Bernard Trainor is a pretty straight shooter. Hence, the need to bring in Thomas Frank who can parrot the media talking point of the day: if six retired generals are coming forward and saying these what are the generals on the ground saying?

Thomas DeFrank...with a "de"

It will be interesting to view the New Orleans mayors race segment.....one of the DUmpy left wing conspiracy web sites was all over this story before one of the wingnuts discovered the candidate involved apparently is a Democrat....wonder if KO will "inform" his viewers of that fact...there can now be no doubt as to where KO gets his so called "news"

In the news today...from CNN.com...Mumps outbreak now in 8 states...Moussaoui judge reverses 'Shoebomber' ruling...Fugitive child killer, now 87, nabbed after 30 years...Iranian leader slams U.S. nuclear pressure ...Easter celebrated around the world.,,

Except in OlbyLoonLand where we get the SixGenerals...more SixGenerals...a Bear Attack in Tennessee...Pythons (again) in Florida...Cats in New York City...and we're only half way done.

- one of the DUmpy left wing conspiracy web sites

link please?

I'm watching the Dog Whisperer! It's more informative!

Robert...try this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2569506

6 generals calling for rummy to resign is the news, you on the other hand would be more consirned about the so called WAR on Easter.

That New Orleans photo is a CLASSIC.

Are any of you clear-thinkers bothering to monitor the Keith Olbermann DU forums and their "secret" meeting?

Since they won't agree to guest post here I'd like to link some of their posts over there.

I was really surprised by Olby's choice of Ann Coulter quote, to be honest, because she said about a hundred more things on O'Reilly last night that were way worse and crazy-sounding.

I just loved watching O'Reilly looking at her like she was insane. It was quite fun. Whatever you want to say about Bill O'Reilly, at least he wins the "knows Ann Coulter is insane" award.

I am a daily DU'er. That, and bushflash, and axisoflogic,and buzzflash,and commondreams,and crooksandliars....................so on and so forth......

Yesterday, O'Reilly ripped into the Atlanta Journal Constituion's editor Oit of Sync Tucker.
He took them to task for attacking and blaming Conservative Christians for the culture war I loved it.
I'm liberal on social issues, but the Christian right has a point ion the attcks on Christianity by the left. If only the Secular Progressives would be just as outrage on Islamo-Fascism, I would think they're just opposed to religion in general. But that's not the case. They have a problem with Evangelical and Conservative Castholics.
O'Reilly unmasks it always and that's why they hate him!

Okay, Keith should not mention that 6 generals disagree with Rumsfeld because ...? Oh, he called the pretender Mr. Bush instead of Mr. President? Oh yes, and those ment are retired. Of course, if they voiced concern while in office, they'd have been fired or called traitors. How many more soldiers do you want killed/maimed for lies? The more you pay at the gas pump, the more Bush and Cheney put in their off shore bank accounts. Hey, that's what bringing democracy is all about when we bring it to the middle east.

Jill, I don't agree with your leftist diatribes, but I agree that Rumsfeld should go!

They have a problem with Evangelical and Conservative Castholics.

When they try to make policy based on their beliefs, yes I have a problem. I don't give a flyin' flip what people practice in the privacy of their own home, but when they try to use the government as an instrument of their faith it makes me nervous.

the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann sung the praises of the half-dozen dissenting generals

Former commander of the 82nd Airborne while they were in Iraq, former commander of the 1st Infantry Division while they were in Iraq. Former head of CentCom (which handles Middle East operations). Former commander in charge of training Iraqi troops. Only one (Zinni) has been a long-standing critic of the war.

When generals and former generals criticize the Washington Post for an editorial cartoon depicting an American soldier with no arms or legs, they "have more than the right to take issue with any disrespectful regard for our wounded" (as another conservative-leaning blog put it). But when former generals (one of whom held a battlefield post as recent as last year) take a dissenting line, they're regarded as out-of-touch old warhorses who couldn't adapt.

Funny how every person who dares espouse an opinion other than "everything is beautiful" is deranged or maliciously pursuing the President...

Dick the Cheney's tax forms were just released. He made ove 8 mil. I want to throw up. A cheat, a liar, a thief and a coward. The new dictionary word is doing a Dick Cheney --- which means having the appearance of gravatis while you lie your ass off. Hurtful, awful people, who have betrayed this country and what it stands for.

Jill not only that. Could you imagine if Clinton were still in office, and these Generals were making these same claims. The Neo-clowns would be going crazy!!!!

> Okay, Keith should not mention that 6 generals disagree with Rumsfeld because ...?

Are all Olbermann supporters this dense? Where did I write that Keith should not report about the six generals? Can't you understand simple, declarative English?

The point that apparently was too complex because it went completely over your head is the fact that he ONLY reports on Generals who are against Rumsfeld. Not ONE WORD about the generals who have come out in support of him.

I'm surprised I have to keep explaining this stuff, but then again, I am dealing with Olbermanniacs.

Not ONE WORD about the generals who have come out in support of him.

If they're still in uniform, they can't publicly criticize the Administration without resigning in protest first. And then they'd be denounced because they resigned.

> But when former generals (one of whom held a battlefield post as recent as last year) take a dissenting line, they're regarded as out-of-touch old warhorses who couldn't adapt.

Sheesh, Trekkie, I thought you were smarter than this. If you can point out where I said anything about the half-dozen being out of touch, warhorses, or that they couldn't adapt, do so. If not, stop creating straw men and respond to the point.

In case it went over your head too, see my reply above to Jill.

Trekkie,
Glad to have you back!
The point I'm making is that the American Left gets all worked up about Evangelicals and Catholics but not that upset over Islamo-Fascist like the Iranians Ayatollahs.
I don't agree with the Christian Right on many issues, but they are right that the media is Anti-Christian.
Why is it O.K to show pictures defaming Jesus or the Virgin Mary. To claim Judas was a good guy based on a Cultic version of events. But never anything negative about Islam! During the Cartoon roits not too many newspapers in the US showed the cartoon. But if it was Jesus they would show it in a moment.
Please tell why the Anti-Christian attitude but nothing ever critical about Islam?
Why plese answer me!

Please tell why the Anti-Christian attitude but nothing ever critical about Islam?

Um, because guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are trying to make it so that if you aren't Christian you'll have no power? And don't tell me I'm nuts because Falwell and Robertson still get feted around by the Republican Party as powerful, influential people who have the ears of guys like Bill Frist and Rick Santorum.

Olby getting beat in the ratings by a three week old O'Reilly show. Now that will be PRICELESS!!!!

Jill Perry:
Dick the Cheney's tax forms were just released. He made over 8 mil. I want to throw up. A cheat, a liar, a thief and a coward.

Interesting that you left out the rest of the story.

The Cheneys donated about $6.87 million to charity from the stock options and royalties earned on Mrs. Cheney's books:

So that evil fascist selfish monster Cheney donated over 85% of his income to charity.

I guess you just forgot to include that tidbit, right?

With that keen eye, it's no wonder you're a fan of Olbermann's.

SMG

Trekkie
Pat Robertson and Falwell don't represent me. They're morons. They're Christian-Fascists in my book.
The question I'm asking and if you can't abswer it it's oK since it's really not directed at you, Is why the Media is quick to condem Catholics and Evangelicals and never condemn Muslims.
why is Christianity bashed but Islam given a pass, If not you maybe another Liberal or leftist can answer please.
I'm not trying to debate!
I just want to know the logic behind this double standard.

Jill...
"which means having the appearance of gravatis while you lie your ass off."

Would that "new dictionary" be Jonathon Alter, you said this on Wednesday's Countdown, who you have basically just parrotted without proper attribution?

By the way, any sort of evidence of Bush or Cheney atually having an off shore account, or just wishful thinking?

New Flash...

I just saw on the BBC right now that there are rumors....
That Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are cloning troops on the moon to take over the world. The clones have been in the works for the last 2 years.
Maybe The graet intelligence expert Jack Frost can tell us!

New Flash...

I just saw on the BBC right now that there are rumors....
That Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are cloning troops on the moon to take over the world. The clones have been in the works for the last 2 years.
Maybe The graet intelligence expert Jack Frost can tell us!

Hey all you disgusting lefty idiots (how's that for a snappy opening)! Here's a nice piece about Olby's beloved Generals:

http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/04/grumbles_from_t.html

The generals in question are basically Clinton appointees. They are also old timers who hate Rumsfeld's movement to smaller units, more unit independence, greater reliance on Special Forces, and a reorganization of units to be self-sufficient rather than specialized.

You want these old angry Clintonista fossils running the show, then elect that hag Hillary. You can then enjoy the fine Clinton-era style of warfare that served us so well in Somalia, Afghanistan (remember the cruise missile that came "oh-so-close" to Bin Laden) and Yugoslavia. You know, that strong military response to the USS Cole bombing and the Embassy bombings that emboldened the Islamofascists to perpetrate 9/11. Oh yeah, the good old days!

Whatever you want to say about Bill O'Reilly, at least he wins the "knows Ann Coulter is insane" award.

I will grant him that. Now if only the rest of the world would figure it out...

Meanwhile, we're in month four since the Iraqi elections and still no forward progress towards forming a permanent government. The animal act could have been bumped to #3 and the Barry Bonds stuff dumped entirely - if the Iraqis don't start getting their "poop in a group" (as my Debate instructor was wont to say), then we've spun our wheels...again.

This just in -- Wesley Clark is a former General, and he hates Don Rumsfeld! Hold the presses, gather the Countdown staff, and release the following statement:

"Widespread disenchantment with Rumsfeld is evident tonight as a really really non-partisan middle-of-the-road former GENERAL thinks that RUMSFELD is doing a bad job. The ripples are being felt throughout Warshington!"

Hey Puck, KFK and RCOx.
Look at this exchange between Che Frostyvara and I.It'll expplain my above post

Me:'I heard Karl Rove is in cahoots with Martians to build a Death Star. Is this true?'

Frosty:

"Dunno.
But I do know that Karl Rove is such an underhanded, despicable bastard that I wouldn't put anything past him."

He actually can believe what I said!

Speaks volumes!

Here's another one of his gems.

Me:
'Hey tell me when you plan to have this revolution.'

The great Revolutionary:
'It's happening right now, all around you.
But by having your head buried in the sand, you might not be able to hear this rising tide.'

I guess we're going see him and his buddies flyin the Red/Black Marxist banner storming the White House and Frosrty in all his Communist glory declaring The People's Republic of America!

Hey Frosty,
Did you know I'm an FBI agent!
Thanks to the Patriot Act the Bush Criminal Sydicate is coming for you! You noticed the Balck Helicopters and unmarked cars outside your home.
We're watching and we have UFO's also!

Good "civilian control of the military":
President Harry Truman relieved the general from his military duties on April 10, 1951 for "insubordination" after MacArthur--on his own initiative--issued an ultimatum to the Chinese Communists to withdraw from conflict in Korea or risk attacks upon their "coastal areas and interior bases." As Truman was about to issue the relief order, on of his advisors suggested that it might be better to allow MacArthur to voluntary resign; Truman is said to have replied, "The son of a bitch isn't going to resign on me, I want him fired."

Bad "civilian control of the military".
Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, ?The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can?t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn?t going to last any longer than that.? He also said, ?It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.? [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

"Earlier today, I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the global war on terror," the president said. "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our nation."

Rummy's gotta go Mr. President. You and Cheney can resign too if you want to.

Then Jack Frost and His Revolutionary buddies can take over!
I can't wait!
We need a real Intellect like him whose philosophical insights surpasses by eons Confusious!

More exclusive info from the great spy master himself, Jack (007) Frost!

Me:
'Also can you give me the locations of thses secret government camps 007!'

007:
'They're not secret, you just don't know about them, there's a difference. And what's the point of providing you with information when it's clear that whatever I offer you'll be belligerantly opposed to based simply on the fact that it's coming from me.'

He has uncovered one of the greatest government coverupsin U.S. history!
He's definately the greatest journalist of all time!
He ecplises Bob Woodward as the greatest investigative journalists of our time!

The generals in question are basically Clinton appointees.

John Riggs - Major General, 39-year Army veteran, Distinguished Flying Cross in Vietnam, tapped by General Eric Shinseki in 2001 to head up the Army's transition to the "Future Combat System". Stripped of his third star and forced to resign for offenses that aren't even in his service record.

As point of historical fact, a flag officer losing a star is usually reserved for serious (read: court-martial level) offenses. Not even the flag officers involved in the Tailhook scandal lost their stars when they were forced out.

John Batiste - Major General, Commander 1st Infantry Division, 31-year veteran, turned down promotion and offer of second-in-command of forces in Iraq before retiring.

Charles H. Swannack - Major General, Commander 82nd Airborne, 33-year veteran.

Gregory Newbold - Lt. General, Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs, 30-year veteran, Commanding General 1st Marine Division, tactics instructor, Former Director of Manpower Plans and Policy Division (HQ Marine Corps)

Anthony Zinni - General, Former OIC, U.S. Central Command, 32-year veteran, Bronze Star with "V" and gold star, Distinguished Service Medal with oak cluster, Master's Degree in International Relations and Master's Degree in Management.

Oh yes, these guys all must have axes to grind. Despite the fact that they all served more tha three decades, earned enough medals and citations to wallpaper my living room and (with the exception of Zinni) served deep into the Bush Administration they're "dinosaurs" that had to be "forced out".

Nice try, KfK. Come back when you actually have some evidence.

Trekkie,
where do people like Jack Frost with these wacky conspiracies come out of?
I mean he thinks that a revolution is under way!Lol!

Jack frost hasn't responded tonight. Maybe he's plotting his long awaited Revolution! With assistance from Sanjay and The Iranian Foreign Ministry he will plot a campaign to overthrow the government.
His miltary tactics will outshine even Napoleon Bonaparte at Austerlitz!

I didn't find any comments above about whether KO was orange enough, or too orange. Shouldn't you keep tabs on that?

Ah, Trekkie, you bring up the venerable Shinseki! How do I know that name? Oh yes, JF Kerry kept throwing out the guys name during the 2004 election: "General Shinseki says...the General has endorsed me...etc. etc. etc." A Generazl who would endorse Kerry is never going to agree with Rumsfeld PERIOD. Kerry believed in appeasement, surrender and flip flopping. So Shinseki was pals with the wonderful Riggs, who was stripped of a star! Well, that makes them both oh so credible!

As I said before, Wesley Clark is a Clinton-era General -- why not throw him in as a former General who hates Rumsfeld? So what if he is a partisan hack groping at higher office?

Bottom line is, these are just six guys with an axe to grind. Blowing this thing up into a "Rummy must go" frenzy is the liberal media's work. There are plenty of Generals who think Rumsfeld is doing a great job, there are troops on the ground now who need a unified military, and these guys are undermining the effort. Goes to show ya, get rid of the former President's cronies if you can, 'cause they will bite you on the ass if you don't.

Keep looking to take down your own Government and military Trekkie. That should really benifit you in the long run.

Rumsfeld has on 2 occasions offered to resign,
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/rumsfeld.resign/

so if 6 generals or millions of citizens believe Rummy was on the right track with his attempts to resign, what's the problem?

Olby has a lot of problems spitting out a complete sentence without screwing up. He's worse than Shep Smith at Fox... and that's bad. Krazy Keith might consider adding speech to his list of therapists.

"I didn't find any comments above about whether KO was orange enough, or too orange. Shouldn't you keep tabs on that? "

His curious orange color is fading
The same can be said for his rating
Most find him deplorable
Extremely abhorable
Red are the states he is hating

Trekkie:

You said about "Evangelical and Conservative Catholics":

"When they try to make policy based on their beliefs, yes I have a problem"

Although it is quite common to hear this coming from lefties I am still always mystified by this type of comment.

Do you REALLY believe that American citizens should not make, vote for or otherwise support policy based on their "beliefs" by which I take it you mean "religious beliefs"? If so, that could explain why lefties (in this case, secular humanists lke you) are so far out of the mainstream not only today but within the context of the history of the United States.

I'm sure you must be familiar with the Declaration of Independence, right?

It begins with our founding fathers explaining their belief that the right to become an independent nation comes from God:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They then explain their conception of human rights which they believed came from God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The American revolution was the direct result of what Robert Fogel has called "The First Great Awakening" - a shift away from the protestant notion of predestination and towards the salvation of many and the emergence of the modern concept of "free will".

When I earned my degree in economics from the University of Chicago I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Robert Fogel and was with him in his class the morning he learned he had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1993. The material he used in that class was later put into book form, The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism. You would do well to read it. In it you might fight that American history IS the history of the manifestation of religious beliefs in policy.

As a liberal you might pay particular attention to the section on The Third Great Awakening which Fogel describes as follows:

Third Phase of Religious Revival:

1890-1930: Shift from emphasis on personal to social sin; rise in belief that poverty is not a personal failure ("the wages of sin") but a societal failure that can be addressed by the state; shift to more secular interpretation of the Bible and creed.

Subsequent Phase of Rising Political Effect:

1930-1970: Attack on corruption of big business and the right; labor reforms; civil rights and women's rights movements; belief in equality of condition (principle that equality is to be achieved primarily by government programs aimed at raising wages and transferring income from rich to poor through income taxes and finance welfare programs); rise in belief that poverty is not a personal failure but a societal failure; expansion of secondary and higher education; attack on religious and racial barriers to equal opportunity (leading to later attacks on gender-based assumptions of behavior and discrimination based on sexual orientation).

Dr. Fogel taught from a chart he used in class which is available on the University of Chicago Press web site.

I know all this advanced economic theory from one of the most brilliant economist of our age might make your head explode but the fact is that the "progressive movement" in the United States - which I assume you support - IS the manifestation in policy of CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Maybe someday you will realize that the reason Americans have rejected the left;s secular humanist ideaology is because it displays such an ignorance of the role of religious beliefs in the great societal movements in American history. To paraphrase the lefty talking points in the media regarding the sixgenerals - if you don't know this what else is it that you don't know.

PS, if Fogel is right, and he did not win a Nobel Prize for being a dope, then I'd suggest you avoid reading the section of Fogel's chart on the the Rising Political Effect of the current Fourth Great Awakening. You won't like it.

Keep looking to take down your own Government and military Trekkie. That should really benifit you in the long run.

Thank you for diverting the argument with a lovely non-sequitor. You say these guys have an ax to grind and are "Clinton cronies". I say "where's the proof of that?" You take us back to John Kerry and the wholly Republican (and wholly false) "appeasement" meme from 2004. I even pointed out that one chose retirement over promotion (which seems to indicate people were happy with the job he was doing).

So again, KfK, I ask you - where's your proof that these men have an ax to grind?

Do you REALLY believe that American citizens should not make, vote for or otherwise support policy based on their "beliefs" by which I take it you mean "religious beliefs"?

Well, there is that pesky First Amendment Establisment Clause that gets in the way...

They then explain their conception of human rights which they believed came from God:

No, sir. They believed in a "Creator", which is a much broader concept than the Christian God. Many of the Founders were Deists - they believed in a higher power but did not necessarily believe that that higher power was the Christian interpretation known as "God".

O.R.R.
You have to lay off Frosty for a while, He was just starting to poke his head out from under the bed in his room.

O.R.R.
You have to lay off Frosty for a while, He was just starting to poke his head out from under the bed in his room.

I would like to address the number two story. As a owner of cats....er...well, wait. As one who is owned by cats (2). May I say this. If you were behind the wall and Wacko-Peta types along with Jill Perry, Trekie,pennerigateleggs,Frosty,Hit-Miss,etc.etc. Were blocking the light at the end of the tunnel.Would you want to come out?

How many Secretaries of Defense in the past have had generals specifically asking for the Secretary to step down? All of whom were on the ground in the war. None. Dissent like this is unprecidented. This is not just people that "disagree" like Rumsfeld likes to say.

Rumsfeld even offered TWICE in the past to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal. Clearly Rumsfeld thinks that there are reasons he shouldn't be Seceratarty of Defense. Personally, I don't want a leader that doesn't think that he should be there and has to ask if he can quit.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/rumsfeld.resign/

Also, why did you omit the fact that Obly's guest Bernard Trainor is ALSO A RETIRED GENERAL? The only reason to omit it is so that Olbermanwatch can say:

"When Olby introduced Bernard Trainor as 'cogent' and 'no-nonsense', we knew that something was up."

Instead Olbermannwatch puts up the opinion of a general against the opinion of some guy that we should all know "something was up."

How many Secretaries of Defense in the past have had generals specifically asking for the Secretary to step down? All of whom were on the ground in the war. None. Dissent like this is unprecidented. This is not just people that "disagree" like Rumsfeld likes to say.

Rumsfeld even offered TWICE in the past to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal. Clearly Rumsfeld thinks that there are reasons he shouldn't be Seceratarty of Defense. Personally, I don't want a leader that doesn't think that he should be there and has to ask if he can quit.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/rumsfeld.resign/

Also, why did you omit the fact that Obly's guest Bernard Trainor is ALSO A RETIRED GENERAL? The only reason to omit it is so that Olbermanwatch can say:

"When Olby introduced Bernard Trainor as 'cogent' and 'no-nonsense', we knew that something was up."

Instead Olbermannwatch puts up the opinion of a general against the opinion of some guy that we should all know "something was up."

> Also, why did you omit the fact that Obly's guest Bernard Trainor is ALSO A RETIRED GENERAL?

We only identified him as a general in, like, the 4TH LINE OF THE ARTICLE. Thank you for your brilliant observation. Next time, read first.

Thank you for your response and I did overlook the guest list that showed Bernard Trainor’s rank. I do think though that his rank should have been mentioned at least once within the body of the article (traditionally the first mention of the individual within the body is necessary). Now that it has been cleared up, what is the basis of the idea that “something was up” when Olbermann introduced him? Why doubt Olby’s characterization of a general as “cogent” and “no-nonsense?” If we are to doubt the veracity of Gen. Bernard Trainor, why shouldn’t we doubt the veracity of Gen. Richard Myers.

Puck,
Frostyvara is plotting his revolt! Or he's writing his response to Plato's the Republic!

> If we are to doubt the veracity of Gen. Bernard Trainor

I never said anyone should doubt his veracity. It's Olbermann's veracity that is dubious.

If you don't doubt Gen. Trainor's veracity, then that means that you disagree with the writer of the article who does doubt his veracity.

"When Olby introduced Bernard Trainor as 'cogent' and 'no-nonsense', we knew that something was up. Trainor himself has blasted Rumsfeld on more than one occasion, and served up the predictable allegations that everyone other than Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney, was out of the decision-making loop."

That paragraph says that Trainor is not cogent or no-nonsense and also criticizes Olby for believing that.

No wonder you people fall for Krazy Keith's spin so easily. You don't seem to understand clear English.

That paragraph says that Trainor was "predictable". It doesn't say he was wrong. Or right. Or truthful. Or lying. Check your dictionary for the meaning of "predictable". It pretty much applies to most every person Olby brings on for an interview. They are "cogent" and "no-nonsense" because they side with Olbermann and his spin points of the day.

Reading Is Fundamental.

"Billy O" and/or "hank",

Your limericks are much appreciated! Keep them up. And maybe even send them in to O'Reilly; as you probably know, he loves them and would probably read them at the end of his program.

Dear Mr. Dollar,
You said on Olby's last show he pulled a hat-trick. Were you trying to imply that it was a Tinfoil hat-trick????

There was a repeat lastnight on the O'Reilly show and the Dog whspere was on. I bet the Dog Whisperer has higher ratings then thanAl Jazeera USA(Keith Olbermann)

Spaghetti, the "hat trick" reference is a direct quote of Olby's own description of the days nominees. His label, not J$.

Trainor was indeed predictable; he just published a book in which he made clear his position on Rumsfeld. He was on Countdown only to restate this view, which, coincidentally, meshes with KO's "anything connected to 'Mr.' Bush is incompetent, uninformed, egotistical, and evil" world view.

Spaghetti,

The DUers are under the mistaken impression that I don't want them promoting their site over here.

Of course, I want links to all things Olby - pro and con - so if you can provide the links I will put them on the blog roll.

His butt-buddy in sports is Dan Patrick
Fox, CNN, NBC... that's a hat trick
He can't hold a job
Cuz he's blowing Dan's knob
Keith needs more therapy, he's sick

A double Olby limerick for Easter:

Olby went one day to his shrink
And cried: "No cares what I think!"
"My ratings are down
They think I'm a clown,
It's enough to make a man drink!"

Olby was soon past his trial
And went into deep denial
"I'm really quite good,
I'm misunderstood"
"It's time to spew moonbat bile!"

Trekkie and pals

There are currently 881 ACTIVE DUTY GENERALS out there. There are THOUSANDS of retired Generals.

All hail the mighty six retired Generals! Don't bother with the 881 active duty guys!

Will the MSM ever get around to talking to any of them, by the way? Hmmmm. . . .

Take a look at all the people the liberal media HAVE NOT talked to:

http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/rg0602.pdf

Just to stab the point home, percentage of active duty Generals involved in this fiasco: 0%

Ratio of retired griping Generals to Active Duty Generals:

6/881 = 0.68%

Conservative estimate of number of retired Generals in USA: 3000

Ratio of Gripers to normal Generals:

6/3000 = 0.2%

Well, if 0.2% of retired generals don't like Rummy, better run front-page stories for days saying Rummy faces a REBELLION! Oh no! Fire Rummy, cut and run!

Idiots, what say you?

I only speak the truth. Why do you hate me?

Don't bother with the 881 active duty guys!

Just to stab the point home, percentage of active duty Generals involved in this fiasco: 0%

Well yeah, because if any of the active duty guys criticize the Administration they can be court-martialed for Contemptuous Words (Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice). Maximum Punishment - Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement in Leavenworth for up to 1 year.

So really talking to the active-duty generals will not produce anything relevant because they'll either toe the line or deflect the question.

Trekkie,

Why not provide some data when you post? Perhaps it would weaken your argument?

You meant to quote this:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-88.htm

"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

I suppose in your warped mind, you can only criticize Rummy with "contemtuous" words! Also, don't your heroes in the liberal media LOVE the anonymous source? Don't they love to spew their thinly-veiled propaganda via the cowardly leaker? I'm sure they could interview a few active duty guys to write an "anonymous Generals say . . ." article, no?

I find your posts worthless.

Hey Trek

Was the kid who attacked Rumsfeld in a Q&A session court-martialed? You know, the kid who was coached by the reporter to ask about body and vehicle armor? The kid bordered on contemptuous, no?

Come up with better excuses for your media heroes next time.

Anyone remember those swiftboat fellows who got together and denounced Sen. Kerry during the last election?

There a few more than six,if I can remember that far back...

Excellent point C --

And in that case, every one of Kerry's commanding officers participated. For Trekkie, that is 100%. That was all unsubstantiated nonsense though. One must, after all, contextualize every scenario, n'est pas? In the dance of the liberal dialectic, one must be fleet footed and tread selectively.

Was the kid who attacked Rumsfeld in a Q&A session court-martialed?

Read the Article again. It only applies to commissioned officers, not to enlisted personnel (which I believe that kid was).

And in that case, every one of Kerry's commanding officers participated. For Trekkie, that is 100%. That was all unsubstantiated nonsense though.

Yes it was, for reasons I have already laid out on this site.

Wonder if Krazy Keith might lead off tonight's Meltdown with this gem:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref17.html

Very remote possibility that KK will ever ask some tough questions to Zinni, et al or to any other guest on his program as long as they genuflect to KK's opinions.

I saw Richard Meyers on TV over the weekend with my pal Tony Snow and did not like what he had to say. I can't find the transcript (if you have a link, please post it) but it was somethiing about the bad precedent it sets for retired generals to be passing judgement on the civilian leadership.

I don't recall Myers, or anyone from the Bush administration, expressing a similar concern when Tommy Franks was out campaigning for George W. Bush in 2004.

It seems absurd to say that these people SHOULDN'T TALK - what is that Myers thinks he is defending when he puts on the uniform if not the Constitution?

To those who think it is such a watershed event that sixgenerals have criticized Rumsfeld (and, implicitly Bush, for keeping him on) I'd only point out that Lincoln's TOP general not only spoke out against Lincoln but ran for President against him - and came pretty close to unseating him.

Bob-

I don't completely disagree with you, but it does seem to me that there ought to be a standard of decorum if a retired general wants to trash a sitting Secretary of Defense or commander in Chief. This is akin to the tradition of ex-Presidents not speaking foul about the current office holder (this rule of course does not apply to the revolting Democrat exes Carter and Clinton).

Trekkie,

Speaking of the Constitution, I thought you were the "serious" OlbyLoon?

Your reply to my brilliantly articulated, elegantly reason comment is knee-jerk and uninformed and logically inconsistent.

You wrote: "Well, there is that pesky First Amendment Establisment Clause that gets in the way..."

I quoted from the Declaration of Independence and your citing the Constitution and claiming that the First Amendment "gets in the way" of the Declaration. Not only is the Declaration of Independence not unconstitutional but the constitutionality of the Declaration has no bearing on my point that our country is founded on a religious belief, namely, that our rights as individuals and the right of an entire people to be independent as a nation come from God. You may not personally believe that to be true but it is beyond argument that THEY did - it's right there in the opening paragraph.

As for the Constitution, it appears that you have not even read it and don't even have the most basic understanding of what the Bill of Rights is intended to be. It is not a set of limitations on what American citizens can do but rather limits on what the national government can do with regard to individual citizens and the state governments. The First Amendment begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Note the first word - "Congress". The First Amendment describes the restrictions placed on CONGRESS not on American citizens.

You might also note the Constitution addresses itself to "an establishment of religion" and does not even address personal religious beliefs. In other words, what you call the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment not only does not PROHIBIT American citizens from having or acting upon their personal, religious beliefs it does not even address the subject at all.

The relevant portion of the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no clause...abridging the freedom of speech." American citizens are free to advocate any policy for any reason including a policy based on their religious beliefs. That "pesky" Constitution also allows any American citizen to vote, run for office, make government policy or do pretty much anything else they want to do based on any beliefs they might hold including their own religious beliefs. If a citizen is not acting based on their own beliefs then what the heck ARE they acting on?

Not that I am advocating this but the First Amendment does not even prohibit STATES from "establishing a religion", understood in the context of the Anglicanism in England. At the time the Constitution was drafted, many states had official, established religions; it was not unconstitutional because they were established by state legislatures not by the U.S. Congress.

Given your obvious ignorance, please don't bother "parsing" the First Amendment for our readers. It is beyond dispute that I am correct on this point. Likewise, please don't cite some letter Thomas Jefferson wrote about his views on religion and politics. Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was drafted and had ZERO role in writing it, editing it or ratifying it.

Now, as to the next point, you wrote: "They believed in a 'Creator', which is a much broader concept than the Christian God. Many of the Founders were Deists - they believed in a higher power but did not necessarily believe that that higher power was the Christian interpretation known as 'God'."

I don't know what "many" means. Perhaps you can justify the claim "many of the Founders were Deists" be identifying who you think qualifies to be considered a "Founder", how many of these people there were, and the nature of their religious beliefs. While you take off your socks and shoes to count them up, I will accept your claim at face value so I can point out the obvious fallacy in your reasoning - even when we accept your claims at face value. You dispute my statement that the Founders' conception of human rights was of something that came from God by postulating that the Founders did not believe in "God" but believed in a "'Creator' which is a much broader concept than the Christian God."

In other words you AGREE that the Founders based their concept of human rights on a belief in God but are making a distinction between a Christian concept of God and the "broader concept" of God held by Deists. Setting aside that this is not a distinction that I made, and so a distinction without a difference, whether a Founder was a Christian or a Deist your own argument is predicated on the notion that the derivation of the human rights set forth is a religiously based one. Whether it is Christian or Deist notion is immaterial to my point and so you have only served to prove me right - as if my pointed needed "proving".

Isn't it tiresome being so wrong so often?

As for the Constitution, it appears that you have not even read it and don't even have the most basic understanding of what the Bill of Rights is intended to be.

Sir, I went to law school and specialized in Constitutional Law. Do not presume to tell me I'm an idiot. Continue to do so at your peril.

The First Amendment describes the restrictions placed on CONGRESS not on American citizens.

But when American citizens demand that CONGRESS pass laws that are based on religious beliefs, then the Establishment clause kicks in.

Given your obvious ignorance, please don't bother "parsing" the First Amendment for our readers. It is beyond dispute that I am correct on this point.

No, you're dead wrong and I have over 50 years of Supreme Court precedent on my side. What do you have.

Isn't it tiresome being so wrong so often?

How tiresome is it to be a pompous jerk?

I spent 8 years of my life studying this. Don't tell me I don't KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!

Accepting Trekkie's opinions at face value, that "But when American citizens demand that CONGRESS pass laws that are based on religious beliefs, then the Establishment clause kicks in," I am not sure that I can agree that a ban on same sex marriage would fail the establishment clause test. No do I see abortion bans being disputed as a violation of religious establishment. It's a unique idea, but I haven't seen it tried anywhere.

I think your view, while generally well expressed is somewhat short-sighted, and really an abuse of the first amendment. Or are there some other cases you are thinking of?

Or are there some other cases you are thinking of?

School prayer, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Prayers before public events, "Faith-based" initatives...

And so far no one has come up with a reason for banning gay marriage other than the argument that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible. That to me smacks of trying to make religious morality policy.

Trekkie,

What is the Government doing sancioning marriages in the first place?

Trekkie,
Darwinsim, hasn't been proven. It's a theory. Ask yourself one question, why didn't more animals begin to talk? Also Darwinism is racist, Darwin was a racist. The theory of evolution was done to prove that North Europeans are superior to other cultures. Darwinism lead to Nazism.

As for Homosexuality, it's a gentic defect. What other species of animales try to mate within the same sex? It's defect that effects 1-5% of Humans. That doesn't make them less human or OK to discriminate them, but it is not a natural behavoir.

There's nothing wrong with prayers before public events. Why is it OK for Muslim Americans to invoke Allah but bad for Christians to invoke Jesus?The fact is Christians are the majority and most of the population is OK with public prayers.
The Left should give up on this, it's a losing proposition.

Congress has an official chaplain and holds prayer before sessions. So do most local governments in the US. This has been upheld as Constitutional. It is not a huge jump to say that banning school prayer was a mistake, in that it should have fallen under the same finding. It is not a government "establishment" of religion; rather in many cases it could be seen as a decision restricting the free exercise of religion.

I went to Christian schools from 6th grade through high school. We were taught Darwin's theory, the Big Bang, etc. It was part of a well rounded education, so that you were aware of the theories. They were taught objectively, allowing the students to make their own decision as to which side of the fence they came down on. Why is it that Liberals are so afraid of alternatives, such as ID or Creationism, being discussed? Asking for equal representation is NOT asking for a law to be made based on religious beliefs.

Darwinsim, hasn't been proven. It's a theory.

At one point gravity was only a theory. It took 1600 years before Issac Newton came up with the "law of gravity".

Darwinism lead to Nazism.

Social Darwinism led to Nazism, and history has shown that Social Darwinism is only partially influenced by Darwin's original work. Most of Social Darwinism comes from Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus, not Charles Darwin.

What other species of animales try to mate within the same sex?

Penguins, dolphins, beetles, fruit bats, orangutans, ostriches, flamingoes, macaques, bonobos (bisexual)...

Why is it OK for Muslim Americans to invoke Allah but bad for Christians to invoke Jesus?

"[The] Constitution forbids the State to exact religious conformity from a student as the price of attending her own high school graduation." - Justice Anthony Kennedy in Lee v. Weisman.

A prayer at a public event must be nonsectarian and non-proselytizing to pass Constitutional muster. Otherwise it "impermissibly entangles" the state with religion.

Why is it that Liberals are so afraid of alternatives, such as ID or Creationism, being discussed?

Because you can't test them using the Scientific Method. Science is about testing hypotheses. How can you test whether God exists? That's why it's called "faith" - you can't prove it. If you can't test it or prove it, it doesn't belong in the science curriculum.

Trekkie,
'Penguins, dolphins, beetles, fruit bats, orangutans, ostriches, flamingoes, macaques, bonobos'

Can you send me a link on this? I'm not ruling it out, I'm just curious.

'A prayer at a public event must be nonsectarian and non-proselytizing to pass Constitutional muster. Otherwise it "impermissibly entangles" the state with religion.'

That's fair enough, but it still doesn't answer my point why are Muslims allowed to publicaly proclaim their faith without ridicule but not Christians. It's not fair and it should stop.

Charles Darwin was a racist, I read his biography.

Can you send me a link on this? I'm not ruling it out, I'm just curious.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Trekkie,
Thanks

Trekkie,
Thanks

Trekkie,
Thanks

Trekkie: A compelling non-religious reason for limiting marriage to a man and a woman is that when you enlarge the universe of beings who can marry each other, you cannot deny other marital arrangements or else you run into Equal Protection problems.

you cannot deny other marital arrangements or else you run into Equal Protection problems.

Actually, you can. There are three levels of equal protection:

- "Strict Scrutiny" is applied when the discrimination is based upon race, national origin, religion, "Alienage" or if the classification impairs a "fundamental right" (such as the right to vote, the right to cross state lines, the right to access the court, etc.). Strict scrutiny test for such laws is that the law serves a "compelling" state interest and that the classification is a "necessary" means to fulfill that interest.

- "Intermediate Scrutiny" is applied to laws that discriminate upon the basis of gender or legitimacy (parentage).Here, the law must serve an "important" state interest and the classification is "substantially related" to serving that interest.

- "Rational Basis" is where all other classifications go. In a rational basis test, the law only need to serve a "legitimate" state interest and the classification is "rationally related" to the interest.

The court has permitted a "second-order" rational basis test for cases involving mental disability, sexual orientation and innocent children of illegal immigrants which requires a slightly more connected ends/means analysis.

In short, if gay marriage were legal (but polygamy were not), the court could deny an Equal Protection claim by stating that the legitimate state interest is protecting the legal marital privilege (for example) and that banning the marrying of multiple people is a rationally related means to achieve that end.

OK -- this will be controversial.

The Government should not be involved in sanctioning marriages. It is bad enough that the IRS knows everything about us.

Ask yourself why it is necessary to pay Uncle Sam for a marriage license (i.e. pay a "marriage tax"). Then ask yourself why it is necessary to fulfill state-mandated obligations when seeking a Divorce in many states (just look at New York).

Get the Government OUT of our lives. Get them out of marriages and out of social legislation. The last thing we need is more Government involvement in personal matters. Wake up people!

OK -- this will be controversial.

The Government should not be involved in sanctioning marriages. It is bad enough that the IRS knows everything about us.

Ask yourself why it is necessary to pay Uncle Sam for a marriage license (i.e. pay a "marriage tax"). Then ask yourself why it is necessary to fulfill state-mandated obligations when seeking a Divorce in many states (just look at New York).

Get the Government OUT of our lives. Get them out of marriages and out of social legislation. The last thing we need is more Government involvement in personal matters. Wake up people!

Trekkie,

You wrote: "I spent 8 years of my life studying this"

My advice to you: "Demand a refund!!!"

Let's start with the basics. The First Amendment does not CREATE a right; the Constitution states that rights exist in natural law and come from God; these rights are PROTECTED by the First Amendment. That protection comes in the form of restrictions on what laws Congress can pass. Again, all the First Amendment does is protect natural laws; rights the come from God. Your right to sound like a fool in your web postings does not come from the Constitution but from God. You can thank him later.

You wrote: "I went to law school and specialized in Constitutional Law"

Where did you study, the Bob Keeshan School of Law?

Even there they must have taught you that an appeal to yourself as an authority is hardly compelling when you post pseudonymously. You offer not a scintilla of proof that this is true. Even IF you went to law school you don't indicate that you graduated or passed a state bar exam. I took one law course at the University of Chicago; does that mean "I went to law school" too? I don't think so. Even if you went to law school that hardly makes you a constitutional scholar.

That said, what you have going for you is that your argument does not stand or fall on your claims about your previous education but the case you make here. Unfortunately, you case is so thin as to be translucent.

Let me take a few seconds to dispose of it.

The question was: do you REALLY believe that American citizens should not make, vote for or otherwise support policy based on their "beliefs" by which I take it you mean "religious beliefs"?

You wrote "When American citizens demand that CONGRESS pass laws that are based on religious beliefs, then the Establishment clause kicks in" and claim to have "50 years of Supreme Court precedent" on your side (none of which you cite); you ask what I have on my side. What I have is the First Amendment which trumps your "precedent".
You are the weakest link...goodbye.
Let's see WHY you are the weakest link, shall we.
American citizens can "demand" Congress pass laws for ANY reason because there is another right protected by the First Amendment, that pesky "right to free speech".
Suppose your dream came true and a majority of Congressman worshipped Keith Olbermann, and converted to Olbermannism and if a fundamental tenet of Olbermannism was that Olbermannians had to wear tin foil hats each weekday night from 8 PM to 9 PM ET and had a holy obligation to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann. If Congress passed a law requiring all citizens to wear tin foil hats because they believed that wearing a tin foil hat was a way to show honor and respect to Keith Olbermann that would NOT be unconstitutional. The reason they passed the law would be irrelevant; and there is nothing unconstitutional about a law requiring everyone to wear a tin foil hat (I know you'll be ready if that day ever comes). In fact, we have similar laws now that require motorcyclists to wear helmets and children to be strapped into child safety seats. It does not matter why the laws were passed; they were passed and if you don't obey them your risk a fine. On the other hand, if Congress passed a law saying that Olbermannism was the official religion of the United States and that Americans could be arrested for not fulfilling their holy obligation to watch Countdown each weekday that WOULD be unconstitutional.

I had previously dismissed your absurd claim that the Founders did not believe that rights existed in natural law and came from God so I take it you have conceded on that point. At least you are showing SOME sense.

You close by asking "How tiresome is it to be a pompous jerk?"
It is very tiresome but I feel it is my obligation to set ignorami such as yourself on the straight and narrow.

It is very tiresome but I feel it is my obligation to set ignorami such as yourself on the straight and narrow.

YOU WANT TO SEE MY DIPLOMA? YOU WANT TO SEE THE $150,000 IN STUDENT LOAN DEBT I HAVE? I GRADUATED WITH HONORS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND GOT A LAW DEGREE FROM A TOP-TIER LAW SCHOOL! DON'T YOU DARE PRESUME TO TELL ME I'M AN IDIOT! THAT I KNOW NOTHING!

FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR SITE AND GO TO HELL!

Trekkie wrote:

In short, if gay marriage were legal (but polygamy were not), the court could deny an Equal Protection claim by stating that the legitimate state interest is protecting the legal marital privilege (for example) and that banning the marrying of multiple people is a rationally related means to achieve that end.

Ok, but you still have not made a convincing argument that the practice of polygamy should be denied under an Equal Protetcion analysis if gay marriage would withstand such scrutiny. Those who support gay marriage are making the argument that the institutional definition of marriage must be changed to include gays in order that they may be afforded the equal protetection of the law. If I were the attorney representing polygamists who wanted to legal right to marry, I could seize on this decision. If the institution of marriage can be changed in terms of the gender of the parties permitted to marry, what compelling or rational reason can you give for denying people who wish to change the instituion of marriage in terms of numbers of persons in the marriage? You say that "banning the marrying of multiple people is a rationally related means to achieve that end" . What "end" are you speaking of? Are you speaking of protection of the "legal marital privilege"? Oh, I, see. We can't have polygamists corrupting the definition of marriage now can we, Mr. Trekkie, my compassionate, open minded, friend.

Living in New York I often have to translate lib-speak for tourists. For those who are not bi-lingual let me translate:

"FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR SITE AND GO TO HELL!" can be loosely translated as "BY JOVE, MR. COX, YOU'RE RIGHT AGAIN!"

Another satisfied Olbermannwatch consumer!

Thank you and please visit us again soon Trekkie.

Now lets focus our guns on Jack Frost. He's a self styled Pshyciatrist/Revolutionary/Constitutional Scholar/PoliticalTheorist/Intellectual/Economist/Racial Expert/Spy/Investigative Jouranlist/Civil Rights leader, All in all A true...
Paranoid a--hole.

I sent this exchange with Trekkie off the Mark Levin of WABC Radio in New York; it is almost an homage to "The Great One".

This comment thread is now closed.