atheletes in the past have run for office, but I always got the impression he was an idiot. And, of course, the wife-beating, ear-eating thing might make it a tough sell. But, hey, if a druggie can become mayor of our nation's capitol then he might have a chance.

I am not doing any stretching, stating only that it is interesting and it makes me curious to find out more. I have always been skeptical of this group in the WH, and it's always interesting how powerful leaders act when the curtain is closed.
Big News story? Blockbuster Story? No, and there's no need to overreact to my posts.
I guess that on this blog some of the more arcane aspects of Countdown are carefully scrutinized, and sometimes that leads to a bit of overreaching here and there. It adds to the fun.

"A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was �absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb� if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do �what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,� and �that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.�

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that �a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.� He added, �I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, �What are they smoking?��

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." He added, "I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, "What are they smoking?""

Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran -- without success, the former intelligence official said. "These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out -— remove the nuclear option —- they’re shouted down."

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning.

> Big News story? Blockbuster Story? No, and there's no need to overreact to my posts.

Well, this IS a blog about Olbermann, and it WAS Olbermann who played this story as Big News, and even used the word "bombshell" to describe it. So you are saying Olbermann was wrong, and our criticism of him is correct? Works for me.

That is all well and good but the main thing to keep in mind is that Keith Olbermann represents the loss of all that was once good in America.

hyperbole

So we hit Iran with Nuclear bunker busters. Who cares. Rather them than us.

So we hit Iran with Nuclear bunker busters. Who cares. Rather them than us.

We drop a nuclear device on a Muslim country in the Middle East, as sure as I'm breathing the following would happen:

- All progress we will have made in Iraq will have been lost as the insurgency gains tremendous credibility. This places thousands of U.S. troops in even more danger (not only from the insurgents but also from the fallout from any nuclear devices).

- What remaining support we do have in the global community for the War on Terror would be lost. Great Britain has already made it clear that attacking Iran would not be supported by them. You can bet if the U.K. is not on board Canada, Austrailia and Japan will not be either. That pretty much leaves us all alone at a time when we don't have the resources to do this alone.

- A terrorist attack on the U.S. would be virtually guaranteed in retaliation for whatever strike we make. And odds are better than even that such an attack would be a WMD attack or even a "suitcase nuke".

"So we hit Iran with Nuclear bunker busters. Who cares. Rather them than us."

That is a false dichotomy.

Trekkie,
You make a valid point and I conceed that. However the context that I'm stating is that after we hit Iran with bunker busting nukes, we announce to the world that we will no longer interfere in any nations affairs. We pull out of NATO, UN, IMF and other organizations.
We withdraw from Germany, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kossovo and Bosnia. We then go our old pre-WW1 policy of minding our business and secure our Homeland. That's the context in which I'm discussing hitting Iran. If we don't hit them, then kiss one or several of our major cities goodbye. That's what Ahmednijerk wants, so his beloved Hashish induced imaginary friend the 12th Iman appears.

Doesn't it scare you that the leader of a country trying to get nukes has an imaginary friend. It scares me!

Ex-House speaker says U.S. made "enormous mistake" in occupation

VERMILLION - Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

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

"When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir? -- John Maynard Keynes