This is a serious story...Partisanship shouldnt play a part in national security matters seriously

Hating Keith is one thing, but this is different

Olbermann just continues his attacks on O'Reilly. It's true tthat if Hillary is elected she would be tested by Islamo-Fascit terrorists! That's a fact. They want to see if Chairwoman Hillary surrenders to them.

This is a serious story...

Indeed it is. But why the need to hype things and engage in wild conspiracy mongering? Let the story play itself out. Fitzgerald has spent over two years looking into this and has no evidence of a conspiracy. In fact, we don't even know - and Fitzgerald hasn't presented evidence - that Valerie Plame was even a covert agent or operative at the time.

There is no evidence to this date that there was any type of concerted effort to out Valerie Plame in order to punish Joe Wilson.

Both Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post - both of whom heard Plame's name mentioned or leaked (probably by Armitage, maybe Powell) - have stated that they believe that the mentioning of her name was not part of any conspiracy by the White House to discredit Wilson.

I would just wish that these new concerns about leaking classified information were evenly applied. Reporters in Washington live on leaks; they've done so for decades. There's been a ton of leaks from critics of the Bush Administration. For some reason, the concern is less, if not existent, over those leaks.

Apparently some leaks are more equal than others.

SMG

What I find interesting in this and many other stories is that for some reason many folks on the left think that they'll never regain power.

Eventually, Democrats will recapture the White House and Congress (probably the latter this year). But the Big Enchilada is obviously the presidency.

And when that happens, the same press today that disseminates rumors and innuendos and conspiracies will be doing that to a Democratic Administration. Much of the carping from conservatives about a "liberal bias" in the press is just that: carping. Because much of what the news media is disseminating emanates from the increased pressure to break stories and get ratings.

For the most part, they don't care whether the ratings come at the expense of a Republican or Democratic Administration. I'm quite sure they'll go after liberals running things almost as much as conservatives.

And when they do, many of the same folks posting here praising Olbermann for saying the "truth" about Bush will be raising hell about the rest of the press going after their guy (or gal) the way they've gone after Bush.

You reap what you sow.

To the leftists:
Why didn't the left get mad when Clinton gave China military technology in exchange for campaign contributions?
That did more damage to the national security of this country than anything else.
Clinton even said "China's money is as good as anyone."
Where was the outrage then. Hypocrites!

How can a Presidentially authorized release of information be "unauthorized"?

Who was the Original Classifying Authority? What procedure was used to originally classify the document? Was the proper procedure to declassify the document used? How far did the declassification extend?

If the proper procedure was not followed (as laid out in Presidential Executive Orders regarding the classification and declassification of sensitive documents), then it wasn't "authorized".

The President is the declassifying authority. He sets the procedures. There are executive orders to that effect.

Let's turn it around. What evidence is there that the "procedures" that you irrelevantly reference were NOT properly followed? Why does Olby declare it an unauthorized "leak" when there is NO EVIDENCE that it was either unauthorized OR a leak? Because Olby is SPINNING!

What evidence is there that the "procedures" that you irrelevantly reference were NOT properly followed?

There is no evidence either way at the moment. So it would be just as improper to assume it was authorized as to assume it was not authorized at the moment.

And those procedures ARE relevant - different documents produced by the Administration have different levels of classification, requiring different procedures to declassify them. If the President can declassify ANY document at ANY time, then what's the point of having a process at all?

Who was the Original Classifying Authority? What procedure was used to originally classify the document? Was the proper procedure to declassify the document used? How far did the declassification extend?

Pettifoggery anyone?

Who wants to play?

Who did Libby talk to? Who said that it was okay to leak the material? Libby said Cheney said that Bush said so. Was Cheney right? Who talked to Bush? Who told Bush? Who talked to Cheney? Did Fitzgerald get the quote right? What "certain information"? Classified? Or not? Specific information? Or general? Did the transcriber hear Libby correctly?

I guess Trekkie that we need these questions answered before we can talk about the propriety of "leaking" this "certain information."

SMG

Then you agree that Olby was wrong to call it "classified" information, and that he was wrong to refer to it as a leak, because by your own words you say there is no evidence for either.

Congratulations. Now that you have agreed with me that Krazy Keith misrepresented the news, my work for today is done.

Perhaps someone could explain to me how Olbie could have Bill O'Reilly be the 'Worst Person in the World' for something O'Reilly said today on his show when Bill has been on vacation this week. Also, I've lost count how many times O'Reilly has been selected as the 'Worst Person in the World'. Does anyone here know? Thanks in advance.

Who cares about the Scooter Libber story. It's really not an important story. It's not effecting my life.

Johnny Dollar (because obviously that's about all your opinion is worth) please pick up a thesaurus and try to come up with some other adjectives for Kuddly Keith, besides deplorable. That's becoming a bit hackneyed!

If you hate the man so much why do you watch his show? Do you like having your blood pressure go up? Do you like ulcers? Turn the flippin' channel and watch something else if you find Keith so distasteful.

Do you really feel it's your mission on earth to keep bombarding everyone with YOUR opinion of Keith? I am not one of your so-called belligerently uninformed. I pop in here from time to time to see if anything has changed...and nothing has.

You will never have one good thing to say about Keith which just shows that you can't be fair-minded and tolerant. Plus you resort to personal attacks on him, such as being overly made up. I think you pay way too much attention to Keith. I think perhaps you doth protest too much!

[b]There is no evidence to this date that there was any type of concerted effort to out Valerie Plame in order to punish Joe Wilson.[/b]

The truth isnt a moving target...How long will ppl believe this, how much more evidence do you need? Yes its circumstantial evidence and speculatory but it fits with the reality and the time line of the events.

Scooter's Testimony under oath is evidence but, reality is a moving target...and everything is excuseable. This is bad for the country

Then you agree that Olby was wrong to call it "classified" information, and that he was wrong to refer to it as a leak, because by your own words you say there is no evidence for either.

No, because the default setting for the information itself is "classified" (it was a National Intelligence Estimate). The question lies in whether it was properly declassified (and therefore authorized to be released) or not (and therefore unauthorized and leaked).

[b]There is no evidence to this date that there was any type of concerted effort to out Valerie Plame in order to punish Joe Wilson.[/b]

The truth isnt a moving target...How long will ppl believe this, how much more evidence do you need? Yes its circumstantial evidence and speculatory but it fits with the reality and the time line of the events.

Scooter's Testimony under oath is evidence but, reality is a moving target...and everything is excuseable. This is bad for the country

*O' Leilly takes the dismissive route to excuse leaks of national security*

Ex: Who cares?

The truth isnt a moving target...How long will ppl believe this, how much more evidence do you need?

If the evidence is so obvious why hasn't Fitzgerald, who's been at this with subpoena power for 3 years, been able to nail anyone? He can't even report in open court that Plame was a covert operative.

You say look at the evidence. Two of the reporters who received information about Plame - Woodward and Pincus - have both stated that it was their view that the leaking was not a concerted effort by the W.H. to discredit Wilson or to deliberately reveal Plame's status.

These two individuals are disinterested parties. No one seriously believes that these two reporters are covering for the Bush W.H. If they had the evidence of criminality it'd be on the front page of the Post tomorrow.

SMG

The question lies in whether it was properly declassified

Guilty unless they prove their innocence. Unless they prove that the declassification was properly done, we must assume it was not properly done.

Great.

Wish to hell you'd apply this standard to reports on Saddam's connections with al-Qaeda and OBL.

In that case, it's innocent until proven guilty. And the proof is quite exacting.

Benefit of the doubt to Saddam. No benefit to your own president.

Amazing.

SMG

No benefit to your own president.

Given this Administration's overwhelming propensity to try and do all their business in smoke-filled back rooms and "secret" meetings...yeah, they kinda lost my benefit of the doubt a while back.

yeah, they kinda lost my benefit of the doubt a while back

Okay, I've heard this (well read it) about 10,000 times from your side when I raise the issue.

But what did Saddam do to earn your benefit of doubt?

This is what gets me. Okay, okay, be cynical of Bush and the evil neocons and Big Business or Big Oil or Big Tobacco or whatever new evil thing you come up with (and yes, those on my side have our own evils to scare folks with).

By why the willingness to come to the defense (or appear to) of people like Saddam? Or OBL?

Doesn't make sense.

Look Trekkie, your side is going to recapture the White House one of these years. And when you do, the poisoned environment that your side has helped create is going to be tough to breathe in.

This really awful reporting we have - the sensationalism, the exagerration, the outright erroneous stories - will be directed at you and your folks.

Imagine a conservative Olbermann?

You won't like it.

SMG

imagine a conservative Olbermann?

You mean someone like...

Hannity?

or O'Reilly?

or Hume?

or Cavuto?

or Scarborough?

or Carlson?

or Limbaugh?

or Beck?

or Coulter?

or Gibson?

Are so drunk on the Kool Aid that you believe the reporting you see from these people is straight?

You people really are lost.

To Not so Smart,
The difference between them and Comrade Keith is that they are honest in their ideology and they debate their Leftwing opposites.

By why the willingness to come to the defense (or appear to) of people like Saddam? Or OBL?
Doesn't make sense.

Do you really think I want to defend either of them? But the problem is that this Administration has so poisoned the well with the various and sundry antics that it's hard to straddle the line of criticism.

This really awful reporting we have - the sensationalism, the exagerration, the outright erroneous stories - will be directed at you and your folks.

We survived it before. Or did you forget the toxicity that was the press during the Clinton Administration? A President with a 60% approval rating and the press wanted to run him out of town on a rail.

Imagine a conservative Olbermann?

I don't have to imagine him. He already exists in many forms - Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Neil Cavuto, Brit Hume, Rush Limbaugh...

Politics tends to run in cycles of 36 years where a certain pattern of behavior is established. 1972 was when the current system began and it has been rising steadily in pitch every year since then, with it reaching it's crescendo in 2000. If the cycle holds, 2008 will represent the end of this pattern and a new one will replace it.

Trekkie,

For the moment assume you are right that the question lies in whether the proper declassification procedures were followed. What drives watchers of KO's propaganda Krazy is he makes no attempt, ever, of trying to uncover the RELEVANCE of this (any) story by asking obvious questions as have been asked by JD. He SPINS for the benefit of his position (and, not coincidently, media matters). If Dana Milbamk has said, in the past, that KO isn't to be taken seriously then why do you?

Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear Politics of Fear

Trekkie et al.:
If you folks on the left want to equate Olbermann with Limbaugh or Hannity, be my guest.

But let's set aside for once and forever any suggestion that Olbermann's show is a balanced or neutral program. Because obviously Limbaugh and Hannity aren't fair by any standard.

It's amazing that you guys and gals scream bloody murder over the, as you see it, extreme bias of Fox and then you compare a show you think is fair to that very same Fox network you complain about.

Not a smart response, folks.

At least you're dropping any pretense. Whether deliberately or not is anyone's guess.

SMG

Mr. Fear,

Just curious, how do you decide how many "Politics of Fear" phrases to repeat? Is it a proprietary mathematical model or is it simply your one finger gets tired?

If the evidence is so obvious why hasn't Fitzgerald, who's been at this with subpoena power for 3 years, been able to nail anyone? He can't even report in open court that Plame was a covert operative. [/END QUOTE]

thats a separate issue all together...absense of charges doenst mean absense of evidence

Nothing more than a purposeful distraction...its indefensible, so instead of defending you're deflecting. That still doesnt defend the issue

Its indefensible period

SMG,

I'm not clear why there is any need to discuss WHETHER Countdown tilts left. It does. End of discussion.

KO has won any number of awards for his reporting and/or work on cable news. The real question is whether KO is living up to the standards implied by winning something like an Edward R. Murrow Award (2 in his case).

One of the things that made Keith famous was his supposed "straight talk". Is he really living up to that?

For example, his show is designed to appeal to Deaniacs, MoveOn.org members, readers of Daily Kos and CrooksandLiars, and that whole crowd but when asked by Brian Lamb or Howard Kurtz Olbermann refuses to "talk straight" and acknowledge the obvious.

Or, he talks about how much of the show he writes himself - sometimes 100% of the show. Yet he routinely lifts material from Fark, Media Matters for America, CrooksandLiars, Kos, Democrats.com, TVNewser, and other blogs and internet sources and puts it on air without attribution. I know many bloggers - many on the left where KO gets his material - and many of them have griped to me about this. KO has even lifted material from my sites. Now, you do see, from time to time, that Coutndown will credit one of these sources but those instances are just the exception that proves the rule.

Worse, KO does not appear to fact-check these sources which could hardly be called reliable.

This is why he ran a story from the Onion-like Hoosier Gazette on a "study" supposedly done by a Dr. Lee at the University of Indiana which concluded that when parents have a baby they lose 10-20 IQ points. Keith not only cited the study but "quoted" Dr. Lee AS IF he had interviewed Lee. KO went even further and proceeded to discuss the study with his next guest, Carl Reiner, who said flat out he did not believe the story. Even with that red flag KO continued to discuss the story on air with Reiner AS IF it were true. If you listened carefully you could hear Edward R. Murrow rolling over in his grave.

This is why he had so many instances of attacking people for things they never said; he lifts quotations from sites like TVNewser and others rather than reviewing original source material like transcripts or tapes.

I know people on this site like to focus on examples of the liberal slant of Countdown but it hardly seems worth the trouble. There is nothing wrong with Countdown or KO being liberal or slanting their coverage or guest list to the left. It's a free country and they can do what they want. I go back to Senator Moynihan's oft-quoted line about having your own set opinions but not your own set of facts.

My problem with Keith is that, too often for such a smart, accomplished newsman and broadcaster, he has his own set of facts. Worse, he undermines whatever journalistic credibility he has had, by getting things wrong and then failing to correct the record. Beyond that, and what makes folks with NBC Universal cringe, is that by doing this he (and Rick Kaplan) are undermining the NBC News brand.

State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies State of the Union Lies

Hey leftists,
The economy added 210,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate is down to 4.7%. Depressing news right!

Don't forget the 12 million illegals who are also gainfully employed. They are not counted in the stats; if they were that figure would be more like 3% unemployment!

Good point Cox.
I wonder what the Olbermaniacs are going to say. I guess they're waiting to recieve their email talking points from George Soros, that's why they haven't said anything yet.

I've become very weary of Krazy Keith's nightly, petty, personal attacks (yawn). The childish Olby will always be a 2nd-rate media personality because of his extreme polarizing effect. His enemies are quickly accumulating and his friends won't be there to save him when the bottom falls out (ala Rep. Cynthia McKinney).

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." — President George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Mr Propaganda.
The term Catapult the propaganda means to over come it. Next time you post something read the context it's being said in.

*O' Lielly uses his translation from english to doublespeak to parse obvious statements*

Will you stop at nothing? We dont have teams and Bush is not a Team! Why deflect, dismiss, excuse and downplay everything that reflects negatively on the President?

This is crazy

"We have found that the Republicans are really good at telling you when you can be born, they're good at telling you when you can die, but not very good at the stuff in between." -- Markos Moulitsas Zúniga

Hey Cox, The leftists still have yet to talk about the economic news!
I wonder why?
Will Olbermann discuss it tonight?
Probably not!

"In my experience the only thing Republicans are interested in is getting tax breaks for their rich friends." -- President Lyndon Baines Johnson

I'm not rich and I benifitted from the tax cuts.

GREAT ECONOMIC NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
AS OF 12:52 PM TODAY.
DOW JONES IS DOWN -86.13
NAS IS DOWN -21.20
S&P IS DOWN -12.14
TO BAD WALL STREET ISN'T AS HAPPY ABOUT YOUR GENERIC ECONOMIC #'S AS CERTAIN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARE.

Lasagna man,
You're economiclyery ignorant.The reason the Stockmarket went down is that they're afraid that the good employment numbers will mean the Fd will continue to raise interest rates. I think it's stupid that Street had a down day sinc more workers mean higher profits for companies. That's how Wall Street reacts to stronger than expected numbers, it goes down.
Read the Business news better.

Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War Iraqi Oil Will Pay for the War

Keep repeating the Marxist indoctrination process.
You guys keep exposing yourselves for the Marxists you are.

That's right oreally how silly of me.
When we talk about war, we are really talking about peace. And down is up,and up is really down. How silly of me, I forgot about the right wing double speak.

Lasagna,
Can you respond to my economic analysis?
You can't because you're economically ignorant.
You can't even have a discussion about the war becuse your whole Marxist ideology is hateful of this country. Do you have a Zarqawi shirt at home.
He's fighting for the freedom of Iraq right?

Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History Largest Deficit in History

Robert:
I'm not clear why there is any need to discuss WHETHER Countdown tilts left. It does. End of discussion.

If only it was that easy. Some folks think the NY Times is pro-Bush. Because, of course, of Judy Miller's pieces.

Which ignores, among other things, that fact that Miller wrote pieces detailing Iraq's WMD programs during the Clinton years.

Remember the nineties? That was when the Democrats - from Kennedy to Boxer to Pelosi - were all telling us that Saddam needed to be removed. That Iraq was a threat to the country, to the region, to our interests and to our friends.

All that goes down the memory hole.

Anyway, Doc Johnson once said that men need being reminded more than they need being informed.

SMG

Dear Mr Oreally,
If you consider the fact that I am an Iraq war vet, and you have never served in the military, I doubt you would like to engage me in any disscussion about the war. As for your economic #'s? Let's talk about the 79 people killed by suicide bomber's today, and the three U.S soldiers that died today. All in Iraq, I am sure you would love to run up and join the Military TODAY. But that little voice inside your head that keeps telling you that you are a COWARD just stops you in your tracks. But I must say as a vet I do enjoy your support.

"He's got connections with al Qaeda." --George W. Bush (10/28/2002)

"We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind." --George W. Bush (10/14/2002)

We know he's got ties with al Qaeda." -- George W. Bush (11/1/2002)

"We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda." -- George W. Bush (11/2/2002)

"We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda." -- George W. Bush (11/2/2002)

"This is a man who has had al Qaeda connections." -- George W. Bush (11/4/2002)

"He's had contacts with al Qaeda." --George W. Bush (11/4/2002)

"This is a man who has got connections with al Qaeda." -- George W. Bush (11/4/2002)

I highly doubt you're an Iraq vet and I did serve in the Army under the traitor Clinton by the way. I was in the 1st Armored division Lasagna. I have 2 cousins in Iraq. One of them fought inn Fallujah you jerk. If you're really a vet I wish the Al-Qaeda Jihadists had gotten you Traitor.
You don't even know and you wouldn't want to know me.

Hey Lasagna Traitor and the other commie,
Al-Qaeda did have ties with Iraq. If they didn't what was Zarqawi doing there? Explian all the foreighn Al-Qaeda fighters there now? My cousin told me that they've captured even Chechens.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

WASHINGTON -- The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

What was Zarqawi doing in Iraq then?
Why is Al-Qaeda in Iraq the leading terrorist group there answer that. There was no active collaboration with Al-qaeda that was known. There were ties as recent documents discovered pointed out. Do you also think there are no ties between Al-qaeda and Iran? if not here something The Ayatollah Khomenie helped had Sadat assasinated. Do you know who was one of the collaboarators in Egypt was? Al-Zarhiwi.
Did you also know that Al-Qaeda and Hamas have the same founder? his name was Abdullah Azzam. look it up ignoranmous.

9/11 Commission Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, Democrat:

"[T]here were connections between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor (Commission Chairman Thomas Kean) just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative, relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these Al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States."

No cooperative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda with regard to the attacks on 9/11.

Not no relationship on other matters.

SMG

WASHINGTON -- The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

In true Olbermann style, you sir are spinning the truth. The 9-11 commission found no colaaborative relationship bt iraq and alquaeda in the planning of 9 11. ther was and is plenty of evidence of "so damn insane's" regimes relationship with and support of terrorism (10 K to families of suicide bombers) But good work, Krazy Keith has taught you well.

SMG,
That is totally correct and the point I was making. But these Leftist wish to continue believe the lie there was no Iraq-AlQaeda link. They both had the same enemy us! If they want to bring up that one was secular and the other religious that doesn't mean anything.
In Lebanon the religious Shiite Islamo-Fascist group Hezzbollah was allied with the secular Baathists of Syria aginst Israel!

SMG and MD1,
That is totally correct and the point I was making. But these Leftist wish to continue believe the lie there was no Iraq-AlQaeda link. They both had the same enemy us! If they want to bring up that one was secular and the other religious that doesn't mean anything.
In Lebanon the religious Shiite Islamo-Fascist group Hezzbollah was allied with the secular Baathists of Syria aginst Israel

"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the prime training ground for foreign terrorists who could travel elsewhere across the globe and wreak havoc, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and classified studies" by the CIA and the Department of State, Warren P. Strobel reported July 4, 2005. [1]
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/krwashbureau/20050704/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_terror_iraq_wa)

"Iraq's emergence as a terrorist training ground appears to challenge President Bush's rationale for invading and overthrowing leader Saddam Hussein in March 2003," Strobel wrote.

Strobel added, "But Iraq wasn't a source of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism under Saddam and played no role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Critics argue that the U.S. invasion harmed, rather than helped, the war on terror by acting as a magnet and recruiting tool."

Hey O'really I gotta go to the store and get some beer and smokes. Do you need anything wilst I'm out????

WASHINGTON - "President Bush has hit new lows in public opinion for his handling of Iraq and the war on terror and for his overall job performance. Polling also shows the Republican Party surrendering its advantage on national security.

The AP-Ipsos survey is loaded with grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power. Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction. Just 36 percent of the public approves of his job performance, his lowest-ever rating in AP-Ipsos polling."

And these new numbers were taken BEFORE the news broke that Bush himself was the source of the Plame leak.

> Bush himself was the source of the Plame leak.

This is a textbook example of how ill-informed and ignorant people who watch Krazy Keith for news really are.

Who cares about the the stupid leak case it doesn't effect my life.

Robert -

How rude. You asked me to 'get back to you', but then you close down the comments section in the other thread before I could do so. What gives?

And what a shame that you chose to dodge the hypothetical I set up regarding the 2004 election. I just wish for once that conservatives weren't the cliches they always end up turning out to be. *sigh* For the record, I treat dodging this hypothetical as tacit admission by the dodger that he/she would in fact be upset had the same shenanigans occurred allowing Kerry to win, which, by extension usually means he/she is a hypocrite.

Er, congratulations?

Anyway, on to your final post...

'Politics is a corrupt, dirty business. People, parties and politicians lie, cheat and steal.'

And we're meant to accept and tolerate this behavior? Excuse me, but fuck you. The whole point of America is that we're not supposed to let this happen. It is our Constitutional duty to protect ourselves from enemies foreign and domestic - and that doesn't always mean an invading army. If we have a bunch of criminals running the government (and we most certainly do), then it's time for us collectively as US citizens (stripped of all other labels used to establish false dualities and infighting like conservative/liberal, left/right, male/female, gay/straight, black/white/arab/asian/hispanic, you get the picture) to call them out and expel them.

The Founding Fathers understood human nature extremely well and designed this Republic to help protect us from those who would use their power over their fellow man. By the admission made in your first sentence, you obviously have chosen to abrogate that duty and carry water for the idea that it's okay for America to be governed by crooks.

You should really be ashamed of yourself.

'The methods of counting votes in this country are a disgrace. In New York we use machines that are about 30 years old. When I lived in Chicago we used punch cards, a technology from the 1950s.'

Counting of the votes is only one aspect of the greater whole. There was plenty done to disenfranchise voters BEFORE they even got to the polls and at the instant people were attempting to vote. Then, to add insult to this injury, the vote tallies after the election were manipulated when it was clear all the other quasi-legal and blatantly illegal activities Blackwell engaged in weren't going to give Dubya the victory. Having your registration rejected because of incorrect paper stock or having the machine record your vote for Bush when you wanted Kerry has nothing to do with the vote counting (keeping in mind these are but two examples of the numerous accounts of pre-voting fraud).

You are conveniently viewing the 2004 election through a very myopic lens in my estimation.

'I don't think the country changed that much when Clinton beat Bush or Dole, I don't think the country changed much when Bush beat Gore or Kerry.'

This is a joke, right? You're joking...

'I don't see all that much difference between the two political parties and have little use for either of them.'

Glad to see we're finally on the same page about something. I was worried we'd never find any common ground.

So tell me, then, wouldn't it be more constructive to expose the foibles of both parties on this site in the interest of creating a better alternative rather than focus on some perceived dishonesty in a nightly news anchor?

'You seem to think that because I run a site called OlbermannWatch that I hold views diametrically opposed to KO...'

Funny that, eh? I wonder what could've ever led me to that conclusion?

But seriously, who do you think you're kidding?

'...or - for some odd reason - completely in agreement with Bill O'Reilly.'

I never said anything about Bill O'Reilly except that he's a horrible person and that you had to be aware of that fact. The only reason I brought him up because you were using his ratings in comparison to Olbermann's claiming that this proved something or other. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant, you cited O'Reilly in one of your arguments, that's why I mentioned him.

'Can you imagine a world where I don't like Bill or Keith? Or where I don't like the GOP or the Democratic Party? Where I don't support Kerry or Bush? I know it might cause your head to explode but ponder that for a moment and get back to me.'

Damn! You were doing so well. You had a tone of civility all the way until that last sentence. And just when I thought you'd managed to bring the conversation back down to a reasonable level you go and toss out an insult.

You disappoint me.

(Not that it was my initial intent with this response, but I get the feeling that THIS is the post that'll finally push you into banning me. Just so you know, I'm proud of you for showing the restraint you already have.)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former top White House aide testified that President George W. Bush authorized leaking classified intelligence in 2003 in the face of criticism of his Iraq policy from a former ambassador, according to court papers made public on Thursday.

The papers cited Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, as testifying to a federal grand jury that Cheney had told him that Bush authorized him to disclose information from a secret National Intelligence Estimate to a New York Times reporter in July 2003. Libby testified he had been authorized to disclose the information because it rebutted Wilson and Cheney thought it "very important" for it to come out.

It's not the fact that he is the leaker in chief.
Or the fact he believes that the leak starts here. It's just the fact that he lied about it. He said he was lookin for the leaker, when in fact he was the leaker. All he had to do was look in the mirror. Green Eggs -N- HAM!!!! SO DOSE THAT MEAN THAT HE IS A DRIP DROPPER??? Have you thanked a liberal today?????

You know how you can tell when Bush is lying? You can see his lips move.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator MONTHS BEFORE the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

During the Kennedy Administration, JFK was so frustrated with leaks that he asked his people to find out who was doing all the leaking.

Two weeks later they came back with their findings. "Okay, who's doing the leaking?" Kennedy asked.

"Sir", they replied, "it's you."

JFK was so enamored with talking to the press - the Scotty Restons, the Walter Lippmanns - and exchanging gossip and information that he never realized that the reporters were getting leaks from him. He was telling them secret information.

Anyone who thinks that Bush's declassification of parts of the NIE is the first time a president fought critics that way needs to go back and read presidential histories.

But they'll get on their high horse and express horror at the action.

Until a Democrat is back in office doing the same thing to fight back against the "neocons" or the "Rethuglicans."

SMG

Jack,

Closing the comments was not directed at you. If you ran a blog you'd understand that enabling comments means dealing with comment spam and that means you either have to require registration or aggressively managing the comments. We tried registration here, we tried catchpas and people hated them. Folks just want to be able to blast away with their comments. So, we took away all the restrictions (except one; you can not submit multiple posts within a certain period of time).

If we left ALL comments open we'd end up with an archive full of posts with comments OPEN and pretty soon the comment spammers would find those open sections and start flooding the site with ads for child porn and viagara. So, we balance it out. We allow wide open commenting BUT we only leave the most recent/most active posts with comments enable. No one had posted to that comment for 24 hours so I closed it.

As far as your feeling of being mistreated in some way; as a newcomer to the site you are probably not aware that I have nothing but contempt for anonymous posters. Folks are welcome to post anonymously but don't expect me to have any respect for people like you who hide behind psuedonyms and are afraid to stand behind their own words. Your "indignation" rings hollow "Jack".

As far as "banning" you, don't be absurd. I have never "banned" anyone.. I have had one significant troll on this site since it was launched and I found that the best way to dispose of her was was to track her down via my server log files, put up a post linking her foul-mouthed comments with her actual identity and wish her luck next job a prosective employer Googles her name.

A quick glance at some of the comments over the past week ought to give you a clue that your comments are not even remotely close to the line you'd need to cross with me. Regardless, I don't "ban" people.

As far as your "argument", I am not really sure what your point is exactly and I am not really interested in trying to decipher your ramblings. If you know anything about politics you know what goes on and it hardly something confined to the Republican Party. About the most you could convince me of is that the GOP was better at cheating than the Democrats.

If you really want to be treated with respect by me trying identifying yourself publicly - otherwise you are just another "drive by" commenter and you'll be treated with the contempt you deserve.

Jack,

Closing the comments was not directed at you. If you ran a blog you'd understand that enabling comments means dealing with comment spam and that means you either have to require registration or aggressively managing the comments. We tried registration here, we tried catchpas and people hated them. Folks just want to be able to blast away with their comments. So, we took away all the restrictions (except one; you can not submit multiple posts within a certain period of time).

If we left ALL comments open we'd end up with an archive full of posts with comments OPEN and pretty soon the comment spammers would find those open sections and start flooding the site with ads for child porn and viagara. So, we balance it out. We allow wide open commenting BUT we only leave the most recent/most active posts with comments enable. No one had posted to that comment for 24 hours so I closed it.

As far as your feeling of being mistreated in some way; as a newcomer to the site you are probably not aware that I have nothing but contempt for anonymous posters. Folks are welcome to post anonymously but don't expect me to have any respect for people like you who hide behind psuedonyms and are afraid to stand behind their own words. Your "indignation" rings hollow "Jack".

As far as "banning" you, don't be absurd. I have never "banned" anyone.. I have had one significant troll on this site since it was launched and I found that the best way to dispose of her was was to track her down via my server log files, put up a post linking her foul-mouthed comments with her actual identity and wish her luck next job a prosective employer Googles her name.

A quick glance at some of the comments over the past week ought to give you a clue that your comments are not even remotely close to the line you'd need to cross with me. Regardless, I don't "ban" people.

As far as your "argument", I am not really sure what your point is exactly and I am not really interested in trying to decipher your ramblings. If you know anything about politics you know what goes on and it hardly something confined to the Republican Party. About the most you could convince me of is that the GOP was better at cheating than the Democrats.

If you really want to be treated with respect by me trying identifying yourself publicly - otherwise you are just another "drive by" commenter and you'll be treated with the contempt you deserve.

Robert -

Thank you for being civil, it was refreshing. I appreciate your explanation about why you closed the thread. And, for the record, I don't feel mistreated, you just disappointed me, as I said.

And you're right, I was jumping to conclusions about you by assuming you'd ban me and I apologise. Thanks for being above average in that respect at least...

It's too bad you have so many convenient reasons for avoiding an engaging discussion. Especially when so many of them are really contrived. Honestly, this is just your latest attempt to avoid the questions I've posed you. That, and claiming that I 'ramble', something I most certainly do not do. And you know exactly what the point of all of this is, so stop being deliberately obtuse.

No, the problem is that what I've posed points to your being a hypocrite, and you're trying to avoid having to admit it to yourself and exposing that fact others.

And as for my name, it's as real as anything, y'know in that 'Mark Twain' kinda sense. And on that note: is KfK a legimate source of info - I'll bet that's not his name. What about this O'Reilly Rules guy, I can't possibly see that as a real name - do you take him seriously?

Hell you took me seriously enough to respond specifically to my first post (and second) when there were many, many others you could've chosen from, so I think your aversion to my 'anonymity' is just a convenience now that I've got you pegged.

Not necessarily to Robert -

And to comment on the topic at hand - Bush is a lair (stop your inner monologue, it's demonstratably true), he authorized the leak of Plame's name in an attempt to intimidate Wilson into silence after he exposed their intelligence manipulation and forged documents.

Michael Ledeen forged the Niger documents (no matter how much he claims otherwise) and then Bush & Pals used them to lie us into an illegal businessman's war of first resort at taxpayer expense.

And what's really awesome is that it was recently revealed that Bush was given a one-page summary of the NIE in question that specifically told him that the '16 words' could not be backed up by reality. He used them anyway.

Didn't want war my ass.

Returning to the topic at hand:

How many inaccuracies can KO squeeze into one sentence?
Jesus, JD, how many inaccuracies (dare I say lies) can you make about a single sentence of KO's?

First of all, the President's involvement was in the release of the National Intelligence Estimate, not Valerie Plame.
KO never said the Prez was involved in the release of Plame's name, he said "the chain of events that led to the outing of a covert CIA operative". Indeed, it was specifically clarified later:

OLBERMANN: David, is there any indication in that filing that the president authorized Mr. Libby to disclose in particular Valerie Plame�s identity to anybody?

SHUSTER: No

STRIKE ONE!

And it was not the "very first time" either, since it was reported long ago that Libby said his "superiors" had authorized the NIE release.
Interesting, 'superiors' = "the president". That's funny, I guess I was misreading all those times when RW bloggers specifically stated that 'superiors' did not refer to the president. No, this is an outright lie on your part, anyone who has followed this knows it is a fact that this is the first time that the Prez has been specifically mentioned as being involved. If I'm wrong, I certainly haven't heard any specifics concerning the Prez.

STRIKE TWO!

As for the "chain of events" leading to Plame? Olby made that up, since there is nothing to connect one with the other.
Hmm, Libby is 'authorized' to release information that has been classified. A little bit later, he leaks Valerie Plame's name. Do you really believe there is no connection? C'mon, be honest. If Libby had never been 'authorized' to release the classified NIE info, do you really believe that Plame wouldn't have been outed?

STRIKE THREE!

Oh, and the "covert CIA operative"? Even Prosecutor Fitzgerald doesn't make that claim any more.
I guess the part of the Libby indictment that says the investigation was "into possible violations of federal criminal laws ... (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel) and "that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information" had nothing to do with 'covert'. Especially, "Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her status was classified."
Note: covert = secret = classified.

STRIKE FOUR!

Four falsehoods in the posting on one sentence.

1. The "chain of events" Olby cites there is completely made up and fabricated.

2. Superiors is plural. Cheney was his superior. Who is the other one, the commissioner of baseball?

3. See 1.

4. The libby indictment looked into the POSSIBLE violation of outing a covert operative. He did NOT find it, did he? Because he didn't charge it. And in his press conference specifically said that he was not making a finding that she was covert. Show me where he did.

4a. Covert does not = classified. Covert has a specific legal definition under the law. Secret doesn't cut it, neither does classified. Before you make a legal point, reading the applicable law might be helpful.

Try to tell the truth when you challenge Olbermann Watch.

1. You ignored (like usual) the point I made, namely the fact that KO never claimed that Bush was involved in the release of Plame's name. As I've said before, the proper method is to address what the poster said not what you want to say.

2. LOL. That's your defense? 'Superiors' specifically indicates the President? No, that's BS and you know it. Like I said before, I may be wrong, but I have never seen any specific mention of the president.

3. Here you just repeat your claim rather than tell me how I'm wrong. It is completely logical to presume that the leaking of the NIE led to the outing of Plame's status hence a "chain of events."

4."He did NOT find it, did he? Because he didn't charge it."
That is incorrect and you know it. He could not find proof that Libby knew that Plame was covert, a decidedly different thing altogether.
"And in his press conference specifically said that he was not making a finding that she was covert."
Another neat spin here. Not making a finding is not the same as determining she was not covert. Since Fitzgerald could not determine whether or not Libby knowingly outed a covert (or not) agent, the matter of her status in the case becomes legally moot. The case has become his lying, not Plame's status.

4a. Granted I am not a lawyer and cannot specifically address her status as covert or not. My understanding is though that she was indeed covert (classified+overseas in last five years+CIA trying to hide her identity). However, your implication is that KO is lying by saying 'covert' when he knows she wasn't. I didn't know you could read minds. I think she was covert, so does that mean I'm lying by calling her covert? Does that mean the AP is lying? CNN? The Washington Times?

1. Saying Bush was "placed" in a nonexistent "chain of events" is false. There is no evidence whatever that the NIE release in any way caused the Plame leak. Zero. None.

2. Now you're backtracking claiming you want a "specific" mention of the President. Tell me who "superiors" could possibly refer to. Cheney and who? The Dali Llama?

3. See 1.

4. Right. The matter of her status was moot, and therefore unproven.

4a. Since she was NOT overseas within the previous 5 years, by the definition you cite she was not covert under the law.

Thank you so much.

1.3. So your claim is that it is illogical for a person to presume that if a occurs and then related b occurs then b had nothing to do with a?

2. backtracking?
My original comment:
"it is a fact that this is the first time that the Prez has been specifically mentioned as being involved."

4. As I said, that is my (limited) understanding of the legal view of 'covert' (even though 'covert' still applies in common usage). It is further my understanding that she was overseas (though other sources indicate it is unclear).

2. Oops, forgot something. I have heard that 'superiors' could've referred to Andy Card, Karl Rove, Cheney, Bush (even Papa Bush and Barbara, lol, though I hope that was a joke).

B followed A therefore A somehow caused B? Post hoc ergo propter hoc, one of the oldest, hoariest logical fallacies in the book.

I do not accept wikipedia as a legitimate source for anything, particularly when someone as unreliable as Larry Johnson is cited as an authority. Fitz didn't find she was covert, and I don't know of any legitimate source that found that she fit the legal definition. If there is one, provide it. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

Fitz didn't find she was covert
No, Fitz did not address whether she was covert or not. There is a difference so, please, stop repeating it.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Yes, of course, this applies if context is not looked at. For example, I had a milkshake for lunch and then watched a movie. B follows A, but does A cause B? Not in this case.
However, I watched a movie. Earlier I rented said movie. I could not have watched the movie unless I had rented it first. See, relation and context matter.

Well, then who DID find that she was covert under the law? Olby reported it, based on WHAT? Because if she WAS covert, then Libby or whoever broke the law. Yet nobody has been charged with breaking the law. So there has yet to be a legal finding by anyone that she was "covert". Unless of course you have some sort of determination that I have missed. If so, point it out. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

As I indicated before, if a person believes that she was 'covert', such belief is reasonable, and no 'official' source disagrees then it is not unreasonable to use the term 'covert'. This is probably why nearly everyone in the media uses the term.

test

I think Media Matters is cracking up. I was just over there and now they are taking David Gregory to the woodshed! Who's next Dana Milbank? Dave "THE SHAM" Shuster?

I think Media Matters is cracking up. I was just over there and now they are taking David Gregory to the woodshed! Who's next Dana Milbank? Dave "THE SHAM" Shuster?