The Brit Hume segment clinches it ( yet again)!
The psuedo journalist known as Oblermann is not only without courage, he is lazy.

Keith Olbermann may be a great guy to have a beer with and watch a baseball game.

And he may just be a great guy to have as your neighbor or co-worker or business associate.

But he is just a completely tendentious and irresponsible journalist. Any sense of objectivity or fairness or balance is foreign to the man.

Forget accuracy. Don't even try to judge him on that standard.

And to think he has the gall to criticize the work of Bill O'Reilly?

Good grief.

Johnny:

Thanks for the analysis. I just couldn't take watching KO tonight.

I tuned in to O'Reilly instead. He made an odd comment. He claimed that there were rumors the MSNBC was about to shake up its prime time lineup.

Any idea what he was talking about?

I'll field that one, Dan. There were rumours that Rita Cosby would be shifted to 11, with Scarborough and Tucker bumped up an hour for a seamless four hours of politics.

But apparently, MSNBC denies it.

O'reilly- I seemed to have learned a little more about your political views. I was just wondering if you had a favorite that you want to run in 08.
I myself want Feingold. Anyway I am not sure if you still live in NY but I was just thinking of the pizza's and subs that I can't get since I left Jersey. To be honest, I don't even know of anyone that might run that fits your political leanings.

I didn't appreciate his hit piece on the Bull fighting kid. It wasn't funny, but we're talking about an insane mad man!

Spaghetti Legs,
Where I live near tampa there's a pizzarea that the owners are from Long Island so it's vey good by Florida standards and good by NY standards. I was just up in NY 2 months ago and visted my freinds from my old hood in Queens. I've lived in Florida since I left the army in 99 and I love it.
But I'm still a NYer in my heart. I go see the Yanks play in Spring training and when they play that little league team called the Rays! Lol!

In 2008 I want Guilliani since he's of the Libertarian wing of the G.O.P. If it's not him I will vote for the Libertarian condidate. Unless of course it's a close election between McCain and Hillary. Then I'll vote for McCain even though I disagree with his social issues.

As for Russ Feingold, I don't agree with his views but I respect the man. He's honest about his Leftwing positions and doesn't pertend to be a Moderate. I really respect him for honesty and if he won, it wouldn't bother me.
Rather an Honest liberal than a phoney Moderate like Clinton or a jerk like George Allen.

Spaghetti Legs,
Where I live near tampa there's a pizzarea that the owners are from Long Island so it's vey good by Florida standards and good by NY standards. I was just up in NY 2 months ago and visted my freinds from my old hood in Queens. I've lived in Florida since I left the army in 99 and I love it.
But I'm still a NYer in my heart. I go see the Yanks play in Spring training and when they play that little league team called the Rays! Lol!

In 2008 I want Guilliani since he's of the Libertarian wing of the G.O.P. If it's not him I will vote for the Libertarian condidate. Unless of course it's a close election between McCain and Hillary. Then I'll vote for McCain even though I disagree with his social issues.

As for Russ Feingold, I don't agree with his views but I respect the man. He's honest about his Leftwing positions and doesn't pertend to be a Moderate. I really respect him for honesty and if he won, it wouldn't bother me.
Rather an Honest liberal than a phoney Moderate like Clinton or a jerk like George Allen.

Sorry I forgot to put my name to the above post!

Komrade Krazy Keith attacks Brit Hume out context but makes fun of Bullfighting. What a Hypocrite

O'reilly- I feel our geographical locations are a mirror image of or political views.OPPOSITE. You live in Fla, I live in the Seattle area. But I gota call you out on something. You say you like Feingold cause he is true to his positions. But then you say you would vote for Mccain. Mccain is now pandering to the same people that F'ed him over in 2000. What's up with that? Although I will admit that Hillary is pandering to everyone. But that is not to say I would not vote for her.

I would only vote for McCain if Hillary had a shot to win. Hillary has some dictatorial tendancies and is dishonest. She recently supported a bill that wants to registers guns commiitted in a crime. that sounds good, but then from there ,all guns will be registered in a database. Then she will take away the right to bear arms. tTe reason I'm not big on the NSA taps is becuase if Hillary gets in power, they will spy on Libertarian, Conservative and even some honest Liberal groups.
Those are some of the reasons I would vote against her I could keep going, but the way she talks reminds me of a Hitler or Castro type personallity!
We might disagree on Foreign policy and some economics but when it comes to social issues, I'm to the left of Andy Warhol.
We would find common ground of keeping the gov out of people's personal lives!

Has anyone forgot about the Terrorist training camp that provides future terrorist prospects with Ninja Turtle masks and underground pole vaulting!!!!???

Woah.. Hillary reminds you of Hitler?

P.S. Don't ever worry about a single President taking away your right to bear arms; it's impossible, and a fallacy designed only to discourage people from a certain person.

Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; A01

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:08 p.m. EDT
By Carl Limbacher

The Uranium Joe Wilson Didn't Mention

By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

Is the story credible and provable? If it is, I never heard it before.

Maybe this is why nobody talks about the "500 tons of yellowcake".

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/plame.html

A July 17 NewsMax article claimed that "Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad" but failed to note that virtually nothing had been done with the nuclear program since the 1991 Iraq war, and the program had decayed to a point where a U.S. official stated that Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."

Of course you haven't Dave -- because the media doesn't want you to. The New York Times reported on the topic. You can get the story there, along with a lame attempt to pretend the uranium was not dangerous! Try to understand NY Times logic -- DEPLETED uranium has been questioned as hazardous by the NY Times, but 500 tons of uranium, 2 tons of it enriched, is considered less than a threat. Still want to believe the MSM?

Just read the full link above Dave. Take the red pill.

Hey Anonymous,

NEWSMAX stated a FACT. They didn't CLAIM anything. The NY Times also discussed the issue, and stated the same facts, although like you they attempted to downplay them.

I find it amazing you can state this:

"a U.S. official stated that Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb.""

Is that supposed to be an excuse for Saddam hiding the uranium and ignoring weapons inspectors? How do you feel about Iran, by the way? Are they "many years away" too? You know, "many years" does not mean "forever." How about Joe Wilson's claims? Are they still believable?

Just keep making excuses for Saddam and Joe Wilson. It makes you look really good.

Speaking of Joe Wilson, Olby tossed in a throwaway question to give Wilson the chance to ridicule Christopher Hitchens. But neither Olby nor Wilson addressed the facts reported by Hitchens. If you want to read the article they referenced:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

What are the odds that Olby will have Hitchens on Countdown to give the other side of this story? About the same odds as KO apologizing to Brit Hume for lying about him on the air.

J$

The link is good, but there is one problem. Even when you confront lefties with the fact that Saddam had enriched uranium, they say it doesn't matter. Forget about getting them to understand that Saddam's desire to purchase uranium from Niger was a threat. Unless Saddam had a nuke, threatened to use it on video, and unleashed it on a major US city, the leftists will say "Bush lied, people died." Just look at the stance they are taking with Iran. Ahmadinejad is screaming "we will kill you" in our faces while enriching uranium, and Chris Matthews is questioning Cheney's "hard-line" stance toward Iran. Idiots will be idiots.

From the Internets (and the WaPo):

"On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile “biological laboratories.” He declared, “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president’s statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped “secret” and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."

D'ohhh!

Buma,

Don't notice the posts preceding your latest lefty attack piece. Typical lefty illogic.

KfK,

-- Don't respond to the CONTENT of the Buma piece.
-- Just revert to your ditto-head programming and label it a "lefty attack piece".
-- Then try and make some smart comment, but fail miserably with a lame non-sequitor like "lefty illogic".
-- Return to your pathetically ignorant right-wing life.
-- Rinse and Repeat.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that it is "time for action" on the international demands for Iran to cease its uranium enrichment activities.

----------

OK, so all the Iran comments from the admin the last few months sounds like they are convinced Iran poses a security threat to the U.S. and must be dealt with, through the U.N. if possible, and via U.S. airstrikes if necessary.

Now, be that as it may, i'm not arguing for or against, here's my question up for discussion.

When?

Since polls show most folks are against it (for better or worse, i'm not arguing one way or the other here) you would think they'd have to go immediately AFTER the midterm elections, right? i.e., so it doesn't hurt repubs in the midterms and yet is as distant from the '08 election as possible, so it doesn't hurt repubs then either, right?

what say ye?

Olbermann vs. Hichens. It would be a sane rational Leftist(Hitchens) against an Islamo-fascist sympathizer (Olbermann). Hitchens would rip him to shreds. It wouldn't be a contest. Olbermann is intellectually a coward. I would love to see someone with an alternate viewpoint on his show. Until then I don't respect him. He's Commentator not a news man.

Hey "Whateva,"

What sense does it make to debate the WMD issue when the article I pointed to gives proof of a WMD stash in Iraq of enriched uranium? Your propaganda piece really doesn't mean crap, but feel free to run with it. "Bush lied, people died!" Chant and repeat.

OLBERMANN: That this is not the first scandal to hit the White House will not come as news to you, so many eyebrows have been raised, so many timelines questioned, that keeping just track of these scandals could become a full-time job, especially when we have now sunk to the level of weather balloons.

It is our job. A quick refresher here, working backwards. In just the last two weeks, the biolabs that weren't. That's today. The Republican New Hampshire phone-jamming scheme tied to the White House. The GOP says it was the RNC, not the White House. The plan for Iran, bombing the heck out of it. Scooter Libby testifying that Vice President Cheney told him that President Bush authorized the leaking of classified information to Judith Miller, that Mr. Bush declassified for just that purpose.

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

So many scandels, so little time. This admin is a laughing stock and will be remembered as such; unless of course they succeed in starting world war III. Then it'll be more sad than laughable, which some would argue, it already is.

A Homeland Security media spokesman picked up in a sex sting, charged with preying on teenaged girls. Tom DeLay resigning from Congress. Mr. Bush replacing his chief of staff under pressure. And last but certainly not least, the Senate Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on a motion to censure the president.