Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    Philly wrote: Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. It's not shingles that makes you a ... [more](10)

    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


    September 12, 2006
    A few words on KO's 9/11 Rant...

    Last night Keith Olbermann took the occasion of the five year anniversary 9/11 to launch into a fact-challenged harangue of President Bush and call for his impeachment from a vantage point looking down on Ground Zero. I write about KO quite a bit on this site and normally even his most idiotic remarks don't phase me because I know he is a fool and so give his words the weight they deserve - none. But spending 9 minutes blaming Bush for the fact that Freedom Tower has not been competed is offensive on many levels. That Keith wants to wrap himself in the "flag" of "I lost friends that day" (does he even HAVE friends?) to do it makes me want to throw up. Only Keith Olbermann would USE the tragic death of his "friends" to attempt to insulate himself from criticism in blaming President Bush for the delays in rebuilding on the WTC site when it is patently false.

    He picked up the theme of the piece - "a hole in the ground" - after establishing his "I breathed in the remains of my friends" bona-fides:

    "...of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this. Five years later this space is still empty, there is no memorial to the dead, there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminal, this country's wound is still open, this country's mass grave is still unmarked, this is still just a background for a photo-op.

    OK, OK. We get the point. Keith thinks it's "shameful" that the Freedom Tower and 9/11 Memorial have not been completed five years after 9/11. Big deal. I don't know of anyone who is happy about it so what new ground is KO covering here?

    Keith next goes on to contrast this with the Gettysburg Memorial which was dedicated "barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field". As with much of what KO says when he is demagoging an issue, this sounds like a great point unless you know the facts.

    Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address at the dedication for the Soldiers' National Cemetery not the "Gettysburg Memorial". There is no "Gettysburg Memorial". There is a "Soldiers National Monument" in the center of the cemetery but that was not dedicated until July 1, 1869. The cemetery itself was not completed until 1872. Only the Union soldiers were buried there; the last of the 3,512 Union dead were not buried in the Soldiers' National Cemetery until March of 1864. The last of the Confederate soldiers were not reburied until 1877. In fact, if you look at any of the photos from that day (November 19, 1863) you will see that Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address in the middle of an open field (the field on which the battle was fought) where they were PREPARING to build the cemetary and monument.

    http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/gettncem/sncded11-63.jpg

    I'm surprised that Keith failed to lambaste that "no good" Lincoln for lolly-gagging around Washington, DC for FOUR MONTHS while the bodies of Union soldiers lay rotting in that Pennsylvania field. As we all know, Bush waited much longer to make his way to New York. Right? The more you know about that Lincoln the worse it gets. Did you know that Lincoln did not even authorize the creation of a soldier's cemetery? A private citizen purchased the 17 acres on his own initiative and invited Lincoln to speak as an after-thought.

    The dedication ceremony where Lincoln spoke was more akin to a "ribbon-cutting ceremony" than a "grand opening" - the Union dead were cleared from the battlefield and put in their final resting place about 9 months after the battle (four months after Lincoln's address). The monument was dedicated six YEARS after the Battle of Gettysburg. The cemetery was completed nine years after the battle and the last soldier was interred in his final resting place 14 years after the battle.

    Keith's next words - "our leaders could use those same words (Lincoln's at Gettysburg) to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't." - lose their punch when you realize that the effort to erect the Freedom Tour and a 9/11 memorial are moving ahead FASTER than the work at Gettysburg. In fact, the "ribbon-cutting ceremony" for the 9/11 memorial took place two years ago.

    He says of the leaders "they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere". I am not sure who "they" are here but among those who have held up the redevelopment of the WTC site have been the 9/11 families. Is Keith attacking them? What "private efforts" are the "leaders" thwarting? Who is claiming credit for what initiatives? Does "they" mean the politicians who have had the lead in the redevelopment - Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Pataki and the three recent New Jersey governors (all Democrats)?

    Not bothering to connect the dots, Keith makes a left turn into Iraq, out to an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego and then back to DC for a quick how-do-you-do for Armstrong Williams:

    "They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all".

    Presumably this is an attack on the Bush administration. How he makes the leap from the politics of rebuilding the WTC site to the Iraq war is a mystery known only to OlbyLoons.

    With his neurons firing in every direction, Keith eloquently ties together these random strands of Bush-hatred by concluding, beyond all logic, that every day that passes without the Freedom Tower and 9/11 memorial means "the terrorists are clearly, still winning."

    As Keith likes to pretend he is a part-time logician maybe he is drawing on some complex theory of reasoning that only he and dolphins can understand.

    Not satisfied with these contortions, Keith summersaults, then pirouettes before landing a triple-gainer, squarely on a stage of his own imagination, accusing Bush of having committed "a crime against every victim here" because the President did not intervene and FORCE the various parties to rebuild the WTC site in time for Keith's live shot from Ground Zero.

    I am going to skip over KO's standard "Bush squandered unity" tripe except to note that just last month KO and his OlbyLoon pals made quite a point of attacking Joe Lieberman for responding to that very same national desire for unity that Keith now so cherishes.

    With the site directly behind him, Keith contains himself long enough to recall that his rant began with a "hole in the ground" theme. In righteous anger, this Elmer Gantry of the cable news set shrieks "Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space" before swerving like a vision-impaired drunk straight into the "Path to 9/11", all to advance the rather odd notion that Bush is somehow responsible for programming at a rival television network - and not Fox News.

    Having spent the past hour in front of a backdrop of Ground Zero, spinning "9/11" like a it was a roulette wheel, Olbermann challenges Bush:

    "How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?"

    Apparently the irony was lost on KO for he returned to yet another previous theme to proclaim the "the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero."

    Now at this point, any channel surfers stumbling upon this OlberBaffoonery might be forgiven for thinking they'd wandered into a bad episode of The Twilight Zone. So what must these poor souls made of Keith then citing an episode of that very same show.

    Keith closes on with a "brilliant" sent of rhetorical questions designed to round out his "hole in the ground" theme:

    "...look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me: Who has left this hole in the ground?

    Again, all of this only seems to make sense only if you don't know the facts.

    As anyone who lives in the New York area can tell you (and Keith does) rebuilding at Ground Zero has been held up for many reasons and that none of them have anything to do with President Bush.

    First, it was 9 months before they removed all the debris from the site (I was there for that ceremony in June 2002, where were you Keith?).

    Second, there was a major issue over insurance - whether the owner of the property on which the WTC was built could collect and how much. Until that money was paid out there was no money to finance any work on the site. An OlbyWatch readers notes "The dispute over the insurance settlement came about because the property owner claimed the attacks were two seperate events, while the insurers said it was a single attack, and therefore worth just half the money claimed. There were also concerned with how to replace the lost office space from WTC 1 and 2, when eight of the 16 acres at the site are to be reserved for the memorial (a problem mostly since solved with the purchase of the damaged Deutsch Bank building that was contaminated beyond repair on 9/11)."

    Third, the WTC itself was not privately owned but sat on private property which was leased from a private company. The WTC was owned and operated by the Port Authority which is a special type of entity - an "authority" that is set up to be independent of the government(s) that create it. In this case the Port Authority was created by the states of New Jersey and New York. That same reader adds "The Port Authority authorization to assume the lead role in the site's rebirth came with a quid pro quo - agreeing to finance a new rail tunnel from New Jersey (via Keith's MSNBC stop in Secaucus) to midtown Manhattan which had nothing to do with WTC site. The officials there didn't want New York to be the sole beneficiary of all the PA's attention (in a similar way, New Jersey required the PA to buy the bankrupted PATH train system in 1962 before they would let them buy the WTC site and build the towers in the first place, so this is a long-standing interstate rivalry).

    Fourth, the WTC site is in New York City and in New York State and, as noted above, involved New Jersey as well. So, any rebuilding had to get the approval of the Mayor of New York City and various city agencies, the Governor of New York State and various state agencies, the Governor of New Jersey and various state agencies, the insurance companies and banks and the property owner (Larry Silverstein). There was also the small issue of figuring out who might want to be a tenant in a building that will become the terrorists #1 target on the day it opens. As some may recall, during this period, the Governor of New Jersey was somewhat preoccupied with various scandals and ultimately resigned over a personal scandal at which point an interim Governor took over, and then New Jersey elected Job Corzine governor. And, of course, you had all of the familes of the victims which organized into various groups - all of which had some gripe with some aspect of the plan. No politican was prepared to get into a fight with the families. Then there was the city planning people, the architectural review board. Pretty much every state and city agency and every community group in the tri-state area wanted a say in what happened at the WTC site.

    As noted above, there was a bricklaying ceremony - similar to what happened at Gettysburg in November, 1863 - in 2004 and they were finally ready to begin work but then the project ran into more problems.

    First, the NYPD and the FBI rejected the plan due to security concerns.

    Second, the plan included building a "tolerance" museum museum that became a hodge-podge of competing, politically-correct themes which somehow managed to bring in Martin Luther King, American Indians, and various "aggrieved" peoples from around the world. The only entrance to the memorial for the victims was through the tolerance museum which was basically an homage to left-wing propaganda (you lefites might not like that characterization but whatever you call it the idea that the site would do anything other than simply honor the people who died at the site did not sit well with many, many people). The tolerance museum was eventually scrapped and so a new plan was created that took that out and addressed the security concerns.

    Finally, after all this, came the Freedom Tower design and a plan that was approved by all of the required parties (not that everyone is happy because many, including some families, are still complaining). Meanwhile, other buildings AROUND the actual site of the two towers (the WTC was, I think, actually SEVEN buildings), were being built. Some of them have been completed. They also had to first rebuild the PATH trains and subway station underneath the site (one of the largest commuter rail transportation hubs in the country). Once that was done they had to rebuild the "bathtub", the retaining walls that keep the Hudson River from rushing into the excavacted site.

    Somehow none of this reality fit neatly into KO's anti-Bush screed.

    Now, Keith Olbermann lives in New York. And any New Yorker with half a brain knows all about this because it is in the newspapers and on TV every friggin' day. So, how is that Keith can go on TV, broadcasting live from the site, and put forward the absolutely aburd, completely disingenuous notion that President Bush is responsible for the current state of the WTC site?

    So, I ask you Keith. Have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame?

    Do you crave higher ratings so badly you would throw away whatever shred of credibility you once had as a sportscaster?

    Look in the mirror Keith, you have become that which you claim to despise - a demagogue.

    Who has left this hole in your integrity?

    We have not forgotten, Mr. Olbermann.

    You have.

    May the people who once considered you a journalist forgive you.


    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (157) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    157 Comments

    Mr. Cox, thanks for the lesson on the WTC rebuilding. I never knew that there was such in-fighting about that. I knew there was a little bickering, but not to the extent that you detailed.

    Excellent work, Mr. Cox. The fact that Mr. Olbermann knew all of this and still went forward with an indictment of the President truly demonstrates his blatant Bush derangement. If he didn't know all of this and still went forward with this indictment, then it truly speaks of his poor journalistic skills.

    Just my opinion...

    Of all the things that some may blame Bush for(righty or wrongly) the lack of a new building on ground zero is the not one of them,Bush has no control what happens there its up to the city leaders of New York and the owners of the land.

    But as I said before this has nothing to do with 9/11,Iraq,Bush or O'Reilly it all has to do with KO getting his ratings and book sales up and he thinks begging the Daily Kos and Dem.Underground to help him by doing those "special comments" to wet their lips is the way to do it..funny thing is after the 3rd time he's done it..it hasn't worked.

    Gee, you guys that linear in your thinking? I guess if it doesn't fit betwixt the rows and columns, you can't figure it out. Far be it for me to speak for Mr. Olbermann -- and I've never been counted as one of his fans in the past -- but, gosh, I think the "hole in the ground," was, duh, a metaphor. (Look it up in the dictionary). Of course, if you're skewed that far to the right YOU would be looking for holes in anything that didn't align with your personal political philosophies. You missed the point in an eloquently composed, poignent piece of journalistic prose, aimed at an alledged leader who isn't even capable of understanding such an invective, much less composing one to match it.

    Wow Tom, what insight you have!!

    The rabid, defensive, ugly responses by you reactionary right wing dunderheads to Mr. Olberman's brilliant and moving essay perfectly illustrates why America is kicking your sorry asses to the curb this November.

    Tom, if you don't write on a first-grade level, it goes way over their heads.

    yeah Unger just like you won in "94-'96-'98-'00-'02 & '04. Hey Unger if you keep calling him (ha) "Mr. Olbermann" and writing so critically off conservatives you just might get a date with him. He who shall be called Mr Twilight. Too bad your hero is a flaming left wing a--hole.
    Just remember you words "kicking your asses to the curb in November" you little psuedo-commie don't be suprised if once again you are wrong.
    and colbert you are certainly not one to talk about first grade levels. Your writing has all the eloquence, flow and grammtical correctness of a monkey on bad acid . But I know that you liberal-socialist-progressives just love to pride yourselves on being so much smarter than us ignorant inbred red staters right. But hey! at least we are smart enough not to be commies.

    Off the mark Mr. Cox.

    My biggest offense to the president's speech was that 9/11 is all about the victims and Bush chose to fearmonger us and the victim's families with Bin Laden while mentioning bin Laden side by side with Saddam and Iraq. There was nothing inspiring about the speech, just be afraid, be very afraid.

    Worse yet, it appears bin Laden is setting the rules for this conflict.

    Bush: "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad. Osama bin Laden calls this fight "the Third World War" and he says that victory for the terrorists in Iraq will mean America's "defeat and disgrace forever. If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden, our enemies will be emboldened; they will gain a new safe haven; they will use Iraq’s resources to fuel their extremist movement. "

    Just when did we begin allowing bin Laden to define us? Apparently, we can't leave Iraq because bin Laden says so.

    Bush insulted the veterans of real world wars with his comparisons to Iwo Jima and other battles. From Political Wire....
    "If the war on terror is really a "struggle for civilization" itself, as President Bush claimed last night, why do we have just 130,000 troops in Iraq?"

    Anyone care to field that one?

    Yes, the hole in the ground comment was a perfect metaphor for Bush's failed polices, no matter what level of blame you feel Bush deserves.

    RCox, your analysis appears to have picked out some holes in KO's story, but the premise still stands. Sorry.

    Tom,

    Keith invokes the "hole in the ground" in both a figurative and actual manner.

    If he meant it entirely figuratively then his mentioning of a Gettysburg Memorial makes no sense.

    Anyway, Bob's piece makes that clear. You need to learn to read rather than merely reacting.

    Bob,

    All day long I've been thinking how much we must over-estimate the left in that they could possibly consider Keith's tangential screed "brilliant".

    Now, we see that Olbermann can't get the most basic underpinning of an argument right...

    Good job.

    If Olbermann is the intellectual and moral clarion of the left, then they are utter paper tigers.

    riverdog,
    The statistics show blue staters are better-educated and smarter than red staters. We also make more money, have lower poverty rates, provide more taxes, take less government money. Blue states are clearly statistically far superior to red states.

    Colbert,

    Which one is red state and which one is blue? I thought they were all a part of The United States of America.

    KO seems to be a divider, not a uniter.

    President George Bush is doing his best to protect this country. If KO should be mad at anyone, he should be mad at the NY Times for disclosing secret spy programs.

    Bush insulted the veterans of real world wars with his comparisons to Iwo Jima and other battles. From Political Wire....
    "If the war on terror is really a "struggle for civilization" itself, as President Bush claimed last night, why do we have just 130,000 troops in Iraq?"


    So what troop numbers in Iraq would the "political wire" consider as adequate in "a struggle for civilization itself"? Five hundred thousand? A million?

    "Political Wire" (whatever the hell that is...) knows that the fight against Islamic extremists is a multi-fronted war...and that's war and that's "war". They aren't asking a real question. They're merely trying to be cute.

    so? Colbert You made up some statistics just like you make up the pool numbers. you can get polls or statitisics to say whatever you want them to say.
    I take it you think that you are morally superior than me right? i suppose you asume that i live in a red state correct?
    Guess what a--hole- your statitistics and assumtions are wrong.
    you sound like some little insecure snot nosed liberal punk typing . Is that your basis for feeling superior? You sound just like the Hitler youth in the 30's. You liberals are really just like the Nazis.
    I deflate all your arguments and prove you so very wrong , ignorant and bigoted and all ya got is to say that you are statistically superior than me? God you are gold star condescending liberal a--hole now onder every hates liberals so much, except other liberals of course.
    You also prove once again that the true nature of liberals is to divide and become the ruling "intellectual: class when your try to implement your little socialist utopia. I know you have not the mental capacity to do so but think long and hard about the fight you will bring to this country.
    You are not better than me you little liberal turd only dumber and very much more insecure. You have alot of growing up to do little man.

    Have you missed the irony in KO's "Special Comment" from last night completely? In is speech, KO brought up Iraq. KO called Bush a liar, and idiot, and said his offenses were impeachable.

    Today? Three segments on how bad Mr. Bush was because he brought up Iraq on 9/11, and supposedly "politicized 9/11."

    Another Klassic KO example of "Do as I say, not as I do...and buy my book so Amazon will keep changing the price of it everytime it falls further in the rankings." It is time for KO to admit his partisanship and quit using the title "anchor" (unless they a heavy weight dragging the credibility of NBC News/MSNBC to a halt) and call him what he is- a commentator.

    On top of it all, for weeks I've thought that Emp. Palpantine was an idiot for saying KO was a terrorist sympathizer. But, on 9/11, KO said the terrorists are winning at the WTC, and on 9/12 said they have won in Anbar province, Iraq. So, according to KO, Israel lost to Hizbullah, and the US has lost to al Qaeda in NY and in Iraq. Good god, what's next KO.

    First of all, I am a liberal. By the most basic definition, liberals support human rights. That is why I am a liberal - pure and simple. Conservatives, on the other hand, on the most basic level support the interests and rights of the elite, the wealthy, the property owners. I have chosen human rights over the rights of corporations and the wealthy. That is why I am a liberal.

    Now, as for the charge of Nazism, frankly I don't think many people understand what Nazism was. To accuse me of Nazism, you are alleging that I believe and follow the practices of the Nazi Party which itself persecuted and killed millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, transvestites, dissenters, non-Germans, and many other lesser groups. As I said before, I am a liberal for liberals support the rights of humans. To be a Nazi is to contradict the core principles of liberalism.

    And I don't accuse Conservatives of having the stain of Nazism. I don't like many of your beliefs it is true; however, that is why I am not a member of your community. I respect your opinions as valid and as different from my own.

    What disappoints me about 9-11 is not that we don't have a memorial to the event (it took many years before there was a memorial to the tragedy of Pearl Harbor) nor that Americans have moved on nor that politicians are accusing the other of betraying the interests of the mother country. These things have taken place many times in history. What disappoints me is that we don't have a stronger leader. Stubbornness is not the makings of a good leader; a good leader is adaptive to the situation and responds in a proactive manner to events. Our best presidents have been good leaders.

    I am hoping for a president in 2009, be that person of either party, that can be adaptive to what is happening and can heal the rifts in our country.

    Colin,
    I couldn't agree with you more! Bush was supposed to be a "uniter not a divider" and he squandered all of the good will most Americans blindly gave him after 9/11--even those that did not agree with him politically. I, too, hope the next president is intellectually curious and values information, debate and reaching out to experts before making "gut" inspired decisions. That would help to move America in the right direction and maybe earn a little respect abroad. "The Decider" has gotten us into a dire situation because his arrogance and his "inner circle" got in the way of diplomacy.

    That's what Keith's 9/11 stunt was about. He was countering the ABC mocu-drama and the president's speech conveniently wedged in the middle. Gee, "hollywood" was at it again! $40 million production with no commercials? Can ABC write this as a donation to the upcoming election?

    Keith, as well as the rest of us, have the right to question this administration's use of 9/11 for political gain--especially on a night when ABC runs a movie that does nothing to honor the dead or help the country heal. I personally applaud his courage to do so despite the crucifixtion he faces from neo-cons on this site.

    I, too, am a proud liberal. I believe in human rights and looking at the big picture rather than my own self-interests. Hopefully, we will elect a president (of any party) that has those values.

    It's telling that the OlbyLoons want to bring up any other topic they can think of rather than deal with the reality that Olbermann's "special comment" on 9/11 was wrong on the facts.

    As for the idea of the "hole in the ground" meme being a "metaphor", KO's attempt at a metaphor rests upon the predicate being true which, as noted above, it is not. For those who care to look more closely you will also find that KO's use of language is peripatetic. One moment he is using the WTC site as a metaphor and the next he is referring to the actual site. This is not, as Olbypologist woudl tell you, some sophisticated use of language. It is sloppiness posing as high rhetoric which counts on uncritical and inattentive consumption by true believers more concerned with seeing "their guy" use air time to attack the President with any charge he can concoct.

    Again, that not a single OlbyLoon has posted a comment acknowledging the obvious, that whatever the emotion KO brought to his "special comment" the facts are against him, says more about the desperate nature of the left that is does about Keith.

    Any OlbyLoons out there prepared to address my rather thorough debunking of Olbermann?

    Has anyone here ever seen this episode of Penn and Teller's series Bullshit?

    http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s4/groundzero

    If you want the real story on the "hole in the ground," then I highly suggest that you tivo this episode the next time it airs -- assuming you subscribe to Showtime. Or just Google it.

    Has anyone here ever seen this episode of Penn and Teller's series Bullshit?

    http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s4/groundzero

    If you want the real story on the "hole in the ground," then I highly suggest that you tivo this episode the next time it airs -- assuming you subscribe to Showtime. Or just Google it.

    His "friends" who died in 9/11 were just acquaintances. He said so either on the radio show or on Countdown some months ago.

    The only reason they are now his friends is simply so he can make 9/11 all about him.

    The facts never get in the way of either Olbermann's "special comments" or his fans belief systems. And neither ever acknowledges the truth as it really is or apologizes later for getting the facts wrong. They richly deserve one another.

    Do you understand or know the definition of fascism? Your superimposing Hitler over Olbermann is incongruent. See, fascism is the intentional alignment of corporate entities with the government for the purpose of control and hegemony over the masses. This allows for this group to control courts, politics, and economics and use government for it's own economic gain. Generally, governments like this are imperialistic in their practices, and create a nationalistic fervor which quashes public opinion and free speech. Sound familiar? The fact that Olbermann challenges the administration makes him the antithesis of fascism. Funny, how the money spent on Iraq could have been used to help in the reconstruction effort of the freedom tower. Facts are against him? Apparently the guy who wishes to let everyone know he has a ver sophisticated vocabulary (peripatetic? Look up the definition. Webster's- and the only close reference to the way you use it is "to walk up and down" or "involvement in journeys hither and thither"). If you are so bright with your SAT words, why can you not shift your literary capacity to see the reference as a metaphor in one sentence and as a physical reference in the next? Perhaps Keith should slow down for you. But I guess that explains the inability to have contradictory facts and evidence in your head when you exist as a "true believer". The fact remains that this administration squandered a cohesive moment in time, in which the nation was united, and blew on the racetrack in Iraq. If you don't see that, and you like a government that supports business more than its citizens...if you prefer a government which would rather ratchet up the national debt in order to give gifts to its corporate allies....if you like a government which obfuscates (read lies) to the public when info was clearly available in opposition to a doomed venture, then you get the government you deserve.

    Riverdog, to respond to someone's statistics, correct statistics, with name calling, zig zagging logic and attacks, really shows who is the little man.

    You claim to deflate arguments, when all you did was name call, make outlandish attacks (sounds just like Hitler youth, really, what did they sound like?)

    I would guess, riverdog, that you are in your late teens, work a minimum wage job that isn't going to lead to the wealth you crave and haven't gotten over your teen angst yet. You seem pretty angry and use toxic attacks to frighten someone into shutting up. You seem very angry and very fearful of anything that isn't within your comfort bubble.

    Spewing hatred and vitriol isn't being part of the political process. Try commenting on Cox's original post in a critical way and see how it feels to actually debate.

    Riverdog, to respond to someone's statistics, correct statistics, with name calling, zig zagging logic and attacks, really shows who is the little man.

    You claim to deflate arguments, when all you did was name call, make outlandish attacks (sounds just like Hitler youth, really, what did they sound like?)

    I would guess, riverdog, that you are in your late teens, work a minimum wage job that isn't going to lead to the wealth you crave and haven't gotten over your teen angst yet. You seem pretty angry and use toxic attacks to frighten someone into shutting up. You seem very angry and very fearful of anything that isn't within your comfort bubble.

    Spewing hatred and vitriol isn't being part of the political process. Try commenting on Cox's original post in a critical way and see how it feels to actually debate.

    Riverdog, to respond to someone's statistics, correct statistics, with name calling, zig zagging logic and attacks, really shows who is the little man.

    You claim to deflate arguments, when all you did was name call, make outlandish attacks (sounds just like Hitler youth, really, what did they sound like?)

    I would guess, riverdog, that you are in your late teens, work a minimum wage job that isn't going to lead to the wealth you crave and haven't gotten over your teen angst yet. You seem pretty angry and use toxic attacks to frighten someone into shutting up. You seem very angry and very fearful of anything that isn't within your comfort bubble.

    Spewing hatred and vitriol isn't being part of the political process. Try commenting on Cox's original post in a critical way and see how it feels to actually debate.

    Riverdog, to respond to someone's statistics, correct statistics, with name calling, zig zagging logic and attacks, really shows who is the little man.

    You claim to deflate arguments, when all you did was name call, make outlandish attacks (sounds just like Hitler youth, really, what did they sound like?)

    I would guess, riverdog, that you are in your late teens, work a minimum wage job that isn't going to lead to the wealth you crave and haven't gotten over your teen angst yet. You seem pretty angry and use toxic attacks to frighten someone into shutting up. You seem very angry and very fearful of anything that isn't within your comfort bubble.

    Spewing hatred and vitriol isn't being part of the political process. Try commenting on Cox's original post in a critical way and see how it feels to actually debate.

    Mr. Cox, Cecelia, et. Al. –
    Thank you for educating me in the use of metaphor in a rhetorical editorial. Let me see if I understand you correctly. By your reasoning and assessment, if any part of an expression is false, then the whole thing is false. Consequently, you choose to dissect the parallel structure of Olbermann’s editorial with the apparent skew that if he has taken any metaphorical liberties, it obviates the value of the entire piece. Once again, gentlepeople, I think Olbermann was looking at a much bigger picture, one that you choose to ignore, or your myopia doesn’t allow you to see. You pick and choose to find fault with putting buildings up, or what happened at Gettysburg, while ignoring the central theme of Olbermann’s piece – that we have been lied to by an alleged leader and his sycophants. In the nitpicking, no one chose to address that issue? Let’s see, by your reasoning, if they lied once, then anything said by the current administration couldn’t possibly be true. I would much rather be Peripatetic (the fact you didn’t capitalize it, Mr. Cox, does not take away the intent of its use) than a lemming. It is interesting, too, Mr. Cox, that you chose to plagiarize the same structure of Olbermann’s editorial to finalize the point in yours. It must have been effective, as I understand mimicry to be the greatest form of flattery. The great thing about this country is that we can exercise freedom of choice. You choose to nitpick and copy, I choose to look at the big picture. I would certainly choose to follow someone who is wise and of good intentions, than someone who is deceitful and lies.

    You sir, are an asshat. Someone buy this guy a dictionary. Excuse me while I go beat my dick to a picture of Anne Coulter.....

    You sir, are an asshat. Someone buy this guy a dictionary. Excuse me while I go beat my dick to a picture of Anne Coulter.....

    "Stubbornness is not the makings of a good leader; a good leader is adaptive to the situation and responds in a proactive manner to events."

    "Adaptive to the situation", is this situation ratings, if so then abrams sucks as a leader of olbermann. Stubborn is how to describe olbermann and beating dead topics (Cruise, Plamegate, o'reilly ect..)

    Miguel,

    I find it incongruent when when you peripatetically shift your literary capacity for the purpose of control and hegemony.. Do you understand or know the definition of the antithesis of intentional alignment of corporate entities with the government As your mind strolls hither and thither on your journeys up and down the cohesive moments in time, I hope you will consider the reference as a metaphor. The fact remains that which obfuscates also squanders.

    Confused? That paragraph cobbled together from your words made about as much as sense as your entire comment. On the plus side, I love that you took the time to look up the meaning of a word that you did not understand. You get a gold star!

    I like this bit best...

    "If you are so bright with your SAT words, why can you not shift your literary capacity to see the reference as a metaphor in one sentence and as a physical reference in the next? Perhaps Keith should slow down for you.

    Perhaps you will scroll up a few comments to see that I've already addressed the point and there is no need for me to shift my "literary capacity" to grasp Keith's supposedly sophisticated use of metaphor. As I explained above, to serve a valid rhetorical purpose, the predicate (oops, sorry for the "big" word) must be true. Keith's metaphor, and his "peripateic" ramblings are logically inconsistent because the premise for his entire "special comment" is false. This is well-documented and as you are not disputing any of that, I take it that you agree that, on the facts, KO is wrong - both about the WTC rebuilding effort and the "Gettysburg Memorial".

    As you can plainly see, if the premise is false the metaphor does not hold and therefore it does not matter whether he is using the reference as a metaphor in one sentence and as a physical reference in the next. I do get it. And none of it makes sense for the reasons outlined above.

    Try reading my post again - slowly and as often as necessary - and perhas you will be able to seperate the emotion of Keith's speech (he is really, really "mad" at President Bush) with the fallacy of its premise. The real problem here is that Keith so loved the left-wing adoration he received for his Rummy Rant that he is depserately casting about for new material. Having found none, he tossed together an incoherent mish-mash that only the most die-hard news junkie could follow [An Armstrong Williams reference? Come on! :-) ] and served up this rotten gumbo to his uncritical liberal base.

    Sincerely,

    - the guy who wishes to let everyone know he has a very sophisticated vocabulary

    The basic, undisbutable fact is that Keith Olbermann is a demagogue. He appeals to the base emotional hatreds of his target audience. Who is is target audience now? Bush Haters. He cannot help but try to stir the passions of the group who looks at everything as, "It is Bush's fault."

    (It's interesting that one of fascism's components is a reliance on demagogory.....Liberals should remember this when they analyze their own rhetoric and observe such charismatic tones.....beware!)

    If this is what NBC wants to be associated with, fine....I don't watch anyway. I just enjoy coming to this site and see leftists defend an undefensable hack who, like his last comparison to Gettysburg, always makes serious factual errors. As a demagogue, Keith Olbermann is an incompetant anchor and will never become a serious source of thought and reflection.

    And before you attack my spelling.....I know, I know....I just noticed I did not correctly spell "undisputable." Go ahead, attack my IQ.....it seems that is always part of the rebuttal.

    It took 60 years to get a WWII memorial to the greatest generation. Where's KO's outrage against Truman?

    The idea of the WTC was born in the 1950s by the Rockefeller brothers. Construction began in 1966 and was completed in 1973. Despite KO's simpledon rant, a 1700 foot structure can't be built overnight like his Lego collection.

    Wikipedia provides a good timeline of why there is still a hole in the ground. BTW A new 7 World Trade Center office building, which was not part of the site master plan, officially opened on May 23, 2006.

    "On March 13, 2006 workers arrived at the World Trade Center site to remove remaining debris and start surveying work. This marks the official start of construction of the WTC Memorial and Museum."

    KO needs to stick to sports his steroid use is becoming obvious.

    Tom,

    I don't agree with the point you make in your comment but I like the way you made it. Cheers for you...

    Now, to the substance.

    You wrote: "if any part of an expression is false, then the whole thing is false"

    You have incorrectly characterized my criticism of KO's 9/11 Rant. What I have said is that the premise on which the "hole in the ground" metaphor rests is false because Bush is not responsible for the rebuilding of the WTC site. What would have worked quite well would have been if KO were sitting in front of the Pentagon on 9/11/06 and that site, federal property, directly under the President's control, had not been rebuilt after five years The problem there, of course, is that the Pentagon WAS rebuilt.

    The issues I have raised with regards to Olbermann's 9/11 rant is that he used the occassion of 9/11 to convey a great deal of false information, leaving viewers with an entirely false impression about the rebuilding of the WTC site. Failed metaphors aside, Is there really some dispute as to whether KO is blaming Bush for the actual WTC site not having yet been rebuilt?

    I felt compelled to publish a post on this after reading many left-wing blogs that took what Keith said about the redevelopment of the WTC site at face value - as factual statements. As I have demonstrated quite clearly, little of what Keith said about the ACTUAL rebuilding of the WTC site is true.

    I also thought it was worth pointing out just how far off base Keith was in attempting to draw a parallel with the supposedly rapid response of President Lincoln to creating a "Gettysburg Memorial" by pointing out that his Address was given AT THE DEDICATION just four months after the battle. As you can see, the exact opposite of the case, the cemetary and monument were not complete until after Lincoln's death.

    Most of KO's audience - and the audience of the syncophantic blue blogs - are not familar with either the cause of delays in redeveloping the WTC site or the Gettysburg "memorial".

    The issue is not whether he has "taken any metaphorical liberties", what "obviates the value of the entire piece" is that the entire piece is predicated on a series of lies and mischaracterizations which only "works" when you deliver it to an uncritical or uninformed audience.

    Now that I have addressed your comment, maybe you could answer a question. Did you know the details on either the redevelopment of the WTC site or the Gettysburg "memorial" prior to reading my post? If no, why don't you go back and read KO's rant in light of what you have learned and see if you can identify any of the problems with his piece?

    As for ignoring the "bigger picture", I "get it". Keith is saying the same thing that liberals say every day - that Bush "squandered" unity, that Iraq was a mistake, that Bush lied, that Bush manipulates the media, that the administration is corrupt, that the media does not have liberal bias but rather conservative bias, that Bush is wrong to blame Democrats or the media for the declining support for the War in Iraq, that the war on terror is not the same thing as the war in Iraq. How am I doing so far?

    I don't "ignore" what he is saying. I do not agree with what he is saying - see the difference?

    Apparently what you would like is for me to grant Keith his premise and then respond to his left-wing take on the Bush Administration. Since I know his premise to be false and do not agree with his take on the issues he is raising why I would want to do that. You are welcome to make your case as to why "Bush=Bad" but on this site we tend to focus on the many ways in which KO lies or otherwise misrepresents the facts.

    You are welcome to your anti-Bush beliefs but please don't tell me that the facts are other than how I have presented them.

    As far as "plagiarizing" material, I think you are thinking of one of your candidates for the '08 nomination, Joe Biden. It was an attempt to be satircal not steal material from Keith and pass it off as my own (something Keith knows a lot about).

    At least we can agree on your last point:

    "I would certainly choose to follow someone who is wise and of good intentions, than someone who is deceitful and lies."

    Tom,

    Let me remind you of where *YOU started with this.

    *You responded to a piece that Bob had written regarding the veracity of some claims Olbermann had presented as facts.

    Bob's piece undermined Olbermann's exhibit A for his argument that Bush has ignored the need for a memorial at Ground Zero because the place is merely a political staging ground to him. Exhibit A is that such a thing can be done because Lincoln had insisted on and had facilated a timely memorial at Gettyburg.

    *YOU RESPONDED to this point of Bob's piece by conveniently focusing chiefly on Olbermann's figurative use of "the hole" at Ground Zero--that is that Bush has built no concensus, he has healed no wounds.

    If *You attempted to address the central point of Bob's piece at all, you've addressed Olbermann's literal use of the hole by:

    1. Simply circling back to Olbermann's charge that Bush could cause a memorial to be built if he really wanted too (as Lincoln had done) ...and you've base your argument solely by taking the Dan Rather "factually inaccurate but correct" line of defense-- Exhibit A was flawed...the premise is not...

    Again...*YOU responded to the piece by sidestepping the points the piece made.

    Now you accuse Bob...me...anyone who doesn't see it your way....of sidestepping... of a lack of abstract thinking ...of being lemmings... anything you can think of... after we call you on sidestepping the central point of the piece you were addressing.

    But what else is new.

    Why can't the lefties just admit it? Olbermann screwed up and did NOT get his facts straight. It is purely a matter of hating what Bush stands for and blaming him for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the world. The sad fact is most on the left these days (with some exceptions) are not concerned with arguing issues based on the facts. They are interested in their political agenda above all else. Luckily they are their own worst enemies. By become more dogmatic and radical (for example, purging the democratic party of moderates like Lieberman) they are turning off a lot of moderate voters. Let's hope they keep shooting themselves in the foot in the runup to November!

    So let me get this straight, there are terrorists tryingt o kill us, but we shouldn't worry about them... we should worry about the Presidant addressing this without scaring us?

    Are you people on the left truly this insane?

    Or will you whiop out the new left talking points regarding "More likely to get killed in a car accident" BS.

    What are the odds of a kid getting kidnapped, molested? Not as high as the car issue, so don't scare your kid ands and tell them to be careful in crowds or talk to strangers or stay close. Afterall, they're more likely to get killed in a car accident, so don't scare'em.

    So let me get this straight, there are terrorists tryingt o kill us, but we shouldn't worry about them... we should worry about the Presidant addressing this without scaring us?

    Are you people on the left truly this insane?

    Or will you whiop out the new left talking points regarding "More likely to get killed in a car accident" BS.

    What are the odds of a kid getting kidnapped, molested? Not as high as the car issue, so don't scare your kid ands and tell them to be careful in crowds or talk to strangers or stay close. Afterall, they're more likely to get killed in a car accident, so don't scare'em.

    You know, all this bickering over Olbermann is pretty silly, don't you think? Why not speak about the real issues at hand, like how Cecelia and Robert Cox have their noses so far up this administrations bunghole that they lose clarity and perspective. Afterall, how would you explain their blindness when it comes to how this administration employs Orwellian newspeak to deceive its mentally challenged flock? It is a very sorry state for Conservatives to so dutifully have to fall in line with the rantings of Donald Rumsfeld, especially when any disagreement on their part would imply a lack of patriotism.And what could hurt the most divisive segment of our society( conservatives) than childish accusations from the high priests of their political party?
    What we're really dealing with here is a peculiar group of people, those on the Right, and their peculiar world views and behavior.
    Let's not forget, these are the same people who believe Rush Limbaugh is brilliant.These are the same people who think "likability" is more important than competence when it comes to their elected representatives.These are the same people that think campaign reform is an infringement on their "free speech". These are the people who rely on slogans like "compassionate conservatism" to mask their lack of compassion towards fellow Americans. These are the people who feel better about themselves watching fictional accounts of historical events because it complies so neatly with their warped perceptions .These are the very same people who still believe there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and use the argument that there were Al-Qaeda in Irag prior to 9-11( there were Al-Qaeda within the U.S. as well,no?).
    In short, any attempt on our part to reason with mental midgetry is as futile as describing an Impressionist painting to a blind man.Why waste any energy on those that see things the way they want to see them as opposed to the way they are? Politicians on the Right and the Pundits who love them thank Allah every day for the ignorance bestowed upon their lower-than-average populace.It is our misfortune in these times that the fear mongering cowards on the Right have such willing accomplices.Perhaps in the near future, we can look upon this nightmare and learn from it. Historical perspective will shed light upon a greater problem in this country which is the character of some of its citizenry.At the end of the day, an overwhelming percentage of Conservatives support their party because of their economic policies.So, to Cecelia and Bob,piss off.Step aside and let the real patriots of our great nation take care of the problem you are so unwilling to take care of." Mission Accomplished!"

    I saw Boooosh at the Home Depot. He had some quickset and a shovel. I think hes on the way to build that monument.


    Good to see the boy keith branch out from blaming Bill O'Reilly for everything.
    I wonder who he blames for his abysmal ratings?

    That said, he is a babbling idiot who keeps lying to the American people with his drivel. I find it hysterical that he tries so hard to emulate the man he hates yet has to ignore reality in order to do it.

    Tell me Mr. Olbermann who do you blame for how long it took to erect the Vietnam Memorial? War ended in 1975, wall erected 1982. How about WWII?

    There are owners and benefactors and many, many competing interests still trying to sculpt the final outcome of this effort.

    Demanding that Bush should have done something about it demonstrates abject ignorance of the underlying issues involved.

    It is simply not Bush's call.

    I watched the video piece in question and saw sincerity, not sensationalism. What I see on this site is nothing more than an attempt to discredit a man, whom for the most part has broken away from the generic approval of the Bush regime. You refer to those of us that agree with Mr. Olbermann as the "tin-foil hat crowd" and depict Mr. Olbermann with a poorly imposed hitler mask, yet the only real sensationalist propaganda here is in this article. It makes sense that a line of thought based in blame and the absence of justice would seek to invalidate and ridicule it's opponents rather than offer empirical evidence against it's arguments. You are entitled to your opinion. However to act as if that opinion holds weight over any other opinion is a farce at best and the ramblings of a propagandist at worst. So continue in your attempted character assassination of a man that does not fall in line with your "head in the sand" mentality. What do you really do, save for spread disinformation and opinion as fact?

    Hey al,

    Good job of setting up and knockin' down that straw man. For someone so "enlightened" you would flunk a first year philosophy class. I am a conservative, yet I don't like or believe everything Rush Limbaugh, Donald Rumsfeld, or even George Bush says. If you so concerned with only the facts, why do you use only ad hominem attacks (you might need to look that one up) on people you don't agree with? Gee, sounds like you really have an open mind...

    Bucky why do you ask of me what you will not ask of your hero Olbermann?
    you said:"Spewing hatred and vitriol isn't being part of the political process". You see we cannot have a true debate or intelligent discussion until we get past the hypocrisy. You cannot and will not have me adhere to parameters and ground rules you will not live by yourself. And therin lies one of my main reason for hatred and contempt of liberals. It's the hypocrisy stupid!
    You can spout off all your typical condescending liberal tripe such as " angst filled minimum wage teenager". Then you have the sheer hypocritical balls to lecture me on "spewing hatred". You sound like some leftard freshman college punk who has not the sense to even see when he is making a hypocritcal a--hole of himself.
    You also include this liberal pearl of wisdom: "You seem very angry and very fearful of anything that isn't within your comfort bubble. Look in the mirror pal you just described yourself better that I ever could. When your little bubble of liberal lockstep ideolgy gets popped all you left wingers have to defend yourself is your blatant hypocrisy.

    Oh CGK...where oh where did you lift the "ad hominem" rhetoric from? When exactly were you "Hannitized"? As a conservative who doesn't believe everything your pundits say you sure are defensive. So what aspects of what the Limbaughs and Rumsfelds say do you believe( you may not believe everything they say but you DO believe some of what they say,no?).Your weak comeback shows that your so called debate is really excercises in rhetorical futility.So sorry I offended your inferiority complex by coming off so "enlightened".Next time it would do you good to dispel what I have said instead of how I said it, lest your position be discredited.But it's a little too late for that, isn't it? So keep up the mindless chatter. Keep supporting your narrow-minded leaders. Stay the course buddy!
    In the words of your lord and savior," Bring it on"!

    Seamus,

    Such a thorough debunking only SEEMS like an "assassination" - I'm just killing a bad argument with a preponderance of facts.

    As for the image on the home page of KO at the Hitler mask, please tell me you think it is wrong to use such imagery to mock someone.

    Mr. Cox,
    Gotta love a site that is obsessed with whatever some journalist at MSNBC says on a daily basis. If you can actually point to a journalist, commentator, or talk show host that is factually correct 100% of the time, then you have a point about KO. If you can point to someone who does not manipulate facts and stories in order to prove their point, then you are right about KO. Otherwise you gotta be able to apply the same zeal for fact checking for any media personality that is out there including the ones you would agree with. If you can't do that then please shut up. Your thoughts are as worthless as anything you believe KO is saying. I would also apply this thinking to those on the left that pull these same stunts on Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and other right wing commentators. The truth can only be found by being objective and fair.

    Hey al,

    If you had made any attempt to put something factual in your rant, then I would have addressed it, but you didn't. But how can you argue with someone who thinks Hannity coined the term ad hominem?

    The problem is that most liberals think there is no objective, absolute truth. No right and wrong, no good and evil, just happy shades of the rainbow, or shades of gray. So arguing with someone who believes that truth is relative is like trying to nail a cube jello to the wall.

    And BTW, mainly what I don't like about Limbaugh or Colter is that they come across as hateful, kind of like you.

    Let me guess, you don't think the PResident should display the kind of leadership JFK did when he pushed us to the moon in the '60s--it's a state or local official's job, just like Katrina?

    OF course Bush shouldn't pick up a welding iron, but God forbid the guy motivate others to get things done.

    riverdog,
    I didn't make up any statistics. I quoted the U.S. government statistics. If you had an IQ above 80 you could look them up yourself. By the way, I'm sorry you never were accepted to any college and only have a 6th-grade education. But that's no need to be hostile to those of us who have college and advanced degrees. It's not my fault I'm smarter than you and earn more than you. It's not my fault the statistics show blue states are better than red states. I didn't mean to upset you by mentioning someone was killed in this country before 1990. I know you thought "Leave It To Beaver" was real. I know you think that's how this country was until 1990. I didn't mean to peirce your dreamworld with reality. I'm sorry you don't understand statistics. I'm sorry you think "no one was ever killed in America before 1990 cause my mommy said eveeryone's God-fearing and nice" is a fact which proved me wrong. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to have an adult conversation. I'm sorry you don't know what fascism is and realize it's a conservative political philosophy which Bush is much closer to than any liberal.

    The difference between going to the moon and building a monument at ground zero is this: NASA is federal and falls under the control, therefore, of the federal Gov't. I think being proactive and going after those resposible for 9/11 shows more respect to the dead than any monument could anyway. That is what's really important.

    Al,

    You've attributed an entire universe of opinions and emotions that I have never expressed, based solely on the one thing you know for sure about me-- that I dislike and disrespect Keith Olbermann.

    With that one tidbit of information about me, you then label me syncophantic, lemming-like and a bad citizen.

    Who has whose head up someone's posterior?

    Look in the mirror my friend. All you'll be able to see of yourself is your shoes...


    Colbert you are just a dumb faggot not even worth responding to. You IQ is as low as your shoe size. and I did not know they gave advanced degrees in toilet cleaning. Like I said you need a "realignment" soon you flaming leftard.

    Well Mr. Cox...
    I fail to see a "preponderance of facts" I see inflammatory comments and very biased misappropriation of what has been said or presented by Mr. Olbermann. While you may feel satisfied or justified in your words, I see sensationalist ad hominem attacks used in an attempt to validate and otherwise fallacious argument. If you post this as your opinion then you are on solid ground, to call your point of view fact and to disparage or discourage thoughts or views other than your own through means of ridicule and misinformation is dangerous. Keith Olbermann is very low on the list of "journalists" who need to be silenced. Yes he has an agenda, however it is obvious that his agenda is not one bought and paid for by the republican party like fox news or CNN. The only truly liberal about the media is the liberty they take in bending or blurring the truth. I am not saying that whatever Olbermann says is gospel but that the 9/11 commentary provokes thought and leads the viewer to ask their own questions. I cannot say that for most in the media.

    Mockery...
    All speech is protected and any method or presentation should be at least given the respect that the person who creates that speech should be allowed to use it in any manner they see fit. If you wanna put a superimposed hitler face on Mr. Olbermann then you are entitled to. There should be law that says anyone has the right not to be offended.

    sorry made a major typo there, There should be no law that says anyone has the right not to be offended.

    Well Mr. Seamus,

    You know you are an OlbyLoon when you think CNN is carrying water for the Bush Administration! That a funny one.

    As far as facts v. opinion, I've provided facts that demonstrate that there have been many reasons why the Freedom Tower and 9/11 Memorial have not been built and none of them have anything to do with President Bush. You are more than welcome to dispute those facts but I think that's going to be tough since those ARE the facts.

    It's not my point of view that all those things happened. They ACTUALLY happened.

    What is my opinion is that Keith ought to know about all this since he lives here in New York and anyone who reads a newspaper knows all these things.

    On my more than reasonable assumption that he does know these things, I believe his diatribe on Monday was completely disingenuous and relied on his audience not knowing anything about the facts of the matter.

    I don't know how you conclude that I discourage thoughts or views other than your own since you are free to post on this site and have done so. How my ridiculing uninformed left-wing Olby syncophants is "dangerous" escapes me. The reason my ridicule is so devestating is because it is unanswerable. That's the advantage of carefully researching my topics and presenting my arguments based on indisputable facts.

    You are right about one thing. KO's 9/11 commentary provoked thoughts and led me to ask my own questions. Too bad you don't like those questions or the answers.

    My my...let's see...I don't recall saying that Hannity coined the term " ad hominem", but if you insist on making that leap then by all means( afterall, conservatives are well known for making strange connections, like when they leapt into Iraq). But I digress. The silence on the issues is deafening. I layed out various conservative positions which you still refuse to acknowledge, wether you are for or against those positions. Dear Cecelia as well has yet to acknowledge wether she agrees with these conservative positions or not.We can keep playing these evasive games all day...
    But on the subject of relativism( another Limp-baugh favorite),
    I acknowledge that I tend to find truth to be relative, although I don't see why that would render me incapable of recognizing evil when I see it. I recognize evil every time Cheney opens his crooked mouth, just as I recognize it when that coward Bin Laden opens his. The problem with most conservatives is that their empirical world view prevents them from seeing evil in their own backyard.The inability to see the shades of grey, to acknowledge the complexities in these matters, makes them succeptible to the cheap party hack propaganda this administration has gotten so good at.So yes, I do see the subtle shades of the rainbow.And I do realize that color blindness is, afterall, a kind of blindness.But who am I to ruin your black and white fantasy world?
    I can only conclude that your vitriolic " dislike" of KO is born from the fact that he has the cojones to speak out against
    your beloved President. The irony in all this is that you guys remind me of the Royalists during the War of Independence.How flabbergasted were the King's supporters when those crazy Left-Wing nuts( our founding fathers) spoke up against the establishment?
    But really,in all sincerity, I hope all this bickering brings us closer together. I'm sure we agree on some things.Why not talk about that? The problem with politics is politics. As long as they dangle that red cape in front of us we will remain a nation divided.So wake up folks.Olbermann is the least of our problems.
    PS-Rumsfeld is a douche-bag!

    Al, your self-avowed ability to perceive and appreciate the entire spectrum of color sure comes out sounding like the same ole myoptic partisanship. Perhaps there's a few pitfalls in the path from your celebrum to your keyboard...

    It must be this process of...transmutation...that causes your readers to take you and your expectations less seriously than you mean to be taken.

    For example, I wouldn't have guessed that your characterizations of a radio talk show host, compassionate conservatism, campaign finance reform law, Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to U.S. invasion, was a litmus test of conservative positions you wish me to apply myself towards. I don't automatically assume that someone is seriously asking me to "acknowledge" a formulation such as "These are the people who rely on slogans like "compassionate conservatism" to mask their lack of compassion towards fellow Americans." My bad...

    However, you are doing a good job of fleshing yourself out a bit now, and I'm feeling confident that you are quite serious when you tell me that you assume that my dislike of Olbermann stems primarily from the fact that Olbermann doesn't like the Bush Administration.

    Now I have friends, loved ones, acquaintances who, while not embracing the sort of Olbermann conspiratorial mindset that transforms political opponents into dibolt destroying overlords...do consider themselves to be no fans of the Bushies. Based upon your rhetoric of mentally challenged conservatives, easily led consersatives, bad citizen conservatives, and conservatives as lemmings, I feel confident too in assuming that your aforementioned ability to embrace a broad range of nuance and shadings has its limits...and it's likely that this translates into a rigidity and a politicalization that effects most of your life, certainly your relationships. Too, there's the rah! rah! my team! boyish mentality thing with the "Rumsfeld is a douche bag" parting shot so indicative of the old high school raspberry.

    So again when you say "I can only conclude that your vitriolic " dislike" of KO is born from the fact that he has the cojones to speak out against
    your beloved President", I say with utter confidence... of course you do.

    You "only" could.

    my gawd...touchy touchy. Once again the failure to answer a few simple questions is nothing short of...funny. Let me make this a little easier for you:As conservatives, what are your core beliefs?
    And this time, try to restrain yourself from pepppering your response with verbose personal attacks.It's cute, really, but it's all style & no substance.
    I might make the concession that my view of conservatives is rather sweeping, that there might be people like yourself who are not as rabid in their convolusions.I can only go by what your representatives in the Right-Wing media machine say since you still haven't elaborated on your positions. All I get from you guys is fuzzy denials and hazy rhetorical devices at best.So once again I ask, what are you conservative core beliefs?
    My politics do not affect my personal life nor my relationships, much to your dismay.You obviously failed to recognize that when I said that the problem with politics is politics. The whole system is a red herring in my view.So put your certainties aside when it concerns my relationships, dear.It is more telling of you that your assenine assumptions about me personally would find their way into a political debate.Tsk tsk...
    Listening to Limp-baugh as we speak, I can't help but wonder if you would be so bold as to denounce the garbage he spews in the name of your party...your response here would also be very telling.We might get somewhere afterall...
    Rah Rah! my team is America and the American people!( yourself included, cecelia!)It is my misfortune, and yours, that Rumsfeld is douche-bag.What kind of ill luck do we find ourselves in when the fate of the( latest) Iraq war falls in the hands of a Nixon administration left-over? How do you defend someone so utterly delusional, someone who has the gall to establish the premise that to question him personally is to question the troops and America itself? Please, don't take it so personally when I mention Rummy. Unless, of course, being a member of that team, you can't help but take it as a personal slight...
    So, in closing...again...where do you stand on the issues?
    Come out of the closet already. Maybe then we can move past the personal sniping.Unless that is where you want to keep it. Perhaps it's easier for you that way...
    PS- Cheney is a pussy!

    Al,

    Seems like the basic premise of your argument is this:

    Anyone who does not like KO is some kind of right wing nut job who has his/her nose up "the administration's" bunghole, worships Rush Limbaugh as some kind of genius. They blindly follow conservative leaders like a bunch of ignorant sheep, want to screw over their fellow man whenever they can for their own gain... blah, blah, blah (get the picture?).

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't sound like it's coming from someone who does not like to oversimplify things, and hates those who see things "in black and white".

    BTW, the tone of your last post was much better. I know lots of people (friends, relatives) who hate Bush and I respect their opinions if they are well reasoned (although a bit of sarcasm can be fun sometimes when lampooning their opinions). Oh yeah, and one more thing, I have never listened to Limbaugh's radio show, although I have seen him on TV a few times doing interviews and such.

    great! we might be moving along now CGK...
    Listen, all I did was establish some conservative viewpoints based on what I have heard from the pundits and Fox(ahem)News.
    My basic premise is NOT that you're a Right-Wing nut if you dislike KO( although that would be the obvious conclusion based on the political climate these days)My goal was to see IF there are nuances in these conservative viewpoints.I don't hate those who see things in black and white, I only question why they see it that way, given the complexity of things.If it were up to me, KO and Limp-baugh wouldn't be an issue because glorified disc jockeys and talking heads would not shape political debate. My problem is that in attacking one( KO on this site) without attacking the others is redundant.They are both just different sides of the same coin...

    Robert Cox, please try to listen to what people say before you disagree. He clearly referred to the Gettysburg memorial/aka the Gettysburg Address. Unlike your unfounded personal insults, from what I have seen, Mr. Olbermann has always carefully selected his words. Since it is in a televised speech, memorial is not capitalized, so intelligent people understand the definition of memorial. Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary because it's clear you do not understand the definition of the word. Your own ignorant arrogance is on display when you desperately spend time pointing out an error that doesn’t exist simply to support your own opinions rather than understand the message.

    Memorial - 1: something that keeps remembrance alive: as a : MONUMENT b) something (as a SPEECH or ceremony) that commemorates c) KEEPSAKE, MEMENTO

    I eagerly await your cries of "Witch" for me using "word sorcery”

    al,

    KO is worthy of attack in my opinion because he deliberately spreads misinformation. His idea of journalism is to throw as much (bull) shit against the wall hoping some of it will stick, and to demonize and assassinate the character of those who oppose his viewpoint with lies and half-truths.

    Take for example his rediculous comment, something to the effect that "O'reily's boss is Satan". For one thing, do you really think that he, or most of his devoted viewers believe in the concept of heaven and hell, and a literal Satan. Of course not, but anyway what SPECIFICALLY has O'Reily done that is so bad? Here is a sampling of what I have seen him talk about or agitate for:

    - Speak out against judges who give out lenient sentences to those who hurt the most vulnerable in our society

    - Criticize those in the media who promote negative values such as drug use, unhealthy lifestyles, etc.

    - Stood against complete secularization of public institutions (we are not after all a communist state based on the premise of atheism are we?)

    - speak out against ineffective leaders, like Rumsfeld

    Gee, I can really see Satan rubbing his hands over those issues.

    The problem for extremists like KO, is that when you are that far to the left on the political spectrum, people in the center look like right wing lemings. That wouldn't describe you now, would it?

    How many weeks did Lincoln spend clearing brush in Crawford? Oh I forgot, they were bust WINNING a war!!

    How many weeks did Lincoln spend clearing brush in Crawford? Oh I forgot, they were bust WINNING a war!!

    How many weeks did Lincoln spend clearing brush in Crawford? Oh I forgot, they were bust WINNING a war!!

    How many weeks did Lincoln spend clearing brush in Crawford? Oh I forgot, they were busy WINNING a war!!

    John (Bolger),

    First let me say that I appreciate your willingness to post under your own name with a link to your site. Hat's off to you. Perhaps you will inspire your fellow OlbyLoons to stand behind their comments on this site.

    Now as to the "substance" of your comment, you wrote:

    "Since it is in a televised speech, memorial is not capitalized, so intelligent people understand the definition of memorial. Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary because it's clear you do not understand the definition of the word. Your own ignorant arrogance is on display when you desperately spend time pointing out an error that doesn’t exist simply to support your own opinions rather than understand the message."

    You make an excellent point except for one thing - Keith published the speech on his blog:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

    I would direct your attention to the following passage:

    "At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, 'we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.'"

    As you will no doubt see, the word "Memorial" is capitalized.

    Your move, Einstein!

    "OK, OK. We get the point."

    apparently not.

    . . .

    "they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere"

    precisely.
    Bush vowed to rebuild Iraq, rebuild New Orleans, and rebuild the WTC.
    all three are going swell, aint' they?
    sort of like the drug plan for seniors.
    and the social security "crisis".
    and finding OBL dead or alive.
    all smoke and mirrors.
    same bushit as usual.
    almost time to cast another fantasy-based republican vote, suckers!

    Al,

    If you wish to talk issues I suggest you start yourself. If I want to weigh in on how you or I feel about the price of tea in China... I shall.

    All the predictable descriptons of being "touchy" or defensive aside (you aren't our first rodeo here..).. but my responding to a series of litmus tests that you have established in order to determine the level of rabidness or mindlessness of those creatures you have called "bad citizens", "a mentally challenged flock" of lacking compassion and a myriad of other insults, is not an invitation I'm about to accept.

    Now judging you from your words, I can certainly see how you'd find such a dynamic enjoyable-- you setting up certain formulations (as you have), me either trying to defend those formulations or disavowing them.

    This scenario, while not subtle enough to have been the plot of a George Orwell book... certainly has a sort of black-or-white, un-nuanced air of prosecutorial condescension.

    Thanks for the opportunity...Al, but I'll pass on affirming to you that you are indeed the meter for guaging rationality, my friend.

    PS-- You are not...

    Robert, thank you for that correction and I apologize. I find the usage of Memorial in his blog(wither he, and assistant, or underling typed it) incorrect like you. When I listened to the speech, I understood it in a totally different context than you. OlbyLoon? Name calling of anyone holding a dissenting opinion? Is that what we have become? I find it odd that you personally attack a man without addressing the ideals he posses in these times. Perhaps we just disagree on the message, but reflecting the sentiments of Edward R Murrow in today’s climate is VERY approaite if not gramatically correct.

    Robert, thank you for that correction and I apologize. I find the usage of Memorial in his blog(wither he, and assistant, or underling typed it) incorrect like you. When I listened to the speech, I understood it in a totally different context than you. OlbyLoon? Name calling of anyone holding a dissenting opinion? Is that what we have become? I find it odd that you personally attack a man without addressing the ideals he posses in these times. Perhaps we just disagree on the message, but reflecting the sentiments of Edward R Murrow in today’s climate is VERY approaite if not gramatically correct.

    Robert,
    "Your move, Einstein!"
    I just had to congratulate you on a magnificent post of major significance. How will we ever win this war on terror if we don't know whether the word "memorial" should be capitalized in a certain context. What a weighty debate you have going on. Your intelligence just grows every day. I'm impressed. Bravo. All I've been talking about is the federal deficits, homeland security, poverty, healthcare, and separation of church and state. But you do know how to debate. No wonder you are so smart. Wow! Under what circumstances would we capitalize the word "river?" I can't wait for your ingenius answer.

    Magoo,
    "How many weeks did Lincoln spend clearing brush in Crawford? Oh I forgot, they were bust WINNING a war!!"

    The southern conservatives are still touchy about the Civil War. They're still pissed the blacks are legally equal with them and think the Civil War was unjustified northern aggression.

    You dont sound like a southern consevative Colbert but you know how they think and feel??
    Stick to Castro and communism you'll have more credibilty.

    Yeah winning a war when you invade a country imprison the leader,kill terrorists and set up a government. You wont think its won until the grand opening of an Abortion clinic and Food stamps are used to buy votes. What a Tool.

    scooter

    When to capitalize the word "river" not when you say "Bill Clinton signed welfare reform and sold his base down the river"...Yes when used in a title "A River Runs Through It"......

    hit escape, you made several points that I think were either factually wrong or conceptually flawed.

    Yes 9/11 is about the vimtims. But then it depends on the meaning of the word "is". The way you are interpreting "is" is in an exclusionary term. 9/11 was also an act of war requiring a response to ensure the ultimate survival of our way of life, and for many of us could conceivably mean our own deaths. To ignore all the additional ramifications could be our ultimate Waterloo. Yes I am afraid, very afraid for my children' and grandchildren. President Bush honored the victims both Sunday and Monday. He spoke of the victims Monday night and also,properly, about what he considers the correct approach and stratergy.

    I don't think UBL is setting the rules of engagement nearly as much as he did beginning with Black Hawk Down in Somalia and culminating on 9/11. During that time period there were 10 attacks on us (Somalia, Khobar Towers, WTC. 2 embassies. USS Cole, 2 WTC attacks. The Pentagon, and Flight 73. By taking the offenive we have disrupted and weakened their capabilities. Not enough, but better than being at war for 8 years without even realizing it.

    Your statement that we are allowing UBL to define us appears to be a non sequitor to the premises posited. I agree with the premises, but not as "defining" us. And to segue form being "defined" by UBL you jump to needing UBL's permission to leave Iraq. We need to defeat UBL and his allies to leave Iraq.

    If President Bush's comparisons of the fighting in Iraq to WWII and battles like Iwo Jima is an insult to our WWII veterans, what type of insult are you offering to our soldiers in the Middle East? Iv'e never been in combat, but I don't think WWII vets would look down their nose at our current warriors. We should be able to agree that which specific war you fought in makes them any less valiant or courageous. Might I suggest that an apology to our current soldiers and families are in order.

    As to your last point that if this is really a war for civilization, why are there only 130,000 troops in Iraq. In believe the military is the best judge of what size force they need. I'll defer to their judgment. But that leads me to ask you a question. If the invasion of France was one of the most critical battles our military ever fought, why didn't we put 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 men on the beaches of Normandy. I suspect because there is a fairly narrow range of an effective force size.

    Thanks for listening to me. This is the first time I've ever posted on a blog. Please excuse any mistakes in form I might have made. I'm an old dog trying to learn new tricks.

    Janet Hawkins

    John,

    Please try to listen to what I have to say before you disagree.
    OlbyLoon is not an insult. It is a state of being.

    You are an OlbyLoon.

    That is neither "good" nor "bad" it just "is".

    You know how you are an OlbyLoon? I will tell you.

    You come on to this site to defend Keith Olbermann on a very specific issue - that my criticism of the part of his speech which referenced Lincoln at Gettysburg was "ignorant". You begin by snidely asking me to "to listen to what people say before you disagree" and indirectly accuse me of being sloppy in my analysis and stating that I was not "intelligent" enough to understand that Keith was using the term "memorial" in a generic sense. You close by pedantically laying out a definition of the word "memorial" and explaining what it means. All this in a post replete with insults.

    It takes my all of about a minute to show you up for the fool you are but instead of simply acknowledging that you were wrong you have the temerity to turn around and accuse ME of "name calling of anyone holding a dissenting opinion". That is a laugh.
    Now, getting your facts wrong and being a hypocrite are not, on their own, enough to qualify one as an OlbyLoon. I believe J$ will concur with me on this. You, my friend, go the extra mile by "apologizing" but then suggesting that maybe you were really right after all because MAYBE Keith did not really type his own script - maybe his "assistant, or underling typed it. And then you toss some lame excuse about you "understood (KO's 9/11 Rant) in a totally different context than you".

    But even this does not quite make the grade of full-fledged OlbyLoon. Nope! What puts you over the top is your assertion that your "real" point - reflecting the sentiments of Edward R Murrow in today’s climate is VERY approaite (sic) if not gramatically (sic) correct - is STILL true even if everything you wrote is not.

    Now THAT makes you an OlbyLoon First Class.

    To review;

    This is not a grammatical issue.

    This is not an issue of the correct use of a capital letter.

    This is not a contextual issue.

    It's a very simple thing. I am right and you are wrong.

    Now if you really wanted to apologize you would go back and read Keith's words and then mine and then admit that. I would, however, caution against that. If you do, you will most likely be demoted to OlbyLoon Second Class and we wouldn't want that after all the hard work you put into making yourself looking like an idiot here today.

    If you take the time to really think about it you might grasp my point that Keith's entire reference to Gettysburg is misplaced and therefore any "conclusions" he draws from making that reference are baseless. Anyone who was actually familiar with the history of Gettysburg would know immediately that not only was there no such thing as a Gettysburg Memorial and that the notion advanced by Keith in the piece, that Lincoln was able to get more done in four months than Bush got down in fives years is absurd.

    Now, the reason I offered up that little Gettysburg preamble in my piece is because it teases the main event, that the ENTIRE premise for Keith's piece - the cause of the delays in redeveloping the WTC site - is equally false but on a much larger scale (relative to the piece itself).

    You may be new here but we dissect Olbermann's fact-challenged diatribes on a daily basis. And I can assure you that the type of empty rhetoric offered up by Keith on 9/11 is nothing new to us. We know him for the fraud he really; stop being so defensive for a minute and you will see for yourself that as much as and your fellow OlbyLoons want to have a liberal champion on the cable news networks you have hitched yourself to an Edsel. He ain't going to take you anywhere but over the cliff with him.

    Welcome to Olbermann Watch, Janet Hawkins!

    Let me fix you a martini...

    Hope you visit often!

    It is encouraging to read many of the newer comments here, especially by Cee, Janet Hawkins,
    Colin and envirogal. While they may have diverse opinions, the comments are well thought out,present their views intelligently and contribute much to this site.

    It is encouraging to read many of the newer comments here, especially by Cee, Janet Hawkins,
    Colin and envirogal. While they may have diverse opinions, the comments are well thought out and do much to enrich this site.

    Gloria wrote: "While they [Cee, Janet Hawkins,
    Colin and envirogal] may have diverse opinions, the comments are well thought out and do much to enrich this site."

    Yes, they do "enrich this site," much like fertilizer enriches the soil from which roses bloom. Indeed, without Olbermann, envirogal, Sarah and the rest, this site would not exist!

    Do understand that the above comment is directed at "Olbermann, envirogal, Sarah and the rest," not the normal posters mentioned by Gloria.

    To janet and all newcomers: Don't bother with this site, it is filled with political dingbats like cecelia.You can't ask a simple question without getting bogged down in infantile filibustering.It's probably the martini's...Others on this site would like to have you think that KO is a threat to our democracy, and use O'REILLY as an example of responsible "journalism". The party hackery in these hallowed pages is pathetic. Confirms what alot of Americans know, mainly that conservatism is a safe-haven for the simple minds of our society. Conservatism, as an ideology, does nothing more than provide a thin cover for peoples base prejudices.From immigration issues to gay rights, conservatives have found a rhetorical umbrella in which to hide their petty hatred and their inbred biases. The fact that their views on gay rights, for example, are so in tune with the Taliban's view on gay rights is very telling. Makes one wonder if their supposed opposition to the fundamenalist extremisim in the Middle East holds any weight at all, especially when they share some of the same prejudices.Can't you all just get along?
    But what the hey, they are not so difficult to figure out.You can get conservatives to eat shit if you offer them tax cuts for doing so...and if that doesn't work, just invoke Jesus' name, spice up the political rhetoric with biblical verse, that'll do the trick.
    So when I hear someone like Janet talk about how she is scared for her grandchildren, I feel sorry for her and all the other suckers caught in the trap.They don't yet realize that the apocalyptic speeches are designed to scare them into submission, much like the fiery speeches from the church pulpits...Worse yet, they don't realize that these are cold-war tactics.This is the same kind of bullshit they used against their fellow Americans in the good ol' days of the evil Russian empire, and all of it for political gain and personal profit...
    But forget all that.Let's all talk about KO.Afterall, he's a Lib, and aren't all Lib's terrorist sympathizers? Right....
    Alas, conservatives are not only subscribers to the Party of Nixon, they are also proud providers of comedy relief.Yes, with breathtaking hypocrisy they will defend their one track convictions. Better yet: they just won't tell you what their convictions are.
    I'll keep checkng up on the responses here, hoping( but not holding my breath) that someone out there will refute my claims concerning their affiliations.Sadly,what I am likely to get is the same cowardly triangulation I've gotten thus far.Congratulations folks, you keep putting the CON in CONservatism...
    PS-Hannitty takes it in the rear!

    "The fact that their views on gay rights, for example,

    and dissent,
    and theology,
    and theocracy,
    and imperialism,
    and war-mongering,
    and propagandizing,
    and fear-mongering,
    and unconstitutionality,

    are so in tune with the Taliban's view on gay rights is very telling."

    There you have it, Janet Hawkins. You've been given fair warning on the perils of fear mongering by Chicken Little. You've been cautioned against hyperbole by Starr Jones.

    Have another martini and we'll have a toast to al.

    If he didn't exist we'd have to make him up...

    "OlbyLoon is not an insult. It is a state of being" - Robert Cox

    Really Robert? Well, you see, where I come from when someone genuinely apologizes for an error, then the other person refuses to accept it by going on an insulting conjecture laden tirade about the other person, we call them a "dunderfuck". Keep in mind it's not an insult; it is a state of being. Please go back to blindly hating someone you disagree with politically simply to push your own agenda, it seems pretty constructive...

    Mr. Bolger,

    A "genuine" apology would go something like this:

    "You were right. I was wrong. And both for being wrong and the snide tone I took with you, I apologize. Please forgive me."

    But you did not do that did you?

    Instead you procede to toss out the idea that maybe you were actually right because maybe the "M" was just a typo, and maybe even KO meant "m" but his staffers screwed up (so in that case, presumeably, your apology would no longer be operative). Then you toss out excuses. Then you attempt to characterize the issue as one of "grammar" or punctuation. And then you trot out that old liberal standby - "fake but accurate" - to claim that regardless of whether what any of what Keith said was true his "reflecting the sentiments of Edward R Murrow" (whatever that means) is "appropriate".

    You want to "apologize" fine but do me a favor. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

    Scooter,
    If we've won the war in Iraq, great. Let's bring the troops home since we already won.
    Of course, Our Fearless Leader has been claiming there are bad problems, such as major violence which could lead to civil war, in Iraq. There's 50% unemployment, unreliable electricity (to put it nicely), oil problems (it was supposed to pay for the war), the government isn't sticking together so well, the country could possibly break apart, etc. But other than that everyone is great.

    Janet,
    I disagree with some of your points but that was a well-written and thought-out post.
    Unfortunately, Bush himself has told us getting bin Laden isn't a big priority. He doesn't really think about him much. Afghanistan is not going well. All the government reports seem to contradict Bush's claim of making us safer since 9/11.
    I don't believe people are trying to say the soldiers are any less courageous in this war than in WWII. The point is the comparison between Iraq and WWII is flawed because one enemy directly attacked us (Pearl Harbor) while the other did not. Bush has admitted Saddam Hussein and Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11. He admitted the WMD were not there. The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by a Republican, has concluded Saddam was not connected to al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam saw al Qaeda as a threat and hated al Qaeda. I've heard the argument many times on the right that Germany never attacked America but FDR fought them. Germany declared war on us on December 11,1941.

    Several generals, after leaving active duty, have argued we need more troops in Iraq. Paul Bremer said we need more troops in Iraq but was pushed away from it by the Administration. Generals in the military are not allowed to speak out against the President. It seems from an unbaised look at all that has come out, the military really doesn't want more troops. It seems likely Bush has decided sending more troops to Iraq would look bad politically.
    Clinton did much to fight terrorism and was blocked in his efforts. For instance, Republicans in 1996 blocked his attempt to wiretap the enemy using the same arguments the left uses now. In fact, some Republicans (Newt included) complained Clinton spent too much time focusing on terrorism and bin Laden. Think about this honestly, Janet. How many Republicans did you hear complaining about Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts until after 9/11? Did they make terrorism a campaign issue in 1996 or 1998 or 2000? All the attacks you listed occured before 9/11. Yet Republicans didn't voice concern about anti-terrorism efforts until after 9/11. Why? Where were they? They controlled Congress.
    Finally, Reagan deserves blame for his actions in the Middle East. I believe arming and training the mujahadeen which included future al Qaeda members, paying off Hezbollah, Iraq, Inan Contra, cutting and running from Beirut may have sent a message to the terrorists we were weak against terrorism.

    The last post to Janet was by me.

    ".
    Yesterday I was a proud conservative. Today I stand humbled in your presence. head bowed in shame. My savior, you ask?
    I was so sunk in depravity that one person would not be sufficient to the task. I owe so much to so few.
    Thanks to Colin and enviorgal for pointing out that all conseratives are mired in self interest and denying human rigts to all but our own kind. I was grateful though to learn that most conservatives could not be labelled Nazis.
    My biggest thanks go to al for informing me that conservatives are: mentally challenged; divisive; peculiar; behave peculliary; have peculiar world views; rely on slogans;lacks compassion; warped perceptions; mental midgets; ignorant; below average; fear monger; cowards; lack character. I owe thanks to seamus for pointing out that conservatives are: accusatory;lack justice;farcial; sometimes propagandists; and character assassins.
    Oh how I fought to deny to myself how essentially flawed I am. This type of revalation of what I might be was soul shattering. But still I tried to reject the truth.
    And just then I saw the posting from al addressed to me (and others).I was trembling with fear and joy as I read it.
    My conversion slowly coalesced around these word. Al told me I was: simple minded;my ideology was a thin cover for my base predjudices and petty hatreds;how illuminating that my homophobia made me a fellow Taliban; I would eat "sh..t" for a tax cut; I was a submissive sucker; a con man; a religous fanatic; and would do anything for personal.
    YES! brothers and sisters. I could no longer reject and deny the truth. As soon as I realized that AL's name matchs exactly the first two letters in Allah. I ask you, what else can I do in the face of such reasoned debate?
    Dittos, Cecelia (OK if I call you CC?).Are you a pyschic or a soothsayer? This is scary. My dear husband introduced me to martinis 40 years ago. From that time on, we had martinis every nite before dinner. Now that my chubby hubby is gone I drink mine and his. If you ever pass thru middle Florida I'll spring for a bottle of Grey Goose (as a grasping, stealing and selfish coservative I can afford it you know. I say "LET AL EAT CAKE-OR HIS DISH- SH.T

    Janet Hawkins

    >>>>


    A poignant and profoundly suitable tribute to your late husband, Janet. Well, done!


    >>

    Janet, you have the heart of a poet. Grey Goose is the stuff. Still, I'll bring a bottle of stolichnaya and olive juice so we can have one toast of a dirty Russkytini to a dirty-mouthed bolshevik and then no more.

    Again, welcomed to Olbermann Watch! Make yourself at home!


    I see no further point to posting here as it is obvious that the main voice of this site is one of a man who would rather hide within his own delusions than address issues raised and call his opinion fact. As it stands aside from tangents, fallacious arguments, and ad hominem attacks at any dissenting posts.

    The freedom tower will not be built as long as Pataki and the 'experts' he hired to rebuild the site sit with their thumbs up their ass. The reason that Bush is frowned upon is because he promised it would be rebuilt and has taken no initiative to do so whatsoever.

    Olbermann Watch...
    It seems that this site and the articles contained within are hardly in opposition to Keith Olbermann but a means to berate and ridicule those that seek the truth and those that dissent from the mainstream view of the government and the way it is run.

    CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, it doesn't matter the whole of the media is biased to the Bush Administration.
    The facts are that while there is gross injustice and misconduct in the Bush Administration the media would rather report about celebrity issues and the plight of the rich or the next big fear mongering supposed terror attack that no one knows anything about.

    Nonetheless I am done here. I will focus my attention somewhere that logic and truth are seen as more than curse words.

    Seamus,

    You have not addressed yourself to a SINGLE fact stated in my piece - not one! But you think the facts I layed out are "opinion"? Good grief.

    "The reason that Bush is frowned upon is because he promised it would be rebuilt and has taken no initiative to do so whatsoever."

    So let me get this straight, your issue with Bush is that during his "megaphone speech" at the WTC site he promised to rebuild the towers and they have not been rebuilt.? Is that it? And you are like 10 years old so when "Daddy" say he will "rebuild the towers" you take that to mean that the President of the United States is going to personally oversee the redevelopment project and that if that the towers are not rebuilt in some arbitrary timeframe like "five years" then you are going to...do what? Tell "Mommy"?

    You are funny.

    This is good one:

    "the whole of the media is biased to the Bush Administration"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ROFL.

    "the media would rather report about...the next big fear mongering supposed terror attack that no one knows anything about"

    HAHAHAHA. Stop, your killing me! HAHAHAHA

    "Nonetheless I am done here."

    Hoo hoo ha ha ha ha!

    Don't worry Seamus, I am sure it is comforting to imagine that the threat of terrorism is not real. Unfortunately, for those of who live in the real world and have some direct experience with terrorism we don't have the luxury of whistling in the dark as you do.

    And by the way, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Bye Bye!

    Robert, your intense arrogant ego can barely be contained on this planet. Telling someone how they need to apologize to you? Please listen/read with clean eyes to what someone says before you simply jump ahead to argue your views, you might see things as they are rather then as you need them to be to suit your beliefs. I honestly apologize to you, agree with your point of Memorial, and understand exactly where you were coming from, but you were unable to see that by quickly drawing lines against us rather than find a connection. You rip me, judge my apology, chastise me, and label me. Your immense hubris if your undoing. Hate any opinion other than yours, question another person’s genuine apology, and divide. It honestly doesn’t make this country a better place. The only thing you are accomplishing with this site is your own personal political agenda. Enjoy!

    RCox,

    Wow that is long piece. I bet your "debunking" is longer than the "Gettysburg Address"' and Olberman's rant combined. Of course, if you want to claim that you are "right", then you should probably not be "factually incorrect" on the basic premise of your entire argument (those pesky dates - if only you could change change history to support your argument).

    Your error undermines your entire argument. You could have really nailed those "OlbyLoons" on this one, but you blew it. What do you think your mistake reveals about you? Your readers know that YOU failed - you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    You wasted thousands of words on a farce, and then proceeded to stroke your own ego in the comments.

    Man, that's gotta sting. Only the most deeply narcissistic among us could brush off a fubar that obvious.

    So tell me why is it Mr./Ms. Fact Checker that you can't rebut a single one of Bob's points?

    And P.S.? Why is it that you Olbyloons think he's beyond criticisim and is always right?

    John Bolger,

    "The only thing you are accomplishing with this site is your own personal political agenda"

    That is silly on many levels.

    This is MY site so if I am only advancing my own personal political agenda, so what? That's what blogs are for, dude. If you don't like it start your own and maybe I will like to you. I guess your idea is that my blog should be set up to advance YOUR personal political agenda.

    You ARE posting here, are you not? So you have just as much ability to advance your point of view on this site as I do. I am not deleting or editing your posts am I? I am simplying refuting you and mocking you in a belligerant manner. Do you think this site is guilty of false advertising? Scroll up to the top of the home page. I make no pretense that this site is intended to be "fair".

    Instead of whining about my rhetorical style why don't you try constructing a fact-based, logical argument that can withstand even cursory scrutiny. Do me a favor, don't build castles in the sand and then complain when the tide comes in.

    "So tell me why is it Mr./Ms. Fact Checker that you can't rebut a single one of Bob's points?"

    Don't hold your breath waiting on an honest answer to that one Brandon. If you get any answer at all, it will be to insult you and will have no relevance to the points that Robert has alluded to in his piece.

    Factchecker,

    The the basic premise of my entire argument is that Keith Olbermann knows full well that Bush is not responsible for the delays in redeveloping the WTC site. There is an opinion at the heart of that and it could well be wrong; I assumed that a sentient human being who lives in the New York area, Keih would be well aware of what has been a MAJOR story here - the delays in redeveloping the site. Now, if you have some facts that suggest that Keith does not read the newspaper or watch the local TV news or listen to the local radio news, I am willing to entertain that but even I am willing to give KO the benefit of the doubt when it comes to reading the local paper from time to time.

    If you have some specific facts that you would like to dispute in my piece let me know. If there is an error I will correct it and thank you for pointing it out (as I have done in the past).

    U.S. and New York Plan to Occupy Freedom Tower

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/17cnd-freedom.html

    This is yet another article on the myriad problems with redeveloping the WTC site. As you can see one of the primary problems has been a fairly obvious problem - no one wants to work in a building that is replacing the twin towers.

    It's all well and good for people to say "build the tower"; it's a little different for folks here who would have to live around that tower, work in it or do business in it knowing that it will instantly become the number one target for terrorists.

    This is a a rather interesting article. I wander where your fixation with KO began. I watched the report in question and I read your article. This article does great job "wagging the dog" but does little to discredit KO. Using terms such as Olbyloon does not show your opinion to be intelligent, or witty but rather trite and juvenile, at best.

    Thanks for the history lesson on the Freedom Tower and Ground Zero. Apparently the fact the Gov. Pataki formed the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. This federally funded organization has made leaps and bounds at re-defining the term farce.

    Their discussions and redirections and replanning should be consider criminal. Bush himself is liable if only because his administration did use the unity the 9/11 tragedy caused to push the nation into accepting the USPATRIOT Act, the war in Iraq, and the wave of Freedoms we lose daily to his re-interpretation of the constitution.

    It is easy for you to call those who disagree with you "Olbyloons" Yet, I am willing to believe that not everyone who sees you for the delusional attention whore you are has any more regard for KO than any other media personality.

    You go to great lengths to discredit any comment that dissents from your views but for what I can see you do nothing but offer your own words as evidence of fact.

    Granted I am sure you have your own legion of sycophantic neoconservative yes men telling you that you are on track but your beligerent presentation could only be taken seriously by the uninformed, the decieved, or the simple.

    I see several on this page who stood up against you and raised points against your arguments and they were all met with your snyde demeaning comments that did nothing to discredit them and served only to puff yourself up in the eyes of those that buy into your bullshit.

    I suspect you will try to make an illogical response to this in the same way you did everyone elses.

    You comment style is to skim over the comment, find the points that you can come up with the most "rational" claim against and from there belittle the poster and insult them or anyone who shares their views with euphemism and idiom.

    Enjoy your pipe dream Robert. Not all of us share it.

    Sorry I'm not familiar with the everyone's nics. I assume RCox, Bob and Robert Cox are the same person?

    Brandon,

    If you can summarize Bob's points I'll attempt to rebut them. More specifically, if you can find a point that doesn't rely on a factual error or is not a logical fallacy I will certainly respond.

    Regarding you second comment "And P.S.? Why is it that you Olbyloons think he's beyond criticisim and is always right?" If I open wide, do you think you could jam a few more words in my mouth? Can you be any ruder. I haven't typed a single character in defense of Olbermann.

    pete,

    bah


    Robert Cox,

    I'll take you at your word regarding the premise you intended. However, if you want to claim you wrote a "logical argument that can withstand even cursory scrutiny" you have to step up to plate. It took me less than 2 minutes to find the first factual error in your article. I would point it out explicitly, but as the proverb says: "give a man a fish..."

    Kenneth,

    Using terms such as Olbyloon does not show your opinion to be intelligent, or witty but rather trite and juvenile, at best. Really? But calling me a "delusional attention whore" shows you to be a mature, thoughtful person, right?

    You write "I suspect you will try to make an illogical response to this in the same way you did everyone elses."

    Sounds like you are another OlbyLoon craving my attention. Well, I don't think I need to make any response to demonstrate illogical responses other than read back your own words:

    "Bush himself is liable if only because his administration did use the unity the 9/11 tragedy caused to push the nation into accepting the USPATRIOT Act, the war in Iraq, and the wave of Freedoms we lose daily to his re-interpretation of the constitution."

    I am sure among OlbyLoons this statement make sense but back here on planet earth you might be said to have conflated several unrelated issues. Bush is responsible for delays in redeveloping the WTC site because the Congress passed the Patriot Act?

    Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

    I also love to hear the answer, so just in case you will entertain us with a good old fashioned OlbyLoon rant, let me ask the question: what exactly are these waves of "Freedoms we lose daily to his re-interpretation of the constitution".

    You complain "You comment style is to skim over the comment, find the points that you can come up with the most "rational" claim against and from there belittle the poster and insult them or anyone who shares their views with euphemism and idiom."
    Well I read your comment and I don't see any effort to refute what I wrote but rather to criticize the way in which I reply to commenters. If a commenter has a substantive point I am willing to consider it. But when I get comments like yours which are just thoughtless, left-wing rants "defending" Keith by attacking me then I don't feel any need to take seriously what they (or you) have to say.

    If you DO want me to take you seriously, copy/paste something I wrote and explain to me why you think what I said is wrong. Otherwise, I am not sure what point you are trying to make other than stomping your feet and say "Don't Pick on My Keith!!! Waah Waah!

    "you have to step up to plate. It took me less than 2 minutes to find the first factual error in your article. I would point it out explicitly, but as the proverb says: 'give a man a fish...'"

    Oooooh! How "mysterious". I am racking my brains trying to figure out how I might have failed to meet your high standards in my piece. Not!

    I don't recall making a claim that I wrote a "logical argument that can withstand even cursory scrutiny" but I do recall saying that if anyone finds an error in my post I will be happy to correct the error and thank the reader for pointing it out. Any regular reader of this site knows that I have no problem acknowledging an error when I make once, fixing it with a strikethrough or editors note and thanking the person (OlbyLoon or no) who pointed it out.

    I have no idea what you mean by "as the proverb says: 'give a man a fish...'"; I am sure in OlbyLoonLand your comment seems profound. But as the proverb says: "in the land of the blind..."

    The Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Jounal" site has an op-ed written by the writer of "The Path to 9/11" historical television drama.

    It's quite a piece.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958

    "...and the wave of Freedoms we lose daily to his re-interpretation of the constitution."

    Kenneth,

    Care to give even one example amongst the "wave" of freedoms you personally have lost?

    I might be naive but, I can't think of even one freedom that I've lost. Then again, I'm not a terrorist...

    Robert, let me get this straight. I say, ""The only thing you are accomplishing with this site is your own personal political agenda". Then you reply, "That is silly on many levels." with no specific explanation of what. Since you offered nothing to dispute my statement, you quickly change positions agreeing with my point by saying, "This is MY site so if I am only advancing my own personal political agenda, so what? That's what blogs are for, dude". It has become clear you don't even understand what you are saying and simply attack the character of any dissenting view rather than deal with the issue raised. Most people can carry on a polite conversation of dissenting opinions. You don’t appear one of them. Best of luck and take care.

    Robert,

    "... I might have failed to meet your high standards in my piece. Not!"

    My standards are not the issue. In the first sentence of your piece, you label Olbermann's editorial "a fact-challenged harangue." Based on this, one would assume you are concerned about being factual.


    "I don't recall making a claim that I wrote a 'logical argument that can withstand even cursory scrutiny'..."

    That quote is from this page. If you expect your commeters to adhere to this standard, surely we can expect the same from you.

    "I have no idea what you mean by "as the proverb says: 'give a man a fish...'""
    Seriously? Have you ever tried google (www.google.com)?

    I don't understand why you won't fix your error. The first few paragraphs of your article contain about a dozen facts. It wouldn't take you more than a few minutes to verify those facts (try google it's really pretty good for this kind of fact checking).


    This site should be renamed.

    Instead of Olbermann Watch it should be called Watch Robert. Seriously, what kind of fucktard goes around saying the things RC says without being a whiny drama queen douchebag.

    This site is no more about Keith Olbermann than it is about Margret Thatcher. It is a place where RC can post his nonsensical bullshit and then find pesudo-witty ways to bash anyone who finds him to be the uninformed wanker he is.

    RC needs to get back on his medication. Then again, based on his behavior he could be a Scientologist. Irrational thought, saying all other opinions are bullshit, and i am pretty sure that much like L. Ron Hubbard he digs young boys.

    Much like KO, RC has no sound grasp on reality. Both are pompous blowhard who only speak to validate their own existence in the eyes of the simple minded losers that consider them intelligent. Both probably eat babies. More than that, both probably suffer from years of sexual frustration and ridicule due to being cursed with a two inch penis.

    What is most amusing is that RC is more than likely KO. They have so much one could assume such, or that RC subconsciously looks up to KO and mimics his bullshit style of reporting.

    Either way one thing should be noted. The only person who is loony over KO on this site is RC. So in a bizarre twist the biggest olbyloon on this site is...... (drum roll)
    Robert Cox (a.k.a. the short dicked scientologist pedophile who eats babies)

    Leon,

    I love it when you olbyloons get mad. Why don't you quit letting KO tell you what to think and come back to this site when you cleanup your language and learn the golden rule of this site. I am always right.

    Bolgernow,

    Shut Up. No one cares what you have to say anyway.

    Factchecker,

    Check this fact, I have my own website and you are just and olbyloon.

    Bolger,

    Boo hoo.

    I suppose plain English is not clear enough for you. Your statement about this site advancing my OWN, PERSONAL, POLITICAL, AGENDA is silly on many levels. Take each word and examine it in the context of what I said - this is MY SITE so of course I am advancing my OWN point of view; this is PERSONAL because it's my site with my name on it; it is POLITICAL because what we are reporting on is a political/media TV show; I have an AGENDA because this is an opinion blog and that is the very nature of a blog like this. Are those enough levels?

    You are welcome to come here and post but the basis of your complaint makes no sense; you seem to be under the impression that I have some obligation to accept the assumptions beyond other people's POV when I don't agree with those assumptions, that I must treat all opinions of equal value, that I am supposed to be fair and impartial. What on earth gave you the impression that I am interested in hearing from YOU? I am not. You came here and started posting comments of your own free will and I have not the slightest obligation towards you. You don't like what I have to say there is a simple solution - go read some other blog. On top of all that what you said, by your admission, was untrue.

    Next time, don't come to a gunfight with a knife - have your facts in order, provide links to support your point and make a coherent argument. Otherwise, you can tell your story walking.

    Factchecker wrote "one would assume you are concerned about being factual."

    I am. Which is why I am telling you for the THIRD time that if you have found an error in what I wrote tell me what it is and I will note the error, correct it and thank you for pointing it out.

    But despite being asked repeatedly for your input you have chosen to simply keep repeating the same "charge" that there is some error in my piece. I have news for you. I write pretty much everything off the top of my head. My site is replete with typos, grammatical errors and other similiar errors because I don't have an editor and I am not submitting any of this material for publication elsewhere. It is not unheard of for readers to fine errors and when they point them out I fix them. I don't worry about it much for a very simple reason - no one is paying me to write for this site and I am not going to devote an inordinate amount of time to proof-reading.

    That said, unlike Keith Olbermann, I did not INTENTIONALLY LIE. So, if you have found an error let me know. If you want to play cat and mouse be my guest but having given several opportunities to make your case I don't see any value to discussing this topic further.

    Let me know if you changed your mind.

    Thanks! Then we agree this site is nothing more than "opinion" with limited facts introduced solely to shape your personal political views. Most people accept there are two sides to every coin. I guess yours only comes with tails.

    Oh, and sweetie, be a dear and read what president Bush said to help deal with your points 1-4 on the delay in building at the WTC site. President Bush, on Friday September 21st, stated, "As a symbol of America's resolve, MY administration will work with Congress and these two leaders to show the world that we will rebuild New York City''. Really??? So how�s that going?

    (Puts hands under his leaning on desk with his elbows longingly looking at Robert)

    http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/21_APnewyork.html

    Bolger wrote:

    "this site is nothing more than "opinion" with limited facts introduced solely to shape your personal political views."

    We can agree that people come to this site and express their opinions but there is no limit to the facts that people can introduce and they are free to present facts that shape any personal political view. Since I do not delete or edit comments and anyone can post on this (spammers excluded) the best way I have to shape anything on this site is by engaging people on this site who disagree with my posts or those of other contributors to this site.

    I have made the same offer for YEARS but you are welcome to write a GUEST POST for this site - and the people, including me, are free to comment, agree, disagree with what you write. Likewise you have the same opportunity with what I write.

    What you seem confused about is that because you are free to express an opinion on this site that I have some obligation to accept whatever premise you put forward, that I have to accept as true those things that you assert (without support/links) to be true, or to be courteous and respectful in responding to you.

    I am not going to change my opinion on something because some commenter doesn't like it. Introduce some FACTS that undermine whatever case it is I am making on a topic and I will take a look. You are new here so you don't realize that I am willing to be convinced I am wrong or be corrected in some error I might make. I have done it before and don't have the slightest problem admitting when I am wrong.

    As to your "we will rebuild New York City" related question, the Freedom Tower is being built so I am not sure what you thinks this proves. What you don't seem to recall (maybe because you were not paying as close attention as someone like me who lives here) is that there was a very large question at the time as to the economic and social impact of the 9/11 attacks on New York. There was a great deal of talk about retails stores, restaurants and bars shutting down because people would be too scared to go out of their homes; that people would flee NYC for the suburbs or move out of the area all together. You are reading this quote to mean that Bush was promising to work with Congress to rebuild the WTC site when what he was actually talking about was working with Congress to get financial aid to New York. And if you knew something about you would know that Bush worked with Schumer and Clinton to funnel a great deal of money up to New York and that Pataki and Bloomberg put a lot of that money to work. The result was that real estate prices have gone UP in Manhattan, the housing around the WTC area is filled up again, restaurants and stores are doing great, tourism is UP..

    So, when you ask "how's that going?" the answer is simple - GREAT!

    Notice how I give credit to Dems and Republicans here in New York. Unless you were here you can't possibly remember what it was like to be here in the days and weeks after 9/11. My office was right above Penn Station, connected via tunnels to the building where CNN's studios are located. The train station, Madison Square Garden and the CNN studios got dozens of bomb threats and the alarms would go off and the entire building would empty out into the street until the all clear was given. My office was a couple blocks from the Empire State Building and we got warnings related to that as well. Many people stopped using the subways for fear that they would be targeted, people stopped driving into the cities because of reports of planned attacks on the tunnels leading to New Jersey.

    So, do me a favor and don't send me a link purporting to reference something that it does not reference to explain to me about something I know a lot about and which you know, apparently, nothing.

    Bolger wrote:

    "this site is nothing more than "opinion" with limited facts introduced solely to shape your personal political views."

    We can agree that people come to this site and express their opinions but there is no limit to the facts that people can introduce and they are free to present facts that shape any personal political view. Since I do not delete or edit comments and anyone can post on this (spammers excluded) the best way I have to shape anything on this site is by engaging people on this site who disagree with my posts or those of other contributors to this site.

    I have made the same offer for YEARS but you are welcome to write a GUEST POST for this site - and the people, including me, are free to comment, agree, disagree with what you write. Likewise you have the same opportunity with what I write.

    What you seem confused about is that because you are free to express an opinion on this site that I have some obligation to accept whatever premise you put forward, that I have to accept as true those things that you assert (without support/links) to be true, or to be courteous and respectful in responding to you.

    I am not going to change my opinion on something because some commenter doesn't like it. Introduce some FACTS that undermine whatever case it is I am making on a topic and I will take a look. You are new here so you don't realize that I am willing to be convinced I am wrong or be corrected in some error I might make. I have done it before and don't have the slightest problem admitting when I am wrong.

    As to your "we will rebuild New York City" related question, the Freedom Tower is being built so I am not sure what you thinks this proves. What you don't seem to recall (maybe because you were not paying as close attention as someone like me who lives here) is that there was a very large question at the time as to the economic and social impact of the 9/11 attacks on New York. There was a great deal of talk about retails stores, restaurants and bars shutting down because people would be too scared to go out of their homes; that people would flee NYC for the suburbs or move out of the area all together. You are reading this quote to mean that Bush was promising to work with Congress to rebuild the WTC site when what he was actually talking about was working with Congress to get financial aid to New York. And if you knew something about you would know that Bush worked with Schumer and Clinton to funnel a great deal of money up to New York and that Pataki and Bloomberg put a lot of that money to work. The result was that real estate prices have gone UP in Manhattan, the housing around the WTC area is filled up again, restaurants and stores are doing great, tourism is UP..

    So, when you ask "how's that going?" the answer is simple - GREAT!

    Notice how I give credit to Dems and Republicans here in New York. Unless you were here you can't possibly remember what it was like to be here in the days and weeks after 9/11. My office was right above Penn Station, connected via tunnels to the building where CNN's studios are located. The train station, Madison Square Garden and the CNN studios got dozens of bomb threats and the alarms would go off and the entire building would empty out into the street until the all clear was given. My office was a couple blocks from the Empire State Building and we got warnings related to that as well. Many people stopped using the subways for fear that they would be targeted, people stopped driving into the cities because of reports of planned attacks on the tunnels leading to New Jersey.

    So, do me a favor and don't send me a link purporting to reference something that it does not reference to explain to me about something I know a lot about and which you know, apparently, nothing.

    P.S. The headline on the frontpage of this site says "Tasteless Mockery Since 2004 " for a reason. I do not have to uphold myself to your standards. I am writing what I believe to be right. I provide facts, dates, and times. You olbyloons give me conspiracy theories, paranoid delusions, and fiction as rebuttals.

    If I offend you there is a chance your offense is largely based in your own inability to accept the truth.

    I do not require you to come here and your continued presence does not show your dedication for the truth but rather your own desire to ridicule someone who is putting the truth out there. If you don't like what I have to say then don't read it. Otherwise don't tell me what I should or should not say on my site.

    Besides, if anything I reply to the majority of the tin foil hat crowd because otherwise the only time they would see the truth would be as they were setting it on fire at their book burnings and witch trials.


    You are not sure what his statement, at ground zero, promising "As a symbol of America's resolve", with his administrations help to "rebuild New York City'' proves? His words are crystal clear with simple meaning. Everyone plainly sees you are incorrect to think his words did not plainly include building the WTC in a timely manor to "show America's resolve". Make sense?

    Bolger,

    This is really for your benefit because I already KNOW what happened and I hardly need YOU to explain it to me. I was there. You are reading one line from a wire service story. See the difference? It's like you telling Derek Jeter how to play shortstop; of course you can talk about it but does Jeter really need to hear YOUR opinion about what he already knows.

    So, NO it does not make sense for the reasons I just said. If he meant "rebuild the WTC site" then why did he say "rebuild New York City". The issue at the time was the future viability of New York not redeveloping the WTC site. So not only does "everyone" not see what you claim but the fact is that it is not what he was talking about. Instead of looking at a line from an AP story why don't you try going to the White House web site and reading the full text of the actual speech instead of talking out of your hat. As we both now, this is not the first time you would have done that.

    Regardless, even though it was not what he meant during that speech even if he also said that he was going to show America's resolve by redeveloping the WTC site by building the exact plan we now have (what you also don't seem to know is that the discussion in the aftermath of the attack was about replacing the two two towers themselves not what is currently planned) what difference would that make. The site IS being redeveloped, there will be a 9/11 memorial and a Freedom Tower. Is your point that this all should have been completed as of some made up date. What makes the fifth year anniversary any more meaningful than the fourth or the sixth? Because it is a "round" number? Because the media makes more of a production out of 1 year or 5 year of 10 year anniversary? Those are meaningless, arbitrary time frames. And for the reasons stated in my post there have been many "real world" problems to contend with. If you knew anything about New York at all you would know about the politics of ANY project like this whether it be the original WTC site, the Westway project, the new Jets football statdium, building the UN, the "train to the plane" in Queens. This is New York dopey, not bumfuck Iowa or whereever you are from. What Bush said at the time was the right thing to say and the fact is that the Federal government did put a lot of resources into New York City and that played a big role in the city shrugging off the effects of the attack. Again, I already know all this and much more so this is really just a courtesy to you.

    You are welcome to keep coming back to this site and displaying your ignorance here but you would do much better to ASK and LEARN from me rather than attempt to take me on in some "battle of wits". You, my good friend, are woefully unprepared for such a fight.

    Ahhh, back to the ass-backwards forum. Hope Janet and C.C. didn't lose any sleep since I was gone...finally caught up with this weeks meaningless chatter and as usual nothing of interest. Except finding out R.Cox is a New Yorker...born and raised or one of those recent immigrant New Yorkers?( let me guess, a Yankee fan too, right?) Because it's hard to believe that a native NYer would be so naive.Why don't you wake up,man. What's all this sucking up to your government? All this defensiveness? Still scared of the "Liberal media" ? You conservative tough guys sure get your panties up in a bunch when your leader is called out for the liar he is. why don't you come out of the closet and tell us what your real agenda is? I'm not sure anyone is buying into your "KO is evil" garbage.You're a Bushbot.Don't hide it...
    Seriously, if you're such a champion for the truth why don't we talk about those douchebags at Fox? Aren't they part of the "media" too? Wait. let me guess..."Alternative media", right?
    what is it with all you lame conservatives and your lame attempts at becoming the hannitys of the blogoshpere? Is it possible for you guys to have a real political debate without resorting to hairsplitting? Obviously not as I have yet to see any real points being scored in any of your infantile arguments.So why don't you all get together and suck on your martini's or vodka before you log on. maybe you'll say something interesting.
    PS-"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!"

    Al--I've got news for you. We aren't afraid of the "liberal media". We view them as comic relief.

    "if you're such a champion for the truth why don't we talk about those douchebags at Fox?"

    Gee, never heard THIS before! How about because this is OLBERMANN Watch!

    "Is it possible for you guys to have a real political debate without resorting to hairsplitting?"

    You think your mindless rant is akin to political debate? Sheesh.

    BTW, my bio is on the web, my email is on this site, there are plenty of articles out there where I am quoted. It is not as if I am hiding!


    (Since you don't want to discuss the issues...)
    You find the "Liberal Media" funny? You guys really have no sense of humor.Maybe Brandon finds "Mein Kampf" touchingly sentimental...
    So Bobby Cox is only concerned with Olbermann's " untruths"( you have nothing against misinformation from your party hack bloc heads). In principle, lying is OK with you as long as it supports your views. Seems to me like the original Olbyloon is you,buddy! So obsessed with KO...so...smitten.Is it the glasses? What else does KO do that drives you...crazy?
    Only a douchebag like yourself would think I would bother with your worthless bio or these so-called articles where you are supposedly quoted.You, sir, are a bore! "Your mother cracked an oozy fart/ and out you came" That's poetry,baby!
    Thank you,Bobby.
    Thanks for finally letting us all know what hip you lean on.Your limp-wristed attacks on a talking head, your feeble attempts at "opinion journalism", your schlok politics...you should change the name of your blog to: " Fuck the Truth, I'm always right!"
    Now, you and Chris Wallace can go sit by the fireplace and poke each other where it hurts...
    And I wouldn't wait up all night for that call from " The Weekly Standard". Bill Kristol eats dicks like you for breakfast.

    PS- Chris Wallace takes it in the ideological chute!

    Bob,

    Al has...uh...intimated that you are....a bore....a hack....a know-it-all....and a homsexual...

    Well, Al, we're all pretty sure that Bob is not gay...

    Hey! This is GREAT tag line. I may well use that one day:

    "Fuck the Truth, I'm always right!"

    Hey CC, thanx for backing me up on this one.
    Bobby, no problem, you can keep that one.I have more!
    "Robert Cox: Hero of the Stupid!"
    or
    " Robert Cox: Compassionate Con!"

    well those are not bad but I liked your first one better.

    Bob,

    I think Robert Cox: Compassionate Con, just says it all... :D

    Hi Mr. Cox and others,

    I have to take issue with just a couple of things that you wrote in your otherwise brilliant commentary on Herr Oberst Olbermann - who is a "Nazi Apologist" in my book.

    One, Olbermann NEVER had any credibility as a Sportscaster - at least as far as this poster is concerned. I grew up in Los Angeles, and he was as obnoxious and stupid then as he is now. I remember one particularly odious commentary that he made when Larry Brown left the Clippers. He lambasted Brown and called him a "whore" who would travel anywhere for the money. From that moment on, Olbermann, who seemed to be a harmless nerd, ended up on my &%$#@ list.

    I also attended UCLA, and as far as I'm concerned Herr Olbermann isn't fit to shine Larry Brown's shoes. Nor was he ever a credible sportscaster.

    Second, Lincoln had to manage a war fought in the beginning by incompetent generals, not to mention a McClellan whom Olbermann would have gladly given a pass. After all, George McClellan was a John Kerry kindaguy. While he might not have overseen the building of military cemetaries, Lincoln was a compassionate man who visited military hospitals and the Soldier's Home on a regular basis; tried to keep orphans and widow's sons out of war, in short, he was a man of character, decency, honor and integrity. Heck, just like George W. Bush (and I say this as someone who didn't like our President's dad, and almost voted against him).

    Olbermann says Clinton spoke the "truth" and he calls President Bush a "Liar". Sorry, it is Keith Olbermann who is the Liar.

    Now Keith wants to graduate - as if he has even passed kindergarten - to Political commentaries. He needs to learn how to use his brain first, then he needs to learn how to write.

    As far as his being upset over being called a "Nazi Apologist" is concerned, well, if the shoe fits, Keith certainly wears it!

    You're doing great work here - keep it up!

    Hi Mr. Cox and others,

    I have to take issue with just a couple of things that you wrote in your otherwise brilliant commentary on Herr Oberst Olbermann - who is a "Nazi Apologist" in my book.

    One, Olbermann NEVER had any credibility as a Sportscaster - at least as far as this poster is concerned. I grew up in Los Angeles, and he was as obnoxious and stupid then as he is now. I remember one particularly odious commentary that he made when Larry Brown left the Clippers. He lambasted Brown and called him a "whore" who would travel anywhere for the money. From that moment on, Olbermann, who seemed to be a harmless nerd, ended up on my &%$#@ list.

    I also attended UCLA, and as far as I'm concerned Herr Olbermann isn't fit to shine Larry Brown's shoes. Nor was he ever a credible sportscaster.

    Second, Lincoln had to manage a war fought in the beginning by incompetent generals, not to mention a McClellan whom Olbermann would have gladly given a pass. After all, George McClellan was a John Kerry kindaguy. While he might not have overseen the building of military cemetaries, Lincoln was a compassionate man who visited military hospitals and the Soldier's Home on a regular basis; tried to keep orphans and widow's sons out of war, in short, he was a man of character, decency, honor and integrity. Heck, just like George W. Bush (and I say this as someone who didn't like our President's dad, and almost voted against him).

    Olbermann says Clinton spoke the "truth" and he calls President Bush a "Liar". Sorry, it is Keith Olbermann who is the Liar.

    Now Keith wants to graduate - as if he has even passed kindergarten - to Political commentaries. He needs to learn how to use his brain first, then he needs to learn how to write.

    As far as his being upset over being called a "Nazi Apologist" is concerned, well, if the shoe fits, Keith certainly wears it!

    You're doing great work here - keep it up!

    One more thing about Olbermann and Clinton:

    Olbermann, dumbass as he is, clearly admires our perverted coward of an IMPEACHED President. He tells us point-blank that Clinton told us the "truth" about 9/11 and wanted to protect us. Well, let's take an honest look at the record and at the facts.

    One, We had the first WTC bombing as soon as Clinton took office. Ok, that was early on, and there really wasn't much on the boards about Bin Laden then. Two years later, with Khobar Towers, the information was crossing Dick Clarke's desk, and to Clarke's credit, he started ringing alarms. Unfortunately Clinton, Anthony Lake, Sandy Burglar weren't paying attention.

    Then finally the terrible bombings of the Embassies in Africa. Clarke urged Clinton to respond, and yes, he did. Firing a ONE-TIME salvo of cruise missiles at virtually empty terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in the Sudan.

    Now, let's see what happened eight months later. Clinton and Miss Piggy Albright got upset with the Serbs in Kosovo, and immediately dispatched B-52s to bomb Belgrade, Yugoslavia, a city full of pro-American civilians who were NOT a threat to our security on a regular basis for a month. Did Clinton ever send the B-52s to Afghanistan on regular bombing runs - HELL, NO. The guy lied, and Olbermann lies too.

    Finally, and this is the most poignant and enraging fact of all:

    By the time the U.S.S. Cole was bombed, we knew that Osama had declared open war against America. Right after the Cole attack, Richard Clarke, and he deserves credit for this, and John O'Neill approached Clinton with a plan to terminate Osama and his lieutenants. They presented it to Miss Piggy, to Sandy Burglar, to Cohen and to Tenet. Their horrified response: The President is involved in delicate negotiations for a Middle East Peace agreement with Yasser Arafat. We cannot have U.S. bombs hitting Arab Terrorist targets for that would upset little boy Yasser. Clarke and O'Neill, later murdered on 9/11 walked out of the meeting dumbfounded, in shock and anger. That was our last real chance to kill Osama - blown by Clinton and his "security" team.

    Those are real facts that can be found in
    "The Looming Tower", in Yossef Bodansky's books, and yes, even in Clarke's Baron Munchenhausen's work.

    And yet, clueless boy Olbermann says Clinton really wanted to get Bin Laden. Both Clinton and Olbermann lie through their teeth.

    Bin Laden determined to strike in US.

    While I'm not even going to try to justify Kosovo, the Clinton Administration did what they could to prevent America from being attacked; the same cannot be said for the Bush Administration up until September 11th.

    Has everyone read that memo? If not you really should. Both Clinton and Bush administrations didn't do enough (and maybe even Bush Sr.), but George H. W. Bush was given a memo, one month before 9/11, stating Bin Laden wanted to hit the U.S. (and in one instance specifically mentioning hijacking airplanes). Too bad it was ignored.

    It's so funny to watch you righties squirm when someone fom the left uses righty tactics. Go Keith! Who could possibly defend Bush as a teller of truth? It's great to see the right wing sound machine get a taste own its own medicine. Bush can do no wrong? Come on, lap dogs. Lefties, at least, hit Clinton when he deserved it.

    OlbyLoon Laugher of the Week: "Lefties, at least, hit Clinton when he deserved it."

    Hi Alan, I kinda agree with you. But I heard a report the other day that said that Clinton had offered Monica of the big hair, big lips and nubile fascile tongue to UBL if UBL would cease the attacks.

    If that turns out to be true Clinton has got proof positive he was willing to sacrifice himself for the American people.

    If not NO CIGAR!

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Janet,

    That is a good one. Not true though, as Osama Boy doesn't like Kosher meat. Oh, Monica is NOT Kosher. Oh, yeah, Monica and Miss Piggy are found in the "other white meat" aisle. LOL

    As for "Non Factor" - always loveable when Lefty Neo-Nazis (are you listening Herr Olbermann?) have to hide behind alphabet soup names. Probably Gerry Studds or Mark Leno...then again, might be McGreevey there.

    Non-Factor,

    good name. How about nonentity. That sounds better.

    Prove that Clinton DID try to protect us before 9/11. Prove It.

    I've already proved where he thought much more of Yasser Arafat's feelings than protecting our citizens. I've already proven where Clinton sent B-52s on a daily basis (interesting for a Draft Dodger who hated those bombing runs on Hanoi) to bomb Belgrade, yet didn't send one B-52 on one mission to Afghanistan.

    And how about this - The government of the Sudan, no friend of America, DID ACTUALLY offer to turn Osama over to us after the first WTC attack but before the African Embassy bombings. What did this guy who swore he'd protect us (yeah, just like he protected Elian Gonzalez) do? He TURNED DOWN THE OFFER - saying that (are you ready for this), we didn't have enough evidence to hold him!

    Ladies and Gentlemen - and Liberals too, if you've got a brain left. THERE IS A VAST WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMMON CRIMINAL AND A TERRORIST SWORN TO KILL. This was NOT a law and order issue, but one of dealing forcefully with terror. Clinton and his crew, including the unbelieveably lame Jamie Gorelick dropped the ball.

    Those are facts, nonentity. Care to respond? Please do so, but with the truth, not Neo-Fascist MoveOn.Org\Daily Kos\Air Anti-America bullsh@t.

    My last post is also directed towards the Gerry Studds voter - mskinboston.

    Or did you vote for Barney Frank?

    Aaaah, I get the meaning of "Lefties hit Clinton when he deserved it" = below the belt, and close to his zipper. Right, Monica?

    "Alan", responding to your quote "Prove that Clinton DID try to protect us before 9/11. Prove It." ...

    You may have forgotten, but George W. Bush was in office on September 11th, 2001, not Bill Clinton. It was George W. Bush's job to protect us on September 11th.

    George W. Bush received a briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", on August 6th, 2001. (reference: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/) In the month between that warning and the attacks of September 11th, did George W. Bush do anything to protect us? It was his job. He had been office for nearly a year, and he had been given a warning. What did George W. Bush do to prevent September 11th?

    And if I may quote you, "Prove It."

    "Alan", responding to your quote "Prove that Clinton DID try to protect us before 9/11. Prove It." ...

    You may have forgotten, but George W. Bush was in office on September 11th, 2001, not Bill Clinton. It was George W. Bush's job to protect us on September 11th.

    George W. Bush received a briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", on August 6th, 2001. (reference: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/) In the month between that warning and the attacks of September 11th, did George W. Bush do anything to protect us? It was his job. He had been in office for nearly a year, and he had been given a warning by his staff that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. What did George W. Bush do to prevent September 11th?

    And if I may quote you, "Prove It."

    President Bush had eight months to deal with Bin Laden - Clinton had eight years, egg bagel. The President may have received briefings but nothing tangible from the Clinton leftovers - Tenet and Clarke - to suggest a direct attack was imminent on this country.

    Blame President Bush is easy. However Clinton had three, no four direct OBL attacks on America and American interests. The attack on America(first WTC bombing, unless you want to count the assasination of Rabbi Meir Kahane by Bin Laden followers) and three against U.S. interests worldwide. A fourth was stopped in the Philippines, not to mention the aborted Millenium ops.

    But like a typical Lefty you've chosen to skirt issues - what was the excuse for not sending B-52s on daily bombing runs over Afghanistan? Or approving urgent CIA requests to deal with OBL. Remember, Yasser Arafat's sensitivity was more important to Clinton and Miss Piggy than dealing with a murderer sworn to kill more Americans.

    As for President Bush, maybe he should have removed the Clintonites like Tenet immediately or put a thorough professional in charge of the hapless FBI. He finally did so, but not until after 9/11. Clinton, with all of his fighting with Louie Freeh, chose to ignore the FBI.

    BTW - Once President Bush started getting tangible information - which he didn't have the first months in office of an attack, he did approve the armed drone operation that Dick Clarke had kept asking for in your hero's administration of do-nothings. Unfortunately this decision was at the beginning of September 2001.

    IF Bill Clinton had approved of this kind of op, or allowed the Northern Alliance to go through with it - eight years later, you wouldn't be asking me these questions, nor sticking up for a consummate liar and legend in his own mind.

    I've proven it, fella. Now squirm out of it, if you can, dear Neo-Fat.

    Interesting name - glad you love Olbermann.

    Others on this site would like to have you think that KO is a threat to our democracy, and use O'REILLY as an example of responsible "journalism".

    Well, Al, an example of such a person would be peachy.

    The party hackery in these hallowed pages is pathetic. Confirms what alot of Americans know, mainly that conservatism is a safe-haven for the simple minds of our society.

    That you don't see the irony in the two sentences here is more than a little funny.

    The fact that their views on gay rights, for example, are so in tune with the Taliban's view on gay rights is very telling.

    Whew, thank God the same left that gripes that Bush tars them with a wide brush doesn't do the same.

    Hmm, wasn't it Bob Beckel who said that the GOP should've suspected Foley because he was a gay man befriending 16 yr old boys?

    Makes one wonder if their supposed opposition to the fundamenalist extremisim in the Middle East holds any weight at all, especially when they share some of the same prejudices.Can't you all just get along?

    Well, unlike you, we wish to defeat them so they don't harm others.

    PS-Hannitty takes it in the rear!

    That's some good tolerance there.

    The freedom tower will not be built as long as Pataki and the 'experts' he hired to rebuild the site sit with their thumbs up their ass. The reason that Bush is frowned upon is because he promised it would be rebuilt and has taken no initiative to do so whatsoever.

    And as was clearly --- and in more than a little detail --- mentioned was that this is not something Bush can hurry along.

    It seems that this site and the articles contained within are hardly in opposition to Keith Olbermann but a means to berate and ridicule those that seek the truth and those that dissent from the mainstream view of the government and the way it is run.

    Don't you "praise" Olby for doing that?

    CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, it doesn't matter the whole of the media is biased to the Bush Administration.

    Umm. Yeah, sure.

    Hold on to that one.

    Who had forged memos used to attack them? Who was accused of leaking a CIA agent's name with zero evidence behind it?

    George W. Bush received a briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", on August 6th, 2001. (reference: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/) In the month between that warning and the attacks of September 11th, did George W. Bush do anything to protect us? It was his job. He had been office for nearly a year, and he had been given a warning. What did George W. Bush do to prevent September 11th?

    And, since no federal buildings in NYC (which were specifically mentioned in the PDB), Bush did a perfect job on 9/11 stopping what was threatened.
    -=Mike

    Alan, it's pathetic to see you give a pass to Bush. You sound shrill, and yelling "It was Clinton's fault, it was Clinton's fault!" isn't helping.

    George Bush was warned, George Bush did nothing. You can't ignore that.

    Olbermann is an Iranian agent and will be exposed!

    MikeSC writes: "Bush did a perfect job on 9/11 stopping what was threatened."

    Wow. This is an amazing example of reality-denial.

    Firstly, I think many of you (conservative and liberal alike) should take a step back and consider the fact that you are arguing over something so insignificant. Keith obviously spoke his mind, and believes he is right. My guess is that nothing you say will change this. This in NO WAY means I agree with him. In fact, I find it extremely desperate on his behalf that he uses the events of 9/11 to gain popularity, by blaming a president who has no control over the building of the memorial. But like I said, it's a waste of time to sit around and write about such a trivial issue.
    Secondly, why must you all attack each other according to whether you are a liberal or conservative, whether you live in a blue state or a red state? My educated guess is that there are as many intellectuals on one side as there are on the other. I'm from a red state, where numerous high schools were ranked nationally. I attended a large university in this same red state, the majority of students also being from red states. The university has been ranked as one of the nation's leading engineering & textiles university. I do not mean to convey that the red states are better, but rather to reason that the fact that anyone would use a red vs. blue argument for anything is juvenile and terribly inaccurate.
    If any of you have taken even the beginning level political science classes in college, then you know that Conservative does not mean Republican and Liberal does not mean Democrat. True, they many times go hand-in-hand, but they do not define each other.
    I suggest that many of you not spend your time attacking the education level of your fellow Americans. Please consider devoting your time wisely to making the world a better place. Instead of ranting about your distaste for the administration or of Keith Olbermann, be a positive asset to the world, raise money to cure cancer, volunteer for the Big Brothers or Big Sisters program. Do something that will constructively contribute to the human race. I can, with certainty, tell you that demeaning your FELLOW Americans does nothing for your credibility or the morale of the country. People have opinions, and will always have opinions. Slander against anyone is a poor use of your oh-so-intellectual minds. Superiority complexes are not attractive on anyone.

    Firstly, I think many of you (conservative and liberal alike) should take a step back and consider the fact that you are arguing over something so insignificant. Keith obviously spoke his mind, and believes he is right. My guess is that nothing you say will change this. This in NO WAY means I agree with him. In fact, I find it extremely desperate on his behalf that he uses the events of 9/11 to gain popularity, by blaming a president who has no control over the building of the memorial. But like I said, it's a waste of time to sit around and write about such a trivial issue.
    As for blaming Bush for 9/11 as a whole... come on people. I would expect more out of highly educated Americans. The fact is, not a single one of you knows every single thing leading up to 9/11 and you never will. And if you did know... why didn't you stop it from happening? You can blame and you can't point fingers. Stop giving those who aren't Americans a reason to laugh at us for turning against one another. You perpetuate their scorn.
    Secondly, why must you all attack each other according to whether you are a liberal or conservative, whether you live in a blue state or a red state? My educated guess is that there are as many intellectuals on one side as there are on the other. I'm from a red state, where numerous high schools were ranked nationally. I attended a large university in this same red state, the majority of students also being from red states. The university has been ranked as one of the nation's leading engineering & textiles university. I do not mean to convey that the red states are better, but rather to reason that the fact that anyone would use a red vs. blue argument for anything is juvenile and terribly inaccurate.
    If any of you have taken even the beginning level political science classes in college, then you know that Conservative does not mean Republican and Liberal does not mean Democrat. True, they many times go hand-in-hand, but they do not define each other.
    I suggest that many of you not spend your time attacking the education level of your fellow Americans. Please consider devoting your time wisely to making the world a better place. Instead of ranting about your distaste for the administration or of Keith Olbermann, be a positive asset to the world, raise money to cure cancer, volunteer for the Big Brothers or Big Sisters program. Do something that will constructively contribute to the human race. I can, with certainty, tell you that demeaning your FELLOW Americans does nothing for your credibility or the morale of the country. People have opinions, and will always have opinions. Slander against anyone is a poor use of your oh-so-intellectual minds. Superiority complexes are not attractive on anyone.

    "Please consider devoting your time wisely to making the world a better place."

    Standing up for truth and justice DOES make the world a better place.

    I don't consider it to be standing up for truth and justice when the only action you take is to rant about how terrible EVERYTHING is. Like I said, devote your time WISELY to making it a better place. I don't consider blasting others' beliefs and opinions a constructive or positive contribution to society. So instead of being upset about it and just being angry all day long, do something that credits your beliefs and your passion for an issue. I could care less if it's what I agree with. But I think being active about the issues you believe in is 100 times more effective than arguing with your peers. Trashing others does nothing for your credibility... it only makes people think even less of you and your beliefs.

    I myself believe in truth and justice, but I have never so much as felt any compulsion to demonstrate that by talking trash to anyone with a different opinion. It perpetuates animocity and bitterness... something I am certain truth and justice can absolutely do without.

    "I don't consider it to be standing up for truth and justice when the only action you take is to rant about how terrible EVERYTHING is. "

    You are entitled to your opinion. Am I?

    Never said you weren't, in fact I am certain I said everyone is.

    Never said you weren't, in fact I am certain I said everyone is.