you should focus more on fox news and let us hear the real news from KEITH he's not cowering to the white house and karl rove. it's apparent that you are paid by the noise machine and don't understand that we will all burn together when bush and his crazies start nuking Iran. there will be no room for you in the bunker!

you should focus more on fox news and let us hear the real news from KEITH he's not cowering to the white house and karl rove. it's apparent that you are paid by the noise machine and don't understand that we will all burn together when bush and his crazies start nuking Iran. there will be no room for you in the bunker!

Mr.Cox

You forgot to tell us will Keith be doing the number one segment with the never funny MO ROCCA or the ever creepy Michel Musto!

Factory Queen

Are you that dude Rodney Carrington sings about?

No Puck, Factory Queen is that intellectual Giant of our century Jack Frost's sister!

Puck,

MSNBC sends me the "show briefing" during the day with whoever they have booked at the time it is sent. When you see people appear who were not in the show briefing they are, generally, people from the booker's "reliable standby" list. As you may have guessed Mo Rocca and Michael Musto are on that list. BTW, if you see people who ARE in the show briefing but do not appear it's generally because they bumped them (either because the segment was bumped or because they found an "upgrade" guest).

Whatever the case, just now that these cable news shows are being put together "on the fly" and sometimes the main criteria for booking a particular guest is that they can get in front of a camera quickly (MSNBC/CNBC/NBC have tiny remote "studios" all over the place - they are often just a chair in a small room in an office building with a remotely operated camera and a back drop.

Bob,

All that may be true... but I'd wager that John Dean has his own room with a bunkbed and MSNBC jammies.

OLBERMANN: That list of the last couple of weeks' harvest of scandals that I just read, are we missing the forest because of all the trees? And there are a lot of them, that ignoring the policy or action or even the political affiliation of this presidency and this administration, just looking at the framework of operations, the mechanics, the flow charts, has this administration basically cut the necessity for any truth out of the equation of government?

DEAN: Well, it—a pattern has certainly (INAUDIBLE) emerged. When you take the first story you started with, on Joby's report, the fact that this didn't—maybe didn't get to the White House is almost more troubling than the fact, if they did, they ignored it and went on ahead without it. It would show a level of incompetence if the White House wasn't aware of this. It is truly frightening, Keith, that they would go out and make deliberate misstatements because they didn't know it.

If they intentionally did it, obviously then they're trying to sway people into war that the nation might not have otherwise taken had they saw the facts differently.

So there is a pattern that's emerging. And I think we're going to see more of it, unfortunately.

Basically I'm posting because this seems to primarily be a conservative blog and frankly I'm unceartain why anyoe could possibly still support this administration.

So this is basically my Why Bush sucks how can anyone possibly support him message. Beleive it or not I'm genuinly curious to hear responses to this. I don't mind an honest debate on an issue if anyone wants to engage in that. Just so I identify myself in this blog I am to the left but consider myself to harbor several libertarian tenencies although I also break with them on a number of issues.

With this in mind I would like to start with illegal wiretapping without a using the Fisa courts. Correct me if I am wrong but the adminstration's defense of this is basically to say "If you are being monitored I want to know why you are talking to Al Quaeda" my response to that if s you have reason to beleive someone is talking to Al Quada why can't you get a court order? Seriously folks, lets assume the motives of this administration are pure and good. That they would never abuse their power or spy or their political enemies that all they ever want to do is protect us from terroist. Let's assume that this administration would never use wiretapping on the average Joe Blow or invade his privacy to insure social control. if this is the case and I don't beleive it for a second. What's to stop the next guy from abusing that power? The whole postion of this admistration is that the president has the legal authority to wiretap without having to answer to anyone. You might trust his motives( I don't) but would you trust say Hilary if she becomes President? She would have the legal authority to exercise this power at least using the Bush administration legal position.

The second reason I angry is the Bush tax cuts. Now I know that many are going to label me a tax and spend liberal but bear with me here. Social security and medicare are in serious Danger. the baby boomers are getting old and this is the biggest segment of our population. You may be completly against these programs. (I go back and forth) but the fact is these people have been paying into it their whole lives against their will. They have a right to expect that when they retire, it's their money. Bush has insured with his tax cuts that even less money is going to be availible and those programs are going to bankrupt faster. probably by about 2012 according to some economist. So that means 1) far less benefits to people who have paid for it or 2) A lot higher taxes in the future to bail the program out. Now think about it which way to you think the majority of americans, (who will be in their 60s) are going to vote? My guess is they will vote to let the working genration foot the bill as they already paid in. that menas much higher taxes for the rest of us in the futre. the Bush tax cuts were incredibly irresponsible.

War in iraq. we have the dowing street memo and another one showing this admin wanted war whether Sadaam complied with the UN or not, but aside rom flat out lying to the American people about that the cause of war it has been handled pretty incometently. For example disbadning the Iraqui army. We had effectifly cut off the head of the iraqui millitary. We could have inserted a new one and used it to insure stability. instead we disbanded it and let the soildgers take their guns with them. That's handy if you want to start an insugency. many genrals protested this by the way.

Gay rights. Some of the more extreme on the right, (left too I'm fair ) Will praobly accuse me of being gay for defending this but i just can't see how it is any business of the federal governemnt who mairres who. That is a private agreement between two individuals and the rest of the world should but out. it dosen't affect you.

Last thing is a more of a questin for the libertairna wingf of the repbulican party. Libertarians of course are for limiting government as much as possible. Given the Cheney beleives that the presidency was dangerously weakend during the Watergate years and must be stregenthen aren't you a bit alrmed? I mean the wiretapping and everyhting else. Just a question.

"we have the dowing street memo ... flat out lying to the American people ... handled pretty incometently."

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

i'll agree to the jist of all that. but you have to think bigger to understand the entire puzzle. (not agree with, but just understand).

for better or worse, bush bought into the neocon action plan:
-- depose saddam
-- democratize iraq
-- get a foothold in the region
-- westernize the middle-east via a U.S. military presence, the spread of new democracies, and an accelerated influx of western capitalism. while at the same time securing the second largest oil reserves in the world, and showing the Saudis who's boss.

not a bad plan, but a bit too transparent for modern times, what with the spread of information nowadays. so the locals who are having democracy forced down their throats resent it a bit. go figure. also, the neocons believe in what Plato called the "noble lie" where you deceive as necessary to ensure a larger good ... every administration has done it, just not on the same scale. and as far as the incompetance goes, what the heck, mistakes have been made, sure. but look what they've accomplished.

it only costs 100 bill (1% of the GDP) and 1000 lives a year to occupy the second largest oil deposits in the world, get a foothold in the region, backup Israel, move onto Syria and Iran, put pressure on the Saudis, etc. it has also helped the right in two U.S. elections, and perhaps one or two more. so when you think about it all in those terms, for the neocons, everything's right on schedule and working out about as well as could be expected -- as long as you keep your eyes on the prize: a successful long-term western democratization of the middle-east.

jt,

Welcome to OlbermannWatch. You are welcome to post here but this is not a George Bush site so I'd expect most folks are not interested in responding to your various points en masse. As a courtesy I will share my highly sought-after insights in reply.

"illegal wiretapping without a using the Fisa courts"

You start from the premise that something illegal was done. That has not been established nor has the Bush Administration said exactly what it is they were doing, who they were listening to and how. What we do know is that both Repbublicans and Democrats on Capital Hill have agreed that this type of intelligence gathering should go on and that if there is any question about the legality then Congress should pass a law making it legal.

If what Bush ordered was, as has been reported, to authorize listening to calls where one caller was an al Qaeda suspect outside the U.S. and the other was somone in the United States then my answer is "Yes, I support that 100%".

Might the President abuse that power? Sure, but that is always the case with any power for anyone in power. There is no evidence that this program has been abused and until that is the case I would prefer to give the power the President to listen in on who al Qaeda suspects are calling in the U.S.

"Social security and medicare are in serious Danger...They have a right to expect that when they retire, it's their money."

It sound slike you don't know much about how social security works so maybe you want to go do some homework. There are no magic bank accounts out there for workers; social security is funded out of current accounts. This means that the money paid to the government in the form of payroll taxes and FICA withholding on your paycheck is being transferred directly to your grandfather.There is no "fund" and retirees don't "own" their "own money". In other words, it's not "their money".

You actually sound a bit like George Bush. Maybe you missed the news but Bush has been out pushing the idea of social security reform for some time now and pushing the idea, especially for younger workers, that they could opt to have a savings account so that you would have your own social security account and when you retire the money in your account would be yours and could be passed down to your children as inheritance. Even better, the money could be invested and so compounded to create personal wealth for you and your family.

"with his tax cuts that even less money is going to be availible and those programs are going to bankrupt faster"

Again, social security is funded by a direct tax. The issue is not how much money in the treasury but how many workers are required to pay FICA/Payroll taxes to support one retire. When social security was created there were 40 workers to every retiree. Today that figure is 2 workers for every retiree. You can just imagine how this will play out over time, as people live longer and longer, until there are a small number of workers breaking their backs to fund the retirements of the an everexpanding group of retirees.

"this admin wanted war whether Sadaam complied with the UN or not"

I think you would be right to see that Bush had determined that the U.S. was going to go to war in Iraq before the diplomatic track at the U.N. had run its course. You might even be right to say that Bush came to office planning to "take down" Saddam and was willing to go to war to do it. I think you would also be right to say that Bush never expected that Saddam would come into compliance with U.N. sanctions. That said, I do not agree with your formulation.

i just can't see how it is any business of the federal governemnt who mairres who

So you think this is something that should be left up to the individual states? So that if Massachussets wants to legalize gay marriage they should be allowed to do so? If that's the case then you believe in "states rights", correct? You are sounding more and more like a Republican?

I don't understand your point with regard to Cheney.

This comment thread is now closed.