We were treated to only one "Olbergasm" tonight as KO once again worked himself into the story on The Washington Press Writers Dinner with his repeated story about his attendance there some years ago. It was no surprise that the Presidential Duo act got little coverage. I thought it was clever and very funny and so did the audience. President Bush never seems to get much recognition for his self-deprecating sense of humor. The Stephen Colbert routine was dreadful and had me and the audience squirming it was so awful and unfunny. But Countdown seemed to feel it deserved extended coverage. Typical. Up to now, I had found Colbert to be pretty funny but I think his career has hit a pretty bad bump with this and I wonder if he will recover from it. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, though.

Scoring: One "Olbergasm" for each time Mr. Orange works himself into the story.

We were treated to only one "Olbergasm" tonight as KO once again worked himself into the story on The Washington Press Writers Dinner with his repeated story about his attendance there some years ago. It was no surprise that the Presidential Duo act got little coverage. I thought it was clever and very funny and so did the audience. President Bush never seems to get much recognition for his self-deprecating sense of humor. The Stephen Colbert routine was dreadful and had me and the audience squirming it was so bad. But Countdown seemed to feel it deserved extended coverage. Typical. Up to now, I had found Colbert to be pretty funny but I think his career has hit a pretty bad bump with this and I wonder if he will recover from it. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Scoring: One "Olbergasm" for each time Mr. Orange works himself into the story, though.

The weirdest thing that I've seen
Is this man who's half man, half tangerine.
He has the appeal of a skunk
And spews nothing but bunk.
No truth from his show one can glean.

Gloria: Who loves ya, baby!

So, Rush is vindicated in a major way and all this joker can do is work the word " whizing " twice into his show.It sounds like Keith is a little pissed off. The man is as classy as he is talented. He and Colbert don't like Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and George W. Bush. What have they got against winners?

Olbermann: You ask for whom the bell tolls. IT TOLLS FOR THEE....... TOOL! ( Actually, that's just Mama Olbermann ringing the dinner bell. You're having macaroni. That means garlic bread. Yes!)

Hey Missy, there's absolutely nothing to a limerick. Plus, Keith gives all of us so much damn material. Remember that a wise man with long hair and some unconventional ideas once said, " To whom much is given, much is expected." That's right, I'm talking about Duane Allman. He also said " It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Keith Olbermann to pass for a journalist." And lastly, let's not forget " Let he who is without talent cast the first stone..... okay, very funny, Olbermann."

Jump into the limerick pool. The water's great.

One thing that I like about Rush is that he will totally ignore this little Olber twerp. Back when Franken wrote a book with Rush's name on it, he totally ignored it too. Didn't give Olber twerp any free publicity.

It is too bad O'Reilly is not as smart as Rush.

Oops, I should have said Rush didn't give Franken any free publicity.

Olber twerp is a little ant compared to the mighty Rush. One day, Olber twerp will be taken away in a straight jacket. I predict that day will be the first Tuesday in November, when the Republicans actually gain seats in the House and Senate. Actually, I can't see Olber twerp's show lasting thru the summer.

"Media Matters Minute: Bill O'Reilly (attack #84) is "worst", for saying there are left-wingers at NBC News."

So has Olby never watched his own show or does the guy really think he is fair and balanced?

It's almost embarrassing to see conservatives talk to themselves on the internet.

Sometimes I have to take a step back and realize that this is a blog full of far right-wingers who try (horribly mind you) to channel their hate towards one T.V. News Personality.

So KO works for a division of NBC news(so intertwined that large chunks of his show are just tapes from NBC news, or NBC "reporters" like David Shuster who get to turn their backs on all journalistic credibility and opine and speculate biased views.

AND...KO says that he is, you know, aligned with, not as far as being like officially a member, because that would eliminate any possible hope I have that someone would one day take me seriously, but in all practical ways, I am aligned with the liberals.

SO, how does it work, in Olby-land, that its bad for some to say NBC has leftists working for them? KO admits to being one. How about former Moynihan employees Tim Russert and Chris Matthews? I know, not left enough for the MMA and Huff& Puff crowds.

Does KO not even realize how David Brock his ilk are using him, and making a fool of him? He can't actually be involved in writing the show anymore, because even he would have to see that it just doesn't make sense. He must just show up around 7:55, read the teleprompter, and try to get out of there in time for the 7th inning stretch.

Maybe the 6000 words he claims to write per show are the 6000 dedicated to Tom Cruise, Howard Stern, and Oddball.

Every President since Eisenhower has used them to state he would not enforce unconstitutional provisions.

Based on precedent by the United States Supreme Court. Not based upon the personal interpretation of the Constitution by the President.

Adding to previous:

And the signing statements were to state laws the President believed were unconstitutional and that he would not enforce, not laws that he would openly violate.

If you guys thought that Colbert's goal was to amuse you, you thought wrong. This was the first time the prez has had to sit still and hear about everything he has done wrong, yet not admitted. Colbert also rattled the cage of the MSM and they didn't like it either.

Watch a replay of it on the Internets and you'll appreciate what a bold, balls-out thing it was that Colbert did.

Nonfactor,

There's a reason people are so upset with your hero. EVERYONE else on cable has on as guests people with opposing views. People such as Terry McAuliffe, Al Sharpton, Bob Beckel, Dick Durbin, and MANY libs frequent Fox News on a daily basis. Do you think we conservatives like to suffer through them? NO!!! But their views have a right to be put forth, and we actually learn something from them once in a while. And look at Tucker Carlson - he suffers through Rachel Maddow and other libs so that their points can be voiced. Joe Scarborough also includes several "progressives" on his program, including Wonkette and the Prof. Jensen from the Univ. of Texas (this guy is way too much). Lou Dobbs nightly invites people on who are pro-illegal immigration, even though we all know they put forth a view that is extremely opposite to his own.

So why is Keith exempt from allowing opposing viewpoints to be put forth? He seems to hold himself up as a paragon of what a cable show should be, yet all it is is like a bunch of buddies getting together confirming what each other already believes. Is there any stimuli here to actually think about one's position? NO! It's all one predictable viewpoint, all the time, with the viewer left seeing only one side of a story. He's therefore failing to provide complete information to the audience, and that's no way for a news organization to operate.

The parade of moonbats march nightly
For the host whose orange face shines brightly
The load of crap that he spews
NBC claims as news
The ratings prove Meltdown unsightly

"So why is Keith exempt from allowing opposing viewpoints to be put forth?"

Are you sure he only "allows" certain guests? What proof do you have?

Perhaps they won't come on his show. They can go to a dozen other shows, get served softballs, misstate facts without being challenged and conveniently forget their own past statements because no one in the MSM will hold them accountable. Why go on Countdown and be uncomfortable when you can be coddled on all the other shows?

Correction:

Chris Matthews worked for Jimmy Carter and Tip O'Neil

Tim Russert worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan

also...

George Stephanapolous worked for Bill Clinton.

Diane Sawyer worked for Richard Nixon.

Monica Crowley worked for Richard Nixon.

Bill Moyers worked for Lyndon Johnson

Strobe Talbott worked for Bill Clinton

Tony Snow worked for Bush 41 and now with Bush 43

Jake Tapper worked for Bill Clinton

...feel free to add your own...

hit-escape--

Well, mr. escape, unfortunately for you, your hero Olby has already let the act out of the bag as to why you see no opposing viewpoints on his show. Interviewed earler this year by the San Bernadino (Ca.) Sun, he said:

"I was traumatized in my last show from too much of that," he admits. "Part of my deal with the network is that I don't have to have debates. The idea that 'balance' is always fair is absolutely false. Having both sides politically debating a point adds nothing to the political discourse; plus, it makes me queasy."

Fear of being exposed does tend to make one queasy and Olby is Exhibit A which bears out that truth.

Sorry about the goof on Chris Matthews. My bad. I knew who Matthews worked for, but it was about 5:30-6:00 am when I posted. Ooops.

Point being these guys are all over the place, for all the networks and cable channels. To name O'Reilly or anyone WPITW for saying that NBC has been "infiltrated" by liberals is just ridiculous. If that were a criteria (besides just being anything O'Reilly said) some would "win" everyday for the same statement.

So why is Keith exempt from allowing opposing viewpoints to be put forth?"

Are you sure he only "allows" certain guests? What proof do you have?

Perhaps they won't come on his show. They can go to a dozen other shows, get served softballs, misstate facts without being challenged and conveniently forget their own past statements because no one in the MSM will hold them accountable. Why go on Countdown and be uncomfortable when you can be coddled on all the other shows?

Not to mention it's not like The Fox news talking heads are exactly doing much to promote fair Debate. I'll admit evey once in a while you will get an Al Sharpton or someone on there but I think you are much more liekly to get Anne Coulter or Dick Morris (Don't say he worked for Clinton he hates Clinton) I think on average it is a ratio of something like 1 liberal for every 5 conservatives. i also love the complaints about Olby being liberal given Fox news has hired Newt Gingrich and Oliver North as Correspondents.

Chris Matthews is an admitted Republican, he's just opposed to the war. I was watching his show (The Chris Matthews Show) and he stated "You're making my party look bad" when talking about the Republican Party.

It seems to be ground into everyone's head that to be a good 24 hour news show you must have two guests in split screen arguing about an issue--sorry, it's not the case.

> I think on average it is a ratio of something like 1 liberal for every 5 conservatives.

And you base that on...what? It can easily be disproved, but since you made the statement, the burden of proof is on you. This should be fun.

> Fox news has hired Newt Gingrich and Oliver North as Correspondents.

Bzzzt. Wrong again.

P.S. The argument used in this post to say that Bush’s signing statements are prescedented is laughable. One simply needs to look back at the signing statements Clinton used to the one Bush uses--This law is unconstitutional so I'm not going to enforce it vs. I don't like this law so I'm not going to enforce it (In a sense signing the bill was just for show).

Quote: the President has the authority to sign legislation containing desirable elements while refusing to execute a constitutionally defective provision.

Answer: Faithful interpretation of the constitution (however broad those terms are) is what has been re-asserted. What President Bush has done is disregarding the 'of the constitution' part and has issued signing statements to constitutional laws because he didn't like them.

Ouch! I got smacked down. Good point.

Here's the whole paragraph referenced.

"I was traumatized in my last show (for MSNBC, in the late '90s, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal) from too much of that," he admits. "Part of my deal with the network is that I don't have to have debates. The idea that 'balance' is always fair is absolutely false. If I say there's an 800-pound elephant 񠯲 800-pound donkey, depending on your politics 񠩮 the room, and someone else says, 'No, there isn't,' one person can be right and one can be objectively wrong. Having both sides politically debating a point adds nothing to the political discourse; plus, it makes me queasy."

I can imagine KO's well known sarcasm on the words traumatized and queasy, but impossible to tell from the article.

I think what he is saying is he is not pretending to be unbiased and he doesnt' think the public interest is served by CNN Crossfire/Hannity/Colmes type discourse. He lays out the facts as he sees them, adds his own commentary and there you have it, take it or leave it.

Bottom line: it's not supposed to be "fair and balanced". He never pretends to be. So you all can stop fretting about it.

Bottom line: it's not supposed to be "fair and balanced". He never pretends to be. So you all can stop fretting about it>>>

Hit--
The whole point of this blog is fretting about it. These people can't stand the fact that Olbermann isn't a right-winger. It's not enough for the GOP to control the Legislative and Executive branches and the SCOTUS. It's not enough that there are Fox News, Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, Tweety, etc. If they find a voice on TV not repeating the party line they will attack that voice. Even if it means an occasional diatribe about how orange a guy's skin color appears on their screens. Even if there are no lies, only 'spin'. If it's not Republican spin it must be attacked.

read `em and rationalize ... you dimwitted, gullible, pathetic excuses for patriots.

WASHINGTON -- Six months before Republicans try to hold on to control of Congress in the fall elections, a new poll shows President Bush has slid to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, and a majority of voters say they'll vote for Democrats in November. The poll showed Democrats leading 54%-39% among registered voters who were asked which party they would prefer in a congressional race. Since 1950, there have been six times when presidents had Gallup approval ratings below 50% in the spring as their party sought to keep control of Congress. The president`s party lost House seats in all six years, ranging from five in 1968 to 54 in 1994.

There was a show with a host, who
Concerning Democrat scandals said boo.
For in his orange universe
Which was oh so perverse,
He concocted his Bush-hating brew.

Fox news has liberals on their payolls, not to mention the guests they have on. Try watching the network you are so grotesquely incorrect about before sticking your two left feet in your mouths, you wild and wacky liberals.

So Stephen Colbert is all the rage today around the liberal koolaid cooler today, huh? Yeah, he really showed Bush! Too damn funny. All Colbert did was make such a tool of himself that he's now entering Keith Olbermann territory. The media definitely holds Dubbya accountable ( see trying to bring down a president during war time ) To joke about how stupid it is to say the mainstream media is liberal is itself the height of stupidity. Or maybe dishonesty or invincible ignorance. But feel free to think that Terry Moran, David Gregory, Helen Thomas, Jack Cafferty, Brian Ross, Jamie McIntyre, Wolf Blitzer, Alan Colmes, Anderson Cooper, Paula Zahn, Lara Logan, and Katie Couric are all in the pocket of the Bush administration. Such and assertion is beyond laughable. No, what you want them to actually do is to come out and tell him to resign because he's a f#$%&*@ war criminal. Sure, I'm sure they yearn to do just that but they know what little credibility they have left would be flushed down the toilet. So they try to be subtle about their contempt for Bush but anyone with an Olbermann sized brain can still notice the bias. Now, who wants more koolaid?

It IS a big deal that the sultan of spin has no opposing views on his show. It's now 2006, not 1956, when Keith's hero, Edward R. Murrow, was terrorizing this great nation. It's not news unless you have both sides presented. And no, playing soundbites out of context and just plain lying about what people say doesn't count as presenting the other side. Krummy Keith deserves all the ridicule he gets on that score. The man is an uber hypocrite for mocking Fox News, the number one rated cable news network by far, who has many a left-wing voice on the air, and then turn around and put on his joke of a program. Olbermannus est toolus maximus.

Hit-escape writes:

[I]t's (Countdown) not supposed to be "fair and balanced". He never pretends to be. So you all can stop fretting about it."

Once again, Mr. Escape, KK's own words show that your assumptions about your hero are different than the reality. For example, in a March, 2005 interview with Liz Halloran of the Hartford (CN) Courant, he stated that the idea that he is ideological is "nonsense":

"And I know that most of this ideological nonsense is predicated on my coverage of the Ohio [2004 presidential election] voting problems . . ."

And here is his claim about his "coverage" of the Bush-Kerry campaign (get a load of this):

"We made just as much sport of Kerry as Bush during the campaign. . ."

Mr. Escape, I do give you credit because at least you acknowledge KK's bias. I have debated others on this point who have tried to claim that KK has no bias. What I think you are not aware of is that KK really wants to be taken seriously as a "newsman" in the style of Edwin R. Murrow and Cronkite and his his network promotes his show in that way.

Buma is a silly person who shows up on this site from time to time trotting out the usual straw man arguments. Why, if critics of Keith want to scrutinize and comment upon his show that means that they "they can't stand the fact that Keith isn't a right winger", accoding to Buma. The problem is not KK's ideology, Buma. The problem is that he is a liar and a phony. He styles himself to be an objective commentator on the news but presents one side of the story. The only guests on his show are those who share his left wing views. Can you name another cable show host who only allows guests who share his/her views and won't challenge them? You can't? That's because there are none. I don't share Chris Matthews' liberal politics, but at least he has people on his show who dissent fron his viewpoint so you get both sides of the story. KK would never do that. I suspect if KK ever did he wouldn't get picked on so much.

I still laugh uproariously when I read the quote from Olbermann about " two people debating adds nothing to the national debate. Plus it makes me queasy." What a damning and embarrassing quote and I'm suprised a Keith supporter would post it here, of all places. Tell us, Keith what does constitute adding something to the national debate, your joke of a program which makes people all across this great nation queasy. Okay, here's the deal with Olbermann and the late 1990's. He was depressed like hell everynight when he had to go on the air and report about Slick Willy lying under oath, the semen stained blue dress, Billy boy wagging his finger saying he didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, lying to his cabinet, dragging our nation through that muck and filth instead of resigning, which any person with half a soul would have done, Bill Clinton being the butt of all the late night jokes. The man is on a mission to rally America against George W. Bush in retaliation for all his boy had to go through.
Looking at his ratings, he seems to be doing a bang up job.

Many people were brought forth during the Perjury and impeachment scandal, ordinary people, who had lied about sex under oath, who were in the slammer. Why was the worst president in history ( contrary to Rolling Stone ) held to a lower standard. Let the left wing mantra begin: It was a witchhunt, witchhunt, witchhunt!!!

There once was a man with no nuts
Who acted, you'll admit, like a putz.
He wished folks take him serious
A request too delirious
For the man-tool displayed zero guts.

So when Olby says that if one man says A and another says B, and it's OBJECTIVELY CLEAR who is right and who is wrong and therefore superfluous to have the right one on tv, it just leaves me with one little question. Let's say that A is right and B is objectively wrong. But many people believe that B is correct and A is objectively wrong. Why not have on both A and B and let he who makes the more salient points ( not neccessarily who the better debater is ) win? Come on Keith, if B ( the conservative point of view ) is so objectively wrong, then it should be like shooting fish in a barrell, eh, tool?

Down with the left!

In my last post, I meant to say that Olbermann thinks it's superfluous to have the wrong opinion ( as he sees it ) on t.v....... dammit.

Hank--
Who needs straw men when they have you to point to? If KO was a ring-winger you would not be outraged at anything. How many diatribes have you ever posted about O'Reilly lying? Or Hannity? If KO shared your world view you would not be worried about his 'lying'.

`The problem is not KK's ideology, Buma. The problem is that he is a liar and a phony. He styles himself to be an objective commentator on the news but presents one side of the story.`

what a crock of shit. countdown is a news commentary show, and everyone knows that except for the obsessive-compulsive nutjobs at this site. keith spins same as everybody else -- and he sticks to the truth a hell of a lot more than you, pal. you`ve got a lot of nerve (denial) claiming the honesty high ground when your champions of truth are Fox News and the Bush administration.

From the R Cox post:
'A turning point for President Bush. Three years after he declared "mission accomplished"...
Actually, the speech he gave on the carrier never used that phrase.'

True, just like they never used the word 'imminent' to describe the 'threat' posed by Saddam in the build-up to war. They only used all the Thesaurus equivalents to 'imminent', like 'gathering.'

Now if your own post were more balanced, you may have mentioned that after a round of finger-pointing when things in Iraq turned sour, it was finally admitted that the WH provided the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner for display during Bush's speech. Those words came from the White House.

Buma writes:

"If KO was a ring-winger you would not be outraged at anything. How many diatribes have you ever posted about O'Reilly lying? Or Hannity?"

Last I checked this site is called "Olbermann Watch, a site dedicated to expressing opinions, thoughts, observations, ideas, musings and limericks about the Krazy One, Olbermann. So, it should not be too diffcult to understand why I haven't said anything about O'Reilly or Hannity.

Buma, can you prove that my criticisms are exclusively directed to people who are not right wingers? Or is this just a label you try to stick on me to try to avoid having to defend KK and his lousy show? Your premise that critics of Olbermann speak out against him because he is not a right winger is facile and illogical and comes staight out of the world of OlbyThink. Here is a quote from Keith attacking his critics and their supposed motivations:

"There is a whole army of bloggers, radio hosts and TV people who have decided that any deviation from their political view is to be persecuted - and the "Olbermann Watch" and [Brent] Bozell jokers [of Media Research Center and Parents Television Council] are foremost among them. We made just as much sport of Kerry as Bush during the campaign, but neutrality is not what they want. They want conformity and a deliberate, institutionalized, pro-Republican slant. Guess what? They're never going to get it."

Rhetoric such is this is a tactic designed to distract someone from scrutinizing the substance of what KK talks about. By attempting to label the motives of the critic as impure, the speaker (KK) tries to insulate himself from scrutiny and examination of his claims (given some of the claims that KK makes, I can see why he wants to avoid scrutiny). This tactic is just one weapon in KK's arsenal to avoid scrutiny-- the main one being that he permits no guests with opposing viewpoints.

I am not surprised that you did not answer the question I put to you in my post. Of course I was not asking whether you displayed any outrage about O'Reilly or Hannity on THIS blog, but have you complained about their misinformation or outright lies on any message board, in any forum? Didn't think so. Works for me, as mr dollar would say.

In May 2003, while standing behind a giant banner that says "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED," Bush stated: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

I think this qualifies as a declaration of mission accomplished.

Even the Jews know it`s a ruse (i.e., everyone`s catching on except for you idiots) ...

REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN BOOED AT AJCOMMITTEE EVENT

The chairman of the Republican Party was booed at an American Jewish Committee event over comments on Iraq. Ken Mehlman, who is Jewish, was otherwise politely received when he spoke Tuesday at the AJCommittee`s 100th anniversary celebrations in Washington.

The room burst into applause when AJCommittee board member Edith Everett asked Mehlman to `take a message` to President Bush to stop linking Israel and Iran. She added that `it`s easy to understand why Iran is not worried about us` because Iraq is consuming so many U.S. resources. Mehlman replied by acknowledging that Iraq was a `challenge,` but claimed it`s `less of a challenge than when Saddam Hussein was in power.`

At which point the room filled with boos and hisses.
.

Whether I have ever criticized O'Reilly or Hannity has no bearing on whether my criticisms of Olbermann are well founded.

`In May 2003, while standing behind a giant banner that says `MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,` Bush stated: `Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.`

`I think this qualifies as a declaration of mission accomplished.`

Well yes, lisa, unless you`re talking to one of the resident pinheads who will leap to his feet and gleefully type at his keyboard the following vacuous rationalization:

From the R Cox post:
'A turning point for President Bush. Three years after he declared "mission accomplished"...
Actually, the speech he gave on the carrier never used that phrase.'

We may have people posting disinformation here. The AP News report of Mehlman's address to the AJC makes no mention of boos or hisses. And the person who posted the account that does gives no news source for it. So caution: you may have entered the Olbermann spin zone when you read such dubious, unsourced reports.

Man, that Stephen Colbert is a genius.

He is a master satirist at the top of his game. Everything that came out of his mouth at the Press Corps dinner was pure, double-edged gold.

It's about time Dubya and the Press Corps had to feel uncomfortable for the shitty things they've been doing since That Guy They Keep Telling Us Is President was installed into the White House.

And who says Stephen wasn't funny? I was busting a gut at nearly everything he said (with my patented sardonic laugh).

But I understand the anger. I mean, how do you defend against a man who in 20 minutes rendered every single talking point used by the GOP into a mockery of their own policies?

Answer: You can't. The best you can hope for is for it to go away, which is why all the networks covered the lame attempt at comedy with the 'Twin Dubyas' and ignored Colbert's speech entirely.

But the media could have snubbed him for his dead-on critique of how they haven't been doing their jobs. Liberal media, my ass.

My respect for Stephen Colbert only continues to grow.

Patrick Fegan -

'The man is on a mission to rally America against George W. Bush in retaliation for all his boy had to go through.'

And now we get to the meat of it.

You feel that the only reason Dubya's receiving criticism is because people are trying to get 'revenge' for what happened to Clinton?

Get real.

That Guy They Keep Telling Us Is President is a corporate war criminal that has looted the Treasury, crippled the Constitution and caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands.

Bill got a blowjob and lied about it when he really should've never been asked the question.

There is no comparison.

Sorry, Pat.

Burma,

I'm not sure where your are getting this...

From the R Cox post:
'A turning point for President Bush. Three years after he declared "mission accomplished"...
Actually, the speech he gave on the carrier never used that phrase.'

but I did not post that

RCox, it`s from the top of this page.

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

#5 story: politics and war. Comedian Keith Olbermann stated:

A turning point for President Bush. Three years after he declared "mission accomplished"...

Actually, the speech he gave on the carrier never used that phrase.

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

RCox, i believe it was you who quiped that last sentence, `Actually, the speech he gave on the carrier never used that phrase.`

which i called a vacuous rationalization -- a sophomoric, quibbling attempt on your part to assert that `Bush never said mission accomplished!` which is a pretty stupid thing to say (i.e., quibbling: to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words), as addressed by lisa:

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

In May 2003, while standing behind a giant banner that says `MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,` Bush stated: `Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.`

I think this qualifies as a declaration of mission accomplished.

MissionStillNotAccomplished -

Actually, Johnny Dollar wrote the review you're citing.

Funny how he always claims that he'll humbly correct himself when he's wrong, but he hasn't posted a single thing since you pointed out that quote.

Probably out spit-shining his ego...

Because what I said wasn't wrong. If you can find that phrase in that speech, point it out. If I'm wrong I'll apologize.

`Actually, the speech he gave on the carrier never used that phrase.` [Mission Accomplished] ... what I said wasn\'t wrong. If you can find that phrase in that speech, point it out. If I\'m wrong I\'ll apologize.`

..........

aha! so it was you -- johnny dollar -- my right honorable friend, who quibbled! shame on you.

`cause if a guy goes through all the trouble to get hisself a bigass `ol banner that says MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, and then stands out there in front of it and says major combat operations have ended ... the U.S. and our allies have prevailed, well sheeeeaaaat.

so i think it unworthy of your stature to demerit KO because he said, `Three years after he [Bush] declared `mission accomplished` ...`

All I did is cite a fact: he didn't use the phrase that Keith cites him as using. It's up to you to decide if you think that's spin, a trivial distinction, or meaningless.

seems pretty meaningless. The message in either case is basically war is over we won. and well... maybe not. Keith may have not got the quote right but he certainly didn't change the meaning.

seems pretty meaningless. The message in either case is basically war is over we won. and well... maybe not. Keith may have not got the quote right but he certainly didn't change the meaning.

My apologies to R Cox. It was the post by mr dollar that reminded us again that the preznit "never used the words 'mission accomplished' in that speech." But it was the White House that provided that banner for the stage-set backdrop to that speech. Those words came from the WH. You make your bed and you lie in it.