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 'EDT/-4.0/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


    August 31, 2006
    A few words on Olbermann's Rumsfeld Rant

    I would like to make a special comment on Olby's recent Rummy rant...

    While I appreciate the effort of some to make sense out of KO's recent special comment on Countdown last night my advice to Olby Watch readers is "don't bother". First, keep in mind that this "deep analysis" is coming from an individual who runs around in a raincoat doing bad Peter Finch impersonations and presenting news commentary in the form of hand puppets while screaming to any TV critic who will listen how he wants to be taken seriously. Second, the internal logic of Olby's diatribe will make your head spin; for claiming that there is a threat greater than "some" will acknowledge Olby compares Bush to Neville Chamberlain when the historical analogy he goes on to present suggests that the only appropriate comparison is between Bush and Churchill not Chamberlain. Olby goes on to praise Chamberlain Churchill for defying those who would label him a war monger while advancing the notion that Bush and Rumsfeld are war mongers who waged an "unnecessary" war in Iraq.

    What I not heard discussed here or on some of the sites who have been linking here (Huffington Post, HotAir, National Review, Crooks and Liars, Newsbusters, Free Republic, KXMA/Say Anything, Pink Flamingo Bar, The Guardian UK, Sister Toldjah, Balloon Juice, INDCJournal, etc.) is WHY the radical left and their pals in the MSM (despite his anemic ratings I include Olbermann due to his affiliation with NBC News) are distorting what Rumsfeld said during his Tuesday speech to the American Legion convention in Utah.

    So just why is the Loony Left working itself into a tizzy over Rumsfeld's speech? Why have they transformed Rumsfeld's actual words in order to characterize his attempt to defend Bush policies with the "destruction of our freedoms". When Olbermann quotes Murrow's line "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty" which line of Rumseld's speech does he have in mind? I will save you the trouble of looking - none.

    The issue is not what Rumsfeld SAID but the belief which formed the basis for his remarks - that the United States is at war, that our enemy is not some amorphous conglomeration of religious whackos, but a well-organized, well-financed and determined enemy bent on killing every American and, for that matter, every person who does not accept the Muslim faith - and does so on their terms alone. And that belief, for the far left, is a very dangerous notion because it undermines the rationale for their ongoing criticism of Bush policies ranging from the Patriot Act to keeping al Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay to domestic surveillance of terror suspects to the SWIFT monitoring program to eavesdropping on phone calls into the U.S.

    This, in turn, explains, the aggressive response to Rumseld's speech. The far left and the Democratic Party they seek to control, is intent on nationalizing this year's Congressional elections and doing so on the issue of Iraq. Having been burned so many times in the past by Bush, Rove and the rest of the Republican political machine they are determined not to let the GOP establish the terms of the debate this fall. They believe they have learned their lesson and. this time, are going to escape the label of being "soft" on terrorism by characterizing any attempt to shift the debate to the global war on terror as "censorship".

    If this is the best they can do then you can expect the Dems to once again prove themselves their own worst enemy in '06. I, for one, do not believe that the American people are going to accept the notion of giving power to Democrats unless and until they are able to articulate a coherent, independent strategy for fighting the war on terror that goes the simplistic Bush-bashing formula that has failed then so spectacularly in the past.

    That Olbermann is a full participant in what is clearly a coordinated response to Rumfeld's speech only serves to highlight his desire to serve as a tool for the far-left. Unfortunately for Keith, more people watched KO's rant on YouTube and Crooks and Liars than bothered to watch his show.

    Perhaps TVNewser should consider adding each downloaded video to KO's ratings?

    UPDATE: Normally I link to sites mentioning Olbermann in the Del.icio.us Mini-Blog (scroll down right rail on home page) but there have been so many blog posts about Olbermann's Rummy Rant that I am going to save myself time and link a bunch of them right here:

    Huffington Post: Olbermann vs. Rumsfeld: Defining the Real "New Fascism"
    MSNBC's Keith Olbermann reminded us why it is so great to be an American.

    Crooks and Liars: Keith Olbermann Delivers One Hell Of a Commentary on Rumsfeld
    Keith had some very choice words about Rumsfeld's "fascism" comments tonight. Watch it, save it and share it.

    TalkLeft: Olbermann's Passionate Commentary on Rumseld

    Daily Kos: Olbermann's Condemnation of Rumsfeld
    By the time Keith Olbermann finished his response to Rumsfeld, I was close to tears.

    Balloon Juice: A Dated Mindset
    the appropriate response from Keith Olbermann

    Blue Star Chronicles: Olbermann's Obfuscation
    if Rumsfeld made that many people mad, he must be doing something right.

    Firedoglake: Special SHUT EM SHUT EM DOWN!! Edition

    Eschaton: Olbermann

    No Quarter: Olbermann Our New Murrow
    If you missed Keith Olbermann's commentary on Donald Rumsfeld's accusation that Americans who criticize the Bush Policy in Iraq are basically traitors, then you missed a chance to witness history. Olbermann's courage and genius should be celebrated and cherished. God bless him. The man has a set of stones.

    Relevant Torture: We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty
    This is why we love Keith Olbermann. Everything else is just icing.

    Double Speak: Olbermann on Rumsfeld
    Please take 6 minutes and 41 seconds of your day and watch this video. And then take a few more minutes to send it to friends, family, and anyone who might need a bit of the light of reality shown into their world.

    Question Everything: KEITH OLBERMANN DELIVERS ONE HELL OF A COMMENTARY ON RUMSFELD
    Keith had some very choice words about Rumsfeld's "fascism" comments tonight. Watch it, save it and share it.

    Doug Krile: Olbermann Redux
    It deserves a second look.

    The Left Coaster: Open Thread - Channeling Murrow Edition
    Keith Olbermann stepped into Edward R. Murrow’s shoes for a night with a devastating critique of Rummy and the Bush Administration.

    Why We Worry: Olbermann's great speech
    I hope the internet coverage of this speech gives him a well deserved spike in the ratings.

    Outside the Beltway: Keith Olbermann Blasts Rumsfeld American Legion Speech
    even when he's on the right side of an issue, he goes so far over the top as to make his target look good by comparison.

    Transafixion: Olbermann on Today's Fascism
    he doesn't hold back

    TruthDig: Olbermann Puts Rumsfeld to Shame
    Keith Olbermann delivered a masterful retort on Wednesday to Donald Rumsfeld's recent diatribe on fascism.

    Davebgimp: The best smackdown ever
    i had chills reading the transcript

    Metadish: Putting Rummy In His Place
    Keith Olbermann was absolutely brilliant last night.

    Yirmumah: Thus Spoke Olbermann
    If you're not doing so, you should think about getting your news at 8pm on MSNBC.


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (265) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    265 Comments

    I heard MSLSD is e-mailing Countdown SPAM style and including the recipients in their data as "recorded the show with intent to watch."



    "A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president."



    Anon: ". . . to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness"

    Is it really "for the sake of politeness" that we take issue with anti-military, anti-American statements from leftists?

    How about:

    "to refrain from providing aid and comfort to the enemy by attacking for political gain one's country and military in the midst of an armed conflict"

    It is music to terrorist ears when leftists reinforce the idea that the United States is to blame for all problems in the Middle East. The despots quote Dick Durbin and Jack Murtha as they press forward with their Jihad. Nobody said that leftists should not be able to say what they want even though it is self-destructive and dangerously self-indulgent. Stop pretending anyone intends on censoring you idiots and start dealing with the criticism of the CONTENT of your statements.


    Lefty Logic in action:

    Allowed statement: Bush is a terrorist who wants to "destroy our freedoms"

    Dangerous statement that represses free speech: Olbermann is a terrorist sympathizer who wants to "destroy our freedoms."

    Don't think about it, just learn it and live it.

    You people are so in need of medication! Do your doctors know that you are out of the asylum?

    Rumsfeld talking to the American Legion...

    "Your watchdog role is particularly important today in a war that is to a great extent fought in the media on a global stage,"

    No, Mr. Secretary. The American Legion is not a watchdog agency. That job belongs to two entities. The congress... which is too spineless with it's current Republican leadership to hold the administration accountable.

    The second is the media. The real media. Not bloggers like Mr. Cox who can't hack it as a real journalist and instead decides to kiss the ass of the republican right.

    No. Watch dogs are those who ask critical questions. Don't blinding nod their heads to everything the adminstration says. Especially when the adminstration has time and again gotten it wrong and lied.

    Keith hit it on the head on every single point. The adminitrator of this website, his cronies and now the MINORITY of Americans refuse to see it, however. Your kind are what put Hitler in power.

    You are so right James. I will feel so much safer when Hillary takes power. Not only will I feel safer, I will be safer.

    Not so much when Hillary is in power (if she ever gets there)... its more that you'll be safer when Bushie is out of power.

    The word freedom has completely losts it's meaning. I pretty much say and do whatever the hell I want. That was true 20 years ago and that hasn't changed. Olbermann bitching about our freedoms being eroded is an insult to people in other countries who have faced real persecution. Unfortunately for Keith, he has the freedom to go on national television and rant like an idiot.

    Good summary Mr. Cox. It's all politics. The right says we should be scared of Islamic fascism. The left says we should be scared of our government. Unlike the lefts position, the rights position is tangible. We've all seen the towers burning. One threat is real, one is imagined.

    Say what you want but the majority in this country want a new direction from the current administration. That is a fact!!! For years now we have put up with lie after lie, smokescreen after smokescreen in regards to the war, katrina, or whatever else the administration can conjure up. People we have been let down, time and time again. This is a far cry from the world being so united after 9/11. I remember driving through my neighborhood seeing flag after flag, I remember myself being 100% behind our president. Then things started to go awry.......lies started being told......everything our President, Vice President, Rummy and anyone else has been proven wrong.....No weapons of mass destruction, Saddam could attack United States interest with days, Saddam is linked with Al Queda...none of it was true.....and our sons and daughters, mostly made up of lower income families and children of ILLEGAL immigrants have died as a result of this.......remember when Wolfowitz said this war will pay for itself because of the amount of oil Iraq can produce.........and request after request for billions upon billions of dollars to pay for this war because it hasn't paid for itself. Why doesn't it get these RIGHTWINGERS angry..........and then we're told mission accomplished, or the insurgence are in their last thro's....oh really...well how many soldiers have died since this has happened, how many Iraqi people have dies since this statement, the people we claim we are there to help. Then you have these American companies like Haliburton bilking the military for millions of dollars.......and we're suppose to sit here and take it.....and not question our goverment......and play follow the leader. WHAT!....the preplanning of this war was terrible...atrocious!!!.......and Rummy still has his job.....then you look at the situation in Katrina where the planning of the federal goverment was atrocious....they knew about this days beforehand......and people mostly poor were made to suffer because we didn't coordinate our efforts for rescue....gee I wonder if rummy was also in that planning effort........so time after time we have seen the administration faulter, lie, blame the clinton administration, blame the media and accoriding to them we should just say....da...okay......everythings great......look at the education system, healthcare, crime number, poverty, wages, etc etc etc.........then we're told Dems and liberals are week on defense and terrorism.......well let's recap the past six years under the bushy administration.......9/11 show lack of focus on terrorism groups.....shortage of flu vaccine showing lack of preparation in case of a anthrax outbreak or other diseases........katrina showing lack of preperation in case of a natural or unnatural disaster.......beginnings of cvil war in Iraq because of lack of preparation for the war which never should have STARTED.....hamas now in control of the palastinian goverment....Iran close to having nukes....north korea having nukes.....bin laden still on the run.......I could go on but I think I've made my point.....REPULBLICANS are weak on defense!!!! not liberals and dems.........but then you here rummys speach and then trickie dickie give is speech earlier.....and I want to puke........and then whats even more ridiculous is how this website makes a claim against a TV journalist who they claim is misleading people....are u kidding me..........so you completely ignore what our current leaders in the administration are doing...completely ignore their misinformation, misdeeds, lies....whatever and focus in on KO...that makes sense!!!! Everyday I read post on here talking about his ratings, his rants, his so called misinformation.......why don't you take your energy and focus on the lies , misinformation made by the bush administration or made you don't have anough bandwith in your server to create such a large website??? why don't you do this service to your fellow americans instead of focusing on a TV jouranlist who is trying to make us think and incover the truths about the rhetoric we hear day after day......some of you claim liberal can't make apoint or result to name calling but most of you respond in the very same manner as you claim we do.....some people call me a jihadist, a jew hater.....am I reall that?...do you really mean that?........don't you realize how ignorant that is........I know everyone has a difference of a opinion...it's what makes the world go round and round......it's what makes this country great......but some of you give no credence to the opinoins of the left or of democrats and strike them down and label us as unamerican, terrorism lovers, al queda lovers, or whatever else..........we all love this country, but we have differing views as to how it should be run...can we atleast agree to that!!!

    Dave-

    Post of the day (IMO).

    One other thing... way to deflect the issue, Jim. I was talking about being able to question a government about legitimate issues. You immediately decided to turn it into the old "We are safer with Bush"

    I wasn't talking about 'who are we safer with.' I was just commenting that we should be able to ask questions freely and have those questions answered. While some (now the minority) still see questioning this adminstration as an act of civil disobedience. Again, that line of thought put Hitler in power.

    Again, nice deflect the issue.

    "A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president."

    And a anchorman doesn't use a "news show" to advocate personal political opinions to the exclusion of contrary positions and to agitate for the outster of politcal appointee as though he had done something criminal or otherwise unethical.

    Olbermann isn't "speaking truth to power".... he's carrying on a primetime "news show" as though it were talk radio...while hypocritically criticising the non-Air America side of that particular genre to boot....

    Now you may want to run Olbermann's contradictory and hypocritical nonsense up the flag pole and declare that it should be saluted...but don't then hypocritically attack those who decline the invitation...

    Free-thinking patriots, riiighhht...


    Maybe it is not the Islamofacists that are the greatest threat to this country. Maybe it is liberal traitors and nutjobs like this Kieth Olbermann idiot who want to leave us vulnerable to the terrorists. Because of ideological differences and his strong commitment to politcal correctness and other liberal lunacy this so called "reporter" seeks to undermine the war on terrorism and terrorists. If this man is so committed to dissent why is it he NEVER has any one who dissents with him? Why is it he only has other liberal slime that kiss his ass and agree with him and of course support his left wingnut agenda?
    Watching this self described "journalist" channel another commie defender made my skin crawl. My opinion is that McCarthy was right about the communist threat from the media and Hollywood. As my proof I submit that today's liberalista media is in full blown defense of ideologies that will destroy this country.
    Make no mistake about it the issue of the war is just a small part of the attacks on this President. The real issues hidden behind the leftist isnurgents in America is still their devotion to abortion, gun control, so called gay "marriage" , more taxes and other liberal causes. While Iraq may not be VietNam as much as the leftists want it to be the playbook of the left today comes right from the 60's anti-war ideology. They intend to "finish" the job of complete leftist revolution that they started 40 years ago.
    I make no apologies for supporting the war in Iraq and supporting the President . My opinion will not be swayed by some psuedo-pinko politcally correct "newscaster" trying to pass himself off as a real American.. he is not.

    Who do you want in power James? Please be specific.

    Dave said, "Unlike the lefts position, the rights position is tangible. We've all seen the towers burning. One threat is real, one is imagined."

    Yes, we have. But, you are still convoluting the issue. Iraq had nothing to do with those towers going down.

    Gosh, doesn't invading the WRONG country with no logical idea how to get out count as a TANGIBLE reason to be warry of our own government.

    You're blind for not thinking so.

    Iraq had nothing to do with those towers going down.

    Good point. Who would you have attacked millitarily after Afghanistan?

    I want someone other than Bush in power. Specifically someone who HAS MILITARY EXPERIENCE. I think McCain would make a sensational President... especially foreign affairs. Like or dislike Kerry (I dislike him more than like him), but he's been in combat. He would handle this war better than Bush. Give me someone, any party, who can be more honest, make better decisions and have an idea of what combat is all about.

    The current president fails miserably in all those arenas.

    I want someone other than Bush in power. Specifically someone who HAS MILITARY EXPERIENCE. I think McCain would make a sensational President... especially foreign affairs. Like or dislike Kerry (I dislike him more than like him), but he's been in combat. He would handle this war better than Bush. Give me someone, any party, who can be more honest, make better decisions and have an idea of what combat is all about.

    The current president fails miserably in all those arenas.

    I would have not attacked another country until we had Bin Laden captured.

    "Who would you have attacked millitarily after Afghanistan?"

    How about NO ONE. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, maybe we'd have the international clout to do more about Iran right now. Or, we could have spent more time working on North Korea. You know.. the REAL threats.




    A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president.


    That is not a patriot. Rather, that person is a sycophant. That person is a member of a frightening culture of obedience - a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular. And, I suspect, that person is afraid - afraid we are right, afraid of the truth (even to the point of denying it), afraid he or she has put in with an oppressive, inhumane, regime that does not respect the laws and traditions of our country, and that history will rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.


    Did Abe Lincoln have any military experience?

    (Hint: NO)

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/25/MNGTI8DG0R17.DTL

    There were many great wartime Presidents without military experience.

    Dave-

    Piece of shit post (IMO).

    Would you have attacked Afghanistan?

    Comparing Abe Lincoln to George Bush is like comparing Harvard or Yale......to North Texas or East Shiboygan State.....like filet mignon...to chili......like mercedes to a ford.....HDTV to black and white........maybe you're right Matticus, maybe our president doesn't need to have military experience, if that is the case maybe he should around himself with people that have.....

    What's wrong with a Ford?

    James-

    NICE KEITH LIKE TACTIC!!

    I was refering to the global threat of Islamic fascism. What part of my posts suggests that I agreed with the decision to invade Iraq???? Did I even bring up Iraq?? Let me answer that- NO! James, when you finished putting words into my mouth, go ahead and read my post again.

    You mean like Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld?

    BTW, I didn't compare Bush to Lincoln. Please re-read my post, else I might think you're using a tactic of putting words in my mouth. What I said was that a president doesn't need to have military experience to be a good wartime commander, and used Lincoln as one (of many) examples. I then backed it up with a link (evidence).

    I think Lincoln was in the militia. Seems like he wrestled someon for the leadership post. But how about FDR? He lead our nation through WWII. What was his military experience. Bush has experience. He is a good man slandered by lowlife idiots like Olberman and almsot never fights back. You never hear him call his enemies names. He simply shrugs his shoulders and says it comes with the territory. The people denigrating him now are the same ones who voted against helping the Kuwatis in 1991. Remember that vote only passed by one vote. Anyone who watches Olbermann for anything more than his hilarious stupidity deserves to have another Clinton as president. I'd like to see how Billary would have handled the war, Katrina, et al. Then you'd hear real good excuses.

    Boo Radley writes:

    Piece of shit post (IMO).


    Damn, that was well composed and articulate refutation. Let me collect my thoughts and see if I can level a response that has the same level of intellect.

    I think Lincoln was in the militia. Seems like he wrestled someon for the leadership post. But how about FDR? He lead our nation through WWII. What was his military experience. Bush has experience. He is a good man slandered by lowlife idiots like Olberman and almsot never fights back. You never hear him call his enemies names. He simply shrugs his shoulders and says it comes with the territory. The people denigrating him now are the same ones who voted against helping the Kuwatis in 1991. Remember that vote only passed by one vote. Anyone who watches Olbermann for anything more than his hilarious stupidity deserves to have another Clinton as president. I'd like to see how Billary would have handled the war, Katrina, et al. Then you'd hear real good excuses.

    It is music to terrorist ears when leftists reinforce the idea that the United States is to blame for all problems in the Middle East.

    check your hyperbolic absolutes at the door ... no one said the U.S. is to blame for ALL problems in the ME. the hyperbole and absolutism and false choice black and white dualities of the right are not only tiresome, but inaccurate as well.

    The despots quote Dick Durbin and Jack Murtha as they press forward with their Jihad. Nobody said that leftists should not be able to say what they want even though it is self-destructive and dangerously self-indulgent.

    "despots" is imaginary hyperbole. if anyone's a despot, it comes from the right via GWB. leftists are not "blaming america first" or being "self-destructive" -- they simply disagree with you.

    Stop pretending anyone intends on censoring you idiots and start dealing with the criticism of the CONTENT of your statements.

    you are naive to think this admin does not actively practice the censorship of free speech and encroachment of civil liberties. and as for your crack about CONTENT -- you should try it yourself sometime, rather than reflexively swiftboating anyone with whom you disagree.

    Boo, my old friend,

    you are naive to think this admin does not actively practice the censorship of free speech and encroachment of civil liberties.

    Examples?


    I think Lincoln was in the militia.

    military service is not necessary, but having half a brain does help.

    swiftboating? it is seared, seared in my memory the christmas eve i spent in cambodia on orders of president nixon. kerry wasn't there and nixon wasn't president. never have heard anyone explain that one away.

    I have a question to all the lefties here that say that "America wants a new direction". Do you blindly believe the polls put out by the media as the truth? I don't believe the polls or care one whit about them. America should not decide policy on polls but on elections. Remember a few years back? Bush won. That is the poll I go by . The left in this country are trying to negate and overturn a lawfully elected president by polls taken by liberal "news" outlets trying to pass themsleves off laughingly as unbiased.
    As for me I would put my trust in keeping this country safe squarely in the hands of Bush and Rumsfield before I would any liberal American apologist like some nutty "news" reporter on MSNBC who demands respect for dissent from everybody other than himself. This Olbermann nutjob may just be the perfect liberal hypocrite.

    you are naive to think this admin does not actively practice the censorship of free speech and encroachment of civil liberties.

    Examples?

    as Louis Armstrong once said of Jazz, "If you have to ask, I can't explain it to you."

    Yes, Lincoln was in the militia, but saw no combat.

    Bush has experience...tell me tell me tell me please.

    How would Clinton handle the war...never would've pushed us into it...

    Katrina- FEMA was much better run during the clinton admonistration...this a fact ......

    PLease please keep screwing up so we can see Hillary get elected...actually I would rather see Al Gore run......

    Ah yes Boo! It is so complex that mere examples are useless! Still receiving signals from our fillings are we?

    bush experience-jet fighter pilot. 2 years active service training to be a fighter pilot. 3 years reserves. if you don't think that's serive, i don't think you've ever served

    clinton had no military experience. actively dodged the war. loathes the military. did nothing about terrorism for 8 years. was handed ben laden twice and didn't take him.

    Fema under klinton, their response to the big florida hurricanes was much much slower than bush's to Katrina.

    al gore... insane? served by smoking pot as a press liason in saigon.

    Thanks Boo! You've given me something to think about. I mean, you said this administration actively practices the censorship of free speech and encroachment of civil liberties, but have no examples. Instead, you just say that you can't explain it.

    Maybe you're going for an emotional debate rather than a substantive one. My bad.

    I have a question to all the lefties here that say that "America wants a new direction". Do you blindly believe the polls put out by the media as the truth? I don't believe the polls or care one whit about them.

    yeah, rather than blindly believing polls, let's blindly believe the fool who fucked up Iraq and New Orleans and Stem Cell Research and the Drug Program for Seniors and ... and ... and ...

    America should not decide policy on polls but on elections. Remember a few years back? Bush won.

    old news. what has he done for us lately besides fuck up everything he touches.

    That is the poll I go by .

    um, yeah, 'cause you're a moron.

    The left in this country are trying to negate and overturn a lawfully elected president by polls taken by liberal "news" outlets trying to pass themsleves off laughingly as unbiased.

    not at all, just trying to impeach the illegal, lying, unconstitutional war criminals.

    As for me I would put my trust in keeping this country safe squarely in the hands of Bush and Rumsfield before I would any liberal American apologist

    um, yeah, 'cause you're a moron.

    Bush military experience- wasn't he almost court martialed.

    clinton could've had him twice - that is about as credible as saying the bush admin helped plan and was behind 9/11

    Fema was it's own department under clinton and did not have to put with the politics of homeland security

    al gore smoked grass? George bush =coke snorter

    Olby goes on to praise Chamberlain for defying those who would label him a war monger

    He did no such thing. How can anyone take this post seriously when you misunderstood Olbermann so thoroughly?



    In response to those who believe we should blindly support this disastrous president, his administration, and the complacent, complicit Congress, listen to the words of Theodore Roosevelt, a great president and a Republican, who said: The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

    Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

    Say what you want but the majority in this country want a new direction from the current administration. That is a fact!!! For years now we have put up with lie after lie, smokescreen after smokescreen in regards to the war, katrina, or whatever else the administration can conjure up. People we have been let down, time and time again. This is a far cry from the world being so united after 9/11. I remember driving through my neighborhood seeing flag after flag, I remember myself being 100% behind our president. Then things started to go awry.......lies started being told......everything our President, Vice President, Rummy and anyone else has been proven wrong.....No weapons of mass destruction, Saddam could attack United States interest with days, Saddam is linked with Al Queda...none of it was true.....and our sons and daughters, mostly made up of lower income families and children of ILLEGAL immigrants have died as a result of this.......remember when Wolfowitz said this war will pay for itself because of the amount of oil Iraq can produce.........and request after request for billions upon billions of dollars to pay for this war because it hasn't paid for itself. Why doesn't it get these RIGHTWINGERS angry..........and then we're told mission accomplished, or the insurgence are in their last thro's....oh really...well how many soldiers have died since this has happened, how many Iraqi people have dies since this statement, the people we claim we are there to help. Then you have these American companies like Haliburton bilking the military for millions of dollars.......and we're suppose to sit here and take it.....and not question our goverment......and play follow the leader. WHAT!....the preplanning of this war was terrible...atrocious!!!.......and Rummy still has his job.....then you look at the situation in Katrina where the planning of the federal goverment was atrocious....they knew about this days beforehand......and people mostly poor were made to suffer because we didn't coordinate our efforts for rescue....gee I wonder if rummy was also in that planning effort........so time after time we have seen the administration faulter, lie, blame the clinton administration, blame the media and accoriding to them we should just say....da...okay......everythings great......look at the education system, healthcare, crime number, poverty, wages, etc etc etc.........then we're told Dems and liberals are week on defense and terrorism.......well let's recap the past six years under the bushy administration.......9/11 show lack of focus on terrorism groups.....shortage of flu vaccine showing lack of preparation in case of a anthrax outbreak or other diseases........katrina showing lack of preperation in case of a natural or unnatural disaster.......beginnings of cvil war in Iraq because of lack of preparation for the war which never should have STARTED.....hamas now in control of the palastinian goverment....Iran close to having nukes....north korea having nukes.....bin laden still on the run.......I could go on but I think I've made my point.....REPULBLICANS are weak on defense!!!! not liberals and dems.........but then you here rummys speach and then trickie dickie give is speech earlier.....and I want to puke........and then whats even more ridiculous is how this website makes a claim against a TV journalist who they claim is misleading people....are u kidding me..........so you completely ignore what our current leaders in the administration are doing...completely ignore their misinformation, misdeeds, lies....whatever and focus in on KO...that makes sense!!!! Everyday I read post on here talking about his ratings, his rants, his so called misinformation.......why don't you take your energy and focus on the lies , misinformation made by the bush administration or made you don't have anough bandwith in your server to create such a large website??? why don't you do this service to your fellow americans instead of focusing on a TV jouranlist who is trying to make us think and incover the truths about the rhetoric we hear day after day......some of you claim liberal can't make apoint or result to name calling but most of you respond in the very same manner as you claim we do.....some people call me a jihadist, a jew hater.....am I reall that?...do you really mean that?........don't you realize how ignorant that is........I know everyone has a difference of a opinion...it's what makes the world go round and round......it's what makes this country great......but some of you give no credence to the opinoins of the left or of democrats and strike them down and label us as unamerican, terrorism lovers, al queda lovers, or whatever else..........we all love this country, but we have differing views as to how it should be run...can we atleast agree to that!!!

    MAN, did you miss the point on this one. Olbermann was NOT comparing Bush/Rumsfeld to Churchill, he was comparing Bush/Rumsfeld to the Chamberlain "we hold a monopoly on truth" era.. and his supporting logic struck this listener as unassailable.

    You might want to pull your head out from under your right wing before you comment on history..

    Ward.....bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Any ideas about how this anchor can be removed from having a public forum for his bizarre performances?

    Bushywushy is correct.

    You have inaccurately summarized Olbermann's statement of last evening. I would encourage everyone to read a transcript of Olbermann's statement before passing judgement on it.

    Form your own opinions, you don't need to have them provided for you.

    KNEDGZ-

    You have inaccurately summarized Olbermann's statement of last evening. I would encourage everyone to read a transcript of Olbermann's statement before passing judgement on it.

    Form your own opinions, you don't need to have them provided for you.

    I've done that as well as read a transcript of Rumsfeld's comments and compared them to the edited comments that Mr. Olbermann attributed to him. I've actually done that. And Mr. Dollar's analysis of it is dead on.

    Keith is lying to you KNEDGZ. Don't fall for it.

    MATTICUS - provide us a link to the transcript of dumby rummys speech........please.

    Any ideas about how this anchor can be removed from having a public forum for his bizarre performances?

    don't like something? then let's ban it.

    um, why don't you try turning the channel, moron.

    Keith just seems bizarre to you because you're spoonfed so many lies from Faux and BushCO which you gobble up, that the truth is simply incomprehensible to you.

    CBK.......no ideas...unless you want to move to China under a communist goverment.......which if we let bush get his way we could..............

    Here you go! But be careful! You might have a differing opinion of Mr. Olbermann than you do before you read it and compare Mr. Olbermann's attributions to what was actually said.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033

    Oh boy. Speaking of TVNewser, check out this pathetic tribute to Olbermann on the site. Ironically, the first three words of this post are "Thank you MSNBC" and the last link takes you to an MSNBC.com press release. It made me laugh, it's now obvious that Brian Stelter has resorted to e-mailing himself!

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the_ticker/the_ticker_olbermann_mcfadden_bob_43034.asp

    "Keith Olbermann's Wednesday night commentary is getting a lot of buzz. Here's the transcript. 'So few news people today ask the hard questions let alone speak truth to power,' an e-mailer says. 'Olbermann stood up for free speech and all American citizens...'"

    It's not a question of not liking Olbermann. It's a matter of lies versus truth. Why should anyone be subjected to a lying, manipulative person like Olbermann is beyond me.

    What Olbermann was attempting to remind us of last night was that one of our fundamental freedoms is to DISAGREE WITH OUR GOVERNMENT.

    They are our EMPLOYEES, and they have forgotten that.

    For some delicious irony, check out this week's Doonesbury thread on "hereditary kings", which, last time I checked, we weren't supposed to have in this country.

    It sure seems to me like some of you want to preserve your freedoms at the cost of mine, just because we disagree. How the hell can you call yourselves "Americans"?

    "Good Night and Good Luck"??...If that jerk thinks he holds a journalistic candle to Murrow, he is sorely mistaken.

    CBK, I agree. I also think Brian Stelter of TVNewser is a lying, manipulative public relations hack for MSNBC. All someone needs to do is look at that above link if he/she has any doubt where this kid stands. He posts an 'e-mail' about Olbermann, which he may or may not have received, then personally thanks MSNBC for backing his unfounded claim that he found the Couric story first, then posts an MSNBC press release about something else!

    Thanks to "the valrus" for pointing an error in my post. I wrote "Olby goes on to praise Chamberlain for defying those who would label him a war monger" when I meant to write "Olby goes on to praise Churchill for defying those who would label him a war monger". My bad. Fixed it, with a strikethrough.

    swiftboating? it is seared, seared in my memory the christmas eve i spent in cambodia on orders of president nixon. kerry wasn't there and nixon wasn't president. never have heard anyone explain that one away.

    Zebulon, it's funny you point this out as I too noticed "Nixon wasn't yet president" during the christmas that kerry refers to.

    Olbermann is a wanker.

    swiftboating? it is seared, seared in my memory the christmas eve i spent in cambodia on orders of president nixon. kerry wasn't there and nixon wasn't president. never have heard anyone explain that one away.

    Zebulon, it's funny you point this out as I too noticed "Nixon wasn't yet president" during the christmas that kerry refers to.

    Olbermann is a wanker.

    "Do you blindly believe the polls put out by the media as the truth?"

    No, I don't. You have to look at trends and history.

    Traditionaly, media polls do a very good job of gauging the public consciousness. More time than not media polls correctly predict elections, bill votes. You name. There are times they are wrong (polls thought Kerry would win). But, the majority of the time, media polls have historically been accurate.

    On the other hand... President Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld have historically lied, been wrong, flip-flopped and lied some more and screwed up again.

    Given those two histories - neither of which I blindly follow - I choose to believe the one with the better track record. And it 'aint Bushie.
    ------------------------------------------

    "Remember a few years back? Bush won. That is the poll I go by."

    Actually, if you're referring to 2000, more Americans actually voted for Gore. Just in case you forgot.

    Seeing Krazy Keith doing his Howard Beale impersonation last night begs the question: Just how in the hell did Cornell allow this nitwit in?

    Seriously Keith (if you're out there), how did you do it?

    I see James that you haven't responed back to my post? Are you trying to avoid admitting that your were putting words in my mouth?

    Rumsfeld clearly implied that anybody who opposed the administration's policies was somehow akin to a Hitler coddler.

    Well, no more. If you guys think you have some kind of a lock on patriotism, you don't. You don't have the market cornered on Jesus, either. Your government is an abject failure, both domestically (New Orleans) and abroad (Iraq), and the only thing you have left to run on is fear.

    And anybody who questions the loyalty of an American for authoring a perfectly justified smackdown of a quantifiably incompetent, fearmongering and demagogueing Sec'y of Defense, is just as big an ass as they can be.

    That's right; you guys look like asses, so loudly cheering for a war in which not one of you has the guts to serve. You're cheerleaders for the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the Nation, your ideology is not selling anywhere unless you jazz it up with a little threat, and you've finally called 'wolf' one time to many.

    What happens to the kid at the end of that story, again?

    Oh, and because you've been so busy spewing lies about the nature of the actual threat, you lack credibility.

    Good luck in November, fellas; you're going to need it. Unless, of course, you cheat again.

    If you don't like hearing opinions with which you don't agree, move to a police-state and join the majority party. It's clearly what you're angling for here, all protestations to the contrary.

    That's right; America - love it or leave it.

    Bravo, Broadsword, Bravo!!

    Bravo, Broadsword, Bravo!!

    Rumsfeld clearly implied that anybody who opposed the administration's policies was somehow akin to a Hitler coddler.

    Well, no more. If you guys think you have some kind of a lock on patriotism, you don't. You don't have the market cornered on Jesus, either. Your administration of the government is an abject failure, both domestically (New Orleans) and abroad (Iraq), and the only thing you have left to run on is fear.

    And anybody who questions the loyalty of another American for authoring a perfectly justified smackdown of a quantifiably incompetent, fearmongering and demagogueing Sec'y of Defense, is just as big an ass as they can be.

    If you're acusing ALL of us on the left of being traitors, we'd ask 'to what?'. To your perverted view of war as a good thing? To your slavish devotion to an stuttering boob of a President? To your failed, bankrupt ideology? To your quaint religious beliefs?

    That's right; you guys look like asses, so loudly cheering for a war in which not one of you has the balls to serve. You're cheerleaders for the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the Nation, your philosophy is not selling anywhere unless you jazz it up with a little threat, and you've finally called 'wolf' one time to many.

    What happens to the kid at the end of that story, again?

    Oh, and because you've been so busy spewing lies about the nature of the actual threat, you lack credibility.

    Good luck in November, fellas; you're going to need it. Then, we're going to impeach your precious W, and this time, it'll be for cause.

    If you don't like hearing opinions with which you don't agree, move to a police-state and join the majority party. It's clearly what you're angling for here, all protestations to the contrary.

    That's right; America - love it or leave it. Oh, I forgot; you guys have made sure that Americans aren't welcome almost anywhere else.

    Great job.

    It's clear that you mised the point, RCox. Yes, you can argue that there are similairites to Bush and Churchill. Both were/are wartime leaders. Both fought/are fighting against a global fascist threat. However, the similarties end there. I don't know what your background is, but making historical comparisons is a tricky, complex, and rarely straight forward endeavor.

    Olbermann's point was that, when you really make a close comparision, Bush is more like Chamberlain, and less like Churchill. The comparison has nothing to do with being a wartime leader, and everything to do with conviction without evidence.

    Like Chamberlain, the Bush Adminstration claims that spends vast amounts of time analyzing the effectiveness and legality of its policies and investigation techniques. Like Chamberlain, it claims to "know" that the policies are working.

    Like Chamberlain, the Adminstration offers little evidence to back up its claims, and simply says, "you just have to trust us." Furthermore, like Chamberlain, the Adminstration labels those who question them as un-patriotic and it calls their ideas a threat to our freedoms.

    So, there are several comparisons between Bush and Chamberlain for you to digest. You, RCox, only named one comparison between Bush and Churchill, that being that both were "war-mongers". I hope I helped clear up the confusion for you.

    Addintionally, it is unfair and misleading to claim that Olbermann is part of some vast liberal conspiracy to oust the republicans from office. In fact, Olbermann himself has regularly made the same critique that you made above--that the Democrats can't expect to win without offering a coherent alternative to republican policy. He posed a question on that to Howard Dean in the exact same broadcast from last night. How could you miss that? Plus, do you really think Howard Dean is sending Olbermann talking points everyday? Come on. This post is just too easy to discredit.

    This is what Dave originally said, "The left says we should be scared of our government. Unlike the lefts position, the rights position is tangible. We've all seen the towers burning. One threat is real, one is imagined."

    Dave, you state ONLY the terrorist threat is tangible by mentioning 9/11... implying there is no tangible reason to be warry of our own government.

    The Iraq reference is mine. My statement that we have a government that led us to invade the wrong country for the wrong reason with no idea on how to get out is my example of TANGIBLE reasons why our government needs to be held accountable. Congress refuses to do it. Neocon ideologs refuse to do it. So, the left and some members of the media must. Otherwise (as was referenced on NBC Nightly) you will have a one party system.

    So, no... I was not putting words in your mouth. But, I was (successfully so) directly contridicting your statement that only terrorism has a tangible threat.

    Cheers.

    well spoken Mr. "Anonymous". I'll just bet YOU ARE Kieth Olbermann posting here to protect your vain and asinine opinions. Oh wait a minute Olbermann doesn't deal with his dissenters , he only has time to spout off the typical liberal chichenshit lockstep. Here is a guy who goes from Michael Musto , the flaming fag from the Village voice and (Ho) Mo Rocca talking about presidential flatulence . Then he offers his opinions on national security. Please tell me how this Olbermann a--hole gets any crediblity on matters of national security? What has he ever done besides be a washed up sports reporter ?
    Olbermann may very well be the perfect textbook definition of a nutty left wingnut. He has all the hubris and pompousnes, he is condescending ,rude, pedantic, arrogant and of course like all true liberal leftards he is WRONG about everything. I really want to know outside of using Village Voice reporters what gives this sorry excuse for a man the right to comment on national security and the war in Iraq??
    Hey Olbermann I know that beacuse of your overinflated ego and your baseless sense of self worth that you read these posts. I am calling you out poor example of a "journalist". I want you to actually have someone on your show that will disagre with you. I want to see you have a debate with someone who might actually disagree with you and your silly little opinions. You bash everybody but you don't have the testicular fortitude to actually deal with someone who disagrees with you. Be a real man, get your hair mussed up a bit and have someone on your "show" that will question your opinions. Quit recycling two day old FARK entries , commentary with your little friend Musto, and other ass kissers and dare to put your opinions to some real public scrutiny.
    Do the right thing for a change and feature yourself on all three positions for your moronic "worst person in the world" diatribe.
    I know that you are typical wimpy liberal but go ahead and prove me wrong if you dare...

    by the way, skimming through your list of other bloggers who commented on Olbermann's soliloquy, I did not see a single one that even remotely agreed with your assessment.

    by the way, skimming through your list of other bloggers who commented on Olbermann's soliloquy, I did not see a single one that even remotely agreed with your assessment.

    Riverdog said....

    "Olbermann may very well be the perfect textbook definition of a nutty left wingnut. He has all the hubris and pompousnes, he is condescending ,rude, pedantic, arrogant and of course like all true liberal leftards he is WRONG about everything. I really want to know outside of using Village Voice reporters what gives this sorry excuse for a man the right to comment on national security and the war in Iraq??"

    Glad to see you use fact, references and objectivity in your assessment of Mr. Olbermann.

    Actually, you didn't. You cite nothing. You throw childish insults. Enjoy your adolescent blithering. I'm sure it bothers Olbermann.

    well James I bet Olbernuttjob thanks you for your undying support- hey maybe you'll even get a date with him.
    hey idiot! I used his whole show as reference. It's a fact that this slimball NEVER has anyone who even remotely disagrees with his moonbat traitorous opinions. Childish insults?? I guess it's OK for your hero to grossly insult the people I respect with his pathetic juvenile attacks but when I question him you fall back on the typical liberal glass jaw hypocrisy. What's next James Olbermann? you going to call me a nazi or some other brilliant liberal retort?
    As for bothering Olbermann - yes It bothers him immensely. It galls him that he is last in the ratings and that three to four times more people watch his competion than his sorry excuse for a news show. His juvenile attacks on O'reilly proves that his inner bully just cant deal with the fact that he is inconsequential and useless and nobody watches him and nobody really cares what he says.
    Hell yes it bothers him that all he has for supporters is people like you. idiot

    riverdog... seriously, have a drink or something. or skip recess at school tomorrow and see a shrink. you need it.

    Riverdog; here's a clue - you're not a tough guy.

    I feel that your posts would carry so much more heft if you didn't lace them with Rushisms. Might doesn't make right, you see. Anger isn't strength.

    And at the end of the day, little man, you're just an angry fool.

    You'll forgive me if I don't look to the likes of you to define what does or doesn't constitute a 'real man'.

    You see, real men don't denigrate gay people, just because they're gay.

    Real men defend their countrymen, all of them, regardless.

    Real men don't think blind faith in qualifiably bad leadership is what constitutes Patriotism.

    Real men don't parrot all of their views from people with whom they can smugly and unthinkingly 'ditto'.

    Real men think.

    You could also work on your reading comprehension a bit; Olberman was not commenting on National Security. He was commenting on the threat to the future of the nation from those you would blindly follow, with whom you've been led so far down the primrose path.

    Get it? Does that make sense to you?

    It really is amazing....everybody just wanting to dismiss each other's arguments. Each of you is at opposite ends of the spectrum and, therefore, possess every flaw in logic that the other side has. The opposite of dysfunctional is still dysfunctional.

    Nearly every person that comments has value. Not hat you have to agree with everything they say, but a mature individual listens with a open mind and sees what truth may be in the argument they disagree with. However, to do so compromises their own position, which they defend vehemently by attacking and dismissing all points in opposition.

    Bush is right. This is a global conflict. The problem is, the path we took to get there was poorly thought-out and wrought with half-truths, deception, and, at times, complete lies. The whole world was behind us after 9/11...and now we are a laughingstock. This good will has been squandered by this administration's policies.

    I believe Bush, etc. *think* they are doing the right thing. The want to change the face of the middle east. To argue in favor of this action can be done quite eloquently - whether you agree with it or not. The problem was the manner in which these leaders chose to undertake this task. A tree is judged by it's fruit - and this fruit is rotten.

    In commenting about his father, Bush said his dad gave him "unconditional love." To the well-informed listener, this speaks volumes of his emotional and personal maturity. Unconditional love - though an admirable goal - does not exist in this plane of existence. We are humans with flaws and, therefore, we hurt each other with startling regularity. It's part of the human condition. Bush's statement is a reflection of his childish view of the world and, apparently, God as well. There are very few absolutes in this world and this administration claims to have a corner on them all. The world is gray. It is sad that our leaders - and, hence, the public and media - are to afraid to embrace that.

    I, for one, enjoyed Keith's comments. Did I agree with all of them? Of course not. However, there is a pattern developing in this country where each side attempts to completely squelch dissent by the other. It just so happens that the republicans are doing more of it these days. If the dems were in power, perhaps the roles would be reversed. However, if you can't quickly name 10 things that disappoint you about the political group with which you affiliate, then - you truly have drank the kool-aid. Perhaps you should look at what happens to other groups that refuse to dissent - even within their own groups.

    some quotes I am reminded of here:

    "Where all think alike, no one thinks very much."

    -- Walter Lippman


    "It is one's duty as a citizen to question authority, for authority rarely, if ever, questions itself." - unknown

    "If they can keep us fighting
    about marriage and God,
    there will be no one left to notice
    if our leaders do their jobs."

    - Catie Curtis

    "The chain reaction of evil -- wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

    - Martin Luther King, Jr.


    Perhaps I am asking too much of this world?

    Matt, maybe the best post I've read in a long, long time.

    Matt, maybe the best post I've read in a long, long time.

    What drivel by the faux conciliatory Matt. Oh yes, compromise and seeing the other persons point of view and realizing that even your own point of view has flaws-- that is what Matt preaches to us. Then after all that high sounding sanctimony, we are subjected to more liberal blather about "half truths", "deception", how Bush is "childish" and on and on. So, what do you propose we do in Iraq now? Do you have a better plan? Or do you just want to criticize only the Bush administration but not those who criticize and offer no solutions?

    broadsword I AM A TOUGH GUY.. don't for a minute doubt it. Be as brave and mouthy as your little liberal mouth will let you be hiding behind your keyboard punk.I refuse to let some liberal moron like you define what a real man is. Go ahead and defend you homosexuals and other feminaizations of manhood . That IS the liberal definition of manhood. I know the difference between right and wrong and I stick to my priinciple despite what the liberals and nutjobns like Olbermann dictate.
    You say that Olbernuttjob was not commenting on national security but those who are blindly following. In my book it is YOU and your ilk that are blindly following the path of retreat and defeat because their party is not in power. If Bush had nt gone into Iraq you leftards would be bitching about that or something else. it is you and your ilk that look for any reason to bash this President unmercifully. Even if it means compromising national security you lefties would do it to re-gain your long lost power.
    Of course you did not comment on the fact that your hero Olbernuttjob never has anybody that disagrees with him . Talk about stifling dissent- this self described "reporter" tolerates no dissent.
    Don't you dare preach to me about what being a real man is you little liberal punk because you have no idea.
    DO YOU GET THE MESSAGE LEFTARD??

    Keith Olberman speaks truth to power. You sycophantic lap dogs are far too blind to understand the wreckage and oppression this administration has thrust on our nation. Dissent is not un-American, but in these times, it is a wanting virtue (especially in the corporate media). You Busheviks would support your leader no matter how far he leads you down the road to fascism and away from freedom. You people would have considered Nixon a saint, and in comparison to the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad, maybe he could be considered a saint.

    "Do you have a better plan? Or do you just want to criticize only the Bush administration but not those who criticize and offer no solutions"

    James, Bush has had a number of plans. The problem is, these plans get us into worse and worse messes. Basically, Bush's plans really are not good plans, but collossal blunders. Fighting a non-Al Quaeda government in Iraq was about the worst plan imaginable. And what good does it do to continue to endlessly adhere to a plan which had no merit to begin with? Maybe you should put on a uniform and try out Bush's plan first hand in the Middle East, then come back and report.

    In essence, almost anyone could come up with a better plan, and many of Bush's critics do have much better alternative plans if you would take a second to study your facts.

    Hank, hank, hank. You say...

    "So, what do you propose we do in Iraq now? Do you have a better plan? Or do you just want to criticize only the Bush administration but not those who criticize and offer no solutions?"

    A couple of things here. First. Typical republican response. "How would you dems fix our mess????" Placing blame and responsibility on the minority party when yours can't figure a way out of the situation.

    Second, there have been plans put forth. Gradual troop withdrawl, forcing the Iraqis to take charge. Many a dem has pointed this out - as has some military leaders. Unfortunately, repubs equate a gradual withdrawl as 'cutting and running.' At least when the idea comes from dems. When it comes from active military leaders they are just ignored by the administration.

    Thirdly, if you don't like that idea... I don't think anything short of a complete withdrawl of terrorist cells or annhialation of a train of thought (terrorism) are the only things that will appease you. Neither of which is realistic. Iraqis need to do this for themselves... but, they're never going to ride the bike until we take the training wheels off. And guess what happens after the wheels come off? You fall a few times before you get it right.

    But, I fear that whomever takes the presidency next will be saddled with the blame of the outcome of this war. If it's a republican who decides we leave, and Iraq descends even further, Bush apologists will just say, "They didn't have George W's leadership."

    And if it's a democrat in office next who makes the decision to leave... of course, they'll say it was cutting and running.

    And, let's assume Iraq becomes a self-sustaining, civil democrocy? I will be the FIRST to congratulate Bush and say I was wrong.

    How many of you republicans out there will ever admit HE was wrong? And under what circumstances would you ever admit it? Come on... I'm waiting for an answer to that one.

    CJ... I think your comments were directed at Hank. I'm completely with everything you said.

    Hi hank

    I think you may need to re-read what I posted. There are two sides to every issue. Are you telling me there have been no instances of half-truths, lying, deception, etc. by these people? If you can truly say that, you have swallowed the kool-aid. It's the government, hank...it is our *job* to question what they are doing. My hope is that you can re-read what I wrote with a more open mind and less hate and anger in your heart. It really isn't good for your long-term health. Disagreement is OK. No need to brutally insult others when the view opposes yours.

    Re: Bush being childish. People with a background in psych would generally agree with my insights. Of course, it is possible that in making such a statement (unconditional love of father), Bush was just pandering, but I doubt it. It kind of goes with the whole black-and-white thinking mentality, recovering addict thing. I'm not saying Bush is incapable of good or making a good decision or having a good policy. I'm just staying that his track record does not appear to reflect sound, honest decision making. If he were a democrat, I'd be saying the same thing.

    I think Reagan put it quite well when he said, "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize it bears a very close resemblance to the first." If we keep this in mind *every single time* a politician speaks - no matter what the party affiliation, we have a better chance of looking at what they are saying with critical eyes.

    There was actually study done recently that helps illustrate my point. In it, brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. Read the article here: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html

    So, science has proven that when you have an emotional reaction to a political debate, you are no longer reasoning well. So, when you react the way you and others have in this thread, just know, that you are more than likely ignoring perfectly valid points being presented by the other side.

    Nobody has a monopoly on the truth.

    matt

    Matt,

    You obviousy have an agenda and don't wish to address the inconsistencies I pointed out in your long sanctimonious speech Here is the point: You make a big deal out of the fact that all of us need to recognize that our own points of view are not perfect, but you reserve all your criticism for the Republicans and the Bush Administration See there is a name for this Matt-- hypocrite I am not here to argue the relative merits of each side's position either for or against the war in Iraq I have been down that road many times in many other posts

    I am confining myself here to you exposing your high sounding rhetoric as just so much agneda driven propaganda which reveals your own hate for George W Bush If you are truly someone who believes that everyone on each side of the Iraq war issue needs to asses their own claims, why don't you take Dick Durbin to task for comparing Guantanamo to Stalin, Hitler and PolPot? Where is your indignation when Paul Hackett, a Democrat was debating former Pentagon official Dan Senor yesterday on The O'Reilly Factor and accused him of being "Der UnteFuhrer" Senor's mother by the way is a Holocaust survivior? For that matter, where is your godly outrage for Olbermann who indiscriminately flashes the Nazi salute, the recognized symbol of Jew hatred, at Bill O'Reilly No, you will remain silent on those issues because you are an agenda driven liberal

    Matt, there are many people who post on this site with whom I disagree and I certainly don't respond to all of them But you are a special case-- you are a pretender who wants to claim the moral high ground but who selectively dispenses criticism only when someone with whom you disagree (ie conservatives and those in the Bush administration) speaks

    "First. Typical republican response. "How would you dems fix our mess????" Placing blame and responsibility on the minority party when yours can't figure a way out of the situation."

    Encountering tough sledding in a war that we will win is not tantamont to "can't figure a way ot of the situation"

    "Second, there have been plans put forth. Gradual troop withdrawl, forcing the Iraqis to take charge. Many a dem has pointed this out - as has some military leaders."

    Yes, we will adopt the Murtha plan and fight the war from Okinawa

    Someone who chooses not to identify themselves described the republican mess of a war in Iraq like this...

    "Encountering tough sledding in a war..."

    'Tough sledding.' 'Tough sledding?' Is that the bumper sticker term republicans use to describe close to 3,000 dead US soldiers and roughly 50,000 dead Iraqi civilians?

    Next time I interview a spouse or parent who just lost a loved one fighting this war, I'll keep in mind the bullet they took or the IED that ripped through their body is being described by you as 'tough sledding.'

    When another Iraqi child is blow away by bombs perpetuated by this war, I'll remember you consider that death 'tough sledding.'

    'Tough sledding,' is a term you use because you know your administration has no idea what the hell it's doing and no idea how the hell to end this war without more blood on their hands.

    "It is music to terrorist ears when leftists reinforce the idea that the United States is to blame for all problems in the Middle East."

    Interesting. I studied rhetoric, which for you who do not know, is the art of speechmaking and writing. How do you reach an audience which is hostile to you? How do you get them to listen? Simple, you start by talking to them about what they already believe. They will listen. Then you start analyzing and changing the theme.

    In other words, when you play music to terrorist ears, you have a damn good chance of weakening their resolution to listen mostly to their leaders.

    Everybody who keeps talking about war forgets this is a war of IDEAS, and IDEOLOGY-- and the ideology of EVERYTHING that America stands for-- good and bad, what you like and don't like. Freedom.

    How do you think the world would have been if we had fought a "hot war" against Russia instead of a COLD war? You think the United States of America would be standing strong and free in that universe?

    I'm sick of this tired cliche. Comfort and aid to the enemy means housing them and giving them supplies.
    Freedom of speech is a constitional right, not treason. PERIOD. I would suggest you guys read the Declaration of Independence, the US constitution with all amendments, and then read some actual history.

    But maybe it's too much to think of those documents as a whole with some specific intents, instead of a handy document that can be used to smear anybody the speaker doesn't like.

    Have you never heard of blasphemy? That is twisting religious and sacred words to suit the speaker's whims.

    Now, this country is based on words. We don't have a word that parallels blasphemy to describe people who would attempt to call people traitors etc. by distorting the constitution. But this century certainly needs it.

    It outrages my patriotism deeply to hear this kind of crapass thinking. But hey, die so you can keep talking like an fool, fine. Die without at least trying to tell you to try and think a little what patriotism REALLY is, go ahead.

    Or you can think about what it'd be like to have nuked it out with Russia instead of actually having thought about strategy.



    Ryan,

    I think it is YOU who is missing the point.

    First, I am describing the absurdist, inverted logic Keith uses in attempting to equate Bush with Chamberlain and portray Bush opponents as Churchillian in the context of Churchill attempts to "scare" the British public by making Hitler into a bogeyman. I am not arguing that there IS a good analogy here only that Bush is a lot more like pre-1939 Churchill than he is pre-1939 Chamberlain. Second, while you are welcome to dissect the minutiae of the political career of Neville Chamberlain to your hearts content the use of analogy to illustrate a point rests on some shared understanding of the predicate. In this case, what is most well-known about Chamberlain is how he repeatedly sought to minimize the threat posed by Hitler, accused Churchill of exaggerating that threat and wanting to prepare England to fight an an unnecessary war, of returning from a meeting with Hitler claiming "peace in our time" and Hitler soon after invading Poland which, by treaty, brought the British into a state of war with Germany. Whatever Olbermann may think, what I have heard most often from Bush critics is that he "uses" the threat of terrorism to scare the public into supporting his policies, the implication being that the threat is not real or otherwise a political tool and that the "threat" is somehow fabricated or overstated.

    I would agree that "making historical comparisons is a tricky, complex, and rarely straight forward endeavor". It is even more complex when one inverts history as Keith has done in attempting to equate the aggressive, pre-emptive foreign policy sought by Churchill in the 1930's not with Bush as might make sense but with his opponents while equating the appeasement-based foreign policy of Chamberlain not with the UN-loving, french-looking foreign policy of the Democrats but with Bush. That I need to even explain this seems silly to me.

    As far as Chamberlain's "conviction without evidence", I really have no idea what you are talking about. If you would read your history books, you would know that what made Churchill such an effective critic of Chamberlain is that his speeches were chocked full of detailed information from intelligence estimates coming from within Chamberlain's own administration (to be fair, from a bureaucrat and not an appointed official in the Foreign Office). The problem with Chamberlain was not conviction WITHOUT evidence but portraying himself to be convinced that Hitler was not a threat DESPITE massive amounts of evidence which clearly showed that Hitler was flagrantly violating the Treaty of Versailles by engaging in a massive military build up. Churchill was particularly concerned about aircraft and a focus on his speeches was on the ever-narrowing reduction in British air superiority which was soon eclipsed by a Luftwaffe that was not, by treaty, supposed to exist.

    As Chamberlain's policies were based on IGNORING evidence that Hitler was becoming more and more of a direct threat to England, I'd say that Chamberlain is a bit more like Clinton in this scenario. If you want to toss in the Bush administration, pre-9/11, I would not argue that point with much vigor.

    As far calling people "unpatriotic", you lefties regularly level this accusation against Bush and members of his administration and yet never seem able to find a direct quote to support that claim. Why is that? Perhaps because it is not true?

    Since you are so concerned with historical accuracy, are you not willing to concede that many policies being advocated by Democrats - withdrawal from Iraq, direct talks with Iran and North Korea, granting prisoner of war status to terrorists, shutting down eavesdropping and financial monitoring programs, weakening the Patriot Act - are ones which also happen to be desired by our enemies?

    Isn't that what's really bugging you lefties? That you find yourselves in the position of advocating for policies that just happen to be very much in the interest of our enemies? Isn't that why you perceive any criticism of YOUR proposed policies are an attempt to question your patriotism or censor your point of view. That fact is that you lefties don't really like to see where the logic train of the policies you support lead and get angry when shown a map.

    As for Olbermann and the "vast liberal conspiracy", that you do not know that Olbermann and his staff routinely work with the left-wing blogs, Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, et al to get out a shared message, to cross-link and cross-promote does not make it any less true. There is nothing wrong with these folks working together to advocate a particular point of view and I did not say there was; I just want my readers to understand what is really going on here. In this case, the reaction to Olbermann's "special comment" was not some spontaneous eruption of support (want proof, look at KO's ratings and ask how anything he does on his should could cause widespread reaction). Just like his Nazi salute, KO and his lefty pals stage-managed this little bit of theater. To be clear, the right does the same thing. It's all part of the political gamesmanship in the media.

    On a final note, you observed that you "did not see a single [blogger] that even remotely agreed with your assessment."

    Fancy that! I link to people who don't agree with me. As a lefty I am sure your head nearly exploded when you saw that. If you stick around and keep reading Olbermann Watch you might all sort of odd things going on here. It's called a "marketplace of ideas" where you hear from folks who don't share your every view. Refreshing isn't it?

    RCox said...

    "As far calling people "unpatriotic", you lefties regularly level this accusation against Bush and members of his administration and yet never seem able to find a direct quote to support that claim. Why is that? Perhaps because it is not true?"

    Donald Rumsfeld, 6/29/06

    "Any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."

    This is Rummy's sly way of saying 'if you disagree with us you are morally or intellectually confused.'

    If you'd like something more straightforward, pick any one of a thousand, "emboldening the terrorist" quotes from the last five years.

    The right CONSTANTLY attacks the left as unpatriotic. Hell, Gonzalez wants to indict journalists for uncovering the Domestic Spy Program. Think about that... Gonzalez wants to INDICT people for uncovering a possibly ILLEGAL program HE is involved with.
    ------------------------------------------

    Mr. Cox also said...

    "Isn't that what's really bugging you lefties? That you find yourselves in the position of advocating for policies that you support that also just happen to be very much in the interest of our enemies?"

    I'm curious, Mr. Cox, how in the hell YOU know what our enemies want? Ever fight in armed combat? Do any counter-intelligence work? You don't know shit. And you see liberals who fight for our civil and American rights as domestic enemies who want to embolden our enemies by fighting for those very rights. You'd rather we chip away at every right we have, to see an ideology wiped from the face of the earth... until we, ourselves, are left with a dictatorship. Which is what many on the right want, Bush For Life.

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

    "That fact is that you lefties don't really like to see where the logic train of the policies you support lead and get get angry when shown a map."

    Oh, you mean logic like, "Iraq has WMD's - let's invade them". That train's tracks lead to "Oh shit, how do we get out of this mess?"

    And, "Al Qaeda attacked us. They are in Afghanistan. Let's attack Iraq."

    Somethign about Bushies logic you subscribe to that doesn't travel well, either.

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

    "Olbermann and his staff routinely work with the left-wing blogs, Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, et al to get out a shared message,"

    - Care to back that claim up with some proof? Of course you don't.

    (by the way, I'm sure FOX and the Bushie admin never have the same talking points either. You know... suicide bombers suddenly being called 'homicide bombers' on FOX the MOMENT the Bushie admin started using the phrase. Shit, a FOX reporter is their PR guy, and frmer Republican strategy guys run the network)


    Mr. Cox, you have no credentials as a journalist or politician. You're just some conservative with a keyboard and too much time on your hands.

    Riverdog;

    The 'liberal definition of manhood'? You're hilarious. Seriously, you're making me laugh.

    Tell us everything you know about Liberal Progressivism; enthrall us with your acumen, why don't you?

    I can't wait to hear your take, your sage, studied, researched and reasoned thinking on the matter. For clearly, you've studied us. I would imagine your library is lined floor-to-cieling with volumes and volumes and volumes. You have a library in your trailer, right?

    For instance; why don't you give us all a rundown on the history of the development of the movement; major thinkers, historical milestones, important books. I'll happily do the same on the origins and evoloution of modern conservatism and it's subsequent degeneration in to neoconservative crap.

    Just curious, tough guy; why aren't you in Iraq?

    If so strong is your faith in the cause, if so just is the President, if he's indeed been installed by God the Almighty to lead America and if you're such a tough guy, what's keeping you out of the fight against terror?

    Hiding behind my keyboard? I don't see your home address on any of your posts, bruiser. And I don't see you filing from Basra, either.

    And for the record; those of us on the left are interested in CHECKING power run amok; you're confusing us with people who slather at the prospect of unlimited power, unlimited money, and equally unlimited corruption.

    You know; Republicans with more money than you.

    The kind that prey on fear and prejudice for personal advantage; fear and prejudice which you have completely demonstrated you have in spades.

    Politics works this way, on both sides of the aisle:

    It's the art of getting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each party from the other.

    Liberals scream that you have to hate oil companies and the exclusivity of whites-only country clubs to their constituents that are poor, and then turn around and collect money from the wealthy by insinuating that everybody who lives in the south is a fucking ignorant anti-science redneck retard that we must defend against.

    Conservatives scream that you have to hate Hollywood and the ACLU and the UN to their poor constituents, and then turn around and money from their rich donors by promising to protect them from Mexicans, Niggers and Faggots.

    Any time I read something by an angry guy named 'riverdog', it's really not that hard to extrapolate who you are:

    You're the middle-class to poor blue-collar guy on the GOP side of the aisle who's been told that he has to hate Hollywood, and Fags, and Limousine Liberals (though most of us are now in low-emmission vehicles, because we give a shit about our country and it's future, beyond next week).

    And the actuality is that you're probably a reasonably good guy that has a lot of friends and enjoys a beer and a foot ballgame and a barbeque. Or a few beers and a few football games and a lot of barbeque.

    Just like the guys on our side.

    Yet, you've bought in to it.

    And because you subscribe to hate, well, that makes you kind of a sucker. Notice; I'm not calling you a racist or a homophobe; I'm calling you a sucker.

    The kind who unwittingly follows some bad, bad people who claim to share your religious faith, the easiest lie a politician will *ever* tell you.

    The next time you listen to Rush; ask yourself how many times an hour he gives you an admonition to hate another, for whatever reason.

    Then ask yourself exactly how Christian that kind of rhetoric is.

    Then ask yourself how much you're getting used by these guys. Have you had that beer yet with the President? Hit the links with Rush lately?


    "It is even more complex when one inverts history as Keith has done in attempting to equate the aggressive, pre-emptive foreign policy sought by Churchill in the 1930's not with Bush as might make sense but with his opponents while equating the appeasement-based foreign policy of Chamberlain not with the UN-loving, french-looking foreign policy of the Democrats but with Bush."

    Why are you acting like Bush was the lone, unpopular voice in the wilderness, trying to rouse the nation to war against an inevitable danger? Why do you act as though no one was on his side?

    Don't you remember that Bush had extensive support prior to marching troops into Iraq? That he was not addressing an imminent threat, as in the case of Churchill, but rather, Bush pushed and prodded the CIA multiple times for evidence linking Al Quaeda to Iraq in order to provide a pretense for attack, backed by the majority of our country? That the evidence was merely half baked at best, coming from individual informants with little to no credibility?

    Bush was no where near a Churchill, but was just the opposite. You should listen to Olberman again: his analogy was logical in that Churchill expressed DISSENT from the POPULAR OPINION, which was parrotted by the GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA. And the popular view parrotted by those in charge was in fact wrong, just as Bush's drivel has all turned out to be wrong.

    Don't confuse the pre-war Bush (bloated ratings in the aftermath of 9/11) with the current Bush (who is mired in controversy and an unpopular quagmire in the Middle East). Bush was not the DISSENTER prior to the war, but was the voice of government, held in popular regard by his country, and he was wrong (just as Chamberlain was wrong).

    However, in all reality the closest analogue to Bush from Churchill's time would have to have been Hitler. Just as Hitler garnered support from his people using the tactic of fear, Bush and his cronies use the tactic of fear to try and maintain support for war and to bolster is sagging popularity. Reference, for instance, the terrible terrorists who planned to blow up the Sear's Tower; they were so moronic and ill-equipped, that they took an Al Quaeda Oath from an FBI agent, who offered them boots in return for allegience!!! Yet, the media acted as though they were they were an enormous and imminent threat to our country, and Bush and even Alberto Gonzalez joined in on the rabid fear mongering.

    "It is even more complex when one inverts history as Keith has done in attempting to equate the aggressive, pre-emptive foreign policy sought by Churchill in the 1930's not with Bush as might make sense but with his opponents while equating the appeasement-based foreign policy of Chamberlain not with the UN-loving, french-looking foreign policy of the Democrats but with Bush."

    Why are you acting like Bush was the lone, unpopular voice in the wilderness, trying to rouse the nation to war against an inevitable danger? Why do you act as though no one was on his side?

    Don't you remember that Bush had extensive support prior to marching troops into Iraq? That he was not addressing an imminent threat, as in the case of Churchill, but rather, Bush pushed and prodded the CIA multiple times for evidence linking Al Quaeda to Iraq in order to provide a pretense for attack, backed by the majority of our country? That the evidence was merely half baked at best, coming from individual informants with little to no credibility?

    Bush was no where near a Churchill, but was just the opposite. You should listen to Olberman again: his analogy was logical in that Churchill expressed DISSENT from the POPULAR OPINION, which was parrotted by the GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA. And the popular view parrotted by those in charge was in fact wrong, just as Bush's drivel has all turned out to be wrong.

    Don't confuse the pre-war Bush (bloated ratings in the aftermath of 9/11) with the current Bush (who is mired in controversy and an unpopular quagmire in the Middle East). Bush was not the DISSENTER prior to the war, but was the voice of government, held in popular regard by his country, and he was wrong (just as Chamberlain was wrong).

    However, in all reality the closest analogue to Bush from Churchill's time would have to have been Hitler. Just as Hitler garnered support from his people using the tactic of fear, Bush and his cronies use the tactic of fear to try and maintain support for war and to bolster is sagging popularity. Reference, for instance, the terrible terrorists who planned to blow up the Sear's Tower; they were so moronic and ill-equipped, that they took an Al Quaeda Oath from an FBI agent, who offered them boots in return for allegience!!! Yet, the media acted as though they were they were an enormous and imminent threat to our country, and Bush and even Alberto Gonzalez joined in on the rabid fear mongering.

    Olbermann compares Bush to Neville Chamberlain? Huh......He seems to know as much about history as he does high ratings.

    Guess you didn't listen to Olberman's piece, right Patrick? The comparison is valid.

    I'll respond to your anonymous post, if you like...

    -------------
    You obviousy have an agenda and don't wish to address the inconsistencies I pointed out in your long sanctimonious speech Here is the point: You make a big deal out of the fact that all of us need to recognize that our own points of view are not perfect, but you reserve all your criticism for the Republicans and the Bush Administration See there is a name for this Matt-- hypocrite I am not here to argue the relative merits of each side's position either for or against the war in Iraq I have been down that road many times in many other posts
    --------------

    I was addressing both sides. I said bush is not devoid of good ideas - even ones that are debatable. You miss the point. I can say that I lean left politically, but I can, at the same time, acknowledge truth in the opposing view (see below)

    ----------
    I am confining myself here to you exposing your high sounding rhetoric as just so much agneda driven propaganda which reveals your own hate for George W Bush
    ----------
    actually, i feel sorry for the guy. He's just in over his head, as is Howard Dean, for example. Dean also has several other problems which are rather apparent to anybody who sees him speak.
    ----------
    If you are truly someone who believes that everyone on each side of the Iraq war issue needs to asses their own claims, why don't you take Dick Durbin to task for comparing Guantanamo to Stalin, Hitler and PolPot?
    -----------

    I wasn't asked to. I totally agree that the comparison was outlandish. However, the truth in what he said is that we *should* be closely examining places like Guantanamo and not just taking what our government says about it and agreeing.
    -------

    Where is your indignation when Paul Hackett, a Democrat was debating former Pentagon official Dan Senor yesterday on The O'Reilly Factor and accused him of being "Der UnteFuhrer" Senor's mother by the way is a Holocaust survivior? For that matter
    --------
    Actually, i just watched that tonite. I've seen Hackett have some pretty good debates with folks before and he frequently makes some good points. However, in that one, I thought he was out of line, unprofessional, and unnecessarily antagonistic.
    ----------
    , where is your godly outrage for Olbermann who indiscriminately flashes the Nazi salute, the recognized symbol of Jew hatred, at Bill O'Reilly No, you will remain silent on those issues because you are an agenda driven liberal
    ------------
    I haven't personally seen olbermann do that..then again, I don't have cable TV :-) If he's doing that, then I would say he's doing so in mockery...however, he should choose a different method of doing so. People invoke the nazi thing waaaaaay too much and it is likely offensive to many...and a bit childish.
    ----------------

    Matt, there are many people who post on this site with whom I disagree and I certainly don't respond to all of them But you are a special case-- you are a pretender who wants to claim the moral high ground but who selectively dispenses criticism only when someone with whom you disagree (ie conservatives and those in the Bush administration) speak

    ---------

    so, how did I do? your attacks of me personally are interesting. All you know of me is what I have written here, yet you make some pretty conclusive inferences. Perhaps you are falling under the umbrella of those referenced in the study?

    Mr. Cox:

    thought I don't agree with much of what you said and some other folks have already refuted some areas, I must say that it was well-written and coherent. Some excessive insults, at times, but, generally, readable. I actually liked how you linked to some folks that disagreed with you. Bravo.

    Great blog Mr.Cox

    All I have to say is. It seems they fired all guns last night and Keith still couldn't get out of last place.

    I think Thomas Sowell said it best today in his Op-Ed (The Road to Good Judgment).

    ......before Republican voters decide to stay home at the next election, or perhaps vote for the Democrats they might repeat one phrase to themselves: "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi."

    Keith Olbermann? Not even in the same league with real Americans....THOMAS SOWELL and ROBERT COX.

    puck: personally, i could care less what the ratings are. Good words are good words - no matter who they come from.

    I also agree with you regarding Pelosi. I can't believe the dems are making a move with her has the point-person. I felt the same way about Kerry. A rich MA democrat? Are you out of your minds?

    I think there's some seniority thing in washington...it must be her turn, just like it was Kerry's.

    I saw this hysterical piece where she was getting a photo-op doing a Q&A with some kids. One of the kids asked "what kind of car do you drive?" She laughed and said something like "I haven't driven since blah blah blah." then said, "I ride in a SUV." I laughed out loud. I'm sure this is true for many people on both sides of the isle. Conservation? let us cruise around in our parade of guzzling SUV's. Drive? Pay Bills? Do my own laundry? Grocery Shopping? I don't do any of those things - even though the people I represent do them every single day.

    No wonder we complain about them being so out of touch.

    matt

    Matt,

    Olbermann has made his ratings an issue.

    Olbermann has claimed that his percentage of ratings are increasing whereas O'Reilly's are not. He also makes fun of O'Reilly's older demographic.

    James,
    You are certainly right that I have no credentials as a journalist or politician. I did not realize that such credentials were required in order to have an opinion on current events. Regardless, apparently I struck a chord :-)
    Funny how you only serve to prove my point on the lefts phony claim that Bush and administration officials are calling opponents "unpatriotic". You quote Rumsfeld NOT doing that as proof that he did. Welcome to OlbyLoonLand! You then invite ME to go find quotes supporting your point. Here's a thought - if you want to advance such a claim YOU go find the quotes that back it up. Otherwise, admit you are wrong and move on.
    You wrote "Mr. Cox, how in the hell YOU know what our enemies want? Ever fight in armed combat? Do any counter-intelligence work? You don't know shit."
    I have never fought in armed combat but I have ridden the 6 train during rush hour. Does that count? Regardless, it is not difficult to know what our enemies think if you read the newspaper. Both North Korea and Iran have been calling for face-to-face talks with the U.S. for years in order to enhance their status and prestige in the world. Al Qaeda in Iraq has a web site where they regularly call on the U.S. to leave Iraq, lawyers for the prisoners in Gitmo have been pushing since 2002 to be granted POW status. I hope I do not need to explain to you why our enemies prefer government policies that prohibit monitoring of their communications, their financial transactions or domestic spying.
    I do not want to "chip away" at every right we have. I would like us to find a reasonable balance between rights and security with a particular eye towards policies that might create an opening which terrorists would seek to exploit. For example, I DO want the police to conduct random bag checks of people entering the New York City subway system something which those " liberals who fight for our civil and American rights" at the ACLU have opposed on 4th Amendment grounds. I am not sure how you leap to the ridiculous conclusion that I therefore support Bush as dictator for life.
    Knowing OlbyLoons I do not expect a thoughtful reply but I'd be much more interested to hear whether you feel the nature of the threat faced by well-financed, global, "stateless terrorism" which targets civilians - in a world where chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are widely available - is a different kind of threat than the one posed by the former Soviet Union during the Cold War or the Axis powers in WWII and whether that threat requires a fundamentally different type of response? I'd say "yes".
    You wrote: "Something about Bushies logic you subscribe to that doesn't travel well, either."
    I support the Bush foreign policy because precisely because it is logically sound. Bush starts from the premise that the attacks on 9/11 were the cumulative result of failed policies in the Middle East in which Republican and Democrat administrations recognized and worked with totalitarian regimes. He concluded that while in the short-term it was necessary to dramatically increase our defensive posture, the long-term goal had to be to remake the Middle East by pushing on all fronts (economic, diplomatic and militarily) for representative governments that were responsive to the economic and security needs of the local population. There is no doubt that this type of policy would cause massive disruption, force our enemies to react aggressively and engender widespread anger against the United States in some quarters. It may turn out that having stirred up a hornet's nest the entire effort collapses in failure. Bush may well prove to be wrong or to be right but ineffective in accomplishing his goals - only time (and by that I mean 10-20 years) will tell. I do not believe, however, that one can evaluate the results by watching the nightly news and counting up car bombings and body bags which is why I am not interested in analysis based on this criteria. The reason - people were dying in Iraq by the thousands every month long before the U.S. got there so by that criteria the situation in Iraq is better now than it was before the U.S. invaded. The only difference is that CNN is now broadcasting the results whereas under Saddam they (admittedly) failed to report what was really going on under Saddam for fear of losing their Baghdad bureau.
    Here is how I think about all this. I live outside New York City. Before the media put a halo on his head after 9/11, many in New York reviled Guiliani for his use of COMPSTAT crime analysis to bring to bear hyper-aggressive policing methods in high crime areas. He was regularly attacked as a fascist and a Nazi for doing this. You may not remember Amadou Diallo but you might know of Bruce Springsteens anti-Guiliani screed "41 shots". If not for 9/11, that song may have been how Guiliani was remembered.
    Against this backdrop consider the number of murders in New York which peaked in 1990 at 2,245. By the time Guiliani took office the murder rate had declined slightly but even in the year he was elected the number stood at 1.946. It was not immediately apparent that Guiliani's policies were working and he was regularly vilified in the press for focusing on the arrest of squeegee men, vagrants, turnstile jumpers and petty criminals. His policies were based on the "broken window" theory - that turning a blind eye to smaller crimes created an environment of lawlessness that encouraged bigger crimes.
    The year Guiliani left office that figure (sans 9/11 deaths) stood at 649. It has since dropped to 530 in 2005. The way I look at this is that there were more than 1,500 murders in 1990 that might not have occurred had COMPSTAT and the associated aggressive policing been in place sooner. Consider then if New Yorkers had simply accepted that there city would have 2,000+ murders a year and stretch that out over the period from 1990 until today and you are talking about tens of thousands of lives lost for lack of Guiliani's policies which were widely reviled by the left (see O'Donnell, Rosie).
    With the Bush foreign policy, I believe we are in the messy period when we have new, disruptive policies that are causing a great deal of negative reaction but will, in the long run, make the world safer. To that extent it is like the beginning of the first Guiliani administration. It is a colossal risk and you can make the case that it is not a risk worth taking but I'd side with Bush that 9/11 showed that the status quo was no longer an acceptable option and that the U.S. could no longer afford to tolerate totalitarian regimes in the Middle East (or elsewhere for that matter). I think the long-term effect will be less death and destruction not more but that getting there will be fully of setbacks.
    While I can understand the pessimism, I am hopeful in seeing that Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are nascent democracies. I am hopeful in seeing baby steps in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Palestine and Egypt. If you accept the Gladwellian notion of a tipping point, you might realize that however small these steps, and whatever the setbacks, the stage is being set for a transformation in the Middle East. It may or may not happen but the prospects are far more advanced under Bush than any of his predecessors.
    You wrote: "Care to back that claim up with some proof? Of course you don't."
    Now what possible reason would I have to make this statement if it were not true? Of, course it is true. Can I "prove" that Olbermann work with left-wing blogs, Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, et al to get out a shared message? I am not sure how I would "prove" to you that I have friends and associates who run some of the biggest left-wing blogs, work for MMFA, CAP, MoveOn and other liberal advocacy groups. Or that this is something that is openly discussed. I suppose you might Google my name and learn more about me to understand that I deal with lots of folks on the left and consider many to be friends. As I said above, my point is not to reveal some scandal but to remind readers that the "grassroots" support for Olbermann's Rummy Rant is manufactured. I think the proof of that is on how the supposed groundswell of OlbyLoon had no impact on his ratings.
    Since I have no intention of discussing my personal conversations with a commenter on my blog I am not going to "back up" my statement that I regularly communicate with folks on the left. You can either accept that or not. The best "proof" of these folks working in concert would come from reading the liberal bloggers themselves. You will quickly find that what I am describing is hardly "news". Specific data points? How about Olbermann producers regularly booking CAP analysts, Olbermann appearances on Air America Radio, Countdown crediting CrooksandLiars.com for video while C&L promotes KO's show, KO advancing theories espoused on DailyKos while booking Markos as a political analyst, Media Matters promoting KO's WPIW choices every day. Cross promotion of books and "documentaries". How many examples do I need to provide to satisfy you? As for this happening on the right, who do you think the lefties are mimicking? The idea is to mirror what has worked for the right by having....a lefty think tank (CAP v. Heritage), a lefty media criticism site (MMFA v. MRC), left talk radio shows (Al Franken v. Rush Limbaugh), a lefty TV talk show (Olbermann v. O'Reilly). I'd say that is pretty smart by these folks on the left - and it is helping to get out the left's message directly to its "base".

    left talk radio shows (Al Franken v. Rush Limbaugh), a lefty TV talk show (Olbermann v. O'Reilly). I'd say that is pretty smart by these folks on the left - and it is helping to get out the left's message directly to its "base".


    Get response, Bob. I have no quibble--about what your wrote above, but it's not with you, it's with MSNBC.

    MSNBC's Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarborough are billed by MSNBC as worth watching because, though they are conservative, they do not knee-jerk the Republican or Administration line.

    It's the opposite with Olbermann. He can wage war on conservatives and the Bushies, during the primetime hour, without any demand that he let opponents answer his charges BECAUSE he does it from the left and the media have an open "ear" to what would sound like an insufferable screech if it were coming from the right.

    CJ,
    You wrote "Bush was no where near a Churchill"
    You OlbyLoons keep pushing this straw-man that I am the one pushing some analogy between Bush and Churchill. I did not put that idea out there, I was responding to KO's absurd analogy between Bush and Chamberlain. Addressing KO rants is kinda the point of this blog (note the name of the site!).
    You wrote Bush "was not addressing an imminent threat, as in the case of Churchill" Geez, don't you lefties ever READ biographies and history books? Churchill was warning about Hitler for SIX YEARS before Germany invaded Poland which would suggest the threat Churchill began speaking and writing about was NOT imminent but rather a growing danger that should not be ignored until it became imminent. Sound familiar? It was this exact logic that Bush used as part of the justification for going to war in Iraq; in fact, Bush cited Churchill on this point many times.
    You claim "Bush pushed and prodded the CIA multiple times for evidence linking Al Quaeda to Iraq in order to provide a pretense for attack" yet the 9/11 Commission found this charge to be unfounded.
    Do you really want to drag us back with these discredited "intelligence" chestnuts. The intelligence Bush had was basically the same Clinton had and the perception that Iraq had WMD was shared by ALL Western intelligence organizations including Russia, France, Germany, etc. There is not a single one that did not believe that Saddam had WMD and was actively working towards developing more. The only difference between Bush and the rest is that he acted on that intelligence by demanding that the UN enforce its own resolutions or else the U.S. would go in and disarm Iraq by force.
    You wrote "You should listen to Olberman again: his analogy was logical in that Churchill expressed DISSENT from the POPULAR OPINION, which was parrotted by the GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA."
    How does this make sense? Olbermann was bloviating about Rumsfeld's speech which was made this week. According to Bush opponents the POPULAR OPINION is that 60% of Americans today think the Iraq War was not worth it so Rummy (and by extension Bush) is DISSENTING for the popular opinion, an opinion that is parroted by the MEDIA.
    You wrote: "the closest analogue to Bush from Churchill's time would have to have been Hitler. Just as Hitler garnered support from his people using the tactic of fear, Bush and his cronies use the tactic of fear to try and maintain support for war and to bolster is sagging popularity."
    Where did you study history, Apex Technical School? Hitler "garnered support" and came to power in Germany by portraying Germany as a victim of an unfair peace treaty after WWI and promising industrialists fat military contracts. You know he was elected, right?
    Regarding the people in Florida who were arrested by the FBI, you wrote "the media acted as though they were they were an enormous and imminent threat to our country, and Bush and even Alberto Gonzalez joined in on the rabid fear mongering."
    Really? What I recall was the media portraying these guys as wannabe terrorists and the gang-that-couldn't-shoot-straight. I have no idea what you mean by "rabid fear mongering" but it is certainly a legitimate cause for concern that American citizens with no obvious ties to al Qaeda would be willing to carry out attacks for them - except in OlbyLoonLand where all terror threats are "purported" (until they are carried out).
    All this aside, I still don't understand your core point. You refer to any mention by the government of the war on terror as a political tactic designed to stoke fear and gain votes. Do you believe that the threat from al Qaeda and other terror organizations is real or don't you? If not, come to New York and I will show you our "hole in the ground".

    broadsword what i know about liberal progressives- they are nasty,bigoted,ignorant, a--holes. ya know like you and your hero Kithe olbernuttjob.
    But it was nice of you to take time away from your favorite gay bar to visit here and enlighten us all with your pearls of liberal wisdom. You prove what condescending snide scumbags you liberals are. You all worship at the altar of your god "tolerance and diversity" but of course in your limited world that is only for certain "chosen" special people.
    Your hypocrisy, poor grammar and ignorant rants indicate that you just may be Kieth Olbernuttjob himself or maybe one of his boyfriends. Thanks for once again showing us that liberals are truly moronic a--holes who think just because they hate Bush and conservatives that they are smarter than everyone else and they just can't wait to tell you just how smart they are.
    About being a man my only reply to you is that I know damn well a man is not a man when he sodomizes some other man, falls in love with that man then demands that society re-defines marriage, family and morality in the pathetic attempt to have society validate his degeneracy.
    No you flaming liberal homofacist moron I do not live in a "trailer" . I'll just bet I live in a nice house than you do. As for books well once again your true liberal ignorance and bigotry is on display for all the world to see. I am a part time rare book dealer with a personal library of almost 10,000 voulmes.
    but hey Mr. Broadsword sorry that I ruined your insular little liberal world but fear not when your hero Olbernutt's hemmorids act up again I am sure you can "fill in" for him one way or another.

    oh and PS mr olbernuttjob-broadsword I am over 50 yrs old. I tried to re-up when your friends and IslamAir killed 3000 Americans. Even with my "special skills and training" I was deemed to old to fight. I did my time fighting communism in the 60's- 70's but unfortunately after reading your illustrious and "progressive" posts I see that i failed and must try again.
    So tell us Mr Sword what you have done to help and defend this country that gives you the right to make a complete ass of yourself in public?
    And no marching in gay "pride" parades, watching Rosie O'donell, and calling Bush Hitler telling us all how "progressive" you are doesn't count fool.

    Riverdog,

    And you don't fool anyone into thinking you're a conservative either-- so get off this blog board!

    My take on Keith's "special" commentary:

    Special is as special does.

    It was "special" because it helped Keith sell books.

    "Riverdog" the part time rare book dealer; oh, you're just precious! How funny! I didn't realize how funny Conservatives are when cornered!

    You also have a sideline as a run-on sentence consultant, I'm sure.

    Why don't you post the URL for your bookstore, the public address for your business, so we can all check it out?

    You see, I asked you for a history and critique of Liberal Progressivism as a movement, and volunteered to author the same for Conservatism.

    You responded by calling me a fag.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but you've staked out the moral low-ground. I mean, that's pretty clear.

    You're not engaging in a conversation or a debate, it's all just flailing ad hominem attacks.

    "Ad hominem" means to go after another with personal criticism rather than engage in a debate on the merits of your argument.

    Homofascist? Do you even know what fascism is? I mean, the definition of it?

    Classically, it's the confluence of corporate and state interests.

    How, exactly, are 'homos' coupled to the interests of the state in America today?

    I'm sure you'll have something erudite on this point....Seriously; try answering the question for us.

    I could use another good laugh this morning.

    Better, perhaps you could explain to all of us how a gay couple getting married in a civil ceremony changes the legal definion of marriage?

    See, I thought the definition of marriage was when a couple promised to love, honor and obey each other until death.

    And, yes; I think it's fine if gay people want the legal protections and responsibilites afforded by marriage, because in my experience they're generally great contributors to our society, serve our country in the military even though they're treated like second-class citizens, and are on the whole patriotic Americans and responsible tax paying citizens.

    And until you can explain to me how a gay couple getting married actually has a negative effect on *your* marriage, I'll feel the same way.

    And for the record; I'm straight. I'm just not a bigot.

    Look, it's just YOUR religious sensibilities that are offended by the idea, and you know what? You can take YOUR ideas about God and CRAM them, churchie.

    Better yet, do us all a favor and keep your thoughts on the sacrements in Church like a normal person might.

    Your religion does not the law make, you funny little person!

    I'm sure we'll all find your response as comically amusing as what you put up here this morning!

    And by the way; you're right. I think you're barely literate (your writing samples pretty much solidly back that up that assesment).

    I think that you have been thoroughly indoctrinated by right-wing radio, and that you simply don't have the will or even the capacity to engage in reasoned debate without using epithets.

    And that's pretty sad for all of us, little guy.

    It's especially sad for you :(

    And hey; if you did your bit in 'Nam, I salute you. Not a great time for the country, and you served anyway.

    That's to be admired.

    I was in Manhattan the day the planes hit, and I now know what people burning in jetfuel smells like.

    I know what it's like to watch somebody jump to their death.

    Actually, I know what it's like to watch a lot of people do that.

    After that, I would have done ANYTHING my country asked me to do to go get those fucking bastards.

    They attacked MY city, pal, not yours.

    And do you remember what was asked of us? Do you?

    I was getting ready to go and join the Marines, and on 9/27/01, Bush told us to go "get on the airlines, get about the business of America."

    THAT was his call to action for the nation. THAT was the sacrifice he asked our country to make.

    That's when I knew he was a fraud.

    He could have said, simply, 'join up' and I would have, in a heartbeat.

    Now you couldn't make me.

    You couldn't make me, because I will NOT kill for something as trivial as oil profits, or a GOP congressional victory.

    And by the way, you should re-take 8th grade civics; you don't ever have to serve the country in any capacity to say whatever you want, whenever you want.

    Here's a copy of the Constitution; try reading it sometime:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

    You won't have to get very far in to it to find the bit about freedom of speech. I believe it's in the First Ammendment of the Bill of Rights.

    I wonder why they put that one first, instead of any of the others?

    Perhaps you have some ideas on the subject.

    Why cant the current administration explain themselves instead of saying those who disagree with them are making things worse? How can ANYONE not see how ironic that is.

    Then when they get screwed over, what are they gonna say? "But the adminstration said...."
    If you trust the administration, i call you a fool, but your welcome to do so which is something great about this country.

    well broadsword you really know how to display self righteous liberal drivel don't you? You ask about the genesis of liberal progressive ideology and so i;ll tell you in as few words as I can. The democratic party has been taken over by the far left . The far left ideology is comprised of the likes of the ACLU, NOW (the nazi orginization of women), NARAL , the abortion lobby ,Gun control groups, the open border folks, democratic underground, moveon.org. ad nauseum.
    You say that I have been "indoctrinated" by right wing radio. Sorry to inform you i was right way before Rush was little boy. I think it is you who have been indocrinted by the left wing media,,Hollyweird and of course living like yousay you do in ultra liberal Ny probably doesn't help.
    So called gay "marriage" seems to be one of your causes and you say that you are not a gay and thus normal. Well I won't go into a long diatribe about gays but I will say that I do not believe homosexuality is a normal, viable or decent persuit. I think that gays are mentally ill and morally wrong and in persuit of the ultimate narcciccism. I think that it is wrong to re-define the defininition of marriage and the family to suit sexual deviants and every election that has been taken in this country seems to agree with me. there is no legitimate reason to have society retreat to the will of the homofascists. You have the right to be gay , you don't have the right to force decent people to change their values because sexual deviants want public acceptance.
    And no i will not inform you of my website . I only mentioned my rare and used book dealings because as a true condescending liberal you made mention of "library in my trailer". Your bigotry just proved that liberals are the worst haters in history.
    How do you know that I don't live in NYC? do you, in your liberal pomposity just assume that I live in a trailer in Arkanas or something? Who the hell do you think you are calling it YOUR city? You leftards really think that you are better and smarter than everyone else.. but you are not.
    well Mr Olbermann that's enough for now but look to these pages soon for your continuing education .
    DI OPPRESSO LIBER - SERE

    riverdog:

    you wrote: So called gay "marriage" seems to be one of your causes and you say that you are not a gay and thus normal. Well I won't go into a long diatribe about gays but I will say that I do not believe homosexuality is a normal, viable or decent persuit. I think that gays are mentally ill and morally wrong and in persuit of the ultimate narcciccism."

    just curious, how much time have you spent around gay people? I'm talking about people in long-term committed relationships. The question is valid, as you questioned somebody else's authority to make statements based on their amount of military service....hmmmm...

    Cecilia: ok...what does that matter? I don't, personally, care about his ratings. He can still make valid points no matter what his ratings are.

    yeah I have know gays, I have worked with them but find their sexual persuits disturbing and even more distubing that some elements of society seek to legitimize homosexuality by changing the definition of the family. That' all I will say on the matter I don't owe you or anybody else any explanation or discourse on sexual deviancy. All I will say is that if you want to be gay please go back to your little closet, shut the door and don't tell me anymore about your sexual preferences... and for God's sake try and Bullshit me or society by telling us that is "who I am" ,you are who you choose to be.

    God, You people are so scared of everything.

    Hail Bush! SS

    we are not afraid of anything , we just know right from wrong. and liberals are wrong on everything.

    Show me, riverdog, in the Constitution, in any statute of our land, anywhere....where it says that equal protection under the law is extendended only to the 'normal'.

    I understand now; you don't really understand the dynamic of human sexuality, and you don't understand that the law in this country applies to all of us equally.

    I think maybe your moral beliefs aren't so much rooted in fact, and are maybe coloring your perception a bit too much.

    I'd recommend looking at the Science in this matter; you know reading about the facts as compiled and analyzed by many, many professionals focused on the subject.

    This is an extradarily well researched and annotated article on it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

    I also think that maybe you have a lot to learn about gay people. I *know* you have a lot to learn about Liberals. We're really not as bad as you've been led to believe. Try talking to us, and you'll realize that.

    And ask yourself; is that the kind of thing somebody who was a member of the 'greatest haters of all time' would tell you?

    Then ask yourself about how badly you're getting used by the people who tell you to hate us.

    I mean, for instance, there's a lot of people on the left who work at the ACLU, but for Christsakes Bob Barr works with them, too. Things aren't as black-and-white and simple as you'd have them be; this world is shades of grey, mostly.

    You think that morals are absoloute; they're not. Moral standards shift from culture to culture, from region to region, from person to person. That's not 'moral relitivism' as you'd paint it, it's just a fact that conflicts with your rigid view of the world.

    Morals are transient quantities, and they evolve over time. Here's a good book on the subject that covers the evoloution of theological thought on the nature of the divine in the Western tradition; it won the Pultizer Prize a few years ago:

    http://www.amazon.com/God-Biography-Vintage-Jack-Miles/dp/0679743685/sr=8-1/qid=1157175923/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7075482-9378316?ie=UTF8&s=books

    Anyway, the ACLU; that organization is about protecting your liberties as a citizen. But you don't like the idea of Liberty, I think.

    It's pretty clear to me that you have no interest whatsoever in the personal liberty of somebody who's innate sexuality is you just something you don't approve of; I know way too many self-deprecating and un-vain, not to mention downright physically unattractive gay people to consider them vainglorious or narcissistic as a rule...and I'm also thinking that after you read that wikipedia article that you'll realize that there are probably a lot of people that you know beyond some guy you worked with, that are gay. They're gay, but you're blissfully unaware of it.

    I also think that you don't think the law should apply to gays as it does to you, that somehow, they're less than human.

    Sorry there's so much hate in your heart, bud; I sure can't fix that with a witty reposte' or a clever turn of phrase. Just realize that there is a better way.

    Ps - It's your a combination of your rhetoric and writing style that's the dead giveaway that you don't live in Manhattan. Plus, your handle on these boards is a pretty good indicator that you live somewhere rural; maybe close to a river.

    And no, I don't live in NYC anymore; the economic shockwave from 911 saw to that.

    Show me, riverdog, in the Constitution, in any statute of our land, anywhere....where it says that equal protection under the law is extendended only to the 'normal'.

    I understand now; you don't really understand the dynamic of human sexuality, and you don't understand that the law in this country applies to all of us equally.

    I think maybe your moral beliefs aren't so much rooted in fact, and are maybe coloring your perception a bit too much.

    I'd recommend looking at the Science in this matter; you know reading about the facts as compiled and analyzed by many, many professionals focused on the subject.

    This is an extradarily well researched and annotated article on it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

    I also think that maybe you have a lot to learn about gay people. I *know* you have a lot to learn about Liberals. We're really not as bad as you've been led to believe. Try talking to us, and you'll realize that.

    And ask yourself; is that the kind of thing somebody who was a member of the 'greatest haters of all time' would tell you?

    Then ask yourself about how badly you're getting used by the people who tell you to hate us.

    I mean, for instance, there's a lot of people on the left who work at the ACLU, but for Christsakes Bob Barr works with them, too. Things aren't as black-and-white and simple as you'd have them be; this world is shades of grey, mostly.

    You think that morals are absoloute; they're not. Moral standards shift from culture to culture, from region to region, from person to person. That's not 'moral relitivism' as you'd paint it, it's just a fact that conflicts with your rigid view of the world.

    Morals are transient quantities, and they evolve over time. Here's a good book on the subject that covers the evoloution of theological thought on the nature of the divine in the Western tradition; it won the Pultizer Prize a few years ago:

    http://www.amazon.com/God-Biography-Vintage-Jack-Miles/dp/0679743685/sr=8-1/qid=1157175923/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7075482-9378316?ie=UTF8&s=books

    Anyway, the ACLU; that organization is about protecting your liberties as a citizen. But you don't like the idea of Liberty, I think.

    It's pretty clear to me that you have no interest whatsoever in the personal liberty of somebody who's innate sexuality is you just something you don't approve of; I know way too many self-deprecating and un-vain, not to mention downright physically unattractive gay people to consider them vainglorious or narcissistic as a rule...and I'm also thinking that after you read that wikipedia article that you'll realize that there are probably a lot of people that you know beyond some guy you worked with, that are gay. They're gay, but you're blissfully unaware of it.

    I also think that you don't think the law should apply to gays as it does to you, that somehow, they're less than human.

    Sorry there's so much hate in your heart, bud; I sure can't fix that with a witty reposte' or a clever turn of phrase. Just realize that there is a better way.

    Ps - It's your a combination of your rhetoric and writing style that's the dead giveaway that you don't live in Manhattan. Plus, your handle on these boards is a pretty good indicator that you live somewhere rural; maybe close to a river.

    And no, I don't live in NYC anymore; the economic shockwave from 911 saw to that.

    Olbermann delivered a great speech. The blindness on the right to the fascist tendencies of the Bush administration is both appalling and dangerous. Let me suggest that some of the people commenting here read John Dean's comments about the authoritarian personality in his new book "Conservatives Without Conscience," then look in the mirror.

    Olbermann delivered a great speech. The blindness on the right to the fascist tendencies of the Bush administration is both appalling and dangerous. Let me suggest that some of the people commenting here read John Dean's comments about the authoritarian personality in his new book "Conservatives Without Conscience," then look in the mirror.

    That's funny. The blindness to the fascist tendancies of Islamo-terrorists is much more of a concern than the government listening in on phone calls that I don't make to people in other countries or the government monitoring financial transactions of muslim "charities". Damn the administration for trying to use that democratic process of voting on amendments like the ban on gay marriage. If only they could, essentially make laws by applying ludicrous decisions in landmark lawsuits. A much more democratic approach indeed.

    If you don't think the bench has anything to do with how our democracy functions, then you're a contemptible fool, Crash.

    What makes you think they're not listening to all of your phone calls? What makes you think they're not looking at your bank records? Or the books you check out of the library?

    You can't win in court when you pass laws that discriminate, because they're illegal on their face.

    Because they say so? That's pretty naive.

    Your solution? Ammend the Constitution to make your bankrupt ideology the law of the land.

    I'd also point out that this foolishness failed to get out of your own Republican House of Representatives.

    You lose. Get used to it; it's going to start happening a lot.

    Nobody said the courts weren't an integral part of a democracy. The courts place, with regard to legal statute, is to determine the constitutionality of a statute; not to expand the statute to suit desired ends. An obvious example is the decision in Roe v. Wade, where one's right to privacy was expounded to allow for abortion. It's funny that privacy isn't a concern when comes to "imminent domain".

    There are absolutely no reports about the government listening in or even data mining domestic phone calls. What makes me think it isn't happening? The willingness for so called whistleblowers to come forward and the eagerness of the MSM to run with anything resembling so-called "authoritarian" tendencies.

    Furthermore, rights have always been restricted and presidential powers have always expanded in a time of war. I suggest you pick up a history book. Since your so fond of the court system, here is a concept you should be able to grasp. Precedence. The precedent has been set and affirmed over and over and over and over again with reguard to presidential powers in war time. To not acknowledge this history, is to be intellectually dishonest or extremely ignorant. Either of which, makes rational conversation with you utterly hopeless.

    I lose? What are you, 10? You don't even know what you don't know.


    "Olbermann delivered a great speech"

    Yes, he excoriated the Bush Administration of over the faltering progress of the war in Iraq and over the faults in the Administrations waging of "the war on terror". And he asked Donald Rumsfeld "What America do you live in?"

    The next night Olbermann awarded a WPITW label to ABC News for a 9-11 movie that purportedly implies that Clinton could have done more to get Bin Laden.

    Meanwhile there's British movie that portrays the aftermath of the assassination/murder of the President of the United States.

    Olbermann should ask himself that question. What America do you live in? What world do you live in, Keith? What western civilization do you live in?

    Olbermann was very aware that Sec. Donald Rumsfeld had asked him just that.

    the ACLU was started by an avowed communist with the direct intention of overthrowing the US governent and US way of life. The ACLU has NEVER defended any position I agree with. they have defended abortionists , gays, Nazis, and other loathesome entities.
    Gays are humans I'll admit that without reserve but they are humans with severe mental problems needing treatment not affirmation of their deviancy thru so called gay "marriage". This has nothing to do with hate or bigotry, it has to do with common sense, decency, the traditoional real family and values. It is the gay fascists and their apologist cheerleaders like you who are the bigots. You hate the traditions and religious heritage that built this country and made it great. America does not want nor does it need so called gay "marriage. Every election and referendum so far has borne me out on this. this is not even about marriage at all. this about a group of mentally ill people trying to legitimize their chosen lifestyle and seek and demand societies acceptance and affirmation.
    Read the Constitition eh? You lefties always condescndingly portray yourselves as smarter that us dumb ignorant hayseed conservatives. Your intial post her backs me up on this. You simply assumed that since I was a righty that i lived in trailer , didn't know how to read,etc.etc. Well At least conservative know how to read the Constitution. Liberals read things ineo it and see things that simply are not there. Abortion, so called gay rights. affirmitave action and ahost of other fairy tales. The second ammendment guarantees the right to own firearmsn yet the stupis dems STILL go after it and lose elections primarily because of it. Yeah tell me about the Bill of Rights. At least I can read it and know that it was not written by any liberal -progressive but a group of true patriots.
    sorry you had to leave NYC because of the crunch but now that you are out the insane maelstrom of humanity maybe you can take the time think thru your values and maybe come to your senses. and I used to be involved with river-ops in the service ( no not swift boats) and I was a registered whitewater river guide and outfitter and fly fishing guide in years past. I had my own business in NYC also and and I am damn glad that I got out when I did.
    Polish comes from the city
    Wisdom comes from the Wilderess
    DI OPRESSO LIBER - SERE

    the ACLU was started by an avowed communist with the direct intention of overthrowing the US governent and US way of life. The ACLU has NEVER defended any position I agree with. they have defended abortionists , gays, Nazis, and other loathesome entities.
    Gays are humans I'll admit that without reserve but they are humans with severe mental problems needing treatment not affirmation of their deviancy thru so called gay "marriage". This has nothing to do with hate or bigotry, it has to do with common sense, decency, the traditoional real family and values. It is the gay fascists and their apologist cheerleaders like you who are the bigots. You hate the traditions and religious heritage that built this country and made it great. America does not want nor does it need so called gay "marriage. Every election and referendum so far has borne me out on this. this is not even about marriage at all. this about a group of mentally ill people trying to legitimize their chosen lifestyle and seek and demand societies acceptance and affirmation.
    Read the Constitition eh? You lefties always condescndingly portray yourselves as smarter that us dumb ignorant hayseed conservatives. Your intial post her backs me up on this. You simply assumed that since I was a righty that i lived in trailer , didn't know how to read,etc.etc. Well At least conservative know how to read the Constitution. Liberals read things ineo it and see things that simply are not there. Abortion, so called gay rights. affirmitave action and ahost of other fairy tales. The second ammendment guarantees the right to own firearmsn yet the stupis dems STILL go after it and lose elections primarily because of it. Yeah tell me about the Bill of Rights. At least I can read it and know that it was not written by any liberal -progressive but a group of true patriots.
    sorry you had to leave NYC because of the crunch but now that you are out the insane maelstrom of humanity maybe you can take the time think thru your values and maybe come to your senses. and I used to be involved with river-ops in the service ( no not swift boats) and I was a registered whitewater river guide and outfitter and fly fishing guide in years past. I had my own business in NYC also and and I am damn glad that I got out when I did.
    Polish comes from the city
    Wisdom comes from the Wilderess
    DI OPRESSO LIBER - SERE

    SO much hate! My, my my. I blame the century for all of this. We need to agree on some things. folks. 1) Nobody is trying to kill you or your family. Not a single liberal or conservative of note wishes your death. No one wants you thrown into work camps, or exiled to a gulag, or workcamp. We are ALL Americans if we live here in America, or are otherwise granted that citizenship. Shouldn't that bind us together? 2) It's a balancing act, and zealots from either extreme are wrong. Pure and simple they are wrong. They may try to express their zealotry as "warnings" etc. but they're what mess up our country and our faith in that country. BOTH sides have zealots who go too far. We, for better or worse are all we have to depend upon. It is a republic that has democratic elections--no capitalization there. Neither of those words is bad. Neither the President, nor the Democratic party is fighting the war on terror, soldiers who vote both as Democrats and Republicans are doing that. Policemen and customs agents who vote both as Democrats and Republicans are doing that. Truthfully, gays and straights are doing that. It is the front line that matters, and the front line consists of Americans. Diverse, multi-cultural and often lower middle class Americans are on the front line. THEY are who are truly fighting the war on terrorism. Politicians from both sides may wish to take the credit, or point blame. We need to see beyond that. In a government of the People, etc. We are the government. Your neighbor, the butcher, baker, candlestick maker, you and I, are the government. Let's keep that in mind, or are we all to tear at each others' throats until there are none of us left standing to fight the enemies from without? If we become polarized enough factioned off against each other and divided, we fall.
    We are all a minority it just depends on who's culling the heard.

    riverdog, the stunning level of bigotry and hatred in your post makes me wonder...

    the ACLU was started by an avowed communist with the direct intention of overthrowing the US governent and US way of life

    Except in 1940, the same person who founded the ACLU denounced Communism and banned anyone who was a follower of that doctrine from serving in any position of leadership within the ACLU.

    they have defended abortionists , gays, Nazis, and other loathesome entities.

    Because their position is one of "countering hateful speech with more speech". They take a position that all entities are entitled to the Constitutional protections of free speech.

    Gays are humans I'll admit that without reserve but they are humans with severe mental problems needing treatment not affirmation of their deviancy thru so called gay "marriage".

    You do realize that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973 because the weight of empirical evidence indicated that it was not a "mental defect"?

    this is not even about marriage at all. this about a group of mentally ill people trying to legitimize their chosen lifestyle and seek and demand societies acceptance and affirmation.

    See above passage. And note that the only affirmation they want is the same affirmation that you receive under the civil law. No one is asking the Catholic Church to recognize gay marriage. What is being asked is that homosexual couples receive the same benefits under the civil law (such as property and right of survivorship) as their heterosexual counterparts.

    Abortion, so called gay rights. affirmitave action and ahost of other fairy tales.

    Ah, a strict constructionalist. Tell me, under a "strict" interpretation of the 8th Amendment, what is "cruel and unusual punishment"? The Constitution does not define either term, so it is necessary to look to an outside source to understand it. Otherwise it is meaningless.

    The world has changed significantly in the 220 years since the Constitution was put to paper. Hell, Jefferson believed that the Constitution itself should be rewritten every generation to reflect the changing times.

    The second ammendment guarantees the right to own firearmsn yet the stupis dems STILL go after it and lose elections primarily because of it.

    Again, when the Constitution was written the most common weapon was a flintlock single shot rifle.

    Now, I support gun ownership. My dad owns a .357 and a shotgun. But I also believe that someone doesn't need an AK-47 to hunt deer, or "cop killer" bullets to defend themselves. Reasonable gun control does not mean no firearms whatsoever.

    you always claim that I alone am the hater but liberals must hate the traditional defenition of marriage to want change it so badly. liberals use flowery terms like "tolerance and diversity" to sell their slimy ideology . they hide their hypocrisy with catch phrases but hypocrisy is still hypocrisy.
    Do me a favor go and educate yourself on the real reasons behind the APA de-listing homosexuality as a disorder. Read how they pressured the APA to change their decision. Much like they are trying to force acceptance and seek legitimization of their devuiant persuits.
    You are delusiuonal and devious like most liberals. You use that standard liberal methodology to get your way and push your agenda. Anybody that does not agree with your pet projects like pushing so called gay "marriage" on America is a "bigot' and a hater. Well that strategy for liberals no longer works . America is now smarter and better educated on your ways and methods. they realize the utter hypocrisy . they realise that you hate the America that is and the traditions and heritage that made it the greatest country in the world.
    and mr Anonymous you try to actr so smart but your logic on the second ammendment shows both your hypocrisy and utter inabilty to grasp the written word and the Founding Fathers intent. You state that Jefferson said that we need to adapt the Constitution to reflect the times and then go on to talk about AKs and deer hunting. Are we only allowed to have flintlocks?? Why is it that you think that we can adapt the Bill of rights to cover homosexuals nut not the right to keep and bear arms?? There is no such thing as "reasonable" gun control. If you are a non felon and not using drugs and booze and have no mental flaws that could impare sound judgement the American populace should be able( notice I did not say allowed) to own any firearm they want. The right to Keep and Bear Arms was put into the BOR to enable the populace to keep the government in check and insure that the other ammendments could not be compromised. What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not undertstand? You can put any word or group of words before or after that phrase but the intent is still the same. The right shall not be infringed.
    My last point to you . You display the typical liberal problem of reading something that is just not there. You seem somewhat intelligent but reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. Can you tell me what part of the 2nd ammendment mentions deer hunting?? The 2nd ammendment is not about hunting it is about freedom and being able to fend off all enemies of America foreign and domestic of which liberals fall into the latter category.
    If the left insisits on interpeting their own version of the Constitution they will continue losing elections and if God forbid they ever do regain power and persue their anti-2nd ammendment agenda they will throw this country into civil war.

    you always claim that I alone am the hater but liberals must hate the traditional defenition of marriage to want change it so badly. liberals use flowery terms like "tolerance and diversity" to sell their slimy ideology . they hide their hypocrisy with catch phrases but hypocrisy is still hypocrisy.
    Do me a favor go and educate yourself on the real reasons behind the APA de-listing homosexuality as a disorder. Read how they pressured the APA to change their decision. Much like they are trying to force acceptance and seek legitimization of their devuiant persuits.
    You are delusiuonal and devious like most liberals. You use that standard liberal methodology to get your way and push your agenda. Anybody that does not agree with your pet projects like pushing so called gay "marriage" on America is a "bigot' and a hater. Well that strategy for liberals no longer works . America is now smarter and better educated on your ways and methods. they realize the utter hypocrisy . they realise that you hate the America that is and the traditions and heritage that made it the greatest country in the world.
    and mr Anonymous you try to actr so smart but your logic on the second ammendment shows both your hypocrisy and utter inabilty to grasp the written word and the Founding Fathers intent. You state that Jefferson said that we need to adapt the Constitution to reflect the times and then go on to talk about AKs and deer hunting. Are we only allowed to have flintlocks?? Why is it that you think that we can adapt the Bill of rights to cover homosexuals nut not the right to keep and bear arms?? There is no such thing as "reasonable" gun control. If you are a non felon and not using drugs and booze and have no mental flaws that could impare sound judgement the American populace should be able( notice I did not say allowed) to own any firearm they want. The right to Keep and Bear Arms was put into the BOR to enable the populace to keep the government in check and insure that the other ammendments could not be compromised. What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not undertstand? You can put any word or group of words before or after that phrase but the intent is still the same. The right shall not be infringed.
    My last point to you . You display the typical liberal problem of reading something that is just not there. You seem somewhat intelligent but reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. Can you tell me what part of the 2nd ammendment mentions deer hunting?? The 2nd ammendment is not about hunting it is about freedom and being able to fend off all enemies of America foreign and domestic of which liberals fall into the latter category.
    If the left insisits on interpeting their own version of the Constitution they will continue losing elections and if God forbid they ever do regain power and persue their anti-2nd ammendment agenda they will throw this country into civil war.

    "clinton had no military experience. actively dodged the war. loathes the military. did nothing about terrorism for 8 years. was handed ben laden twice and didn't take him."

    Wow, the right wing lie has increased to TWO times re Clinton and bin laden? I guess this makes sense, I mean if you're going to pull stuff out of your ass, why not really go for it:

    "Clinton had bin laden in the oval office seventy-three times and let him go with a truck load of explosives and a fistful of Uranium. Also, Rumsfeld is God and my penis is quite large with no boils or other disfigurements."

    Lie with STYLE, my friends.

    riverdog:

    Your constitutional scholarship is a bit suspect if you can't even spell "amendment."

    What part of " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not undertstand?

    How about you apply the rule handed down in 1939 in U.S v. Miller (which has never been overturned) -

    "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." (emphasis mine)

    This rule has been challenged over 200 times at the Federal and state level. Not once has the Second Amendment been the basis for a successful challenge.

    In December 2001, 'Vanity Fair' published a devastating expose of the
    Clinton Administration's mishandling of repeated offers by the Sudanese
    government, some dating back to 1996, to provide Washington intelligence
    on terrorism - particularly with regard to the al-Qaeda terrorist
    network.(1) Part of what was offered to the Clinton Administration were
    several hundred Sudanese files on al-Qaeda and its members.(2) The
    Administration also passed up the opportunity of interrogating two al-
    Qaeda members who had clearly been involved in the 1998 bombings of the
    U.S. embassies in east Africa. In keeping with its very questionable
    Sudan policy (3), the Clinton Administration rejected all of Sudan's
    repeated offers. The implications of this studied indifference are
    clear. As 'Vanity Fair' stated: "September 11 might have been prevented
    if the U.S. had accepted Sudan's offers to share its intelligence files
    on Osama bin Laden and the growing al-Qaeda files." It had also earlier
    been revealed that in addition to offering the Clinton Administration
    intelligence on al-Qaeda, the Sudanese government had in 1996 also
    offered to extradite Osama bin-Laden - just as Khartoum had extradited
    the international terrorism known as "Carlos the Jackal" to France.(4)
    This offer was also rejected by the Clinton Administration.

    The truth hurts.

    Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

    1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

    2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

    3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

    4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

    5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

    6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

    7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

    8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

    9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

    10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

    11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

    12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

    15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

    16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

    Wow, crash; those 16 dubious and un-cited points make me almost forget that Bush got baited in to war, where Clinton did not.

    You've given the terrorists EVERYTHING they wanted; Bin Laden had for years been roiling his own people by predicting that the US would invade and occupy an Islamic country, and you gave them EXACTLY what they wanted, in your failed and pollyanish jaunt to Iraq. The consistent overstatement of the actual threat to this country has been the cover under which your W has done so well; hog power.

    I guess you're forgetting the part where Clinton threw a wave of cruise missles at Bin Laden, and your people accused him of 'wagging the dog'.

    That's how strong your support is for a President in a time of war, remember?

    We haven't forgotten.

    And, wee Crash; on the 'whistleblower' tip, I gues s you've just ignored the fact that the admistration is now actively threatening to try an prosecute people who report on whistleblowing; wake up, pal:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html

    And on abortion and the bench; yeah - I thought you were a Republican...you know, one of the small government people. I guess you want a government just small enough to fit in to my wife's uterus.

    Perhaps you should re-read the ruling:

    "the Court identified three justifications in Section VII of the opinion to explain the criminalization of abortion: (1) women who can receive an abortion are more likely to engage in "illicit sexual conduct", (2) the medical procedure was extremely risky prior to the development of antibiotics and, even with modern medical techniques, is still risky in late stages of pregnancy, and (3) the state has an interest in protecting prenatal life. As to the first, "no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously" and the statute failed to "distinguish between married and unwed mothers." However, according to the Court, the second and third constitute valid state interests. In Section X, the Court reiterated, "[T]he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

    Valid state interests, however, must be weighed against the constitutionally protected rights of individuals in order to determine whether a law is a constitutional exercise of power. Even though the "Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy" the court found support for a constitutional right of privacy in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. The court found "this right of privacy" to be "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

    That being said, I think I'm just going to have to make the case for impeachment:

    This administration fabricated evidence to engage in a pre-determined illegal war of aggression, and repeatedly lied about both the evidence and its use of it. It attempted to stage a completely phony provocation in order to provide a justification to invade another country:

    http://www.sundayherald.com/35264

    This administration has placed in key positions of power supporters of a foreign policy that advocates creating global domination of U.S. interests through military might, and has carried out war to effect that end:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


    This administration has used the most powerful and invasive tools at its disposal - from electronic surveillance to physical searches - to gather information on American citizens on American soil, all without warrants:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/politics/18spy.html?ei=5090&en=6ed3f4413d75832e&ex=1292562000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060327/27fbi.htm

    This administration has detained unidentified people - including American citizens - for nearly five years, some in undisclosed locations and all without objective third-party inspections, without charge and without access to legal counsel. This administration - including its highest law-enforcement officer - has condoned and used torture of all kinds on these detainees and others it has wrongly imprisoned throughout the world:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html


    This administration has refused to recognize the authority of the Congress and the Constitution, and has openly stated its intention to continue its defiance of the written, well-established law of the land.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/washington/30cnd-raid.html?ex=1157428800&en=006702656403c8c8&ei=5070
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/


    This administration has blocked every attempt to investigate its activities, from domestic spying to the activities of American corporations.

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2006/nf20060523_2210.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily


    This administration has been the beneficiary of two elections decided under - at best - dubious circumstances.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

    This administration has openly declared its desire to invoke a military response to a potential outbreak of disease in this country, in clear violation of Posse Commitatus:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400681.html

    This administration has pursued policies that benefit certain industries, while maintaining absolute secrecy and no accountability about the provenance of those policies:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

    This administration has quashed dissent, from campaign events to political commentary, by using intimidation and demonization:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901479.html

    This administration has illegally spread propaganda in this country in order to further its political agenda:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01educ.html?ei=5088&en=55a295038c3630e7&ex=1285819200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1157302972-aZHND1XasOko/+szSPiS/Q

    This administration has threatened reporters and their sources with punishment if they should reveal information about illegal clandestine activities, by citing the need to protect the homeland:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052100348.html

    ....and if we were to *really* make the case, I'd stick to these four points:

    The Offense of Wiretapping Surveillance in Defiance of the Law; the Offence of Lying and Inducing America to Support a War; The Offense of Reckless Indifference to the Lives and Welfare of American Troops; The Offense of Torture in Violation of U.S. Laws and Treaties.

    Kind of has more heft than lying about a blowjob, wouldn't you say?

    See you at the polls in November. Again, good luck. You're going to need it.

    Olbermann was generally right, though his language was a bit pompous and confusing, and though there was too much weight placed on the GWB admin's trouncing of civil liberties. History will judge this administration as a failure (if not an outright tragedy) because of the fatal combination of its hubris, its incompetence, and its pursuit of ideological pipe dreams in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts its pursuit. This administration gains power by creating fear in a bunch of lemmings who are incapable or unwilling to acknoledge the complexities of reality.

    Riverdog, are you just totally banannas or something? How in the hell did you ever have any friends in NYC? I mean, you must have a) lived on Staten Island or something or b) been kind of a pariah.

    BTW, if you're such a 'shall not be infringed' guy, perhaps you should take a second look at this:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    So, you have the right to believe what you want to believe about religion and abortion and fags, but don't even think about trying to establish your 'Christian Values' in the law; we shall brook no establishment of an official state religion, and we'll fight you tooth and nail if you try it.

    The foundation of OUR laws in this country are not to be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke or John; while they do 'color' and influence the Law, the origins of it are to be found in the Code of Hammurabi, in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis, in the Code civil des Français, in the idea of binding precedent, in the Magna Charta's habeas corpus, in our Constitution, and so forth.

    Again, keep it in Church, churchie.

    'The traditional definition of marriage'? You mean, like the one in the Bible, where you can have multiple wives and also concubines? THAT tradition? Oh, you must mean the tradition that comports to YOUR religion's particular beliefs on the subject.

    You know who you are? You're Chris Cooper's character in 'American Beauty', I think. Yeah; you're that guy...rent it.

    "Olbermann was generally right, though his language was a bit pompous and confusing, and though there was too much weight placed on the GWB admin's trouncing of civil liberties. History will judge this administration as a failure (if not an outright tragedy) because of the fatal combination of its hubris, its incompetence, and its pursuit of ideological pipe dreams in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts its pursuit. This administration gains power by creating fear in a bunch of lemmings who are incapable or unwilling to acknoledge the complexities of reality."


    Speaking of pompous and confusing language, "complexities of reality"??

    My point stil holds. You can find a right to privacy and apply it to just about anything and find many things constitutional. The same holds true for saying that the state has an interest in "protecting the health of women". In the interest of better health lets ban all food that cause high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and diabetes. My overall point was not one as to whether abortion is good or bad rather that the decision certainly infringes on Federalism without an explicit Constitutional Amendment allowing abortion.

    If you want abortion legal, do it the democratic way, pass a law. Otherwise abide by the Federalism that allows states to make their own decisions on such issues, gay marriage included. BTW. There are plenty of liberal law professors who agree including Alan Dershowitz.

    The point with Clinton is that he didn't act. Lobbing a missle at an uninhabited pharmaceutical building is not acting. Its hedging. Not acting after the USS Cole bombing was much worse. He was so concerned about getting a peace deal brokered between Israel and Palestine that he was afraid of angering Muslims, so he did nothing after the Cole incident. Then of course Arafat screwed the whole thing in the end anyway.

    As for refusing Bin Laden earlier:
    The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States."

    As for "sexing up" the intellegence and allegations that Bush and Blair knew the Niger docs were forgeries, there is no proof they knew. There is no doubt that the administration used only information that bolstered their reasoning for war. The problem is that they used the wrong reasoning. The violations of UN resolutions and active attacks on US fighter jets and the sponsorship of terror (specifically Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and removal of weapons inspectors and Saddam's previous actions should have been reason enough.

    With regard to civil liberties being violated, if this was not a time of war I would tend to agree that the government has no business listening in on any phone calls without a warrant. This is where the court system can actual be useful. Where do the President's War powers end? War powers are explicitly in the consitution, as opposed to abortion.

    As far as quashing descent, the government has an interest in keeping state secrets secret. Do they not? How would Clinton have liked it, if his "rendition" program had been revealed on the front page of the NYTimes? Whistleblowers should be prepared to face the criminal consequences. If they aren't or won't, then they are just dissenters lobbing rocks at a tank because they are too lazy to do the work.

    No doubt the dems will do well in '06, but when they overreach and pursue impeachment and fail, they will then face the reality of President Guiliani in '08. And yes I like Guiliani and no I am not a social conservative. I just believe in following the law and Realism with regard to foreign policy.


    Crash said:

    "Furthermore, rights have always been restricted and presidential powers have always expanded in a time of war. I suggest you pick up a history book. Since your so fond of the court system, here is a concept you should be able to grasp. Precedence. The precedent has been set and affirmed over and over and over and over again with reguard to presidential powers in war time. To not acknowledge this history, is to be intellectually dishonest or extremely ignorant. Either of which, makes rational conversation with you utterly hopeless."

    I'd say the same of you. Presidential powers at war time? I mean; did Congress declare war and somehow I missed it?

    Perhaps you can explain that to me; we haven't declared war on anybody, except the vague and undefined idea of 'terror', but somehow you think the President gets unfettered power?

    Tell me, Crash, when does that end? When does he have to give up the power he's accrued in unsuccessfully fighting a vague concept in an undeclared war?

    Even under the War Powers act, the President must report to Congress every 90 days. If they don't like what he says, they can cut off the money.

    You seem to want war that lasts forever, and emergency powers that never cease.

    Yet, we don't get to call you Nazis, even though the comparison is becoming more apt by the day.

    Funny you should mention precedent in this matter; even when we are in an actual war, the President's powers are NOT unlimited:

    Perhaps you should re-read the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision on this matter in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld:

    "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens,"

    -Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority.

    Justice Antonin Scalia added "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive."

    So, no; you don't get unlimited power, sorry. You don't get to torture people, you don't get to hold people forever without charging them, you don't get war without Congressional oversight.

    Get it? Or, I guess you just sit there thinking that 7 of the 9 justices are 'activists', right?

    Idiot.

    Your contempt for the law is pretty obvious. Your devotion to a would-be dictator is pathetic.

    My point stil holds. You can find a right to privacy and apply it to just about anything and find many things constitutional. The same holds true for saying that the state has an interest in "protecting the health of women". In the interest of better health lets ban all food that cause high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and diabetes. My overall point was not one as to whether abortion is good or bad rather that the decision certainly infringes on Federalism without an explicit Constitutional Amendment allowing abortion.

    If you want abortion legal, do it the democratic way, pass a law. Otherwise abide by the Federalism that allows states to make their own decisions on such issues, gay marriage included. BTW. There are plenty of liberal law professors who agree including Alan Dershowitz.

    The point with Clinton is that he didn't act. Lobbing a missle at an uninhabited pharmaceutical building is not acting. Its hedging. Not acting after the USS Cole bombing was much worse. He was so concerned about getting a peace deal brokered between Israel and Palestine that he was afraid of angering Muslims, so he did nothing after the Cole incident. Then of course Arafat screwed the whole thing in the end anyway.

    As for refusing Bin Laden earlier:
    The Clinton administration simply did not want the responsibility of taking Osama bin Laden into custody. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is on the record as saying: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States."

    As for "sexing up" the intellegence and allegations that Bush and Blair knew the Niger docs were forgeries, there is no proof they knew. There is no doubt that the administration used only information that bolstered their reasoning for war. The problem is that they used the wrong reasoning. The violations of UN resolutions and active attacks on US fighter jets and the sponsorship of terror (specifically Hamas and Islamic Jihad) and removal of weapons inspectors and Saddam's previous actions should have been reason enough.

    With regard to civil liberties being violated, if this was not a time of war I would tend to agree that the government has no business listening in on any phone calls without a warrant. This is where the court system can actual be useful. Where do the President's War powers end? War powers are explicitly in the consitution, as opposed to abortion.

    As far as quashing descent, the government has an interest in keeping state secrets secret. Do they not? How would Clinton have liked it, if his "rendition" program had been revealed on the front page of the NYTimes? Whistleblowers should be prepared to face the criminal consequences. If they aren't or won't, then they are just dissenters lobbing rocks at a tank because they are too lazy to do the work.

    No doubt the dems will do well in '06, but when they overreach and pursue impeachment and fail, they will then face the reality of President Guiliani in '08. And yes I like Guiliani and no I am not a social conservative. I just believe in following the law and Realism with regard to foreign policy.

    Maybe the whole Bush Doctrine is a "pipe dream". Maybe there are some people who need to be told what to believe and what to do, either from the Bible or from the use of Sharia law, for example. The whole military domination slant on the US motives is either completely disenginous or completely naive. Where are these spoils of war that we are getting? Wanting influence in a region with a military base, for mutual benefit I might add, is not anything near Imperialism. Just ask the South Koreans or the Tawainese or the Japanese or even the Germans for that matter.

    The war resolution granted Bush war powers and it also required that he brief congress every 60 days.

    History read.

    Dumbshit

    hey leftard so I mispselled "ammendment" once- BFD . Common sense would indicate that if I spelled it correctly all the other times one mistake might be a typo. Why are you leftards such spelling nazis? I know in your grand illusionment if a conservative makes a grammatical mistake and you catch it that make you superior. But it does not. Maybe I have a typo but I am still right. Maybe you leftards should stick to catching spelling errors and leave other more important things to folks with common sense.
    The founders meant freedom "of" religion not freedom FROM religion. I know you socialst left wingers would like to abolish all religion in your neat little socialist utopia but that will never happen here in America.
    SCOTUS has not really ruled on the 2nd in many years. The last thing they did was rule on a sawed off shotgun back during Prohibition. That is one of the reasons conservatives have been winning so much since 1994. Tell my why is it that liberal-socialists believe that every other ammendment is an "individual" right but when it suddenly comet to an ammendment they don't like ( the 2nd) it suddenly becomes a "collective" right?
    Go ahead and believe the polls the liberal media put out. All these "news" outlet are rabidly anti- Bush. Show me when any "newsmedia" has said anything even remotely positive about Bush in the last few years. The Liberal media wants Bush to lose . Go ahead and believe the polls but remember these polls have been wrong before.
    and no I never lived on Staten Island. I was living in Connecticut. I thought you lefties were not supposed to be so judgemental and bigoted but I forget that does not apply to religious White Men who support the 2nd ammenment. It's the hypocrisy stupid!
    and the bottom line is still Olbermann is an a--hole.

    hey leftard so I mispselled "ammendment" once- BFD . Common sense would indicate that if I spelled it correctly all the other times one mistake might be a typo. Why are you leftards such spelling nazis? I know in your grand illusionment if a conservative makes a grammatical mistake and you catch it that make you superior. But it does not. Maybe I have a typo but I am still right. Maybe you leftards should stick to catching spelling errors and leave other more important things to folks with common sense.
    The founders meant freedom "of" religion not freedom FROM religion. I know you socialst left wingers would like to abolish all religion in your neat little socialist utopia but that will never happen here in America.
    SCOTUS has not really ruled on the 2nd in many years. The last thing they did was rule on a sawed off shotgun back during Prohibition. That is one of the reasons conservatives have been winning so much since 1994. Tell my why is it that liberal-socialists believe that every other ammendment is an "individual" right but when it suddenly comet to an ammendment they don't like ( the 2nd) it suddenly becomes a "collective" right?
    Go ahead and believe the polls the liberal media put out. All these "news" outlet are rabidly anti- Bush. Show me when any "newsmedia" has said anything even remotely positive about Bush in the last few years. The Liberal media wants Bush to lose . Go ahead and believe the polls but remember these polls have been wrong before.
    and no I never lived on Staten Island. I was living in Connecticut. I thought you lefties were not supposed to be so judgemental and bigoted but I forget that does not apply to religious White Men who support the 2nd ammenment. It's the hypocrisy stupid!
    and the bottom line is still Olbermann is an a--hole.

    Oh; so he's more accountable than even I had thought. Thanks for making my point.

    QED.

    Broadsword,
    Your attempt at a point was that "war powers" did not apply to Bush. You were proved wrong and thus your entire rant falls on its face. Your other point was that oversight by congress was necessary and it was congress that abdicated its responsibility by giving Bush a "blank check". Your attempt at a segue to some other obscure point about accountabilty is an obvious attempt to retain some form of looney leftist self-esteem. I am sorry you don't even know what you don't know, but keep 'em coming. I am here to bruise your ego.

    Clinton's 'rendition plan'? What are you talking about? Clinton didn't HAVE a 'rendition' plan.

    Now you're just flailing.

    Clinton didn't torture people as a matter of national policy; you're thinking of BUSH.

    Bush; the guy who has lowered the bar on the standards of this country so far, he's probably eligible for a war-crimes prosecution. Bush, who's changed the world's perception of us as a defender of the cause of Liberty and Freedom to us as a gang of loose cannons on deck, willing to murder innocents in the name of "Spreading Democracy" as if it's a tub of I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.

    You're the guy who defends torture, that seems to think holding people indefinitely without trial is justice, remember?

    Bush doesn't know the MEANING of the word Justice.

    Not Clinton. Not the Dems; it's YOU guys that kidnapped, tortured and murdered in the name of freedom. It's YOU guys.

    Dismissed, punk.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/guan-14m.shtml

    Hell even the aclu says that rendition started under Clinton.

    History READ......again.

    Hey - sorry I called you a punk. Not fair of me:

    "Maybe the whole Bush Doctrine is a "pipe dream"

    Is what I'm talking about; look, there's got to be a middle ground here. We're ALL Americans, right? I'm just thinking it's maybe time the GOP lost control of the House or something.

    Absoloute power corrupts absoloutely, you know?

    The "liberal media" - oh yeah, I forgot about the liberal media, the entire industry hell-bent on turning us into a bunch of commy suicide bombers.

    Can't we drop this BS about the media? Some media leans left, some leans right, and there are examples of extremism on both sides. Its only agenda in the end is to make money.

    If the "liberal media" hadn't been drinking the GW cool aid in 2002-3, there would have been a lot more honest scrutiny of the decisions leading to Iraq. As it was, the media, along with everyone else, took up flag-waving.

    And here we are, just getting around to the scrutiny, with 2500+ brave soldiers already in the ground, 10s of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, a dream come true for terrorist 'recruiters', and things very clearly spiralling downward.

    Did 9/11 necessitate our commitment to the struggle against terrorists? Yes. But this administration's simple-minded approach to this struggle, and its refusal to listen to voices of dissent, has failed us. Olbermann's point is that Rumnuts et al have gone over the deep end in refusing to acknowledge this failure.

    Rummy, Wolfowitz and eventually Cheney saw 9/11 as their big chance to implement a grand experiment, complete with (requiring only a few tweaks to perspective on the facts) an excuse. They seized the opportunity. Their experiment failed. Their tactics in moving their experiment forward are now being questioned by the likes of Olbermann and a host of others, including some conservatives.

    This arrogant administration deserves all the scrutiny, questioning and dissent they're going to encounter in the coming months and years.

    Broadsword,

    Here is an idea. When you think you have an idea or a point you want to share, take a few key words from that point and go to this site called http://www.google.com and type these key words in this space with the flashing cursor. Example key words would be "Clinton" and "Rendition". Then you'll want to press the search button. What you will see is a bunch of links to articles disproving whatever looney point or crazy thesis you had cooked up in your head. If all this seems like too much of an inconvenience, you could take these initial points or ideas you were to share and then take the exact opposite position and type them into the blog. This will save you a lot of time and will spare you the agitation of having to revisit your own insane logic.

    I am sorry you called me a punk too.

    Read up on Shuer. Interesting take he has on the relationship between Saddam and Al Queda:

    Scheuer wrote about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in his 2002 book (see above, 2002). Yet when interviewed in 2004 he stated that he had found no evidence of a Saddam/al-Qaeda connection. Tim Russert asked Scheuer to explain the seeming contradiction on Meet the Press (30 November 2004). Scheuer replied:

    "I certainly saw a link when I was writing the books in terms of the open-source literature, unclassified literature, but I had nothing to do with Iraq during my professional career until the run-up to the war. What I was talking about on "Hardball" was, I was assigned the duty of going back about nine or 10 years in the classified archives of the CIA. I went through roughly 19,000 documents, probably totaling 50,000 to 60,000 pages, and within that corpus of material, there was absolutely no connection in the terms of a--in the terms of a relationship."

    Also read your other link on Clinton starting 'rendition'....it's funny how GOP's sometimes argue on one hand that Clinton did nothing to fight terrorists before 9/11, and on the other hand make the argument that he did....curious.

    Wait a minute; if we're AGREEING that Bush and Clinton both had a 'rendition' plan (though, I'm pretty sure Bush *really* took the gloves off after 9/11), why, that would mean the whole country was fucked.

    Broadsword,

    Here is an idea. When you think you have an idea or a point you want to share, take a few key words from that point and go to this site called http://www.google.com and type these key words in this space with the flashing cursor. Example key words would be "Clinton" and "Rendition". Then you'll want to press the search button. What you will see is a bunch of links to articles disproving whatever looney point or crazy thesis you had cooked up in your head. If all this seems like too much of an inconvenience, you could take these initial points or ideas you were to share and then take the exact opposite position and type them into the blog. This will save you a lot of time and will spare you the agitation of having to revisit your own insane logic.

    I am sorry you called me a punk too.

    Crash, to my points;

    You were trying to make the argument that Presidential powers expand in a time of war. My argument is that we're not at war. Not total war, anyway.

    I was also, clearly, arguing that the powers the administration have taken upto itself, like expanding rendition to the point where it's indefensible, are way, way out of bounds.

    They've sent DOJ in front of the courts again and again arguing state's secrets priviliage on everything from prisoner treatment on down to parking tickets.

    They're using the crisis as a red-herring to expand the power of the executive, and pretty shamelessly, too. And anytime they lose in court, they scream 'activist judges!', despite the finding of fact in whatever the matter.

    Bush & Rummy: Please continue to "Speak Truth to Cowards."

    riverdog:

    I would call you a moron, but that would be an insult to morons.

    The founders meant freedom "of" religion not freedom FROM religion.

    No, that is absolutely FALSE! The Constitution is "religion-neutral" - the concept is that NO religion is to be held superior to any other religion (or to no religion at all).

    SCOTUS has not really ruled on the 2nd in many years.

    Which means that the precedent I cited, however old, is still binding until it is reversed. I mean, we still use cases decided during the Civil War as precedent (Ex Parte Milligan comes to mind).

    Your argument is bogus. If the right to bear arms is absolute, why have laws such as the Brady Act and others banning assault weapons not been overturned on Second Amendment grounds? The answer is that the state has the authority to regulate the right to bear arms, and that regulation includes excluding or restricting access to particular weapons.

    I studied this stuff for years (even got a degree with a specialty in Constitutional Law). I think I know of what I speak.

    Ah, you mean like the kind of Coward that would go AWOL during a time of war, like from the Texas Air National Guard, or something?

    Ah, you mean like the kind of Coward that would go AWOL during a time of war, like from the Texas Air National Guard, or something
    ***********************************************
    OF course the problem with that is it didn't happen it's just a liberal lie that was enforced by the MSM untill they got caught by bloggers when Dan Rather tried to pass off those phoney Bush National Guard records on 60 mins.

    OF course the problem with that is it didn't happen it's just a liberal lie

    More like "we can't prove he did, but they can't prove he didn't". Too much vagueness and not enough facts.

    You really think smearing Rather means he didn't duck the draft? Are you really that self-deluded?

    It's pretty well-documented that the guy's an inveterate pussy:

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-AIRPAPER-357916.php

    "From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so.

    And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been."

    As a matter of fact, most of your leading 'tough guys' never served:

    * Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
    * Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
    * Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve. "So many minority youths had volunteered ... that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like himself." he said.
    * House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve
    * Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume)
    * Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve
    * Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve.
    * George Felix Allen, Republican Senator from Virginia - a supporter of Nixon and the Vietnam war, did not serve.
    * Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.

    * Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld - served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor.

    * GW Bush - see above.
    * VP Cheney - several deferments, the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service")
    * Former Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State

    * Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve.

    The wealthy have never yet sacrificed themselves upon the altar of patriotism. Graphic courtesy Bartcop.com. Thanks, Bartcop!
    * Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve was, "too busy being a Republican."

    * Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve

    * Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII.

    Of course, you guys just kind of gloss over thorny little things like facts.

    broadsword

    I see you didn't want to say anything about John Mcain and Bob Dole(who both suffered real wounds in combat not paper cuts like Kerry) or G.H.Bush..I wonder why?..

    You still haven't prove that Bush dodged anything he was honorably discharged in 1973 so I quess the military didn't have any problems with his service.

    Ronald Reagan couldn't do anything about his poor eyesight and bad hearing but he serve in the best way he could so I don't know way he's on that list or Rumsfeld either who also served.

    Bill Frist service to his country is as a first rate heart surgeon who has saved many lives here and in Africa that counts for a hell of a lot more than anything Ted Kennedy(whose actions killed someone) ever done,He has performed over 150 heart transplants and lung transplants, including pediatric heart transplants and combined heart and lung transplants.In 1998 when two Capitol police officers were shot outside Capitol by Russell Eugene Weston Jr.Frist provided immediate medical attention,So do you really want to put this man down?

    Also a lot of the so-called "wealthy" have fought and died for their country just like everyone else..so take that class war crap and sell it to the Daily Kos where they eat it up,

    Or Sen. Lindsay Graham who still is a reserve officer with the Natioanl Guard and recently was in Afghanastan.

    Broadsword seems to have a problem with a thorny little thing called attribution....

    His post is a word-for-word cut-n-paste from...here...

    http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html


    Class war? You mean, the guys who are bucking for war who never served have no class? The guys who insinuated that your Mr McCain was somehow unfit fo the office because he'd been in a prison camp so long? I'd agree.

    Oh; so you want footnotes and sources.

    Here's an excellent summation:

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

    "Can you tell me/us if the person sending others to war in Iraq was really derelict in his military duties? How serious an offense would that behavior have been considered, generally, during the Vietnam war? Lastly, if George was actually AWOL, and that would have been the equivalent of a felony for most people, why haven't we been hearing about this issue? --Kerry J. Johnson, Bellingham, Washington

    Cecil replies:

    Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record. Why the disparity? We'll get to that. First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for an extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However, given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You guys should talk.

    Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test--on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

    By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months. In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

    After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

    Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

    --CECIL ADAMS

    Here's some more on Bush the Lesser being a rich kid who took advantage of the system...you're SO right mlong; no right-thinking person would believe Bush was a silverspoon draft dodger:


    "In a shocking new book by Kitty Kelley, acquaintances of President Bush say that when he was in the National Guard that he liked to sneak out back for a joint or go in the bathroom and do cocaine. Isn't that unbelievable? They actually found people who saw Bush in the National Guard." —Jay Leno

    "The Republican Convention goes on all week, and of course, the highlight will be toward the end of the week. George Bush will show up for one day, you know, just like he did in the National Guard." —David Letterman

    "John Kerry said today he wants to debate President Bush once a month. Hey good luck, if Bush couldn't make it to the National Guard once a month, he's not going to show up for this." —Jay Leno

    "The Bush campaign for re-election has officially begun. They're actually running television commercials. Have you seen any of the television commercials? In one of the commercials, you see George Bush for thirty seconds. In another commercial, you get to see George Bush for sixty seconds — kind of like his stint in the National Guard." —David Letterman

    "In Louisiana, President Bush met with over 15,000 National Guard troops. Here's the weird part, nobody remembers seeing him there." —Craig Kilborn

    "The White House has finally found one guy that kinda remembers serving with President Bush in the National Guard. Now they just need to find someone who remembers Bush working on an economic plan. ... I think the White House spent more money looking for this guy than finding weapons of mass destruction." —Jay Leno

    "The White House has now released military documents that they say prove George Bush met his requirements for the National Guard. Big deal, we've got documents that prove Al Gore won the election." —Jay Leno

    "There was an embarrassing moment in the White House earlier today. They were looking around while searching for George Bush's military records. They actually found some old Al Gore ballots." —David Letterman

    "There's this huge controversy over the fact that President Bush apparently received credit for National Guard service in Alabama in '72 and '73 even though his commanding officers are saying he never reported. I think what's even more disturbing is that he received enough credits to graduate from Yale." —Jay Leno

    "Bush did have an explanation, he said he did go to Alabama but when he didn't find weapons of mass destruction, he went back to Texas." —Jay Leno

    "As John Kerry sails toward the Democratic nomination, new questions are emerging about President Bush's service in the National Guard, like where he was for six months in 1972 and why he refused to take a routine physical. President Bush has vowed to get to the bottom of this right after Election Day." —Craig Kilborn

    "President Bush stopped off at a bass pro fishing store to pick up a fishing reel, some line and some rubber worms. He's going to disappear and go fishing. So he must think he's back in the National Guard." —Jay Leno

    "Critics are now saying that his dad got him out of going to Vietnam. However, his dad did get him to go to Iraq." —Jay Leno

    "Ironically, the possibility that the president dodged his military service has increased his approval ratings with Democrats by 80 percent." —Craig Kilborn

    "President Bush is not fazed by other candidates' war records. He said, I may have not fought in Vietnam, but I created one." —Craig Kilborn

    "The big story now is that President Bush is coming under attack for his service in the National Guard. The White House said, 'no no,' that they have payroll records to show that he served in the National Guard. But today, the commanding officers can't remember seeing Bush between May and October of '72. President Bush said, 'Remember me? I'm the drunk guy. Remember me?'" —Jay Leno

    ""They are having a panel look into the intelligence failures in Iraq. It is a seven person panel and it will include Senator John McCain, but the findings from this panel will not be issued until after the election. President Bush says the commission can go off and report back in a year, you know, the same way it works in the Texas National Guard." —Bill Maher

    Oh, just so we're clear, here's all available military records for Bush, as compared to those for Kerry:

    http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html

    You know, it's funny; I couldn't find any thing on Cheney's military record, you know, beyond five draft deferments.

    Have a nice read.

    Yep; Bush is real American Zero.

    Broadsword,

    I think you should change your moniker to "Paring Knife".

    Another cut-n-paste from some sterling blogger who tellingly begins his piece with a caveat:

    " It wasn't considered that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However, given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You guys should talk."

    Isn't this always the way with the caveats many on the left seem to issue...oh, we wouldn't make a big deal that Dan Quayle serviced in National Guard...but you Republicans are war hawks.... Far be it from us to out homosexuals but he's Phyliss Shafly's son.... We'd never make a fuss over someone's private life ....but he's calls himself a feminist liberal democrat president and she's an office volunteer that he's using like an ash-try (ooop...nevermind...) BTW--if McCain wins the nomination we'll see how his war record and termperment fares in DNC campaign ads...

    The pointis that it's so very easy to make such exceptions to your avowed principles simply because it's politically expedient...the other side is simply asking for it...and lord knows poliicians manage to live with that mentality.... but shouldn't we be somewhat cognisant of the fact that it is disingenous and opportunistic, ESPECIALLY when we're trying to point out someone else's hypocrisy?....

    And speaking of the ironic... I love Allen's lastline in his hypocritical little summation-- "you guys should talk".... well...Paring Knife...we're all still waiting for that...so far hasn't happened....but if 200 swiftboat vets don't make a difference....what's a few tongues wagging around Bush's TANG service going to do?

    Beside being fodder for late nite comedians?...


    You're right. He's more of a Joke, fodder for comedians than a Hero of any note, our little man in the white house.

    In God we trust Anonymous. The Constitituion was written by men of a disctinctly Christian persuasion. I don't believe that there were any hindus, muslims,wiccans,or aethieists writing or signing. This whole anti religion push by the ACLU and others of their ilk is just their way of negating America's history and heritage in an attempt to socialize it's future. hey who needs God and religion when you have the state to take care of you right? Taxes replace prayer, diversity and tolerance trump heritage, decency and common sense, and you can demand people pay homage and tithe to the gods of secular humanism, you can even write the laws to define religion itself as hate crime. What harm does having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse do?? Why does the socialist left demand we ignore all the origins of Western Law? When the state puts a gun to your head and makes you worship in a church then come to me and whine about separation of church and state then I will be on your side until then the leftists are just plain wrong about attacking our religious heritage. Glad you studied the Constitution in school but you did not answer my question . Why is it that every other ammendment is considered an individual right but when it comes to the 2nd liberals consider it a "collective" right? Under your interpetation the government would be allowed to say anything it wants but not the people. The first ammendment has been interpeted to allow the vilest of pornography by leftists but they cheer local governments ignoring the 2nd ammendment?
    Now that we are getting some Judges in SCOTUS that will adhere to the original intent of the Constitution instead of using foreign law to interpet it maybe we will get some long needed clarification on the second ammendment. The real reason that there have been no recent decisions is that the liberal judges were probably afriad of the civil unrest and subsequent civil war that would follow their denying the the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" As I have said before you can put any word or group of words before or after that phrase but that phrase stands alone in the founding fathers original intent of the rights of Americans to be able to defend themselves from enemies foriegn and domestic. Armed people are free people, unarmed people are just subjects and slaves to government oppression and foreign attack.
    and as a man much wiser than myself said "from my cold dead hands"!!!!

    In God we trust Anonymous. The Constitituion was written by men of a disctinctly Christian persuasion. I don't believe that there were any hindus, muslims,wiccans,or aethieists writing or signing. This whole anti religion push by the ACLU and others of their ilk is just their way of negating America's history and heritage in an attempt to socialize it's future. hey who needs God and religion when you have the state to take care of you right? Taxes replace prayer, diversity and tolerance trump heritage, decency and common sense, and you can demand people pay homage and tithe to the gods of secular humanism, you can even write the laws to define religion itself as hate crime. What harm does having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse do?? Why does the socialist left demand we ignore all the origins of Western Law? When the state puts a gun to your head and makes you worship in a church then come to me and whine about separation of church and state then I will be on your side until then the leftists are just plain wrong about attacking our religious heritage. Glad you studied the Constitution in school but you did not answer my question . Why is it that every other ammendment is considered an individual right but when it comes to the 2nd liberals consider it a "collective" right? Under your interpetation the government would be allowed to say anything it wants but not the people. The first ammendment has been interpeted to allow the vilest of pornography by leftists but they cheer local governments ignoring the 2nd ammendment?
    Now that we are getting some Judges in SCOTUS that will adhere to the original intent of the Constitution instead of using foreign law to interpet it maybe we will get some long needed clarification on the second ammendment. The real reason that there have been no recent decisions is that the liberal judges were probably afriad of the civil unrest and subsequent civil war that would follow their denying the the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" As I have said before you can put any word or group of words before or after that phrase but that phrase stands alone in the founding fathers original intent of the rights of Americans to be able to defend themselves from enemies foriegn and domestic. Armed people are free people, unarmed people are just subjects and slaves to government oppression and foreign attack.
    and as a man much wiser than myself said "from my cold dead hands"!!!!


    "You're right. He's more of a Joke, fodder for comedians than a Hero of any note, our little man in the white house."


    Wouldn't know it by you, Paring Knife.

    You're spending a lot of energy surfing and cutting and pasting.

    Riverdog,

    "The Constitituion was written by men of a disctinctly Christian persuasion."

    Interesting. I think YOU should read James Madison on the Separation of Church and State before you claim anything. First start with "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" and he strongly suported the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States and the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

    riverodg,

    Point to ONE REFERENCE in the Constitution of God, Jesus or Christianity and I'll shut up. (It's a trick question - there are no references to God, Jesus or Christianity in the Constitution.)

    And quit with the "we want to take away your religion" bullshit - no one is saying you can't pray or worship how you choose. It's when you put it in a place where the PERCEPTION is that the state endorses it where we have a problem.

    Or, you know, Cecelia, the problem here could be you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism

    Cutting and pasting is fun. Summing you up in one URL is *more* fun.

    Riverdog, you might want to read that, too (the link in my post above). See if you find anything familiar about your belief system in that study.

    That is , if you can read all the way through it without snapping like a twig.

    It's scary that such a large number of Americans actually believe Bush/Cheney/Halliburton's tall tales. Saddam Hussein was a big threat... ummm okay... and the Earth was created 5,000 years ago too.

    The present administration has made a catastrophic mess in Iraq... while pissing on the U.S. Constititution and rule of law here at home.

    So where is the Democratic solution to get us out of this "mess" as you call it? And I might remind you that no less than Bill Clinton also believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and possessed weapons of mass destruction and supported the invasion of Iraq, as did the majority of Democratic Senators, including the last presidential nominee, John Kerry.

    Paring Knife,

    You don't just find summing up someone by paring off someone's else's words on some URL "fun", you find it essential.

    That this is the essence of conformity, mental assimilation, and automatous behavior, is a irony no URL can help you perceive.

    A note on OlbyLoon logic...

    Some commenter is writng about Bush's military record v. Kerry (above):

    "Oh, just so we're clear, here's all available military records for Bush, as compared to those for Kerry"

    OlbyLoons love to post lists of Republicans who did not serve in the military or, if they did, did not see combat. What I don't understand is the point of this.

    Does this mean that if the 2008 race is between Barrack Obama and John McCain that the OlbyLoons will be voting for McCain?

    As women only recently began to get anywhere near active combat does this mean that they will not support a woman as president until candidates for President are from among today's generation of women in the military - maybe 20 to 30 years from now?

    Does this mean that of the potential candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008 (souce: Gallup) that John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, Russ Feingold, Tom Vilsack, Dennis Kucinich are OUT and that the only three candidates to chose from are Al Gore, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark?

    Does this mean that only those people who have served in the military or seen combat should have a say in whether the country goes to war? This sounds a lot like the feminist notion that only those who can get pregnant should have a say in the abortion issue. Maybe we can have a law that says only those people who pay income tax can have a say in tax policy? Or maybe we can have a law that says only those who have a clean criminal record can vote? May we can have a law that says only homeowners vote on property taxes in local elections? Maybe we can have a law that only corporate CEOs can have a say in anti-trust legislation? Maybe only people who own TV stations can have a say in how the FCC is run?

    Now that I really think through the OlbyLoon Logic I can see how much it will simplify things if only people who meet certain criteria can vote on certain issues. It will be great. Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg can vote on abortion issues that come before the Supreme Court, no women in house or senate can vote on military appropriations, no white people can vote on affirmative action programs. Yep. That's a great system.

    So where is the Democratic solution to get us out of this "mess" as you call it?"

    Congressman and aspiring House Majority Leader John Murtha has unveiled the Murtha Doctrine
    on Meet the Press. It's the most comprehensive plan offered by the Democrats to date.

    "We can go to Okinawa. We can redeploy there almost instantly." Mr. Russert, mindful of the fact that Okinawa, Japan, is 4,899 miles from Baghdad, offered Mr. Murtha an escape, in case he had misspoken. "But it would be tough to have a timely response from Okinawa," he said. But Mr. Murtha dug himself in deeper. "When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly," he said. It would take 10-12 hours - and six refuelings - for F-16s to fly from Kadena AFB on Okinawa to Baghdad (assuming China and India would grant overflight rights, a dubious assumption). When the subject of Karl Rove was broached, Murtha waxed indignant:
    "He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside saying stay the course. That's not a plan! We got to change direction, that's what we have to do. You can't sit there in the air conditioned office."

    Here is a guide to help people comprehend the nuances of the Murtha Plan:

    1. The Murtha Doctrine stipulates that there is no need to actually be in the country, or on the battlefield, where you are actually fighting a
    war. Murtha points to the killing of Zarqawi as an example of how this works: "The information came from the Iraqis, to the Iraqis, to the US
    and then we bombed where he was, so it came from the outside." For this reason, the Murtha Doctrine argues that because the redeployment of troops to Okinawa Japan would make those troops further "outside," they would be more effective against the insurgents in Iraq. "Our fighters can fly from Okinawa very quickly," says Murtha.

    2. Because the Bush administration's plans for Iraq were devised in air conditioned offices and because Karl Rove is fat and his salary is
    paid by the American taxpayer, the Bush administration has no plan for Iraq and therefore, victory in Iraq is impossible. It's easy for Karl Rove to say stay the course from his air conditioned office in D.C., so, the Murtha Doctrine will call for Rove to be re-deployed to Okinawa where his non-plan for staying the course can be regarded more earnestly. The Murtha Doctrine also calls for Karl Rove to go on a diet, so his ideas will be able to qualify for "plan" status. This will help the U.S. regain its stature in the world.

    3. The Murtha doctrine calls for the redeployment of all air conditioners in Washington to Okinawa where they will better help the troops fight the terrorists in Iraq. In addition, the lack of air
    conditioners in D.C. will help lend more credibility to the Bush administration's non-plans for the War on Terror. The air conditioning re-deployment will be paid for with a "windfall profits" tax on Halliburton. We use a lot of oil and the Murtha Doctrine understands this, but the Chinese use a lot, too.

    4. In summation, the Murtha Doctrine states that Iraq is worse today than it was six months ago and that "staying the course is not a plan" because Karl Rove's office is air conditioned. The Murtha Doctrine further states that the U.S. military's presence in Iraq is the problem and if we just leave, everything will be resolved. As
    evidence of this, Murtha points to Karl Rove's weight. Murtha uses the following analogy to explain his doctrine: if you are playing a
    football game and neither team is winning, you are therefore losing. In order to win, you need to move your team to another stadium and that way you can run your plays without anyone getting
    tackled. Meanwhile, because you left the original stadium, your opponent will simply give up and go home.

    The Democratic Plan? What, are you joking?

    What we're doing is holding you to account for incredibly poor decision-making. Iraq is a no-win for the United States, and you know it.

    The second we leave, the whole thing degenerates in to a 3-4 party civil-war probably widening in to a regional conflict involving Syria to the West, Iran to the East, the Kurds and Turks to the North, and maybe even the Saudis to the South. Oh, and let's not forget about Israel, Lebanon and Gaza turning in to shit, yet again. Great leadership in diplomacy there, guys.

    If we stay, that'll probably still happen, but we're stuck right in the middle of it.

    Do you REALLY think, even for a second, that there's some kind of emerging democratic movement in the middle east? Do you REALLY think for a second that Mubarak's going to give up his grip on power in Egypt? Think Musharraf's about to stand for election? Think the House of Saud is pondering just chucking it all in to a duffle bag and going to Cabo?

    Do you REALLY think our puppet government in Iraq isn't going to fold like a house of cards in the absence of American Military power? Are you THAT fucking stupid? It's already a cluster-fuck with our guys THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. People are DYING FOR YOUR ARROGANCE, YOU TWATS, EVERY DAY.

    You're NOT defending freedom or liberty, you're NOT spreading Democracy; you're taking oil at the point of a gun. GET IT?

    No wonder the underlying theme of all of your press conferences is one of 'optimism'. If you didn't have that, you'd begin to realized how badly you've fucked this up. Your pollyanish view of Iraq about as likely as us being met with flowers and candies in Tehran, or this war paying for itself with oil revenues.

    The Democratic plan; hell, I don't even know beyond beginging to try to clean up your fucking mess.

    Here's some ideas: send war profiteers to JAIL. Put the criminally corrupt BEHIND BARS. Implement workable DIPLOMACY. Make an attempt at restoring our SHATTERED credibility as an honest broker for peace in the reigon.

    Here's another idea; how about us getting out, and the UN going in with a multi-national peacekeeping force, and getting the warring parties talking instead of shooting at each other, like it's done everywhere else on the planet with a civil war?

    How about that? I mean, if it's really not about the oil, you won't have a problem with that, right?

    And Cecelia, go ahead and Google that last post.

    You'll find it's entirely original. While you're at it, go ahead and google my multi-post smackdown of the riverdog; guess what you'll find?

    Idiot. Noted that you've made no stab at original thought whatsoever on this board.

    Now. Try addressing some points, or shut the fuck up.

    Seriously.

    Here's another idea; catch Bin Laden, try him on 3000+ counts of murder, execute him, and put his fucking skull up on a pike on the Whitehouse lawn.

    Five years, and Bush can't catch a 6'5" guy on a dialysis machine. Hell, he doesn't even consider it a priority. What's your explanation for THAT, true believers?


    I recently read someone who countered such illogical drivel by asking if the left favored a military junta of generals making policy calls...

    But this tactic is really a point about Republican hawks.

    That point is distilled into Murka's statement about Karl Rove sitting fat and happy in his plush office while people are dying in Iraq.

    It's not an argument, but rather a tactic to paint opponents as aristocrats using their serfs as canon fodder. It's designed to give the impression that hawks have no intellectual, societal, and emotional investment in such an undertaking. And that they have no professional investment/risks involved (other than scoring for big oil or halliburton...)

    I don't know why anyone debating these folks would take such a strawman seriously.

    It is fun, however to ridicule Paring Knife's cut-n-paste cheapshots and Olbyloon irrationaity. :D

    Interesting how you call them 'cheapshots', but don't bother to directly address ANY of them.

    I'm done; done trying to trade barbs with witless fools, capable of nothing more than adhominem attacks.

    "Paring Knife" is what passes for wit in Republican circles, I guess.

    Here's a final parting shot Cecelia:

    http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Wasted-Billions-Corporate/dp/0316166278/sr=8-2/qid=1157473696/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-1053750-5989457?ie=UTF8&s=books

    It's your legacy. Read up, toots.

    It's all about what you've done, what you've supported, a practical guide to what your ideology has wrought.

    Broadsword seems to like the Murtha Plan detailed above because he lists as one of his preferred options for dealing with Iraq the following:

    "how about us getting out"

    So, we will count that as one vote for the Murtha Doctrine and all that goes along with it (see above).

    Other Broadsword options are:

    "Implement workable DIPLOMACY;"

    "the UN going in with a multi-national peacekeeping force;"

    "getting the warring parties talking"

    Broadsword, I hear that Dennis Kucinich is already gearing up for a 2008 run for President and he has a job for you as his foreign policy advisor.

    If anyone wants a sterling example of what Rumsfeld meant when using the term "appeasement" in context with our approach toward Islamic fascism, see Paring Knife's screed above.

    We may see P.K.'s take on matters as argument for keeping on. He/she sees it that "diplomacy" was the only viable avenue in the first place.

    This is the base of the Democrat Party.

    Where is the military support for the "Murtha" plan? There isn't any.

    Paring Knife,

    It's interesting that you would portray as "turning to shit" what was a diplomatic effort in resolving conflicts over a Palestian homeland and Israel's right to exist. As though it was Republican's fault that extremists kidnapped an Israeli soldier after the U.S. had gone the diplomatic route and mediated with Israel a plan to give up territory.

    If this is what we get with diplpmacy failures, it's easy to see that these issues are more politically important to you than morally.

    I regard ANY shooting war as a failure of diplomacy, rockets raining down on Israel for a MONTH, and the IDF using artillery on civilians in Lebanon for a MONTH as things 'turning to shit', yes.

    You people think war is a good thing. Are you fucking crazy? Have you ever been in or even near a live-fire zone?

    If you had, you'd know better.

    But you haven't, so you don't.

    War is the ultimate perversion of man, you choads.

    How can you not see that? You're not tough; you're a bunch of Starbuck-sipping, SUV driving, mall-hopping pussies who can't admit failure.

    Your idea of foreign policy is a total, total disaster.

    Still, not one of you has explained how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    I'm waiting.

    Stubborn unwillingness to admit you're wrong doesn't make you 'tough'. You're not strong on defense, just because you're stubborn; you're just losers.

    Your feckless leader just knocked Israel's stature down a peg in the eyes of their enemies, because this administration thought the IDF action was a good test-case for war with Iran.

    That's what you want, right? To be greeted as liberators in Iran?

    Endless war?

    Endless emergency powers?

    What's your GOAL here?

    Planning to open Disneylands in Ankara?

    Planning to have an open society in Khazakstan?

    You going to try to tough it out until the rapture (that's NEVER coming)?

    You're BAD Americans, and piss-poor Christians.

    You guys SUCK.

    I can't WAIT to hear you try to blame liberals (yet again) for your own failures. You're engendering failure with both houses of Congress, the Whitehouse and the Supreme Court in your pockets. Your party is now the posterchild for what's wrong in DC, and your President keeps trying to tell people he's some kind of DC outsider, when he's pretty much the ultimate DC insider.

    If so good is your case for continual war, why is nobody in the GOP Congress up for re-election willing to campaign with the President? Why are they all running away from him?

    I'll ask all you dimwits again:

    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    I'm still waiting.

    The fucking Chinese must go to bed every night laughing their asses off at us.

    You'd all be pretty funny if this wasn't such a cluster-fuck for the Nation.

    Excuse me "Broadsword" but if we follow your line of reasoning, the United States would never have gotten involved in World War II and Hitler would have been allowed to take over the World and we'd all be speaking German today not to mention the millions of ethnic groups that would have been targeted for extermination. Oh, that's right. I keep forgetting. Your boy Olbermann is a big Hitler fan. He's fond of throwing up those Heil Hitler salutes after all.

    fucking crazy;
    you choads;
    bunch of Starbuck-sipping, SUV driving, mall-hopping pussies;
    you're just losers;
    feckless ;
    BAD Americans;
    piss-poor Christians;
    You guys SUCK;
    you dimwits;

    Well, there you have on display the mental stability of our Paring Knife.


    Trust me, Rumsfeld was being dispassionate and analytical when he likened them to Neville Chamberlain.

    Remember those who wanted to appease the Soviets. Their speech was less adolescent and they lacked this current crop's level of sheer partisan malice, but the arguments were the same.

    "bunch of Starbuck-sipping, SUV driving, mall-hopping pussies"

    Sorry but those sound more like the attributes of the checkbook-liberal contingent if you ask me.

    Brandon,

    This is Kieth Olbermann's fan base.

    As Allahpundit recently described, Olbermann is "the nutroot messiah".

    When you see Kerry [and now Hillary] now imply that the election was stolen when he denied it before, it's because he has to appeal to and APPEASE this bunch and they eat that up with a spoon.

    Brandon,

    Go and read a history book, because obviously your "logical thought" is nothing more than more of the same right-wing bullshit that Rush and his ilk have been shovelling.

    It appears I hit a raw nerve there, because I am right and anyone with half a functioning brain knows it. Wars are inevitable and they must be fought when facing opponents such as Hitler and yes, Saddam Hussein. If we listened to the peace-lunatics this country would be run by Germans, Japanese, God knows what.

    ...actually, we'd be a British colony...or maybe Dutch.

    AGAIN:

    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    I'm still waiting for your answer.

    Broadsword,

    No answer is required to your query. Not even the most elementary explanation would get through to you because you are a fool. How do I know you are a fool? Because you offer the following measures to deal with Iraq:

    "Implement workable DIPLOMACY;"

    "the UN going in with a multi-national peacekeeping force;"

    "getting the warring parties talking"

    You should take the advice I offered to you earlier: Dennis Kucinich is gearing up for a 2008 run for President and he has a job for you as his foreign policy advisor.


    So, what you're saying is, you've got no answer to a very simple question.

    Not being able to answer it is the indication of foolishness, fool.

    You...just quoted me back. No critique, no criticism...just slack-jawed nothingness.

    AGAIN:

    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    I'm still waiting for an answer.

    Nobody? Cecelia, nothing snarky to offer?

    YET AGAIN, I ASK:

    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    I'm *still* waiting for an answer.

    Wow. Looks like the conservatives can be defeated with with just a paring knife and a simple question:

    Last chance.

    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    I'm growing old waiting for one of you to form a cogent thought in response to the question.

    No smears of me; just answer the simple question.

    Or, don't you have an answer?

    Olbermann is the best thing to happpen to news. Or so called news. He's brilliant. nuff said.

    Broadsword,

    Your solutions for how to approach Iraq show, as I have stated before, that you are a fool. You are obviously having trouble accepting this reality. Why bother to explain to a fool such as you the consequences of pulling out now? Why bother to explain to a fool such as you how our enemy thinks and the futility of "diplomacy" or sending in the UN? You simply are either willfully ignorant or a fool.

    There is your answer that you have been begging for. If you don't like it, too bad.

    BTW, Here's the link for the '08 Kucinich campaign. I really urge you to get in touch with them and offer up your services as foreign policy advisor. Let me know how this turns out for you.

    http://www.draftkucinich2008.com/

    Ok Hank, let's review:

    The simple question is, "Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA."

    Your answer is, "Why bother to answer the question."

    Am I missing something? That's your answer?

    Re-read the posts, pal; I explained to YOU the dangers of pulling out now. And I didn't ask you about how the enemy thinks, or what the dangers of pulling out are, or to comment on my analysis. I asked for an answer to a simple question, so:

    ONCE AGAIN:

    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    Anybody? Anybody?

    I'm *still* waiting.

    Sorry you didn't like my answer. You and Kucinich are made for each other, I promise you.


    You didn't answer the question.

    "You have trouble accepting reality" is not an answer to the question "how is Iraq ever going to be a win for us?"

    AGAIN:

    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    I continute to wait for an answer to a simple, direct question.

    I'll help you, hank. In answering my question directly, you should begin like so:

    "Iraq is a win for us because..."

    or

    "Iraq is going to be a win for us because..."

    I would not try to explain to a drunk why he shouldn't drive; I would simply take his keys away from him.

    Similarly, you can't reason with a fool like you who thinks that this is the way to deal with Iraq:

    "Implement workable DIPLOMACY;"

    "the UN going in with a multi-national peacekeeping force;"

    "getting the warring parties talking"

    I will forward your resume to the Dennis Kucinich campaign for the foreign policy advisor position.



    You see, I didn't ask you for your explanation as to why I can't be reasoned with, or for you to critique my prior posts in an effort to evade answering, or for you to try feebly to use metaphor to explain why you have no need to explain yourself.

    I asked for a simeple answer to this simple question:

    "Iraq is a win for us because..."

    or

    "Iraq is going to be a win for us because..."


    You...have no answer. That much is clear.

    liberal moron happy he got that last word in on the big bag conservatives? you flaming liberal moron , why don't you go to china ands live I hear that they would be perfect for a guy like you. No religion allowed at all, only the government has the guns, and they are communist so it's just perfect for you. And if you are real good around Dec. 25 you can sit in olbermann's lap and tell him what you want.
    idiot

    So, no answer from you either, eh?

    I rest my case.

    And, yes. The last word on this particular issue is what's going to cost you the House of Representatives in about 60 days. AMERICANS are going to vote your dumb asses out of office.

    You and your ilk are pathetic, you're a world-wide embarassment to this Nation.

    Ahhh. Gotta love the ill-informed "facts" of the extreme left. You see, they forget that there is more than one branch of government in this country. And even if the GOP loses the house, we'll still have the Senate, The White House and the Supreme Court. And there's not a damn thing the House will be able to do on its own except make a bunch of noise that no one will take seriously.

    I'm sure nobody will take it seriously when the House flips and starts holding hearings, finally, on what the administration said and did to lead us to an intractible war under false pretenses?

    You're sooooo right; nobody takes that kind of sworn testimony seriously. Nobody's ever been prosecuted and sent to jail for lying in that situation; you've got such a good grip on the facts!

    Here's what YOU seem to forget: we only need a simple majority in the House to file for impeachment and trigger a full-on trial in the Senate.

    Remember? Remember how that goes?


    And still....no answer to my question(s) from any one of the bozos who lurk here:


    "Iraq is a win for us because..."

    or

    "Iraq is going to be a win for us because..."

    I'm STILL waiting.

    keep waiting- we can make a joke out of it. How do you keep a moron in susupense for days? call yourself "broadsword" and come to a conservative site that hold some liberal lunatic named olbermann acountable for his stupidity and question us. Good tactic there sword. Keep waiting and waiting .
    would you not just be suprised if your party of socialistas lost even more? I ean since 1994 the party of liberals and other slime have been losing elections. OK maybe you pick up a few seats comes November but after a few more years of liberal anti American traitors showing their true stripes (like that big yellow one on their backs) America will come to it's senses.
    Do your little "impeachment" thing and see where it gets you. That is the only thind that the democRATS have anyway is bash Bush and bash America. Good luck commie!
    keep waiting a--hole and try holding your breath- I'll get back to you in a couple of days. idiot.

    Get it straight, you atavistic whelp; we're AMERICANS.

    Bravery is not a willingness to die for *nothing*.

    Your war is a big, fruitless NOTHING.

    Bravery is what you're left with, the residue of having overcome fear. You people seem to feed on fear without ever thinking about how to squash it. You buy in to your leadership constantly telling you why you need to be afraid.

    That...holds the seeds to true cowardice.

    I fear no terrorist.

    You do.

    Bush...is not America. Criticising him is totally fair game, and if you don't like it, move to another country.

    You heard me; if you don't like free speech, feel free to get out. I hear they're hiring in Khazakstan, totally your kind of people, I think.

    Go ahead; keep underestimating us. We like it that way.

    and answer the question(s), little man:


    "Iraq is a win for us because..."

    or

    "Iraq is going to be a win for us because..."


    I'm STILL waiting.

    No cogent answer, eh doggie?

    Oh, I almost forgot to mention, there's some good news for you:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel9sep09,0,3511735.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    I'm sure nobody will notice that the rationale for war was a complete fabrication. By that, I mean a fat, stinking lie.

    See you at the polls, my little riverdoggie. You have 60 days left to govern unfettered, before the subpoenas start flying.

    Enjoy every minute of it.

    no you traitorous ignorant liberal YOU get out of MY country. Your nutty attacks against Bush and the Iraq war are just thinly veiled whinings over the fact that since 1994 democrats have losing elections due to the fact that the the looney left has taken over the party.
    hey butter knife why don't you go to france or some other country that knows all about surrender and losing.
    What are you going to do if once again Americans reject the democratic party as they have so vigorously in the past 10 years? If the defeatocrats only policy is to "get Bush" and surrender in Iraq then once again you'll lose. The media uses the anti Bush polls to say that republicans are in trouble but tell me oh great butter knife just what will you do when once again the polls prove to be wrong. Then wil you shut up and go to communist china where you belong?
    Cut and run, attack the president and being a traitor ain't much of a party platform asshat.

    no you traitorous ignorant liberal YOU get out of MY country. Your nutty attacks against Bush and the Iraq war are just thinly veiled whinings over the fact that since 1994 democrats have losing elections due to the fact that the the looney left has taken over the party.
    hey butter knife why don't you go to france or some other country that knows all about surrender and losing.
    What are you going to do if once again Americans reject the democratic party as they have so vigorously in the past 10 years? If the defeatocrats only policy is to "get Bush" and surrender in Iraq then once again you'll lose. The media uses the anti Bush polls to say that republicans are in trouble but tell me oh great butter knife just what will you do when once again the polls prove to be wrong. Then wil you shut up and go to communist china where you belong?
    Cut and run, attack the president and being a traitor ain't much of a party platform asshat.

    Get a grip there Broad. Because the House can huff and puff all they want to but in the end, they can't do a damn thing without the cooperation of the Senate and there is NO way whatsoever that the Dems will win back the Senate this year and if you think that will happen than it's proof positive you're not living in the real world.

    Sure, but 'hold the president and his party accountable for their unbridled greed and lust for power' and 'don't get this country in to a war to settle a family vendetta' are great platform planks!

    I guess you forgot that WE started this war.

    And 'surrender'? To whom?

    A 1% win, under dubious circumstances, is a 'vigorous rejection'?

    I think not.

    People on our side gave this administration *every* chance to govern, defered to them at every turn in both foreign and domestic policy (with the exception of beating their asses in to the ground on the preznit's idiotic plan to privatize Social Security), and accepted their WORD about why we had to get in to Iraq.

    It's all turned out to be a CONTEMPTIBLE LIE, and we suspected as much the whole time.

    THAT'S why you're going to lose the House. That and paying $3.47 for a fucking gallon of gas.

    Go live in China? Why bother?

    Your boy Bush has sold so many federal bonds to the Chinese to finance his deficit spending and a tax cut during war, that they're going to own this country pretty shortly.

    That makes his 'tax cuts' a defacto tax INCREASE, because the interest on the national debt isn't fucking zero. Get it? We have to pay it back; your party is like a kid loose in the mall with his mom's credit card. Some fiscal conservatives YOU turned out to be:

    "Take China for example. As of March of this year, China held over $321 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries, up from the $60 billion it owned at the end of 2000. Similarly, Japan now owns $640 billion worth of U.S. Treasuries, up from $317.7 billion in December 2000. Lately, however, America has also borrowed heavily from oil exporter nations (as defined by the Department of the Treasury), which include many nations that despise America. Luminaries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Iran, Libya, Algeria, Indonesia and Iraq, and several other primarily Middle Eastern nations, now own $98 billion worth of U.S. debt.

    According to Brad Setser, director of research at Roubini Global Economics, “The irony is that the three countries in the world adding to reserves the fastest and thus buying the most U.S. debt now are China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, none of them democracies. … We are increasingly counting on a group of creditors who are not our closest friends but have a bigger and bigger stake in America,” he says."

    That's ANOTHER good reason to vote your party out.

    Oh, yes; we're all so proud of Bush, because he's a good, Christian man. Nevermind the fact that he's sold the country down the river and gotten us in to a 'tarbaby' of a war.

    Keep selling fear; we're not buying any.

    Oh, and Brandon - who cares if we don't have the Senate? That didn't stop you from pulling the purile stunt of impeaching Clinton, as you'll recall.

    I'd also remind you that you did it while we had troops on the ground in Yugoslovia, undermining the President in a time of war.

    You impeached with the exact same chances of success in the Senate, and you did it with a lot less in terms of cause.

    It'll be 'Sauce for the Goose', I think.

    Say goodbye to your legislative agenda.

    hey butterknife! you think America really wants liberal scumbag chickenshits in charge of national security?
    I'll just bet that the democrats LOSE more seats in congress this fall. We are smarter than to vote for terrorist appeasers .
    Clinton was a scumbag and needed to be impeached it was just too bad that him and his bitch wife did not get thrown out of office like they should have been.

    I just wish these leftists who are so bent out of shape over the "fascist" tendencies of Bush would be equally upset when Dems threaten to revoke the broadcasting license of people they don't agree with.
    -=Mike

    of course! liberals only think freedom of speech applies to them. thay's on of the many reasons that makes them scumbags.
    liberals are the real fascists.

    of course! liberals only think freedom of speech applies to them. thay's on of the many reasons that makes them scumbags.
    liberals are the real fascists.

    Well, let's see: the last time a liberal scumbag was President of the United States, we didn't loose 2671 of our finest young men and women by setting off and then getting stuck in the middle of somebody else's civil war. Duuuuuh.

    Nobody's trying to shut you up, you sad little man. I'm clearly and obviously trying to engage you in a dialogue.

    I'm asking, no - begging you to answer a question(s), and you can't seem to find the wherewithal:


    "Iraq is a win for us because..."

    or

    "Iraq is going to be a win for us because..."


    Oh; wait a minute - I see - with 'free speech' you meant the ABC thing...

    The reason they're threatining broadcast licenses is that the movie is quantifiably packed with scurrilous lying; you know - the kind people lose slander suits over?

    They're doing it (threatening to pull broadcast licenses) because this piece is an obvious blob of political propoganda that favors the administration, 60 days before an election.

    That's kind of out of the scope of what ABC's licenses require; that they serve the public interest. The public owns all the airwaves, and we license them, through the administration of law, to the Networks.

    The Democratic leadership put it quite succinctly in their letter to Disney:

    "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."

    'an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events'...that has a nice ring to it, and it is exactly what the statute requires.

    So, free Capcities/Disney/ABC airings of $40mm hatchet jobs funded by Richard Melon Scaife really don't really fufill that requirement.

    If you want to put that out in the theaters and test the financial viability of this clearly partisan political point of view, like Michael Moore did, you're more than welcome to.

    I support your right to free speech, dimwit.

    However, if you're planning to use the public airwaves to broadcast partisan smears in the guise of a 'docu/drama', then you can go and jump in the fuckin' lake.

    And as a final point tonight, dummies, you clearly don't even know what Fascism is:

    As it's the confluence of Government and Corporate interest, you'd have a hard time saying that liberals are the fascists, because we don't control the fucking government, OR big business.

    Get it, you brainwashed dittoheads?

    Ah, so you SUPPORT the threat to remove broadcast licenses for material you disagree with?

    Very Stalinistic of you there.
    -=Mike

    yeah Clinton's idea of separation of church and state was having his bitch AG Janet "the butcher of Waco" Reno fry 100 innocent people.
    butterknife said:
    "Well, let's see: the last time a liberal scumbag was President of the United States, we didn't loose 2671 of our finest young men and women by setting off and then getting stuck in the middle of somebody else's civil war. Duuuuuh"
    Like you, as liberal olbermann worshipping scumbag even care one iota about servicmen. You only care about the military when you can' in your twisted mind use it agianst Bush . Who are you trying to convince me or yourself? butterknife also added:
    The Democratic leadership put it quite succinctly in their letter to Disney:

    "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."
    OK fine then your little moron pal olbernuttjob need to apply the same paramters to his "news" show. Let hypocrisy ring! it's the liberal double statndard. Suddenly know that that scumbag clionton gets some ass whippin liberals are all up in arms about truth in broadcatsing. Don't make me laugh butter-head. you nutjobs have had a stranglehold on the news media and hollyweird forever. So don't tell me know all of asudden you liberal scumbag leftards care about fairness.
    and in summation mr potato head here says:
    "And as a final point tonight, dummies, you clearly don't even know what Fascism is: "
    leave it to the liberal element to define fascism . they wrote the book on fascicm from forcing liberal policies and regressive punative taxes on damn near everything but the air we breathe ( but righ now government tax officials ARE working on a pay for play repirator) to unconstitutional laws. Don't you dare preach to me butter-boy about fascism because liberal -progressive ideology not only defines fascism it writes entire new chapter in the history of government oppression. In what country did you grow up in? I am old enought to remember when this country was realatively free of liberal oppression and it was still a free country.
    Mike SC you make a GREAT point! liberalism is just Stalinism in it's infancy. if you love Communist opression you'll just love what the liberal-prgressives have in store for us all.
    and butteknife I would rather be a dittohead than a commie peckerhead. Ireally am tiring of your hypocrisy and stupidity. it is not much fun haveing a battle of wits with an unarmed person like yourself. You ought to just quit know before you start quoting directly from Karl Marx.

    You missed the point, Mike. I'd support pulling broadcast licenses, say, if NBC were to air a Soros financed left-propoganda piece smearing Reagan, or something. Like you guys did with 'The Reagans' starring Streisand's husband.

    And you were right to do so. I don't often agree with you guys, and I probably didn't agree with shitcanning that series for the same reasons you did, but ANY kind of political propoganda has no place on the public airwaves of this Nation.

    We run political banners, labeled as such, and have done so since the founding of the country.

    So, as I indicated, I'd maybe or maybe not go see that movie released in theatres, and maybe or maybe not buy it on DVD (and that's my choice, because I find the underlying politics contemptible and ill-concieved). It's MY choice in the market.

    It's got no place on publically licensed broadcast airwaves, because it's a) fantasy and b) specifically designed to smear a politial rival of yours. The whole construct is bad for the Nation, is what I'm trying to say.

    Ok?

    Stalinist? Get over yourself.

    Have another beer, riverdog. Sounds like you've had a few, and it sounds like you should have a few more.

    So, you don't like paying your taxes.

    Boo-fucking-hoo. Grow up; seriously dude. You dont' like regulations?

    Boo-fucking-hoo.

    Adults play by the rules.

    You don't like what Olberman has to say?

    Boo-fucking-hoo.

    You live in a country with free speach in it; Olberman's show is specifically done under the rubric of NEWS AND COMMENTARY. It's not a fraudulent and specious revision of history in a naked attempt to sway voter opinion; it's a show that just a) reports fact and b) comments on the fact that's just been reported, in the context of facts that have been previously reported.

    If you don't like the conclusions that one Keith Olberman reaches, take a second look at the television you're watching. It has two knobs or buttons, at least. One CHANGES THE CHANNEL, and the other TURNS THE THING OFF.

    Your radio has the same features.

    Bitching about the media makes you look like just that; a bitch.

    Expect not to hear from hank for a couple of days, or at least until he thinks people won't ask him any more tough questions.

    Nonfactor,

    I don't speak for Hank, but if he steering clear, I'm sure he'd be joined by the very people that your respect.

    I suspect that Sen. Reid and the other writers of the letter to Disney would hardly appreciate a defense of their efforts that is based upon an inaccurate characterization of campaign finance law, that they, the DNC, and the Clintons have never offered up.

    I have no doubt that they would join Hank and anyone else over the age and IQ level of the number 17...and swiftly conclude that it's distasteful to associate with a pig.

    As the saying goes...you will always end up horrified to find yourself sprawling in dirt and feces, but it's home sweet home to the pig.

    Cecelia, if this were a tennis tournament, here's how it'd be scored so far:

    6-0, 6-1, 6-0

    Game. Set. Match:

    Broadsword.

    Fun as it is to trade barbs with witless tools, I think I've schooled y'all enough for one week.

    Here's your homework assignment. One page, please on either of these questions:

    "Iraq is a win for us because..."

    or

    "Iraq is going to be a win for us because..."

    I'm sure you'll each come up with something pithy, and I'll certainly be coming back here to read of your essays.

    well butterknife I guess you showed the world the true face of fascist-liberalism. Don't like paying taxes? yeah just shut up and do whatever the government says, Don't like "regulations" shut up and do what the government says. Don't like the olbyloon just shut up and listen to his moronic dronings. Yeah liberal freedom is only subservienece to the big government of liberals, for libierals and by liberals. Some sense of freedom ya got there pinko.
    To once again show how far you have gone in losing your mind and all common sense and the ability to think with your liberally puolluted mind you actually have the temerity and unmitgated gall to say that Olberloon does not try to sway opinion?? Hell you moron that's all he does. he is nothing more than a liberal-progressive shill .He's Michael Moore with a better suit but a more stupid face. he's Cindy Sheehan with a dumber face and more incoherent logic. He's the foul mouthpiece for subversive and socialist groups like dailykos.com, thinkprogress.org, democraticunderground.com, GLAAD, and every other liberal nutcase anti American slime imaginable. What's next for your mentally unsound hero of MSNBC? I am waiting for him to jst burn an American flag on national TV and really come out of his dark dank closet and have somebody on his "show" from the American socialist party.
    Thank you mr. buterknife for proving my point that the far fringe kook left has become totally unhinged to the point of downright mental impairment and brain damnge when it comes to even the basic abilty to read , listen and comprehend.
    You too could follow some of your own advice. You computer has the function of not coming to websites like this and making an utter fool of yourself. Unless little kiethy is putting a gun to your pointed little head and making you type .you have the option on not coming here and making yourself sound like one of the little girls from Can't Understand Normal Thinking. The acronym is purposeful and intended just for you bitch.
    Oh and I don't drink booze moron. maybe THAT is one of your problems that you need help with, you brain is addled by liberalism and booze.
    Bitching about reality and the truth makes you look like a liberal... a liberal bitch. now get yourself a tissue, clean up, shut up, and get you head out of Olbermann's lap.


    So, still no answer, eh? Let's try again:

    "Iraq is a win for us because..."

    or

    "Iraq is going to be a win for us because..."

    It's so funny how you'll do just about anything to avoid answering that question.

    By that, I mean that I'm *laughing* at you, little doggiekins.

    Oh, and again, you should probably look up the word 'fascism' before you look too much like a pot calling a kettle black.

    Here's a good start for you:

    http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=561512104

    "fas·cism or Fas·cism


    (noun)

    Definition:

    dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"

    You, my friend, are an *extreme* nationalist who spends his time on this board fuming about loyal opposition.

    You, my friend, are of the party that represents big business and the idea of an unfettered, unregulated and unaccountable expansion of the free market. If it's Haliburton getting no-bid contracts from the Government, you believe, so much the better.

    You, my friend, think Bush should never be held to account for *anything*, right?

    Looks like you fit the bill pretty well, my little doggie-woggie.

    Extra credit, for bonus points on your "why Iraq is a win for the US" essay:

    Explain how Liberal Progressives fit the definition of 'fascist' as well as you do.


    doggiekins?? what are you five or something? You really are the dictionary definition of a juvenile minded liberal.
    Iraq is a win for us because we get to fight the terrorists on their home turf not ours. if you can't figure that out; well you just might be a liberal. Having a US force in Iraq and Afghanistan allows us to encapsulate Iran for one thing. Tell me how that is a bad thing?

    butterknife offered his wisdom on the merits of the liberal ideology:

    fas·cism or Fas·cism


    (noun)

    Definition:

    dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"

    brilliant! I don't even need to argue with you anymore , you proved me right all by yourself. Except for the nationalism part everything you defined as fascist fits the liberal-socialist-progressive ideology to the letter.
    let's review:
    Dictatorial government, liberals want and demand a strong all encompassing government with cradle to grave protections and entitlements. They are all for re-distribution of wealth, confiscating fireams and negating the second ammendment. LOTS of taxes. Total abolishment of all religion especially Christian ideology in it's place much like China the state under politcall correctness would become the defacto religion. Lets not forget the "reproductive wing" of the liberals - the homofascists and the abortofascists. Murder on demand and queers all around! Hey if you don't accept all this tolerance and diversity you are bigot. Well if that is true tell me when I can get my Bigot merit badge beacuse I'll wear it proudly. "Let's see what else can we illegally use the courts for when we can't get our agenda thru the ballot box" say the liberal-progressives.
    The extreme control of private enterprise?? you actually are that ignorant to use THAT as an example of conservatism? Liberals with their over regulation on every business along with punitive taxes on success of those businesses is a liberal hallmark. Maybe you should stop because you obviously don't have the mental capacity for the realization of the obvious to continue.
    Repression of all opposition? Now there is a good one. The liberal-progressive-socialist agenda under politcal correctness pretty much says it all. When an ideology seeks to actually change and control the language to suit it's goals and prejudices then we are all in trouble. Yes I do object to my tax money to pay for anti-Christian art . I am not saying that you can't do it just don't dare make ME pay for it. OK maybe ya got me on Nationalism . You see I do love this country. I make no apologies for it. the interst of my country on the worldwide sphere comes first and foremost. I know you leftards love to blame America first and for all the world ills but that is just further proof that the left hates America. Unless of course you get (good luck) to implement your socialist agenda then nationalism will be required just like taxes and speech codes.
    Free market? all for it. the free market has done a million times more to build this country that socialism, communism or the welfare state. I use the rest of the world as my example.
    don't give me your lying bullshit about "loyal opposition" as you call it . You defame and disrespect the premise this country was founded and built on and then you have the sheer ignorance to expect me to believe that you are "loyal" Typical liberal schitzophrenia and doublespeak. You can't say that you are loyal to this country out of one side of your mouth and on the other side denigrate the country you say you are "loyal" to . Who do you think you are Bill Clinton or Kieth Olbermann? In which country did you grow up in? oh excuse me I wrongly assumed that you have in fact grown up but I can see by your logic ( or rather lack of it) you have a long-long way to go. and I am not a "doggie woggie" you learning disbled liberal, I do not want or need you juvenile extra credit and i sure as hell ain't your fucking friend.
    but I did prove that liberal-progressives are fascists annd if you don't like it too damn bad.
    and I think that you might be much happier in a place like China, they have all the good qualities in a government you are lloking for.

    Ah - 'ENCAPSULATION' is the strategy; that sounds so....sage, my little doggie-woggie. Perhaps this is a new memme from the 'dominoe theory' guys...

    Let's review your points, shall we?

    "Dictatorial government, liberals want and demand a strong all encompassing government with cradle to grave protections and entitlements."

    Yeah - cradle-to-grave social protections aren't really the hallmark of dictatorships.

    When you think of cradle-to-grave social protections, you're thinking of every other democratic republic in the world, but ours.

    Most developed nations currently have publicly funded health systems that cover the great majority of the population.

    The notable exception, of course, is the United States.

    I'm so glad you brought up healthcare; it's yet ANOTHER issue we're going to use to beat you over the head with in the elections.

    Cases in point:

    Countries with good social protections and particularly universal health care for it's citizenry, that are not dictatorships, but are in fact plural democracies:

    Australia
    Canada
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Israel (that's right, dodo)
    The Netherlands
    New Zealand
    South Africa
    Sweden
    The United Kingdom
    Italy

    Here in the US, we spend more per capita on health care, and fewer people as a percentage of population are covered than in any other developed nation on Earth.

    Current dictatorships that do not offer universal healthcare as a perk of citizenship:

    Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia
    Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan
    Alexander Lukashenko, Belarus
    Kim Jong-il, North Korea
    Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan
    Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea
    Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai
    Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay
    Laurent Gbagbo, Ivory Coast
    Isaias Afewerki, Eritrea
    José Eduardo dos Santos, Angola
    Hu Jintao, China

    You will note that all of these are brutal dictators, that they're not exclusively leftists or rightists, just dictators, and that half have had lunch at the Bush Whitehouse. I guess they talked about 'defending freedom' over fois gras.

    Yes, dimwit; loyal opposition. We're running for office and working to change the system through dialogue, debate and education. You're kind are the guys who blow up federal office buildings, bomb the olympics and shoot gynecologists, remember?

    I wonder if Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols wore their 'Bigot Merit Badges' proudly when they killed all those kids?

    Traitors, you see, do things like out undercover CIA operatives specializing in WMD's for nothing more than momentary political gain.

    That's the kind of thing a traitor would do.

    You really *are* an idiot. It's funny; I've gone from not liking you, to just pitying you.


    Poor little doggie-woggie.


    And no, I'm not five; I was mocking you, dimwit.

    Here's my favorite part of your post:

    "Free market? all for it. the free market has done a million times more to build this country that socialism, communism or the welfare state. I use the rest of the world as my example."

    Right. But the downside of the free market is that when people who pass legislation and run buisnesses get it in to their heads that the free market solves every problem, and that Government is bad, then we have moments like 911.

    On 911, the terrorists waltzed through secuirty at the airports. They caught the country with our pants down, because the Airlines had for years resisted passanger screening as an expensive nuisance.

    They were criminally negligent to the point of 3000 people and four planes full of people being destroyed utterly. You know I know they were negligent? Because we haven't had a hijacking since.

    Then, do you know what they did, these free marketeers?

    They elbowed their way in front of 911 widows and orphans in a mad dash up capital hill, with their lobbyists, to get a 15 Billion dollar handout from the Government.

    You still owe me:

    1. Your "why Iraq is a win for the US" essay.

    2. A couple of paragraphs on how Liberal Progressives fit the definition of 'fascist' as well as you do.

    I owe you shit you brain dead shitbag. If those countries you mentioned sound so good to you why don't you shut up and move there? You are typical liberal idiot.
    Funny you liberals sound more and more like Usama Bin Laden every day. You slimy liberals will even play politics when our country is at war.
    Hey leftard- do America a favor and take your socialist-progressive -liberal ass someplace else.
    and I don't owe you or any liberal any damn thing.

    "Five years, and Bush can't catch a 6'5" guy on a dialysis machine. Hell, he doesn't even consider it a priority. What's your explanation for THAT, true believers?"

    Funny how this sounds like an OlbyLoon Iraq War talking point from when Saddam was on the run. Regardless, as by all accounts bin Laden is hiding out in Western Pakistan, would you support Bush invading Pakistan? Or is this just more empty rhetoric from the left?

    "Regardless, as by all accounts bin Laden is hiding out in Western Pakistan, would you support Bush invading Pakistan? Or is this just more empty rhetoric from the left?"

    I wouldn't support Bush invading anything anymore, not Pakistan, not anywhere. He is lazy as a Sunday, foolishly idealistic, doesn't follow through, and can't handle complexity. Modus Vivendi. We have to tread water until we have a real commander in chief, rather than Capt. Loser McFuck-up, queen of torture.

    Do you seriously think "invading Pakistan" would be the way to get Bin Laden? You guys really do have a pretty one track mind don't you?

    if your defintion of "one track mind" includes getting Bin Laden the so be it.
    mr. A said:

    "I wouldn't support Bush invading anything anymore, not Pakistan, not anywhere. He is lazy as a Sunday, foolishly idealistic, doesn't follow through, and can't handle complexity. Modus Vivendi. We have to tread water until we have a real commander in chief, rather than Capt. Loser McFuck-up, queen of torture."

    and there you have proof positive that the looney left will sacrifice national security for politics. I guess the democrat party really is a "big tent" party after all.
    what's your ideas for fighting terrorism mr. anonymous? Maybe we can invite BinLaden over here and he can meet with Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and that famous "patriot" and enemy comforter and your choice for "04 Mr John Kerry.
    On one hand the moonbats bitch and complain that we have not got Bin Laden yet but can you imagine the liberal uproar if we actually went into Pakistan to get him? Yeah let us all await the democrat's war on terror .
    " Torture queen"? maybe we should just all put up these Isalmofascists up in the Hilton and ask them nicely how they plan to kill our servicemen and attack our country. I would ask just exactly whose side you are on in this war on terror but I already know you will sacrifice anything including this country to regain power.

    You have some kind of nerve saying that we're the ones sacrificing security for politics.

    We're not going in to Pakistan, because THEY HAVE THE BOMB, duuuuuuuh.

    Yes; our little war to 'spread democracy in the middle east' evidently enjoys something of a cease-fire where Pervez Musharraf, military dictator, is concerned. The guys' ISI intelligence services pretty much founded the Taliban, but hey - that's OK if you're Bush. You just have him over for lunch:

    http://images.google.com/images?q=musharraf+bush&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

    There's a few hundred pictures of Bush shaking hands with a brutal military dictator, the very dictator who is CURRENTLY harboring Bin Laden.

    How did Bush put it in the State of the Union?

    Oh yeah:

    "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

    Right. Except for Pakistan.

    And riverdog; you're right. You don't owe your "why Iraq is a win for the US" essay to me:

    You owe it to the Nation.

    you posts show the typical schitzophrenia of liberals. in one sentence you attack Bush for Iraq and the next you attack him for not going into Pakistan. Which way is it? No matter how much you hate the President and America you can't have it both ways.
    After you hero Pee-Wee Olbermann's little diatribe against President Bush you cannot be as stupid as to actually say that your party and olbermann are not playing politics with national security. anyone who would sit at ground zero and out and out attack the president and call for his impeachment on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 IS playing politics with national security. You are pretty dumb but hopefully not that dumb as to not see the blatant hypocrisy and pandering. Well if you are posting on a site like this defending the olbermann then maybe you are.
    You are damn right I don't owe you any explanation .All I can do to provide my country an explanation is to post on sites like this and hope somebody reads it and at least comes away with a sense of the hypocrisy and outright traitorous ,slanderous, and downrigh insane ideology of people on the far-far left like olbermann and his followers like you. I write daily to editors, broadcast managers, elected officals, blogs about the threat to this country from the far left. I write to anybody that will listen. As you know i am not shy or apologetic about my views and will tell anybody anytime anywhere in any medium about my views.
    Ya gonna put me on your show? Oops I forgot the great olbermann will not tolerate dissent or anybody questioning his authority.

    Let's see; maybe I was making a point.

    Bush won't go in to Pakistan, because the Pakis are asserting their soverignty by periodically doing underground detonations.

    They SOLD their nuclear technology to the North Koreans.

    Still, Bush did nothing.

    Bin Laden hides, today, in Pakistan. Bush, in a complete counterpoint to his rhetoric, does not twist Musharraf's arm; on the contrary - he holds hands with the bastard, and calls him 'a key ally in the war on terror'.

    I'd love for nothing more than you to make an appearance on Olberman's show. We could let you talk, ranting at the top of your lungs about 'fags and commies and libruls and mexicans and niggers' for about ten seconds, then stop on a freeze frame of you with the foam and spittle locked in time, and then have Don LaFontaine do a VO that reads something like:

    "Please, in the name of all that is holy, vote anything BUT Republican, or douchebags like *this guy* will have representatives in Congress that wrap themselves in the flag, loudly preach about morals, promising to uphold Christian Values (instead of the Constitution) while torturing people to death and robbing the country blind."

    I decided, many posts ago to pose a simple question, for which you have no answer:

    "Why Iraq is a win for the US?"

    No answer from those who say it's a national necessecity.

    No answer.

    And yes, dimwit; I'm attacking Bush for not doing something about Pakistan, while wasting blood, treasure and national standing in Iraq.

    Pakistan and Iraq are two totally different things.

    As are Iraq and Iran.

    As are Syria, and Jordan.

    As are Israel and Lebanon.

    As are Gaza, the Saini and Egypt.

    There are nuances here, freeptard. There are a lot of different types of people and governments in the middle east, and lumping them all together under the umbrella of the 'war on terror' is just FUCKING STUPID.

    I don't give a shit if it's helped you win elections to fearmonger, to demagogue. That's why it's important to beat you.

    I'm going to do something about it; I'm travelling all the way across the country the day after tomorrow, to go to a huge gathering of people who think this fucking admistration should GO. NOW.

    We're organizing; not just telling everybody we can as one jerk lost in the woods, blindly calling radio stations in a vain effort to juxtapose his own meaninglessness would.

    We're all gonna meet, and have a great time, and party all night long, and talk about what douchebags you guys are. And it'll be sweet, trust me. Great tunes, hot chicks, and not one buttwipe like you within 500 miles.

    We're going to show up in force in November, and VOTE YOU OUT.

    The country will get along just fine without your precious bozo, your FAKE cowboy in charge.

    Just fine, thank you.

    "the 'war on terror' is just FUCKING STUPID. . . . I'm going to do something about it; I'm travelling all the way across the country the day after tomorrow, to go to a huge gathering . . . We're all gonna meet, and have a great time, and party all night long, and talk about what douchebags you guys are."

    So there! Didn't Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews and some other rockers who have smoked too much dope over their lives try to do this in 2004?

    Keep calling us far, far left for opposing the war in Iraq. Keep doing it.

    Keep crying 'wolf', too.

    It makes you look more and more desparate.

    The same way quoting me out of context does, for instance.

    Oh, and by all means, keep underestimating us.

    Let me state first, and foremost, that I am an American. I believe wholeheartedly that the principles to which this country subscribes give it the greatest potential above all others on this planet.
    I would also state that I am politically neutral. I have absolutely no confidence in mans ability to rule himself in an unbiased fashion…Republican, Democrat, whoever. Power corrupts. The “lesser of two evils”, the reason given by so many to describe casting their vote for whomever they decided to support, is still an evil. I simply don’t have the time to ferret out the truth from the barrage of information thrust upon those who have the stomach to try to select the people who are best able to control “the big picture” in America. I view the right to vote as just that. Not a DUTY, nor an OBLIGATION, but a RIGHT. I, personally, have always subscribed to my right NOT to vote. To those of you who would bestow upon me names and insults for that stand I am sorry, but, because of the very nation in which we reside, you have nothing to say about it. Nor can you complain in any meaningful fashion about my having opinions about how my country is run, even though I take no part in determining who will run it. A botched job a botched job, but I digress…
    I'm not certain how I ended up at this particular site and thread, but I've read it almost entirely from top to bottom and have some observations I'd like to share (though I doubt they will be well received).
    To broadsword...
    I consider you to be the most well written person here, but I'm afraid you've started to lose my attention. I think it would be a good idea if you signed off for a while. You're becoming as vicious as the posts against you. It doesn't support your cause.
    To riverdog...
    I don't know anything about the life and experiences that have brought you to "you" at this point in time; you could be a very good person and a pillar of your community, for all I know. I might even like you if we were to meet in person. However, and I'm sorry if this sounds like an insult, of what I've read of your posts here my impression is that you have done more to hurt your cause than anything else. You’ve done nothing but insult anyone who does not agree with you, and then some. No one will listen to you if you talk like that. Point: when I said that I read “almost entirely from top to bottom”, it is your posts that are the exception. I’m sure you have an opinion, but, believe me, you’re not representing it well.
    In fact, to pull the reins on what is turning out to be a tedious post to write (and doubtless to read), let me extend that view to include most everyone else who's posts I've read...I'm sure none of you are the type of people you portray in your posts (God help America if you are). Were I to leave this web page right now I would carry away the feeling that nothing here has any social merit whatsoever. You haven't made a single dent in any of the problems you each claim to know so much about. Even the posts that seem to offer well thought out opinions, for the most part, are either riddled with name-calling and insults throughout, or slip into a barrage of same toward the end.
    I do see an opportunity to bring this ongoing tirade out of the mud and into the realm of RESPONSIBLE debate…
    A challenge has been issued to which I have yet to hear an intelligent response.

    Posted by broadsword:
    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    If your answer consists of name-calling and insults toward me for anything I’ve stated here then you are continuing to dodge the question, and I’d prefer that you just shut-up and give way to someone who has a real opinion and may actually be able to further your cause.

    I, too, am still waiting…

    Let me state first, and foremost, that I am an American. I believe wholeheartedly that the principles to which this country subscribes give it the greatest potential above all others on this planet.
    I would also state that I am politically neutral. I have absolutely no confidence in mans ability to rule himself in an unbiased fashion…Republican, Democrat, whoever. Power corrupts. The “lesser of two evils”, the reason given by so many to describe casting their vote for whomever they decided to support, is still an evil. I simply don’t have the time to ferret out the truth from the barrage of information thrust upon those who have the stomach to try to select the people who are best able to control “the big picture” in America. I view the right to vote as just that. Not a DUTY, nor an OBLIGATION, but a RIGHT. I, personally, have always subscribed to my right NOT to vote. To those of you who would bestow upon me names and insults for that stand I am sorry, but, because of the very nation in which we reside, you have nothing to say about it. Nor can you complain in any meaningful fashion about my having opinions about how my country is run, even though I take no part in determining who will run it. A botched job a botched job, but I digress…
    I'm not certain how I ended up at this particular site and thread, but I've read it almost entirely from top to bottom and have some observations I'd like to share (though I doubt they will be well received).
    To broadsword...
    I consider you to be the most well written person here, but I'm afraid you've started to lose my attention. I think it would be a good idea if you signed off for a while. You're becoming as vicious as the posts against you. It doesn't support your cause.
    To riverdog...
    I don't know anything about the life and experiences that have brought you to "you" at this point in time; you could be a very good person and a pillar of your community, for all I know. I might even like you if we were to meet in person. However, and I'm sorry if this sounds like an insult, of what I've read of your posts here my impression is that you have done more to hurt your cause than anything else. You’ve done nothing but insult anyone who does not agree with you, and then some. No one will listen to you if you talk like that. Point: when I said that I read “almost entirely from top to bottom”, it is your posts that are the exception. I’m sure you have an opinion, but, believe me, you’re not representing it well.
    In fact, to pull the reins on what is turning out to be a tedious post to write (and doubtless to read), let me extend that view to include most everyone else who's posts I've read...I'm sure none of you are the type of people you portray in your posts (God help America if you are). Were I to leave this web page right now I would carry away the feeling that nothing here has any social merit whatsoever. You haven't made a single dent in any of the problems you each claim to know so much about. Even the posts that seem to offer well thought out opinions, for the most part, are either riddled with name-calling and insults throughout, or slip into a barrage of same toward the end.
    I do see an opportunity to bring this ongoing tirade out of the mud and into the realm of RESPONSIBLE debate…
    A challenge has been issued to which I have yet to hear an intelligent response.

    Posted by broadsword:
    Explain how Iraq is a win, or how it's ultimately going to be a win for the USA.

    If your answer consists of name-calling and insults toward me for anything I’ve stated here then you are continuing to dodge the question, and I’d prefer that you just shut-up and give way to someone who has a real opinion and may actually be able to further your cause.

    I, too, am still waiting…

    hey river dog, who made u god? what the hell do u mean by normal?its sickos like u who think there can only be straight people on this planet, well ive got news 4u, homosexuality has been around as long as heterosexuality. at one point in history people had 2 partners, the opposite sex for breeding, but the same sex partner was the one you love.so b4 u start gobbing off whats normal, try opening your eyes to the wider society, im from england but the same rules apply, so just get over yourself