In his new promo, Olby promises to make sense of the news for us. Instead, we get David Schuster's speculation, one sided commentary (rarely qualifying as analysis), and a 3 minute montage degrading the entire state of Florida (apparently for twice voting for George Bush; amazingly lost in the 2000 vote controversy was the fact that it was the Dem's in South Florida who couldn't vote right).

Was there no new, fact based news to report today, instead of focusing on yesterday's White House reshuffling, yet another night of Tom Cruise infatuation, Plamegate, and polls.

Sad really.

I was watching Paula Zahn tonight to see why she has just gone into the tank on the ratings. After a few minutes I had fallen asleep. I had awoke about an hour later to a site more horrible then "THE MAN WITH THE ORANGE FACE!"
TED KENNEDY ON LARRY KING!!!!!!!

Saw this on "Expose the Left":

http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/04/20/olbermann-mcclellan-montage/

Quite interesting! Gannon was gay and was a reporter! Don't tell Michael Musto -- he would be scandalized!

You would think that Keith would encourage the woman who verbally attacked an oppressive commie dictator on camera, but of course in Krazy Keith's world, the White House is the focus! How dare the White House allow dissenters on the grounds (unless they are with Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan)!

As for this:

"There was much merriment about how she got credentialed, particularly when the giggling Craig Crawford showed up."

I agree that the credentialing process at the White House should be thorough. There should be a background check for everyone. These press clowns should be investigated to the hilt and publicly denied passes to embarass them as much as possible. They can then explain why they are not allowed at the White House to their bosses.

He's coming on with Jon stewart right now. YEAAH!

I don't waste my time that terrorist lover Komrade Keith any more, he's loser that should be ignored!

Today, Tony Snow had it exactly correct whe he said in effect you could fit Olberman's friend's into a phone booth! Why didn't the ego maniac go into that?

Tony Snow said in effect you could put all of Olberman's friend in a phone booth.

Strange that Olberman who has in the past yearned for recognition so much didn't mention that. Remember this is the guy who appeared on the Letterman show not even understanding that he was being laughed at not laughed with. The topic was Micheal Jackson puppet theatre.

With an ego like that one would think he would jump at the chance to mention it. I guess he was too busy sucking up to rats like John Dean!

Is it not now clear that David Shuster is the Jethro Bodine of the news media?

When I am not obsessing about Keith Olbermann I do other things...I'm quoted in this story about the Apple v. Blogger Case. In case your interested, the courts may be about to decide whether a blogger can legally be considered a journalist. It's a big deal in the First Amendment world. The organization I run, the MBA, signed the Amicus Brief in this case and have coordinated witht the EFF that is handling the legal work for the blogger in quesiton.

There once was a host who talked trash
O'Reilly and Bush he would bash
Always affronting
But never confronting
He liked to name-call and then dash

Olbermann is just a propaganda mouthpiece for George Soros, Iran and Al-Qaeda. He's a waste of a human being and a coward!

Here's Keith's comrade Dana Milbank's sympathetic piece of The Chinese Militarist president visit. This proves the Left's love any anti-American power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042001946.html

CBS News just sent out this promo for 60 Minutes. What CBS is hyping her is not really "news" - the Congressional hearings on U.S. Intellgence have already addressed the fact that the operating assumption in the intelligence community was that Iraq DID have WMD and so they evaluated new intelligence through that prism. What jumped out at me is the disclosure (at least I never heard it before) that Saddam's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, was spying for the U.S. That's pretty interesting.

It is definitely going to be a big news story and seems ripe for the KO spin machine so let me give you all a jump on it:

EX-CIA EUROPE CHIEF SAYS THE WHITE HOUSE IGNORED THE AGENCY’S DOUBTS THAT IRAQ HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION OR A BUDDING NUCLEAR PROGRAM BEFORE GOING TO WAR– “60 MINUTES” SUNDAY

In His First Television Interview, Tyler Drumheller Says the White House Ran With Intelligence It Liked and Ignored Intelligence It Didn’t

A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi War charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq. The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the Intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence – intelligence the administration chose to ignore. Drumheller talks to Ed Bradley in his first television interview for a 60 MINUTES report Sunday, April 23 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal. When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited, but not for long. “[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs,” says Drumheller. “The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq War came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said ‘Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change,’” Drumheller says he was told. They didn’t want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller, “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.”

The White House declined to respond to this charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.

Drumheller says the administration routinely relied on single sources when those single sources confirmed what the White House wanted to hear. “They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all,” he says. The “yellowcake story” refers to a report the CIA received in late 2001 alleging that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from Africa, presumably to build a nuclear bomb.

Many in the CIA doubted the uranium report from the beginning, and continued to doubt it, even as White House speechwriters tried to include the report in the president’s speeches. In a major speech the president was scheduled to give in Cincinnati, the leadership of the CIA intervened directly to remove the uranium report from the speech. But that didn’t stop it from making it into the president’s State of the Union address a short time later. “As a British report,” says Drumheller. A senior CIA official signed off on the speech only because the uranium reference was attributed to the British.

“It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it’s an intelligence failure….This was a policy failure….I think over time people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time,” Drumheller tells Bradley.

"When does the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann cite Fox News as a source? When their latest poll finds the President at 33%. "

Getting a bit melodramatic there, guy. Thirty-three percent is a very unpopular president. Get over it, Mr Reality-based.

> Thirty-three percent is a very unpopular president.

I never said otherwise. What I SAID, and what you ignored, was an indisputably correct observation regarding Krazy Keith's citing of Fox News. Fox is unreliable, it's not really news, etc etc--until he spots something that fits HIS spin, then all of a sudden Fox News is a prime Olbermann Source.

Brokaw, Russert, Olbermann
All part of the above reproach and self respected news operation called NBC news.

Russert and Brokaw should feel priviledged to have - in their very own "news" organization - someone of the stature of Opie. Opie lends more credibility to their credibility, something extra they did not have before he joined this esteemed news organization. I heard with Opie taking over Meet the Press, it will be meet Fineman, Dana Milbanks, wover form COngressional Quartterly. occassionally the guy MSNBC threw off the air during the eleciton campaign. Howard Dean will handle all corruption cases. Opie has insisted the format use a table with no right legs, facing the left. NBC has deemed Opie THE prototype anchor - and will also, shortly be doing the nightly news, and of course the sports as well. He is the future of NBC.

Brokaw, Russert, Olbermann
All part of the above reproach and self respected news operation called NBC news.

Russert and Brokaw should feel priviledged to have - in their very own "news" organization - someone of the stature of Opie. Opie lends more credibility to their credibility, something extra they did not have before he joined this esteemed news organization. I heard with Opie taking over Meet the Press, it will be meet Fineman, Dana Milbanks, wover form COngressional Quartterly. occassionally the guy MSNBC threw off the air during the eleciton campaign. Howard Dean will handle all corruption cases. Opie has insisted the format use a table with no right legs, facing the left. NBC has deemed Opie THE prototype anchor - and will also, shortly be doing the nightly news, and of course the sports as well. He is the future of NBC.

What a bunch of whining weenies you assclowns are!

RE: "We will try to educate you, Dave. If Fitzgerald's task was to prosecute the leaker, and when he finds the leaker he doesn't prosecute him, it's not because he's not "looking" to prosecute. It's because he can't."

Just for the record, Fitzgerald's task was never to "prosecute the leaker." It was to investigate any crimes associated with the leak, including but not limited to obstruction of justice or lying to investigators. That, in fact, was always his task, which he made sure was specifically spelled out in case there was any confusion. You may disagree with Shuster's logic in seeing a pending indictmant of Rove from the evidence he cited, but Rove's suseptibility to indictment is not in doubt.

RE: "We will try to educate you, Dave. If Fitzgerald's task was to prosecute the leaker, and when he finds the leaker he doesn't prosecute him, it's not because he's not "looking" to prosecute. It's because he can't."

Just for the record, Fitzgerald's task was never to "prosecute the leaker." It was to investigate any crimes associated with the leak, including but not limited to obstruction of justice or lying to investigators. That, in fact, was always his task, which he made sure was specifically spelled out in case there was any confusion. You may disagree with Shuster's logic in seeing a pending indictmant of Rove from the evidence he cited, but Rove's vulnerability to indictment is not in doubt.

So Bush's huge unpopularity, as documented by Fox's poll, "fits" Olbermann's spin. Boy, that unworthy KO -- using a Fox poll to 'spin' the downward slide of the CiC in the public's mind.

Explain how KO's references to the unreliability of Fox News should mitigate the findings of an Opinion Dynamics Corp poll.

> Fitzgerald's task was never to "prosecute the leaker." It was to investigate

I am sorry but you are very mistaken. Anyone can investigate. When a special PROSECUTOR is appointed, and given a GRAND JURY to work with, the purpose is not just to write a report. It's to identify if a crime was committed, charge that person, and prosecute him. Can you name ONE special prosecutor who, when all was said and done, said, Hey, I proved a crime was committed, I can prove who did it, but that's not my job?

This goes double for Fitzgerald, because unlike previous special prosecutors, he does NOT have the authority just to find facts and issue a report. Under current law, he can NOT issue a report, regardless of what he finds. His authority is to find the crime and prosecute the criminal. If he doesn't find a crime, whether it's leaking, lying, or whatever, he doesn't prosecute. That's it.

So don't try to spin that his task was not to prosecute the leaker. Why else was Krazy Keith telling us month after month about all the leakers who were going to be indicted, via his Amen chorus of Shuster, O'Donnell, etc? Well he FOUND the leaker, and based on his own actions, he cannot prove that the leaker broke the law. THAT'S why the leaker isn't charged, not because Fitz was only on a fact-finding mission.

> Explain how KO's references to the unreliability of Fox News should mitigate the findings of an Opinion Dynamics Corp poll.

Because he says they are nothing but a GOP propaganda outlet, that they are unreliable, that they aren't even a news organization. And he's said worse, but quickly buckled to pressure from his bosses and had his comments quickly erased from the internet before he embarrassed NBC even further. Fox News polls are produced for and broadcast by the evil FNC, so by Olby's own standards they are nothing but GOP propaganda. Until now.

He's a hypocrite.

We who absolutely LOVE KO are ALL going to sit and LOAO when Rove is indicted!!! Keith Rocks!

In other words, if even Fox News is saying Bush is at 33%, how low must he REALLY be?

It's pretty clear even the most fungal Republicans realize they were had by the Bush Administration.

"This goes double for Fitzgerald, because unlike previous special prosecutors, he does NOT have the authority just to find facts and issue a report. Under current law, he can NOT issue a report, regardless of what he finds. His authority is to find the crime and prosecute the criminal. If he doesn't find a crime, whether it's leaking, lying, or whatever, he doesn't prosecute. That's it."

I wasn't claiming the Fitzgerald was merely supposed to be investigating and not prosecuting. My comment was directed towards your line "If Fitzgerald's task is to prosecute the leaker." As you now seem to agree, limiting Fitzgerald's role merely to prosecuting a leaker is incorrect. Obviously, if Fitzgerald finds evidence of a crime in the course of his investigation, whether leaking or anything else, he will prosecute. What I meant was that Rove does not need to be accused of leaking in order to be prosecuted. There are other crimes he is vulnerable to indictment for. That's what Shuster was alluding to when he said "Fitzgerald is not looking, or is not prosecuting anybody for leaking classified information." You may disagree with Shuster in general, but he seems to have got it right this time.

> As you now seem to agree, limiting Fitzgerald's role merely to prosecuting a leaker is incorrect.

Don't use OlbySpin on me. I never said he was limited to finding and prosecuting the leaker. He is also free to prosecute those who are lying, as I said in the previous msg. But when he was appointed, THAT was his charge: find the leak, and prosecute.

> Rove does not need to be accused of leaking in order to be prosecuted.

Again, I never said otherwise. But that is NOT what Shuster was alluding to. Shuster's response was to a question about Novak, who said Fitz knew who the original leaker is, NOT a question about whether Rove could be indicted. Shuster tried to fob off Novak's comment by saying, ah, Fitz isn't interested in prosecuting the leaker anyhow. Which is patent, ignorant nonsense.

It occurs to me that if the President were caught on video tape having sex with a cow in the oval office there would be some of you Republicans who would find a good reason for him doing it. What will it take for you to realise that this is the worst president in history?

Who cares about the stupid Scooter Libby case. No one does. O'Reilly is talking about how the Oil companies are raping the public! I mean the CEO of Exxon-Mobil was given a retirement package of 400 Million. Lets talk about reality not some stupid leak case!

I LOVE Keith Olbermann! Thank God, finally a news show that isn't scripted by Roger Ailes and Karl Rove!

The more you kool-aid drinkers trash him, the more right-on-the-mark he must be.

All you right-wing nut jobs backed the most corrupt, evil, anti-American cabal of sick criminals this nation has ever had to endure.

You'd know that if any of you mouth-breathing knuckle draggers had paid any attention at all during government class, but nooooo, you were all too busy telling Clinton jokes and getting off on all the 'bring it on' tough talk from the effete faux cowboy who never met a job he couldn't fail miserably at to realize that your country was being sold right down the toilet.

Its going to take the rest of us a couple of generations to clean up the mess you've made - and that's if we can stop these delusional a**holes from starting a "nuk-lee-yer" war.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should have to endure what they have ordered done to others. That's not going to happen, so I'd settle for seeing them frog-marched across the White House lawn into forced oblivian.

Thanks for nothing.

And by the way, have ANY of you noticed that we apparently have no interest in getting the people behind 9/11?? You do remember 9/11, don't you? Just wondering.

Both O'Reillys agree!

What about those stinkin oil companies, those obsene profits and retirement packages, and the $7B that the Republican congress granted them in rolyalty suspensions?

The Republican led congress had the CEO's of the major oil companys in to testify about the high price of gasoline back in November of 2005 and they didn't feel it was necessary to put them under oath. They put all the baseball players under oath when they had hearings about steriods because they might lie, but oil campany CEO's? They wouldn't lie. Well it turns out they did lie about being at the White House to take part in a secretive energy task force run in 2001 by Vice President Dick Cheney. The problem is this administration is a friend to big business and truely doesn't care about what we pay for gas. Whatever evidence we can bring up to get them out of office, leak case, bad responce to Katrina, NSA spying, lying about the case for going to war...whatever. This president is a walking disaster area and the quicker we impeach him the quicker we can start unduing the damage he has done.

The Republican led congress had the CEO's of the major oil companys in to testify about the high price of gasoline back in November of 2005 and they didn't feel it was necessary to put them under oath. They put all the baseball players under oath when they had hearings about steriods because they might lie, but oil campany CEO's? They wouldn't lie. Well it turns out they did lie about being at the White House to take part in a secretive energy task force run in 2001 by Vice President Dick Cheney. The problem is this administration is a friend to big business and truely doesn't care about what we pay for gas. Whatever evidence we can bring up to get them out of office, leak case, bad responce to Katrina, NSA spying, lying about the case for going to war...whatever. This president is a walking disaster area and the quicker we impeach him the quicker we can start unduing the damage he has done.

The Republican led congress had the CEO's of the major oil companys in to testify about the high price of gasoline back in November of 2005 and they didn't feel it was necessary to put them under oath. They put all the baseball players under oath when they had hearings about steriods because they might lie, but oil campany CEO's? They wouldn't lie. Well it turns out they did lie about being at the White House to take part in a secretive energy task force run in 2001 by Vice President Dick Cheney. The problem is this administration is a friend to big business and truely doesn't care about what we pay for gas. Whatever evidence we can bring up to get them out of office, leak case, bad responce to Katrina, NSA spying, lying about the case for going to war...whatever. This president is a walking disaster area and the quicker we impeach him the quicker we can start unduing the damage he has done.

O'Reilly is weird and Wojo,
This is an issue that both Right and left can agree on. It's reidiculous. Supplies are at an 8 year high yet prices are close to 20 year highs. This is due to speculation. When ever Admittedjerk and Hugo open their mouths, the traders raise the prices. Then the oil companies raise theirs! There profits have increased. If the price raises were just to cover the bottom line then their profits would remian the same.

The fact is the Republicans are doing nothing about this. For this they should be voted out. However the Dems aren't the solution since they wouldn't do anything neither. My solution: boycott Exxon. Bill O'reilly and others are calling for a boycott. If the public boycotts Exxon they'll be forced to lower their prices.

To me this is a national security issue. The oil market isn't real capitalism, but Corporate Marxism! If Brazil can become energy independent why can't we?

hey, don't misquote the president, man -- it's not "nuk-lee-yer" it's "nuke-U-lar".

-----------

"O'Reilly is talking about how the Oil companies are raping the public!"

cool. just checked bill's blog which states, "There is no question that Americans are getting hurt at the gas pump. And the leader of the country will always take a hit when that happens. But the oil situation is largely out of the president's control. All he can do is commit government resources to alternative fuels down the road. And he says he's doing that."

hmm ... while, i agree that the short term oil situation is largely out of the president's control, i think the long term situation is very much a result of the president's actions, and i don't think it's too much of a stretch to assert that the $75 a barrel price we're seeing now is largely a result of attacking Iraq. oil was $22 a barrel before Operation Iraqi Freedom, and that was at the beginning of 2002, post 9/11.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm

I remember a few months ago, shortly after the gouging that went on after Katrina, that Bill O'Reilly was on his show saying he had a few Oil Executive friend (5, I think it was) and he's had a word with them and that's why pump prices started dropping.
Why can't he do that now, I wonder?

Possibly because that's not what he said.

The Democrats are a bunch of wussies but unfortunately they are the only possible alternative. There is no way we can get this nation behind a third party by 2008. There are some Democrats that are good people though...Russ Feinstein...Barbara Boxer...Barrack Obama...John Conyers and Al Gore. Now I know what people think when you say Al Gore's name BUT he is very concerned with this nations ecology and I truely believe he would have, had he won (actually he did) the presidency in 2000, pushed for alternate energy sources. Had he rightfully taken office in 2000 we might be in a very different place as a nation.

bill implied it was because of his reporting, and that of others ...

-----------

December 05, 2005

CAVUTO: Okay. Gas prices are down a lot. Why do you think that is?

O�REILLY: Because they�re afraid they�ll go to jail. And those C.E.O.s who manipulated them�

CAVUTO: Why are you sure that they manipulated them?

O�REILLY: I have guys that are inside the five major oil companies - my father used to work for one of those oil companies, by the way - who have told me that in those meetings they look for every way to jack up oil prices after Katrina, every way. When they didn�t have to. And they got scared because in my reporting and some other reporting, they said �

CAVUTO: Wait, you�re taking credit for gas prices being down?

O�REILLY: My reporting and reporting of others.

sorry, ugh, i hate when that happens ... here's one easier to read ...

bill implied it was because of his reporting, and that of others ...

-----------

CAVUTO: Okay. Gas prices are down a lot. Why do you think that is?

O`REILLY: Because they`re afraid they`ll go to jail. And those C.E.O.s who manipulated them–

CAVUTO: Why are you sure that they manipulated them?

O`REILLY: I have guys that are inside the five major oil companies - my father used to work for one of those oil companies, by the way - who have told me that in those meetings they look for every way to jack up oil prices after Katrina, every way. When they didn’t have to. And they got scared because in my reporting and some other reporting, they said –

CAVUTO: Wait, you`re taking credit for gas prices being down?

O`REILLY: My reporting and reporting of others.

Yes, he did claim that his beating the drum on the issue had an impact. Whatever the plausibility of that claim, he did NOT assert that he had a word with five oil-company friends and that brought down prices.

Lefty, thanks for clearing that up.
I bet Keith Olbermann wouldn't be able to take credit for saving us from something like that.
Hopefully, Mr. O'Reilly will soon have this whole pedophillia/lax judge thing straightened out and can devote his full time to driving down gas prices again for us.

"The Democrats are a bunch of wussies but unfortunately they are the only possible alternative."

congressional approval (~25%) is one of the few ratings lower than bush's (~35%) ... so it may be that the only campaign plank the dems need this year is, "Had Enough Yet?

J$,
My memory was wrong, and I thanked Lefty for the transcript.
But from that very transcript, it's clear he was trying to claim more credit than having had an "impact."
He was hardly leading the charge.

"I have guys that are inside the five major oil companies ...."

CAVUTO: Wait, you`re taking credit for gas prices being down?

O`REILLY: My reporting and reporting of others.

What's Patrick Fitzgerald's job? Its all spelled out on the special prosecutor's government website:

He's delegated with, "all the authroity of the Attorney General with respect to the departments investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure AS WELL AS federal crimes committed in teh course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses..."

Clearly, clearly, this is a flawed premise, "If Fitzgerald's task was to prosecute the leaker". Fitzgerald is to investigate the leak and all crimes committed in the course of the investigation are explicitly part of his charge.

For the life of me I don't know why the Bush team allowed a no nonsense, honest and smart prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald on this case - seems he's going through them like the shite through a goose..,.

> Fitzgerald is to investigate the leak and all crimes committed in the course of the investigation are explicitly part of his charge.

Why do you people keep bringing this up. Nobody has ever denied that all ancillary crimes are part of his jurisdiction. The point is, Slippery Shuster claimed Fitz wasn't even LOOKING to prosecute the leaker, which is just the sort of drivel Dave is known for.

speaking of leaks ... this is an interesting story that just broke ... i'm betting it's intended to embarass the president, rove, etc. the CIA has been gunning for bush and releasing info damaging to the administration for a while now (retribution for taking the blame for mistaken WMD intel).

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

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA has fired one of its officers for leaking classified information, an agency spokeswoman said Friday.

The officer admitted to "unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence including operational information," said spokeswoman Michelle Neff.

Neff declined to divulge the officer's name or position, or what specifically was leaked.

speaking of leaks ... this is an interesting story that just broke ... i'm betting it's intended to embarass the president, rove, etc. the CIA has been gunning for bush and releasing info damaging to the administration for a while now (retribution for taking the blame for mistaken WMD intel).

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

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA has fired one of its officers for leaking classified information, an agency spokeswoman said Friday.

The officer admitted to "unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence including operational information," said spokeswoman Michelle Neff.

Neff declined to divulge the officer's name or position, or what specifically was leaked.

Just to catch you up, since CNN appears to be behind the curve on this, the guy who was fired leaked classified information about the CIA overseas prisons. That's a "good leak", so Olby will falsely claim he is a whistle-blower, if he mentions it at all.

I think the days of the CIA trying to embarrass the White House are over. It's just another branch of the White House iraq Group now with Porter Goss at its head.
Remember, they're going after the leakers of leaks they don't like now, according to the Decider.

thanks j$ ... good leaks, bad leaks, whistleblowers, traitors ... so confusing anymore, used to be so much simpler.

reminds me of a great scene from the movie "Three Days of the Condor" where John Houseman portrays Mr. Wabash, a CIA division head who joined the "company" in the 1920s ...

Mr. Wabash: I go even further back than that. Ten years after The Great War, as we used to call it.
Before we knew enough to number them.

Higgins: You miss that kind of action, sir?

Mr. Wabash: I miss that kind of CLARITY.

With Gas prices at $75 per barrel, who cares about the stupid leak case!

The leak case ties directly into how and why we went to war with Iraq (and also has implications for what might happen in Iran). So there's 100's of billions of dollars, trillions perhaps, 10's of thousands of US military casualties, uncounted Iraqi casualties. If none of that matters, then I suppose a case could be made that the leaks not about much.

Joseph Wilson essentially charged that the frightening claim Bush made in the SOTU speech, that Iraq was buying uranium for Africa, was bogus (and that they'd been told it was bogus).

The administration went into their 'till then highly effective whap-a-mole mode and went after Wilson. Whether it was Paul O'Neill or Richard Clark or whoever, any administration critic had been successfully smeared in the past,...every reason for them to expect the same would happen for Wilson.

...Dumb move outing Joe's wife though, real dumb. It didn't offer anything *devestating* against what Joseph Wilson said and (unfortunately for the Bush team) broke the very law Bush Sr. had enthusiastically signed (saying only the most vile of traitor would do such a thing)

The leak case ties directly into how and why we went to war with Iraq (and also has implications for what might happen in Iran). So there's 100's of billions of dollars, trillions perhaps, 10's of thousands of US military casualties, uncounted Iraqi casualties. If none of that matters, then I suppose a case could be made that the leaks not about much.

Joseph Wilson essentially charged that the frightening claim Bush made in the SOTU speech, that Iraq was buying uranium for Africa, was bogus (and that they'd been told it was bogus).

The administration went into their 'till then highly effective whap-a-mole mode and went after Wilson. Whether it was Paul O'Neill or Richard Clark or whoever, any administration critic had been successfully smeared in the past,...every reason for them to expect the same would happen for Wilson.

...Dumb move outing Joe's wife though, real dumb. It didn't offer anything *devestating* against what Joseph Wilson said and (unfortunately for the Bush team) broke the very law Bush Sr. had enthusiastically signed (saying only the most vile of traitor would do such a thing)

Wojo wrote:

"if the President were caught on video tape having sex with a cow in the oval office there would be some of you Republicans who would find a good reason for him doing it."

This is demonstrably false. The last time this happened Republicans impeached the President.

I didn't know mr. Cox did stand-up.

Two moonbats go into a Howard Dean Rally........

Jesus brainiac -

> Thirty-three percent is a very unpopular president.

I never said otherwise. What I SAID, and what you ignored, was an indisputably correct observation regarding Krazy Keith's citing of Fox News. Fox is unreliable, it's not really news, etc etc--until he spots something that fits HIS spin, then all of a sudden Fox News is a prime Olbermann Source.
J$

the point is - fox reporting these numbers gives you bush lovers no excuse to hide behind - like - for instance - an over-polling of dems or "liberal media" bias. fox reporting bad news for bush is like tobacco companies finally telling us cigs cause cancer. You know it's true then.

A couple of dogs that did not bark:

* Texas Court Dismisses DeLay Conspiracy Count

* FBI Investigating Democrat Member of Ethics Committee

And that's The Hour of Spin for this, the 62nd day of the Keith Olbermann CoverUp.

------------
the democrat ethics story on alan mollohan - well considering the show was prepared early on april 20, and that a google news search of his name returns 261 articles, the earliest being on april 21, 2006, i guess that crafty olbermann did it again. Everyone knows he can go forward in his moonbat-time-machine and see what tomorrow's story will be, yet he didn't do it. Sneaky.

As to the delay deal - okay so one conspiracy count was thrown out - congrats - here's what the UT paper said:

Although the Legislature amended the election code in 2003 to incorporate a conspiracy offense, DeLay is charged with conduct that took place in the 2002 elections.

How dare olby not report this great news for you guys, that a charge that was ALREADY dismissed, was not re-instated. he could have done it and not mentioned the remaining conspiracy and money-laundering charges against him.

Congrats - delay is vindicated - shoulda been HUGE news.

Oh man, you can check Google news four days after something happens and then marvel at how they earliest story listed is April 21. The fact is it was all over the news on the 20th. How do you think I was able to point out that he didn't cover it? I don't have some super-secret newswire coming into my house. It was on ALL OTHER NEWS CHANNELS and the internet. And then he didn't cover it again on the 21st. Will he cover it tonight? Stay tuned. Olbermann Watch will tell.

This comment thread is now closed.