So, Mr. Dollar. Did Mr.Cox spring for a Florida vacation. Bout time.

I tuned in for a brief second and heard this from Komrade Keith:
"Zacarias Moussaoui also said that he had a dream that Bush pardoned him. Why am I not suprised". This is slander, he's feeding into all those wacky conspiracies that Bush was behind 9/11! That is why Iranian Foreign Ministry loved him!
He's a traitor and if we had a President with balls, he'd be tried and hanged for sedition. Sickening indeed!

No, that was today's statement from Gen Mike DeLong, former Deputy Commander of CentCom.

DeLong also said that dealing with Rumsfeld is like dealing with a CEO. The problem is that running the Defense Department isn't like running Amazon.com or Merck - the mentality in the military world is vastly different than the mentality of the business world.

After oddball, Krazy Keith turned to the Duke rape investigation, via a taped report from Dan Abrams. Left out of the coverage were two points.

At this point, the case is a dead duck - no DNA evidence, inconclusive physical evidence, witness credibility problems, an overzealous prosecutor...reasonable doubt is there in spades. I don't think anybody should be covering the case at this point except for short "follow-up" blurbs.

Trek:

"the mentality in the military world is vastly different than the mentality of the business world."

It sure is. $400 hammers, $2000 toilets. Generals are good at battle plans and killing. Rumsfeld is good at bringing these guys into the 21st century technologically, and increasing efficiency. The military needs people like him, even if Generals don't like it.

He's a traitor and if we had a President with balls, he'd be tried and hanged for sedition.

Except you can't prove sedition. Sedition requires that the person charged advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States or the intent to forment insurrection or rebellion. You can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And even if you could, it's not a death penalty offense.

Trekkie,
I get your point, but that comment wasn't call for.

Trekkie,
I get your point, but that comment wasn't call for.

I get your point, but that comment wasn't call for.

Beg pardon? I don't think what you said came through clearly...

Trekkie,
I was reffering to Keith's Comment:
"Zacarias Moussaoui also said that he had a dream that Bush pardoned him. Why am I not suprised".

that was uncalled for by Olbermann.

I think Keith was referring to the fact that the statement was not the first outrageous/nonsensical/insane thing that Moussaoui had said at his trial. In fact, it wasn't the most ludicrous thing he said today.
I think when Keith said "Why am I not surprised." it was in response to the fact that, given his past outbursts, it's not so unusual.

Trekkie,
So he was reffering to Moussaoui being deranged not implying Bush was incahoots?
If that's the case then I apologize for taking it out of contex.
I just though he was getting a dig at Bush because that's all he does. He never gives Bush credit for anything.
Look I'm not a big Bush fan but he's not no evil deranged man neither.
There's good and bad to him like all politicians.

Excerpted from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060414/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui

Prosecutor Rob Spencer: "So you would be happy to see 9/11 again?"
Moussaoui: "Every day until we get you."
...
Moussaoui said Army Lt. Col. John Thurman's harrowing account of escaping the burning Pentagon left him with "regret that he didn't die."
...
"I'm glad there was pain, and I wish there will be more pain," Moussaoui said. "The children in Palestine and in Chechnya will have pain. I want you to share their pain."
...
He told Spencer he's dreamed that President Bush will do this before leaving office in 2009. Spencer asked if that wasn't just propaganda. Moussaoui replied: "No, I believe it."

Moussaoui said the vision came to him just like his dream of flying a plane into the White House.
...

Trekkie,
That guy is deranged!
He's like the president of Iran having dreams and talking to imaginary friends!
It's definately the Hashish! I wonder where I can get some! Lol!

If you want that"fair and balanced", go watch the missing, dead, white girl channel. Olbermann is just interested in getting at the truth. You know you guys watch Olbermann because Faux News doesn't cover any of this beyond simply dismissing it.

Scooter Libby throws Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer under the bus

Oh yes he did. Just mentioning these guys is huge. How the heck will Rove be able to keep his job now?

If you think Scooter is not fingering Bush and Cheney, think again. From Firedoglake
On page 11, Team Libby gives a shout out to George and Dick in this form:

The defense has the right to argue at trial that Mr. libby’s actions with respect to the NIE were authorized at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, and would be entitled to bolster such arguments with documents and testimony.

Did you get that? He reserves the right to call in the Prez and VP and others.

Do you guys actually think Rummy is doing a heckuvajob? Its not just one general calling for his resignation, its 5 or 6 at this point. Delong? Oh, he's the guy that helped Tommy Franks not get Bin Laden at Tora Bora. No wonder he thinks Rummy is doing a heckuvajob.

Hit_escape...

"The defense has the right to argue at trial that Mr. libby’s actions with respect to the NIE were authorized at the highest levels of the Executive Branch, and would be entitled to bolster such arguments with documents and testimony."

You're pulling on Olby..."with respect to the NIE." It has nothing to do with the release of Plame's name (as Olby has attempted to connect). Solely the NIE. Don't link the two, because they are not connected.

It is a pathetic sight to see these lefties are all in a titter over the idea that they have real live retired generals "on their side". Of course, this is the same bunch of lefties that do their best to keep ROTC and military recruiters off college campuses and generally mock the military at every opportunity, the same Belzer Bozos that believe that people volunteer for the military because there are "no jobs" or because they are "duped".

Newsflash to the lefties - there has been a "war" within the Pentagon ever since Bush appointed Rumsfeld and tasked him the job of moving the U.S. military into the 21st century. Specifically, of abandoning the large force, "two war" doctrine in favor of a streamlined military based heavily on high-tech weapons and capabilities, special forces and outsourced support services. The idea is that when threats are more defused it's better to have a large number of smaller units able to deploy rapidly around the world - and to station forward units in a more dispersed fashion. Hence, doing things like moving units out of Germany and South Korea, reducing or overall fighting force, subcontracting work out to the dreaded Halliburton, etc.

Of course for every "winner" in this 21st Century military there are "losers". And those "losers" - those who sell things that the "old" military would buy - are doing their best to fight back. It's funny how the left rails about the military-industrial complex except when their effort to undermine Bush's mandate to Rumsfeld coincides with their desire to undermine the President.

The tip-off is when you see generals citing the Powell doctrine to justify their argument that we should have used massive force to invade Iraq (500,000 like we used in the Persian Gulf war). It's when you see stories claiming if we had more troops going into Iraq the Baghdad Museum would not have been looted (a story now proven completely false; Saddam had looted the best stuff in the museum years before the invasion), or claims that the insurgents would have no weapons if we had more troops to secure weapons depots and so on. All of these "talking points" and others are part of an effort to thwart the effort of Bush-Rumsfeld to revamp the military.

At the end of the day the proof is in the pudding. Folks forget that the "old military" types decried the battle plan in Afghanistan (go back and read the papers about how we would get bogged down in the Afghan winter) and Iraq (go back and read the papers about how we would get bogged down in the Iraq summer). We did something in 10 days that the Soviets could not do in 10 years in Afghanistan. We defeated the Iraqi army and toppled the Saddam regime in three weeks. The fact is that this "new" military works.

As a side note, this is why claims by the left that we can't invade Iran because we "don't have the troops" is absurd. We have the capability to defeat Iran military in a matter of weeks, if not days, using a few thousand special forces on the ground, off-shore attacks from the Navy and air attacks via sorties originating from Afghanistan, Iraq, and off-shore. If we choose we can wipe out the entire Iranian navy and air force in a weekend, destablize their government and send in the 4th ID to mop up. Before some of you lefties debate this point be sure to look at a map so you understand how effectively we have Iran surrounded. You would also do well to google the "Lousiana Maneuvers" and read about them so you will have at least some inkling about the basis for the ongoing overhaul of the military.

I guess I just find it funny that any military officer who supports the President is suspect but any military officer who is critical of the President (or Rumsfeld) is beyond reproach. It cuts both ways - everyone has an agenda.

sure, rummy has put off the old guard with his streamlining of forces, etc. but i don't believe bitter grapes from that alone is the sole reason for the retired generals' statements against him.

the generals have raised the claims that insufficient force was used in Iraq, that the doctrine of overwhelming force so effectively employed in Desert Storm was ignored in Iraqi Freedom because of rummy's reduced-force agenda. so they believe he ignored the facts on the ground, and the advice of generals, to push an ideological agenda, and that such a choice has resulted in an operation which has cost the U.S. more than it should have, in terms of lives and treasure and instability in the region. but has it really cost that much and been that unstable?

if we'd done it all the generals' way, it probably would have cost a lot more in treasure and a lot less in lives. so it's a trade off either way. but i do think some of their objections are genuine, and in mind of the casualties, not just bitter grapes, and are a sincere objection to the trade off that rummy seems to have made.

but once again, has the cost of the war really been excessive? one must also consider the bigger picture, which i believe the pentagon always does. and when the most powerful country in the world can occupy the second largest global oil reserves for about 1%GDP/1000lives annually, you're probably breaking even. (which means we'll most likely never leave, i.e., remember the permanent bases being built).

and yes, i also agree with you that we could probably do all the same things with Iran, winning the same ground and "control", and at the same costs.

but what about stability in the region? has it increased or decreasesd, and will it improve? that will be the true test of whether it was all worth it, and only time will tell. we'll know in another five years or so, after events on the ground spin out, and after the veterans costs begin to rise (which is expected to double the overall cost of the conflict).

Olbermann might be the new Noam Chomsky...only much less articulate

Olbermann might be the new Noam Chomsky...only much less articulate

You're pulling on Olby..."with respect to the NIE." It has nothing to do with the release of Plame's name (as Olby has attempted to connect). Solely the NIE. Don't link the two, because they are not connected.

I wasn't linking them, but I get your point. Still it sounds like Scooter is desparate to drag the VP and Prez in at any cost. The damage, in the public eye, is enormous. That's what Scooter wants, and that's what Scooter will get, Olbermann or not.

We did something in 10 days that the Soviets could not do in 10 years in Afghanistan. We defeated the Iraqi army and toppled the Saddam regime in three weeks. The fact is that this "new" military works.

First, let me say, that the US military is the finest fighting force in the world. If you let them do their job, they have no equal.

I'm all with you on Afganistan. I think we oughta redeploy our troops there before it slips away and so we can get Bin Laden.

Population in Iraq, 27 million, population in Iran 69 million. Size Iraq 437,000 sq km, Iran 1.6 million sq km.

I wish you chicken hawks would all enlist in the infantry so you could see how easy it is for the modern military to accomplish your goals. You should see it all first hand.

Don't forget the political cost. Right now, the mullahs are barely holding on to Iran. If you want to drive the population of Iran into the arms of the mullahs, keep rattling those sabers or drop some stratagic bombs. The mullahs can manipulate fear as good as any neocon can.

Or the new Joe Biden only more obnoxious . . . (try to think of someone else more obnoxious than Biden, that takes some doing).

> Still it sounds like Scooter is desparate to drag the VP and Prez in at any cost.

See? This is how Olbermann's spin works on the credulous. Libby's filings specifically stated that neither the VP nor the Prez were involved in the Plame leak. But the gullible swallow Olby's hysterical headlines, and insist something 180 degrees contrary to the actual facts.

The only thing more dispiriting than Krazy Keith's irresponsible spinning of the news are the people who swallow his fevered fantasies and actually prefer them to the truth. Up is down. Right is left. Libby is trying to implicate Bush and Cheney in the Plame leak, when in fact his filings said the exact opposite. The air must be real thin up there on OlbyPlanet.

Libby is trying to implicate Bush and Cheney in the Plame leak, when in fact his filings said the exact opposite.

Yeah, that's what his filings say, but last time I checked, the guy in indicted for perjury. Why do you believe him now?

No, Cox, what's pathetic is seeing people like you act like Rumsfield has done such a great job, or that Iran is an easy target for another pre-emptive United States war.

No, Nonfactor, it's pathetic to see Leftist like you that don't see the threat that the President of Iran Admittedjerk and his Imaginary friend the 12th Iman as a real danger!
Anyone who makes his cabinet swear allegiance to an Imaginary friend is insane.

Read his new statement on Israel!

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-14T163100Z_01_BLA455382_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22

Is that someone you want with nukes?

> the guy in [sic] indicted for perjury. Why do you believe him now?

Where did I say I believed him? Point it out to me. Apparently Olbermann supporters have large difficulties with reading comprehension.

You cited the filings to claim he was trying to implicate POTUS & VP, when in fact the filings did the exact opposite. Now you're claiming it's OK to falsify what the filings stated because the guy is indicted for perjury? Then WHY DID YOU CITE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

OlbyLogic.

Read his new statement on Israel!

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-04-14T163100Z_01_BLA455382_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22

Nothing new here. The guy has made statements like this all along. The best thing thing you could do for the guy to help him stay in power is bomb him. In fact, he's probablyu begging you to bomb him right now.

If you want to get rid of him, hit him with sanctions that make a difference and his popularity will decline. He's not all that popular now. The moderates in Iran don't have much of a voice in Iraq right now and they will have no voice at all once you bomb him.

I, for one, am not advocating bombing anyone. I am just pointing out that it is absurd to claim that we can't invade Iran because we don't have enough available troops.

There is nothing "easy" about a war of any kind whether it is for three days, three weeks or three years. That said, the size of Iran's population and the size of the country itself are not the determining factors but rather our ability to dominate through the air and on the sea and, by virtue of our position in Iraq and Afghanistan, to infiltrate the country via special forces.

Whether we act militarily in Iran or not, I don't see how it serves our interest to make a pre-emptive declaration that the military option is off the table.

Except for Sanjay, are we at least agreed that Iran with nukes is a bad thiing?

Sorry O'reilly Rules, you seem as intent on seeing the rosy side of the whole affair as I am seeing the bad side of it. Maybe Olby or Schuster will clarify it for you tonight.

Here's the latest from Murray Waas.

Both Libby and Cheney have repeatedly insisted that the vice president never encouraged, directed, or authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity. In a court filing on April 12, Libby's attorneys reiterated: "Consistent with his grand jury testimony, Mr. Libby does not contend that he was instructed to make any disclosures concerning Ms. Wilson [Plame] by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or anyone else."

But the disclosure that Cheney instructed Libby to leak portions of a classified CIA report on Joseph Wilson adds to a growing body of information showing that at the time Plame was outed as a covert CIA officer the vice president was deeply involved in the White House effort to undermine her husband.

A spokesman for the vice president declined to comment.

I think even a no-spin zone participant can see why progressives are determined to get to the bottom of this.

Hit_Escape,
I don't care about the Scooter Libby case. It doesn't effect my life! I'm worried about the Irannian Nukes. Of course President Admittedjerk wants us to bomb him! He believes that a war with the US and Israel will usher in the return of his invisible friend the 12th Iman. Well I firebomb his country like we did Germany and Japan!
As for thr Moderates,. Modertae Islamists?
That crap they hate the west too, we should support the Iranian people to overthrow their regime.
By taking out their government and uinstigating an uprising, that's the way to do it.
Why do some members on the left sympathize with Iran?
They stand for everything the left believes in!
Please explain!

"Modertae Islamists?"

Wow, O'Reilly Rules you ARE the FauxNews target audience! the kind of person who believes that the only good jap is a dead jap. the only good kraut is a dead kraut. the only good gook is a dead gook. you are a propagandist's dream!

don't think twice, just repeat after me: "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM ... THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM ... THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM."

"Modertae Islamists?"

Wow, O'Reilly Rules you ARE the FauxNews target audience! the kind of person who believes that the only good jap is a dead jap. the only good kraut is a dead kraut. the only good gook is a dead gook. you are a propagandist's dream!

don't think twice, just repeat after me: "THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM ... THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM ... THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM."

JR,
you're a leftist loon. Japan is an ally and Germany is a has been country we licked twice.
It's funny you on the left use the term Moderate Islamists, how come I never hear Moderate Evangelical Christian? No right away it's the radical Christian Right!
Hypocrisy is so easy to see.
Hey, go visit Iran and tell what kind of paradise it is.

no ORRs, i meant to imply that you would believe any government slogan put out during wartime. that is, you would have blindly/obediently believed during WW II that the only good jap/kraut is a dead one, or bought hook-line-and-sinker that "the only good gook is a dead gook" during the vietnam war. that's what i meant.

and i said it because you sounded incredulous that any "moderate Islamists" might exist.

then i drew the comparison with Operation Iraqi Freedom by suggesting that you obediently believe that "They Hate Our Freedoms" -- a mistakenly simplistic and vacuous propaganda mantra typical of the right/Bushies.

that's what i meant.

(do you really doubt that there are moderate islamists? or do you mean to say that there are no moderate terrorists? that i could understand. sorry if i took your meaning incorrectly.)

------

Only T minus 35 minutes and counting to Keith !!!

JR,
The Islamo-Fascists Hate'us because the want to restore the 7th Century Caliphate that's all. I supported the Iraq invasion, but felt it wasn't done with enough troops and we should,ve marched on to Damscus and then finally to Teheran to end it were this sick ideology all began.

but surely not everyone in syria, iraq, and iran, nor every muslim, islamist, and arab in the fertile crescent wants to resurrect the Ottomon Caliphate, right? in fact, it's probably a very small minority, if not minute.

although i'll grant you the vast majority DO want the U.S. out of their crescent. (and hell, that's the same way everyone south of the mason-dixon line felt at one point, so i can't blame 'em entirely for that.)

--------

Only T minus 10 minutes to Keith !!! enjoy the show, ORRs ...