Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    July 19, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - JULY 19, 2006

    "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • MIDEAST CRISIS DEVELOPMENTS: Brian Williams, host of NBC "Nightly News"
    • PRES. BUSH VETOES STEM CELL RESEARCH: Dana Milbank, Washington Post

    Olby began the hour trumpeting "breaking news" that actually broke nearly three hours beforehand. How stale was this "breaking news"? Richard Engel mentioned it in his report--and his report was, like most on Countdown, taped earlier in the day. KO talked live to Mark Potter, and did a segue to a chat with Brian Williams, pre-taped for your viewing pleasure. It felt strange to see a first segment with so little OlbySpin, which was the case mainly because Olby did so little talking.

    In the #4 slot war coverage continued with the plight of Americans trapped in Lebanon, an evacuation that was "very slow to get started" and "seems confused even now". He ran soundbites from several upset people who had not yet been evacuated, but none from the thousand-plus Americans who are safely out of the troubled land. Nothing NBC's Dawn Fratangelo said supported Keith's claim that the evacuation was "confused". In fact, she told KO that things seemed organized, with "no sense of panic". Those damn journalists, not parroting OlbySpin. As soon as this war is over, it's back to John Dean and Michael Musto.

    #3: The US has avoided any direct diplomatic involvement, like sending Condi to the region. Olby managed to put his own spin on it by using a value-judgment-loaded phrase: "diplomatic foot-dragging". Andrea Mitchell politely declined to use KO's wording, preferring to characterize it as "rope-a-dope". Keith, of course, was concerned about whether Israel's military response is "proportional".

    In the #2 slot, KO was back in his element. Bush did something to please the "radical right" (stem cell funding), and it will backfire on him somehow. It was all "scientific doublespeak", according to Olby, who added:

    Mister Bush appearing to be confounded by exactly which rights are endowed by the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.

    Then KO played a clip where "Mister" Bush stated: "We are all created equal, and endowed, by our Creator, with the right to life."

    What the Declaration of Independence says: "All Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..."

    Maybe we're missing something here, but how exactly was "Mister" Bush "confounded" about "which rights" are endowed by the Creator? Doesn't the Declaration clearly say Life is one of those rights? What in the Wide World of Sports was Krazy Keith talking about?

    The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann went on to chat with Milbank (lacking splashy threads) about what a bad move this was for "Mister" Bush, "bordering on hysteria". Afterward the topic changed to hockey and Cruise News! #1 was even more from the exclusive, Pulitzer-worthy Brad Pitt interview.

    In the Media Matters Minute, O'Reilly was back as a runner-up, thereby filling the Fox News quota for the evening. KO ridiculed Mr Bill's suggestion that Rush Limbaugh's customs detention was "a set-up". To do so, comedian Keith Olbermann conveniently ignored the fact that Bill was not talking about someone else putting the medicine in the trunk (as Olby falsely claimed) but rather the near-instantaneous leaking of the details to local and national press. If we were counting, this would be O'Reilly Attack #102. But we're not counting. Really.


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (82) | | View blog reactions

    82 Comments

    Did I just hear the alleged Mr. Softy lecturing BOR about Viagra during WPITW?

    Well he does KNOW whereof he speaks apparently. Maybe they should put a subtitle under him that reads "Viagra expert". God knows it would be the only thing he's an expert on.

    Olbermann is clearly a figure head for Media Matters and its hate speech toward anyone they disagree with.

    I have never seen any "TV Newsman" that not only refuses to have guests with opinions differing from his own, but he never even bothers to play devil's advocate. What is the point in having guests on simply to backup everything he says???

    Those Oreilly attacks are damn upsetting aren't they John? One of your right wing buddies being attacked.

    Bill O not only gets lots of liberals on, he actually prefers and relishes debating the other side. No liberal on this site... or any site, has even tried to explain why Olby won't debate a conservative on his show.

    what's odd is this is the one single hour on cable news with a clear left-of-center perspective... compared to how many hours on Fox, plus Scarborough and Tucker Carlson, and Chris Matthews hosting Coultergeist.... why are you guys so vulnerable in having just one hour point out the deceptions and false patriotism and sleaze put out by your consistently pro-war-draft-dodger leadership. Senator Harkin was RIGHT about Cheney just as Webb is right about George Allen. I think what's really upsetting you guys is the arrogance and ignorance of Rumsfeld/Cheney has exacerbated all the entirely predictable (and predicted) consequences of invading such an artifical country. And now the neocons clamor for war with Iran. Hell even George Will said this nuttiness is "so untethered from reality as to defy caricature." You're right to be nervous... every day the number of people wo have figured it out is growing, and the number of people fooled by Fox Republican news is dwindling... I hear it all around, especially among those with loved ones and relatives who've served or are serving in Iraq.

    David wrote:

    "why are you guys so vulnerable in having just one hour point out the deceptions and false patriotism and sleaze put out by your consistently pro-war-draft-dodger leadership."

    I am sure I speak for all the clear-thinkers on this site when I say this is a very convincing, well-reasoned line of argument. Thanks for clarifying the problem.

    I keep seeing that argument more often here on OW, that we all feel threatened by the "one single hour on cable news with a clear left-of-center perspective." I think I speak for most of the regulars when I say, that ain't it David.

    He's just not honest. He claims to be "unbiased" only going after anyone in power (apparently starting with Bill O and then onto Pres. Bush). Only his supporters (including recently the NY Times) acknowledge his "left-of-center perspective." So which is it? Is he lying about being unbiased, or a phony leftist just trying to gain a small, but rabid, niche audience. Well on that he's succeeded.

    He's a hypocrit. He calls people "WPITW" for the very things he himself does. For example, Rep. King, I think from Iowa, is WPITW nominee for making a remark about Helen Thomas's looks. KO follows that up by saying that King is the last person who should make a comment about another's looks. He can't mention Ann Coulter without commenting on her looks, figure, and posting a goofy picture.

    If KO were honest and credible, his leftist views would be tolerated, as they are in many liberal radio hosts (OK, OK there aren't many liberal radio hosts, but you get the picture.)

    As far as I know, there isn't a Chris Matthews watch, or a Bob Scheifer watch, or even a Larry King watch. Those guys, despite their personal political leanings, don't distort facts to support their point. KO does, and does nightly.

    My God you're pathetic. I'm so glad I found this on Google because it boosts my self-esteem.

    Nice to know people can idolize a guy who rubs a falafel all over a woman who obviously isn't hungry when he despises an intelligent, incredibly tested human being.

    Shows that I have some work to do. But, damn, I feel better about myself.

    Tonight I thought the Olby show was a true "No Spin Zone". But then the clock hit 5 minutes past the hour and the spin was back on. Hey, 5 minutes of impartiality, someone give Olby a bone..... good boy, good boy.

    Tonight I thought the Olby show was a true "No Spin Zone". But then the clock hit 5 minutes past the hour and the spin was back on. Hey, 5 minutes of impartiality, someone give Olby a bone..... good boy, good boy.

    Scott:

    The fact that Olbermann goes after O'Reilly should really be of no surprise to anybody. They are, after all, direct competitors, and many of the people who tune in to Countdown are doing so precisely because they are looking for an alternative to O'Reilly's schtick. Sometimes Keith can lay it on a little thick, but on balance, I enjoy his barbs at O'Reilly.

    Whether you love or loathe Bill, you should at least be able to admit that at times he needs to be taken out behind the woodshed. It's interesting that he considers Media Matters to be the #1 "hate site" on the Internet, when all that Media Matters does is hold him accountable for the things that he says and provide links to material to correct misleading or false claims that he makes.

    The funny thing is, if you do a Google search on O'Reilly, you'll find plenty of sites that actually do engage in personal attacks against him ("Bill O'Reilly Sucks" and "Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly" come to mind.) The fact that O'Reilly ignores sites like these and reserves his rage for a site that actually dares to fact-check him (without resorting to personal attacks) says far more about O'Reilly's character than it does about the folks at Media Matters.

    I work with a couple of people like this, so I'm somewhat familiar with the personality; Bill is of the breed that believes that he should be able to say whatever he wants and flies off the handle when anybody dares to correct him or provide material to augment the discussion. This is why he goes into a frenzy whenever Media Matters is mentioned, and why he threatens to unleash "Fox security" (whatever that is) on people who mention Olbermann.

    I would agree with you on one point: Keith's presentation is most definitely slanted liberal. Now, unlike O'Reilly, Keith does not spend every minute of his show reminding us how "fair and balanced" that he is. I did see the interview on C-SPAN that Bozell and the rest of the loonies at the MRC are all frothed up about, and I'd agree that Keith is fibbing. If I were him, I would just say that I'm providing an alternative look at the day's news and leave it at that. There's certainly nothing wrong with presenting the news the way that Keith does; if you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to watch. After all, competition and the provision of alternatives is at the very core of the American system.

    One last thought on ratings before I go to bed: The fact that O'Reilly's show beats Keith's show is no more to the point than the fact that "professional wrestling" beats the History Channel. It's interesting (and more than a little ironic) that the people crowing about O'Reilly's ratings are the same group of people who claim that the President's abyssmal approval ratings mean nothing because "being right isn't always popular."

    It was all "scientific doublespeak"

    Well it is...what you are talking about are unfertilized embryos. Saying, as the president did, that supporting this bill "supports the taking of human life" is patently false.

    Embryos are not human life. They have the potential to become human life given the right conditions, but as they are now they are organic life on the level of an ameoba or other similar organism.

    And here's the kicker...by not supporting the bill the President is still taking human life (at least by his own interpretation of what human life is). For the most part, these embryos are destroyed. A few are donated to childless couples, as the President's PR event today indicates, but the numbers donated are just a microscopic fraction of the number discarded.

    Scott: Your comments are precise and accurate, considerably more so than mine. Thanks for the well-spoken critique, especioally the professional wrestling/History channel parallel. I will admit that on the occasions Keith seems to deny his left-ward slant (I've only seen one, the percentage of so-called con-conservatives who've been trageted as WPITW being touted as much higher than the percentage of conservatives) he is fibbing, but it seems to me they are nowhere near the number of times Fox explicitly claims to be "balanced" (truly hilarious) and "We Report You Decide" (when what they are telling you is so obviously designed to determine what you decide). For Foxites and Fox Republican News to complain about the ideological bias of anyone else is plainly preposterous and usually laughable except when the American people are duped enough to think an invasion of Iraq will be short and successful). I mean it's owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Roger Ailes for god's sake, why would one expect anything different much less professional journalism? What I believe is happening (finally) that all the self-proclamations of being "balanced" are so transparently false that more and more viewers understand that these guys have zero respect for truth and a total willingness to abuse and pervert language. It's kind of Linconesque to see that these guys have peaked, and that there is a limit to how much rabble the rabble-rousers can rouse. Thanks again, Scott

    Dana Milbank mentioned the President's "unfortunate vulgarities". Maybe Dana missed Keith's "unfortunate emails". Let's refresh:

    "Jesus, given how far you are from knowing your ass from your elbow about
    my industry, you couldn't be stupider, wronger, or dumber, if you were
    Ann Coulter's cunt." - Keith Olbermann

    "And as to Zarqawi, if you really are that psychotic that you think he's anybody's "idol", you obviously have your head as well as your dick stuck up each other's asses." - Keith Olbermann

    The last half of "Countdown" on Wednesday was predictable -- you know the stories, you know the spin that's going to be attached to the stories, yadda, yadda, yadda. It was the first half that was interesting, because the current situation between Israel and Hezbollah has not played itself out yet to the point that Keith can work in his conventional wisdon liberal spin into the stories -- or at the least, the safe CW liberal spin.

    Olby flirted ever so briefly with the anti-U.S. take those on the far left have been muttering in the past few days, that the U.S. is allowing Israel free reign to terrorize civilians in southern Lebanon, when he started alluding to the lack of diplomatic mediation in the current crisis. But taking a shot at Bush is one thing; to really get into that talking point, Keith would have to buy into the entire claim, which is that Israel and Hezbollah have moral equalty and that Israel is unjustified in their effort to take on the threat on their northern border that the Bush Administration for now is voicing no protests about. He's not going there for now, so we basically had 30 minutes Wednesday night that was an Olby-Spin Free Zone.

    Keith's never met a Bush-bashing story he didn't like. But he's at least smart enough to know that going after Bush on this would also mean going after Israel and siding with their opponents. That would burn even more bridges among the big media outlets than he has already, and would probably leave Keith in a few months trying to swing a deal with the new English langauge Al Jazera channel to host its own version of "Countdown".

    Scott wrote:
    "The fact that Olbermann goes after O'Reilly should really be of no surprise to anybody. They are, after all, direct competitors, and many of the people who tune in to Countdown are doing so precisely because they are looking for an alternative to O'Reilly's schtick."
    Can you tell me what other news host "goes after" his direct competitors the way Olbermann goes after O'Reilly? Do you see Morley Safer attacking Diane Sawyer? Do you see Matt Lauer going after Charlie Gibson? Do you see Anderson Cooper going after Sean Hannity? Because you have gotten used to it - and approve of it - does not change the fact that a news anchor routinely making personal attacks against his direct competitor in the news business is surprising.

    "all that Media Matters does is hold him accountable for the things that he says and provide links to material to correct misleading or false claims that he makes."
    Media Matters is an attack site, it was created as a left-wing version of Media Research Center
    "I work with a couple of people like this, so I'm somewhat familiar with the personality"
    Thank you, Dr. Freud.
    "Keith's presentation is most definitely slanted liberal"
    Gee, that was not so hard.
    "Keith is fibbing"
    As this is Olbermann Watch, we call that L-Y-I-N-G...LYING.
    "The fact that O'Reilly's show beats Keith's show is no more to the point than the fact that "professional wrestling" beats the History Channel"
    This may be but it is Olbermann who is CONSTANTLY talking about his ratings - on his show, in the press, etc. The problem is that whatever he SAYS about his ratings the facts are that his ratings are low in total viewers, in the demo and any other way you want to slice them. Beyond that, comparing two programs on competing cable news channels in the same time slot is very much to the point. It is what the people who run networks do EVERY DAY - compare their shows to their direct competition. I think what you mean to say is that because a show has high ratings (e.g. American Idol) is not the same thing as the show being a quality program. The comparison I make is that just because McDonald's sells more hamburgers doesn't mean I wouldn't rather have a steak at Morton's or Smith and Wollensky's.

    Scott wrote, "The fact that O'Reilly's show beats Keith's show is no more to the point than the fact that "professional wrestling" beats the History Channel"

    Robert Cox replied "This may be..."

    Wow, Robert. You admitted Olbermann is actually akin to an informative channel everyone should be watching... and you admit BO is a likened to a senseless train-wreck of a program people need to watch for shock value.

    It't not often you make my argument for me, but I'm glad you've had this moment of clarity.

    "Cartoons will save the world"

    --Lefty Lefterton, Academic Extraordinaire

    "Doonesbury" is the best you can do? Bush did not "cause" the war, Saddam did. Seems like a small point, but it is not. These leftists morons seem to think that the United States causes all world problems by not being sensitive enough. Man. I hate these idiots.

    As for stem cell research, adult stem cells hold the most promise. Fetal stem cell research is "pie in the sky" research at this time. Nonetheless, I agree that Bush's veto is a political move, and is required to maintain his base.

    Seacaucus NJ:
    Rrrrrrrrrrrring!!
    Olbermann: " Yeah, it's me. Talk to me."
    David Brock at MediaMatters: "Only two for tonight."
    Olby: "Fine, good, give 'em to me."
    David Brock: " Ok, one for 'Worst Person' and one for wherever you want to put it.
    This is hysterical. John Gibson has been going on comparing George Bush to Abraham Lincoln. And in a good way!."
    Olby: "Delicious! That's a 'Worser' for sure. What else?"
    David Brock: "Denny Hastert was hospitalized recently and that CAN NOT be a good thing for Bush. Keith, do with that what you do so well."
    Olby: " I'm on it!"
    David Brock: " I'll call you tomorrow."
    Olby: " I know you will. See ya." ..click..

    I love how the left is always pointing fingers and talking about how Bush CAUSED the war. Why is it so hard for them to understand that the fact that there are people in this world who want to KILL US. Nothing more than that, the just want to wipe out America. Do you people think that they'll be checking your voter registration before they kill you? They don't give a DAMN which "side" you're on. Years of not confronting this - on both sides - have come to this. I refuse to chastize Bush because he's the President who drew the line and is taking action against it. No WMDs? Who cares...Iraq was harboring these people and helping to facilitate their cause, so fair game in my book. Same goes for any other regime that does the same. Hats off to ANY President who takes action instead of waiting around and hoping it doesn't happen again. You leftist loons and your "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" attitude won't make the problem go away.

    The only threat to America , according to the left, is BUSHCO.

    Why is Keith the only MSNBC "journalist" who hasn't been to Iraq or Lebanon.

    Man, think of all those Bush-hating Islamofacists he could interview in Labanon. Would be better than the the sissy Dana Milbank

    Why is Keith the only MSNBC "journalist" who hasn't been to Iraq or Lebanon?

    Man, think of all those Bush-hating Islamofacists he could interview in Lebanon. He wouldn't even have to ask loaded questions. Just do the CNN bit of handing the microphne over to some Hizzbollah terrorist for a bush-whacking propaganda tour through Beirut. Surely this would be better than than the sissy Dana Milbank.

    -Bush did not "cause" the war, Saddam did. Seems like a small point, but it is not.

    -No WMDs? Who cares...Iraq was harboring these people and helping to facilitate their cause, so fair game in my book.

    Mr. Cox: These are "clear thinkers", right? Just checking.

    THE YOUTUBE WAR -- The War Tapes
    American soldiers are telling their story of the Iraq war in homemade videos. And the picture isn't any brighter

    Just as Vietnam had been America's first "living-room war," spilling carnage in dinnertime news broadcasts, so is the Iraq conflict emerging as the first YouTube war. Growing up in a world where they can swap MP3s as well as intimate details about their lives via MySpace or Facebook, American soldiers are swapping their Iraq experience as well. There's a byte-enabled intimacy to "The War Tapes," the film that bills itself as the first documentary about the war filmed by those fighting it.

    Talk show host Laura Ingraham encouraged those covering Iraq to "talk to those soldiers on the ground" in order to get a sense of all the good things happening there that should be "celebrated." By that logic, putting cameras in the hands of those soldiers on the ground should provide enough celebration for an "Up with Iraq" musical. There's music in a lot of the soldiers' videos, but precious little uplift. Videos uploaded to the Internet by soldiers themselves depict, if anything, an even grimmer reality.

    In "The War Tapes," one soldier/auteur complains frequently about the risks he and his comrades take to protect the property of the Halliburton subsidiary subcontracted to feed the troops: "Why the f--- am I sitting out here guarding a truck full of cheesecake?" he laments. After another guardsman supplies a Bush Administration-approved justification for their presence (freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people, stability in the Middle East), the cameraman asks, "tell me how you really feel." Deadpan, he continues: "After that happens, maybe we can buy everybody in the world a puppy."
     

    Foolish lefties, including Kofi Annan, believe they can miraculously " declare peace". The Bush Administration and Israel no better. Doonesbury was boring 30 years ago and now I see it hasn't changed.

    "The Bush Administration and Israel no better."

    heh heh. Perfect.

    slow death of the right wrote:
    "Mr. Cox: These are "clear thinkers", right? Just checking."


    What exactly isn't clear to you?

    I guess I can see it, I actually implied that Bush wasn't an idiot moron, that he is acting in the interest of America's safety and the future of our country, so I lost you there. What again is the left's solution? I must have missed it. Oh that's right, they don't really have one. Maybe if we all close our eyes and hope real hard we can wish the radical islamists away. Ready? On the count of three...

    "No WMDs? Who cares...Iraq was harboring these people and helping to facilitate their cause, so fair game in my book."

    That's because you don't care if your leaders lie to you. You view Mr Bush and Deferment Dick as Momsy and popsy who will keep you safe from the big bad terroist. Now go to sleep little boy and let the adults run everyhting.

    That what I did. Thank God 911 didn't happen on my watch.

    "That what I did. Thank God 911 didn't happen on my watch."

    Bill, what happened at the Trade Center in '93?

    "Bill, what happened at the Trade Center in '93?"


    It was still standing.

    Rightie: I want War! War! War! I want to kill and rape and maim!

    Leftie: But that seems un called for.

    Rightie: I don't Care KILL! KILL! KILL!

    Leftie: Easy there mongo we will have to put you back in your cage.

    Righte: KILL Terroist! Where the Terroist!? Kill the TERROrist! are you a Terorrist?

    Leftie: No. I'm not

    Rightie" Are they?

    Leftie: No they are amish they don't believe in war.

    Rightie? (Incredulous)They Don't Believe in war?

    Lefty: No they don't.

    Rightie: Kill The Bastards KILL! KILL! KILL! spend a Billion! No A Trillion! No a 100 TRILLION!!!! Left wing BAD! BAD! BAD! MUST WATCH FOX NEWS WHERE FOX NEWS!

    Lefty: Easy, Easy, you can watch it. here People
    's court is on soon!

    Righty: 15 minutes to WAPNER! HAHAHA

    "It was still standing."

    Not for long, eh Bill. Anyway, that fact makes it all better, right Bill! And the USS Cole was still floating, and parts of the Embassies were still erect (like your wank). There was no terrist threat before Bush.

    I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to pull out the "Bush lied" card - Kudos for that. Government keeping me safe from the terrorists? What was I thinking? Who is that again that I should expect to protect me? Most of what the lefties complain about is based on assumptions, what-ifs and paranoia. By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer on what the grand plan of the left is. Seems that answer is always skirted....hmmmm...

    "knew it wouldn't take long for someone to pull out the "Bush lied" card - Kudos for that"


    Your welcome!

    Top Ten ways to fight a war "THE right Way!"

    CONQUERING A CITY, IF YOU FIND A DECENT LOOKING WOMAN UNDER ONE OF THOSE BEE KEEPER OUTFITS, MAKE HER YOUR SLAVE.

    “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14).
    “And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. . . . And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods” (Numbers 31:7-9).


    9.THOUGH INCONVENIENT, WHEN KILLING THE PEOPLE, BE SURE TO NOT TO HURT THEIR TREES (‘CAUSE THAT WOULD BE WASTEFUL).

    “When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayeth eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege” (Deuteronomy 20:19).

    8.DON’T STOP WITH KILLING THEIR SOLDIERS. RUB IT IN. DIP YOUR FEET IN THEIR BLOOD AND LET YOUR DOGS DRINK IT.

    “But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same” (Psalms 68:21-23).

    7.DON’T ANONYMOUSLY KILL BIN LADEN AND OMAR IN A BOMBING RAID. AFTER KILLING THEIR FOLLOWERS, PUBLICLY HANG THEM FOR ALL TO SEE.

    “For Joshua drew not his hand back, wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. . . . And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day. And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide” (Joshua 8:26-29).

    6.GIVE THEM A TASTE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE. CUT OFF THEIR HANDS AND FEET BEFORE HANGING THEM.

    “And David commanded his young men, and they slew them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over the pool in Hebron” (2 Samuel 4:12).

    5.NEVER NEGOTIATE WITH THE ENEMY. KILL THEM, SHOWING NO MERCY AT ALL.

    “And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them” (Deuteronomy 7:2).

    4.DON’T BE A SISSY. HAVE NO COMPASSION FOR THESE NON-BELIEVERS. KILL THEM WHILE THEY’RE PRAYING IN CHURCH. KILL YOUNG AND OLD ALIKE, AND EVEN THOSE TOO FEEBLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

    “But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand” (2 Chronicles 36:16-17).

    3.DON’T JUST KILL THE HEATHENS. STEAL THEIR PROPERTY AND GIVE IT TO THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION.

    “And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord”(Joshua 6:24).

    2.DON’T WASTE MONEY ON P.O.W. CAMPS. THROW YOUR CAPTIVES OFF A CLIFF.

    “And Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel? And the man of God answered, The Lord is able to give thee much more than this. . . . And Amaziah strengthened himself . . . and smote the children of Seir ten thousand. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces” (2 Chronicles 25:9-12).

    1.JUST REMEMBER THIS SIMPLE RULE: KILL EVERYTHING THAT BREATHES AND DESTROY EVERYTHING IN SIGHT.

    “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Deuteronomy 20:16).
    “Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city [of nonbelievers] with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (1 Samuel 13:15).

    “And that day Joshua took Makkedah, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof he utterly destroyed, them, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain: and he did to the king of Makkedah as he did unto the king of Jerico. Then Joshua passed from Makkedah, and all Israel with him, unto Libnah, and fought against Libnah: And the Lord delivered it also, and the king thereof, into the hand of Israel: and he smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein; he let none remain in it” (Joshua 10:29-30).

    Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (1 Samuel 15:3).


    "Not for long, eh Bill. Anyway, that fact makes it all better, right Bill! And the USS Cole was still floating, and parts of the Embassies were still erect (like your wank). There was no terrist threat before Bush."

    But the big stuff happend on your watch, Eh George.

    Thanks, Pat. Got anything from the New Testament? And as far as:
    "I'm still waiting for an answer on what the grand plan of the left is"

    Vigilance of security of the homeland while honoring citizens' rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

    Step one might be to actually pay attention when the fbi tells you something like "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US."

    "Vigilance of security of the homeland while honoring citizens' rights guaranteed under the Constitution."

    Translation = Do nothing, and hope they don't do anything to us, and when they do, we'll just wait some more. Remember the 93 bombing? Wow, that democratic "Vigilance of security" really came up short there - ya think?


    "Step one might be to actually pay attention when the fbi tells you something like "Bin Laden determined to strike inside US.""


    Hmmm...I guess Clinton missed that memo too.

    It was all "scientific doublespeak"

    Well it is...what you are talking about are unfertilized embryos. Saying, as the president did, that supporting this bill "supports the taking of human life" is patently false.

    Embryos are not human life. They have the potential to become human life given the right conditions, but as they are now they are organic life on the level of an ameoba or other similar organism.

    And here's the kicker...by not supporting the bill the President is still taking human life (at least by his own interpretation of what human life is). For the most part, these embryos are destroyed. A few are donated to childless couples, as the President's PR event today indicates, but the numbers donated are just a microscopic fraction of the number discarded.

    Step two might be to not sit there for 20 minutes reading the little engine that could after the strike

    "Vigilance of security of the homeland while honoring citizens' rights guaranteed under the Constitution."

    "Translation = Do nothing, and hope they don't do anything to us."

    + + +

    i wonder how one translates "vigilance of security" to "do nothing". i guess it's done the same way written law is misinterpreted via signing statments, and the Geneva Convention is misinterpreted with right-to-torture policies, and the fourth amendment is misinterpreted as not guaranteeing the right of privacy. classic unclear thinking from the Right.

    + + +

    "Remember the 93 bombing? Wow, that democratic "Vigilance of security" really came up short there - ya think?"

    Remember the '01 WTC bombing? Wow, it would appear that republican "vigilance" came up much shorter.
     

    Again, while you're sitting at home being "vigilant", terrorist groups here and abroad will continue to recruit and grow, and all of the "vigilant" security in the world isn't going to stop them from unleashing their attacks when the time comes. Addressing the threat head-on and getting to them BEFORE they attack again, COMBINED with "vigilant" homeland security is the only way to combat terror.


    "Remember the '01 WTC bombing? Wow, it would appear that republican "vigilance" came up much shorter."

    -Typical left response, so I guess you're saying the 93 bombing "wasn't so bad"... To justify your point by saying that the terror acts are somehow "not as bad" when the democrats are in control of things...riduculous. Terror is terror. The only reason the 93 bombing did less damage, is because the terrorists failed to execute it the way they had planned. They bombed the WTC with the intent of BRINGING IT DOWN! Please don't imply that "vigilant security" had anything to do with the difference between the two incidents.

    Here it is in a nutshell for you:

    1993 - WTC is bombed = Clinton administration does essentially NOTHING, WTC gets hit AGAIN in 2001.

    2001 - WTC is attacked = Bush mounts a massive counter-terrorsim campaign, including going after them on their own turf, instead of just waiting around "vigilantlly" for them to strike again.

    There's your difference. WTC may have been hit while Bush was in office, but at least he's DOING something about it.

    (I'm still having trouble grasping the whole "OUR WTC attack wasn't as bad as YOUR WTC attack" defense...)

    Hey don't forget about Kobar (sp?) Tower and USS Cole.

    What exactly are the libs for, SPECIFICALLY?

    Lib response: "Uhhh... I am for vigilant security"

    What does that mean, exactly?

    Lib response: "Uhhhh, errrr, ummmm, errrrr, Bush sux!!! You guys are all dumbasses."

    Addressing the threat head-on and getting to them BEFORE they attack again, COMBINED with "vigilant" homeland security is the only way to combat terror.

    And we'll spend the next two or three decades fighting a war with no clear objectives, no victory conditions and no path to conclusion.

    Endless War isn't a solution either...

    Please don't tell me about a bombing. I am reading the little engine that could. My favorite book.

    "There's your difference. WTC may have been hit while Bush was in office, but at least he's DOING something about it."

    What nonsense. There's no way to know what Gore's response would have been had he been president. We'll never know, as it happened on the Repugnican's watch. I and most other "loony leftists" applauded crushing the Taliban in the aftermath. Had we stuck with hunting OBL, the world would be a much better, safer place. Thanks, Bush, for nothing.

    "And we'll spend the next two or three decades fighting a war with no clear objectives, no victory conditions and no path to conclusion."

    And if the liberals have anything to do with it that's EXACTLY the way it's going to go.

    Liberal political jockeying like printing classified information makes it a certainty...

    Speaking of "no clear objectives", what was that democratic plan again?

    While Lewinsky gave Billy-bob head
    They planned to make Americans dead
    Clinton's too busy
    The intern's all jizzy
    Bill did nothing. George did. Nuf sed

    "And we'll spend the next two or three decades fighting a war with no clear objectives, no victory conditions and no path to conclusion."

    And if the liberals have anything to do with it that's EXACTLY the way it's going to go.

    Liberal political jockeying like printing classified information makes it a certainty...

    Speaking of "no clear objectives", what was that democratic plan again?

    "And we'll spend the next two or three decades fighting a war with no clear objectives, no victory conditions and no path to conclusion."


    No. We stand with Iraq to get a functioning government up and running and to assist them in their effort to have a self sufficient fighting force to defend their country.

    So once again, to pose the question put to you by ??? in the previous post, What exactly are you for, SPECIFICALLY?

    Answer: "Uhhhh, errrr, ummmm, errrrr, Bush sux!!! You guys are all dumbasses."

    "What nonsense. There's no way to know what Gore's response would have been had he been president."

    Sure we do, remember, he WAS the vice president in 93. We saw what his and Clinton's response was back then, so why should we assume it would have been any different in 2001?

    And if the liberals have anything to do with it that's EXACTLY the way it's going to go.

    Sure, blame us. It's all our fault, even though we control no branch of government and make none of the tactical decisions about fighting the conflict.

    wake_up, here's a quarter. Go buy yourself a clue.

    We stand with Iraq to get a functioning government up and running and to assist them in their effort to have a self sufficient fighting force to defend their country.

    And then what? Osama is still out there. Al-Qaeda is still out there. What happens after we "finish" in Iraq, hank? Do we pat ourselves on the back and go home.

    If the Republican Party is truly for fighting the "war on terrorism", it better settle in for a long, hard slog because there's a lot more to it than just one fight.

    Answer: "Uhhhh, errrr, ummmm, errrrr, Bush sux!!! You guys are all dumbasses."

    Such eloquence...

    seem to remember Bill sending his security team to intimidate us. O’Reilly should look at some of the right wing sites that he’s so fond of and all the intimidation tactics they use. Glenn outlined it here. O’Reilly is a coward that will never put on his show the people that he smears. Of course, he’ll attack anyone that he asks to go on his show that refuse. And then Laura calls him a big, WATB. via Media Matters:

    Bush went five and a half years without vetoing a single piece of legislation, but he broke his streak today, rejecting the bi-partisan stem-cell research that enjoys broad support among lawmakers and the public. Apparently, the president was a little embarrassed about it — he blocked media access.

     A victory for unborn almost-children has been won today!

    President Bush answered the question posed by those in Congress
    and by people all around this country today: “Is it better to give women the option of using their embryos left over from fertility treatment for research or to just dispose of them?� Bush made the right choice in vetoing a bill that would have given women this choice. He understands that these little tiny itty-bitty human beings are deserving of a respectful burial inside a hazardous waste container and not a test tube.

    My Presidential hero may have vetoed the bill in private today, but he still had the courage to stand up in front of a friendly crowd and proudly announce what he had done. Although this time he didn’t go it alone, he had a little help from some pint-sized friends.

    I certainly am happy that Bush didn’t decide to invite a bunch of sick children to stand there with him instead. Their presence would have cast a very dark cloud over this whole thing. And I don’t want to think about such depressing things on this glorious, wonderful and absolutely fantastic day!

    Hallelujah!

    Today is another day that I truly thank the Lord for putting George Bush into office. Just think, without him these difficult moral decisions would be left to two large deliberative bodies full of mere men who happen to represent each and every state in this nation. Collectively, Congress could not understand the true will of God. Only George seems to understand this. That is why I will see this as the day that Christianity has finally triumphed over science.


     

    This...

    Righty: 15 minutes to WAPNER! HAHAHA

    ...made me laugh!

    This did not...

    "Wow, Robert. You admitted Olbermann is actually akin to an informative channel everyone should be watching... and you admit BO is a likened to a senseless train-wreck of a program people need to watch for shock value."

    I am sure the "point" you are making here has some sort of warped logic that only dogs and OlbyLoons can understand but it escapes me. Regardless, this is Olbermann Watch not O'Reilly Watch. I think they have a site for that so why don't you bugger off and go play in their sandbox.

    "Sure, blame us. It's all our fault, even though we control no branch of government and make none of the tactical decisions about fighting the conflict."

    I DO blame the liberals for undermining the war on terror. Thanks for finally acknowledging fault.

    You may "control no branch of government", but you DO control the vast majority of the media, which you use masterfully to undermine virtually every action in this effort.

    "Path to conclusion"? there is a path, the liberals just don't agree with it.


    "If the Republican Party is truly for fighting the "war on terrorism", it better settle in for a long, hard slog because there's a lot more to it than just one fight."

    -You say this as if it's a relevation. The administration has been saying this from the get-go. Maybe we've been in Iraq longer than anticipated, but the global war on terror will likely take years, and that's what we've known all along....so I guess I'm missing the point of that comment.

    'We stand with Iraq to get a functioning government up and running and to assist them in their effort to have a self sufficient fighting force to defend their country.'

    "And then what? Osama is still out there. Al-Qaeda is still out there. What happens after we "finish" in Iraq, hank? Do we pat ourselves on the back and go home."

    Yes. What happens after we finish is that the Iraquis begin the work of self-governance, a privilege that they did not enjoy before we arrived. Will this effort be made more difficult by the enemies of freedom? Sure, but we can equip the Iraquis with our knowledge, money and materiel.

    What I have just presented here Anonymous is called a plan with objectives. I and others have repeatedly asked you and your liberal fellow travellers to present YOUR plan (please don't re-argue "well, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place"; we all get it that you wouldn't have gone if it had been up to you). Since the reality is that we are are in Iraq do you actually have any plan for what we should do or is your "plan" to keep foaming at the mouth about "neocons"? Lots of luck winning elelctions with that strategy.

    Thanks for finally acknowledging fault.

    It's called "sarcasm" you pea-brain.

    "It's called "sarcasm" you pea-brain."

    Yes, it is, and yes, my comment was. Thanks for the english lesson, and the educated reply.

    Liberals: "Why cant we get those "pea-brains" to vote for us?"


    - Hmmmm...I don't know...approach?

    Liberals: "Why cant we get those "pea-brains" to vote for us?"

    In your case, it would be a waste of time and energy. It doesn't matter what I say or do, you are firmly convinced that we are "bad".

    well reading through all this, one is struck by the intensity, sometimes even passion, some apparent sincerity, much more venom, enormous cases of selective perception, and mainly a dialogue of the deaf.... the ad hominem attacks and name-calling pretty much complete the picture of current American discourse...

    I'm a bit amazed that anyone could in any conceivable way dispute that Bush/Cheney started the war in Iraq... (Was especially amazed at the follow-up "Saddam started it," when indeed Saddam was privately begging us not to invade and offering any kind of weapons-inspection concession... Iraq specifically was a preemptive war of choice, opposed by virtually all nations in the world (all our Muslim allies, Egypt, the Saudis, the king of Jordan publicly, and the Turkish democratic government BEGGED THE US not to do it). Even the perhaps 50 percent of Congressional Democrats who have balls managed to speak and vote against it. See: Robert Byrd's impassioned refrain: "America FIGHTS wars, America doesnt START wars." If there is any adult who seriously asserts that Bush/Cheney did not start the war in Iraq (specifically) then (to quote George C Will again) they are so unconnected to reality that you can't even exaggerate their position to make fun of it. Now presumably to claim Bush didnt start it means to see Iraq as one step in the "war" on "terrorism," missing that Saddam's regime was totally secular and certainly almost as anti-jihadist as the surviving Syrian Baathist regime (which has killed more jihadists than our efforts in all countries combined). There is of course one group who wants us to think all these quite separate national governments, and Hamas and Hizbollah are all one big conglomeration and they are all "our" enemies -- the pro-Likud neoconservatives and the Likud Israelis who want to keep their military conquests of 1967 and feel like the West Bank and East Jersualem are "greater Israel" because they conquered them "fair and square," to quote Teddy Roosevelt on the acquisition of the Panama Canal. It might be useful if those reading here would address this small group's current drum-beat to push the demand that the US now engage Iran militarily. Fox, the Weekly Standard, and the WSJ op-ed page are pushing this so hard, that even the Army, Navy, and USMC brass have taken to fighting it through leaks to THE NEW YORKER of all places, and that supply-side conservative economist (and one of my least favorite people) Paul Craig Roberts is denouncing them. Wake up OReilly-heads, the US military, so-called Republican "realists," many serious conservatives are saying your neocon-instigated campaign into Iraq has been such a disaster that their effort to expand it into Iran will be impossibly difficult and bring down the whole edifice. Address this, for gods sake, instead of venting at each other over some cheap-ass cable news wannabe celebrities.

    "Saddam's regime was totally secular and certainly almost as anti-jihadist as the surviving Syrian Baathist regime"

    Maybe this why Sadaam provided training facilities for them, provided cash awards for suicide bomber widows and (as recent documents show) stated that he was open to continuing a dialgue with al Queda concerning possible future colaborative efforts.

    And what of my question concerning the liberals plan for what to do in Iraq? Oh, yeah, more foaming at the mouth over "neocons"

    AND THE LIE OF THE CENTURY (so far) AWARD goes to:

    Maybe this why Sadaam provided training facilities for them, provided cash awards for suicide bomber widows and (as recent documents show) stated that he was open to continuing a dialgue with al Queda concerning possible future colaborative efforts.

    And what of my question concerning the liberals plan for what to do in Iraq?

    Follow Representative John Murtha's plan for gradual draw-down and redeployment. (NOT the bogus version the Republicans offered claiming it followed Murtha's "intent").

    Happy now?

    Anonymouse writes:

    "AND THE LIE OF THE CENTURY (so far) AWARD goes to:

    Maybe this why Sadaam provided training facilities for them, provided cash awards for suicide bomber widows and (as recent documents show) stated that he was open to continuing a dialgue with al Queda concerning possible future colaborative efforts."

    Read this and get back to me:

    http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

    I am confused. Saddam wasn't paying $25k to the families of successful suicide bombers? His society was secular? Yeah, in that, if you openly disagree with me your dead, and seperate but not equal way.

    David my man. In the spirit of civil discourse, I will not go into a sarcastic or acrimonious diatribe about how wrong (just my opinion) you are. If you don't think Hizbollah and Hamas have designs on us as well, then you are misinformed. They have designs on us as well and have attacked us already (Khobar Towers for example). No need for the Likud party to convince us of anything. If Israel just put down their arms, you don't honestly believe Hamas and Hezbollah would see the "light", do ya?

    Unfortunately what you seem to be suggesting is that there is some sort of Zionist cabal that is in cahoots with our current administration. A little anti-semitic no?

    Question: What do you do with a country that violates 20 UN resolutions; when that country has already invaded its neighbor 10 years earlier has kicked out weapons inspectors 3 years earlier and is firing at US fighter jets in the no fly zone?

    “When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It’s going to be decisive.� W

    So no, your premise that we started the war, case closed, is flawed and whatever point you were trying to make on the basis of said premise is also flawed. You can paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt and George Will all you want in a twisted illogical meandering search for a point, but I see through it as does anyone who was drawn to this site. That kind of "journalism" is exactly what the NYT and Olberdouche do on a daily basis.

    I will ask again like I did earlier (aka ????). What exactly are you for, SPECIFICALLY?

    If pulling our troops back to Okinawa is your plan (genious Murtha), what else is there? Okay we got say 100,000 troops on Okinawa. Now what?

    Anonymous writes:

    'And what of my question concerning the liberals plan for what to do in Iraq?'

    "Follow Representative John Murtha's plan for gradual draw-down and redeployment. (NOT the bogus version the Republicans offered claiming it followed Murtha's "intent")."

    Oh, so any statement to the effect that Murtha wants to get out of Iraq immediately is "bogus"? Better tell your friends at that right wing house organ The Washington Post (November 18 edition story by Charles Babington):

    "The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush's latest attack on his critics.

    "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said in a Capitol news conference that left him in tears. Islamic insurgents "are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. ". . . It's time to bring them home."

    Another point Anonymous: I presented my plan that we should stay and help Iraq build up it's government and fighting capability then get out. You responded by expressing concern about what would happen to the Iraquis because al Queda and Osama would still be around. Using this criteria, your idea is much worse than mine because we are leaving the Iraquis unequipped to deal with these problems. They are not ready yet.

    Yes, Hank, if the 9/11 commission hadn't discredited that spoon-fed-by-cheney ws puff piece, you'd really have something there.

    "In your case, it would be a waste of time and energy. It doesn't matter what I say or do, you are firmly convinced that we are "bad"."

    Not true. I am in no way a neo-con, and in fact do agree with the moderate liberals on a number of issues (i.e. stem cells). I just get tired of the far lefties constantly spouting their hatred of Bush, and that he's responsible for everything from 9/11 to the Lindbergh baby. What I have a problem with is when the hatred clouds the reasonable thought process. The man could announce tomorrow that he has personally discovered the cure for cancer, and the leftie wackos would find a way to put a negative spin on it, just because it was Bush. The man and his administration are by no means perfect, but in the war on terror, his agressive actions are the ones I believe will ultimately get the job done and ensure our future safety. You can't negotiate with terrorists. All the diplomatic, UN, Geneva talk in the world isn't going to make a lick of difference to people who don't play by those rules, and never will. Much to the liberals chagrin, I applaud Bush for his agressive pursuit of those who seek to destroy America. It's presidents like him, who will defend our existence and democracy, that affords people, like those on the left, the very opportunity to speak their opinions freely without fear of repercussions. Call me naieve, or what you want, but I don't mind comprimising a few of our small liberties occasionly for our safety and security.

    Anonymous writes:

    'And what of my question concerning the liberals plan for what to do in Iraq?'

    I'd be the first to admit that I don't have much of a good answer since it's hard to envision a plausible way out with success and dignity. De facto partition and low-intensity civil war have already begun (assuming 100 killed per day is low-intensity). Like any American, I hope and pray that we can find a minimally acceptable outcome, but the current course seems almost like inertia with no policy whatsoever... Also seems very telling that none of the Olbermann-bashers here would respond to my request that the address the current drumbeat for war against Iran by the Cheney/Kristol crowd. If you don't realize that Iraq is now an enormous disaster then you aren't paying attention and your committment to view everything through blind partisanship ("I support anything Bush does and he deserves respect, but Clinton was contemptible and I oppose anything he does.... oh wait, he's campaign for Lieberman, well maybe he is the totally opportunistic, without-values political weasel that most liberals regard him as....") seems unshakeable.... There are plenty of people this closed-minded on both sides of the partisan/ideological divide, and while the internet gives them chances to vent and show contempt for each other, their closed-mindedness means these exchanges have no value for further analysis or clarification...

    What do liberals say about what we should do in Iraq? The following amazing report from the Naval War College pretty much says it, although Walt and Mearshimer are conservative international-relations "realists," by no means liberals... Yet I think rational liberals see the very same thing to do, which is called by physical scientists REALITY:

    At U.S. Naval War College, Scholar Likens Iraq to Plague
    FILE UNDER: Iraq, Politics, Culture
    If anyone asks you why this is a great country, tell them this story.
    Yesterday the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, opened its annual conference on international strategy with a speech from the Navy Secretary in a vast hall, followed by a panel on American power composed of three scholars, all of whom had opposed the war in Iraq. Indeed, in the biographical notes that were given out to the audience of officers—men and women wearing their dress whites—one of the scholars stated bluntly that he had written about the "folly of invading Iraq."
    For an hour the panelists gave their reasons for why they believe America will remain the most powerful country in the world well into this century, regardless of the morass in Iraq. There were about ten questions. The last one was from a Navy commander named Cladgett from Syracuse, who rose in the middle of the audience.
    "My question to the panel is, What is the path to success in Iraq?"
    There was a damburst of laughter in the audience, then the scholars took it on, one by one. The first, Stephen Walt of Harvard, said "This was a huge strategic blunder, there are no attractive plans forward." The greatest danger—an international conflict in Iraq—would be there no matter when we left. The next man, Robert Art of Brandeis, said, he thought it was extremely important for America's image in the Arab world not to have permanent bases in Iraq.
    The last one to speak was the one who had used the word "folly" in the program: John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. Mearsheimer is 58. He told the audience that when he was a teenager, he had enlisted in the Army. Then he'd spent 1966-1970 at West Point. Then he said this:
    I remember once in English class we read Albert Camus's book The Plague. I didn't know what The Plague was about or why we were reading it. But afterwards the instructor explained to us that The Plague was being read because of the Vietnam War. What Camus was saying in The Plague was that the plague came and went of its own accord. All sorts of minions ran around trying to deal with the plague, and they operated under the illusion that they could affect the plague one way or another. But the plague operated on its own schedule. That is what we were told was going on in Vietnam. Every time I look at the situation in Iraq today, I think of Vietnam, and I think of The Plague, and I just don't think there's very much we can do at this point. It is just out of our hands. There are forces that we don't have control over that are at play, and will determine the outcome of this one. I understand that's very hard for Americans to understand, because Americans believe that they can shape the world in their interests.
    But I learned during the Vietnam years when I was a kid at West Point, that there are some things in the world that you just don't control, and I think that's where we're at in Iraq.
    The panel was over. For a moment or two there was stunned silence, and then applause—at once polite, sustained and thunderous.

    Wow 3 scholars opposed to the war didn't envision a victory. I am stunned. They could only relate to the Vietnam perspective that shaped their world view. Wonder if they think WWII was a "folly"? Probably would have thought there was "no attractive plans forward" as the enemy was defeated. And they would look correct as we still occupy Japan and German quagmires,to this day.USEFULL IDIOTS.