Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

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

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

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

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


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

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

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

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

    ...they should be...

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

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

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

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

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

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

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

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

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

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

    Friends of OlbyWatch

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

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

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


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

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

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


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



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

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

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    September 6, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - SEPTEMBER 6, 2006

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • TERROR POLITICS: Richard Wolffe, Newsweek; Roger Cressey, NBC terrorism analyst
    • SURI CRUISE PHOTOS: Michael Musto, Village Voice

    The opening spiel began with Krazy Keith bellowing about the President's speech:

    Now, only now, his demand that Congress make it all legal.

    This was followed by a clip of the President asking for legislation to authorize military tribunals. (These have been legal since the time of Washington until a recent Supreme Court decision. That's why "now, only now".) The spiel also promised a report on an ABC movie that is "rewriting history" (translation: it dares to suggest that somebody other than Bush also failed to apprehend Bin Laden). No surprise here; it's the cause du jour on the blue blogs.

    The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann kicked off the hour proper with references to "'Mister' Bush's fear and tell show" and the "so-called war on terror". The latter we assume is the fallout from the so-called attack on 9/11.

    After gloating over the Pakistan truce with local militants, Olby got to the President's speech, mentioning the adminstration's attempts to "circumvent" the Geneva conventions. After reminding veiwers about the Supreme Court ruling that applied Geneva conventions to terror suspects, KO added:

    So now the President is putting the onus on how to define what legally fits under the Geneva conventions on Congress instead.

    Hold the phone! Is this the same Keith Olbermann who rails about the executive branch usurping the rights of Congress? Now he's complaining that the President is not usurping legislative responsibilities? When the Wolffe man showed up, Olby was ready with one of his patented leading questions:

    Did not the President rather circuitously admit in there that what his government has been doing with these suspects is almost everything his critics have accused it of doing, and not yet legal, by the way?

    You may wonder how that question could have made any sense, since the President stated his conviction that his actions were within the law. That was easily finessed by KO not running those portions of the speech. OlbySpin continued:

    Was there policy in there, or was it just politics?

    After raising again the Pakistan "cease-fire" with Wolffie and giving him "great thanks", KO turned to Roger Cressey, who was supposed to be discussing terror politics. Olby marginalized the discussion by focusing on the Pakistanis; Cressey pointed out how a once-helpful ally was in effect now harboring a terrorist. Then we got tonight's Kountdown Konspiracy Moment:

    Or B, somebody--forgive the paranoia here--deliberately wants him not captured, out there, offstage, like Goldstien in 1984?

    To his credit, Cressey dismissed the conspiracy theory, and admitted that the CIA interrogations had been helpful and should continue. Despite that, he got a "great thanks", then Olby claimed that an upcoming ABC movie places most "if not all" of the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration. This was a teaser for commentary from the virulently partisan Benveniste, but first it was time to poke fun at Katherine Harris.

    Olby's introduction to a montage of Harris embarrassments was notable mainly for marking the return of The Laughing Stagehand. Take the Olbermann Watch Challenge: name any time the discredited sports guy ran such a piece two months before an election about any liberal Democrat candidate (prize to be announced).

    After oddball, KO again teased his blue blog-inspired expose of ABC's upcoming 9/11 film by lying about it:

    It's a blatant attempt to shift blame for the nightmare to the Democrats and the Democrats alone.

    He went on to say any similarity between the film and truth is "coincidental", and reported that "many who have seen the miniseries" say it "skims over 'Mister' Bush's culpability". Who are these "many"? KO didn't say. He certainly didn't claim to have seen it himself, but then if some theater critics could review plays they didn't bother to attend, why should Krazy Keith be forced to see a movie before he critiques it?

    Citing his favorite impartial source, Media Matters, KO ominously noted that "teaching materials" included this deeply subversive, evil bit of propaganda:

    The US government believed that Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction.

    Ben-Veniste was identified by Keith as simply a 9/11 commissioner, with no mention of his extreme partisanship or the (D) that should have appeared after his name. He complained about a scene where an attack on Bin Laden was called off, saying "that just didn't happen". But neither noted that there were several Clinton era get-UBL opportunities that were nixed because of concerns about collateral injuries or potential retaliation. Then it turns out that B-V only saw a portion of the film, and therefore has no more idea than Krazy Keith does how it treats the Bush administration or its missteps. The difference between them is that Ben-Veniste admitted he doesn't know, and therefore has at least some integrity. Keith Olbermann does not.

    KO replayed a Harry Reid (D) comment praising the wonderful "special comment" by whom? By Krazy Keith himself, of course. In the #2 slot, a piece on Steve Irwin addressed the angle of using animals for entertainment. It was a recycled video from NBC. Next it was off to Katie Couric, Jessica Simpson, and Cruise News with the creepy Michael Musto.

    KO managed to concoct attack #109 on Mr Bill O'Reilly; Bill's crime was criticizing the media for inaccurate and overblown Plamegate reports. Note that Olby's snark did not address or rebut a single point in O'Reilly's commentary--he attacked Mr Bill not for speaking wrongly, but just for speaking! In fact, Olbermann flat out lied about what Bill said, but that's hardly news. The "worst person" was Karl Rove (R), because an unnamed source said the White House helped funnel money from contributors to Joe Lieberman's primary campaign (one of the most desperately lame outrages in "worst person" history). In addition to filling both the Republican and the Fox News slots, Olbermann managed to pimp his book the book that bears his name twice in the course of less than two minutes.

    NAME

    The influence and power of Olbermann Watch were felt again tonight. We have been counting the obsessively demeaning uses of the phrase "Mister Bush". We noted yesterday as the citations rose to a record level, so today KO went out of his way to miss the "Mister". He did slip up a few times, but there can be no doubt that today's repeated references to "President Bush" and "the President" are a direct result of the impact of this site. That explains tonight's MisterMeter reading: 2 (low).


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (107) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    107 Comments

    The children in the room must go
    Keith's guest is creep Michael Musto
    He's got breaking news
    They found Suri Cruise
    Will the ratings reach a new low?

    did I hear him say "purported" war on terror? in the opening segment.

    Yes, you heard that from the "purported" anchorman.

    what could that possibly mean? That he doesn't believe that we are at war? or that terrorism is not real? As a student of OlbyLogic even I am confounded.

    What I love is the idea that somehow denying that there even IS a war on terror is somehow going to resonate with the American people. All we can do is hope KO and his OlbyLoon pals keep it up all the way until November.

    I still can't understand KO's hissy fit over Bush comparing Nazis and Islamofacsists. I guess he's ok with MoveOn running an ad portraying Bush as Hitler but God forbid G.W. compare 2 Jew hating cultures. How indecent of him!

    Olbermann, once again demoralizing the home front. He has to be a paid agent!

    I see his book slipped out of the top 100 even though after last night it had gotten backup into the 80's,so he has only 3 days (2 if he takes friday off)before its released to get it up there again..so watch out he's going to have to do something drastic.

    I believe the big slimy nutjob said "so called war on terror". Hey, we know whose side Olberloon is on- the liberal side.
    Nice job Mr.Zeromann on having the world leader of Christianity on your "oddball" segement. But of course you got your "buddy" the repulsive and creepy Michael "cum dumpster" Musto to give your low ratings show some credibilty.
    Ya know I think that Tom Cruise is pretty much out there but no matter how crazy i think the father is I would not make fun of an infant. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? . I won't include "sir" at the end of that phrase because you are not in anyways due the respsect of the word sir. Maybe dirtbag would be more like it.
    You there Olbermann?? I know your ego is forcing you or one of your little knaves to read this. tick-tock Olb, your time is runing out before you make your own head explode on national TV. Do you have any plan in case the Republicans win in November?? Ya better wear your Depends just in case there big fella.
    Then we have the "reporting" on Steve Irwin. Now I know Herr Olberman-boy that by the looks of you, you don't get out in nature much( hanging with Musto don't count) but do you realize that there is a whole different set of parameters of safety between Crocodiles and snakes and Brown Bears?? Hint- there is no safety zone with Brown Bears unless you are about 1/4 mile away! Bears can run 30 MPH UPHILL but crocs (not you, real crocodiles) are ungainly and slow and snakes can only strike about 1/3 their body length. Some expert you are. Apples and Oranges Mr Oranage- mann. You act so smart but your ignorance is blinding you big fool.
    Yeah and Clinton had no culpability for 9/11? If he awsn't so busy sexually assualting women and members of his staff and not so damn polll driven maybe he could have circumvented the attacks. But of course you will defend the left and attack the right no matter what.
    Hey Keith ya wanna go see some Brown Bears with me in Alaska?? I'll show you how to feed them real good and maybe your toilet cleaning ratings might go up too!

    I believe the big slimy nutjob said "so called war on terror". Hey, we know whose side Olberloon is on- the liberal side.
    Nice job Mr.Zeromann on having the world leader of Christianity on your "oddball" segement. But of course you got your "buddy" the repulsive and creepy Michael "cum dumpster" Musto to give your low ratings show some credibilty.
    Ya know I think that Tom Cruise is pretty much out there but no matter how crazy i think the father is I would not make fun of an infant. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? . I won't include "sir" at the end of that phrase because you are not in anyways due the respsect of the word sir. Maybe dirtbag would be more like it.
    You there Olbermann?? I know your ego is forcing you or one of your little knaves to read this. tick-tock Olb, your time is runing out before you make your own head explode on national TV. Do you have any plan in case the Republicans win in November?? Ya better wear your Depends just in case there big fella.
    Then we have the "reporting" on Steve Irwin. Now I know Herr Olberman-boy that by the looks of you, you don't get out in nature much( hanging with Musto don't count) but do you realize that there is a whole different set of parameters of safety between Crocodiles and snakes and Brown Bears?? Hint- there is no safety zone with Brown Bears unless you are about 1/4 mile away! Bears can run 30 MPH UPHILL but crocs (not you, real crocodiles) are ungainly and slow and snakes can only strike about 1/3 their body length. Some expert you are. Apples and Oranges Mr Oranage- mann. You act so smart but your ignorance is blinding you big fool.
    Yeah and Clinton had no culpability for 9/11? If he awsn't so busy sexually assualting women and members of his staff and not so damn polll driven maybe he could have circumvented the attacks. But of course you will defend the left and attack the right no matter what.
    Hey Keith ya wanna go see some Brown Bears with me in Alaska?? I'll show you how to feed them real good and maybe your toilet cleaning ratings might go up too!

    I believe the big slimy nutjob said "so called war on terror". Hey, we know whose side Olberloon is on- the liberal side.
    Nice job Mr.Zeromann on having the world leader of Christianity on your "oddball" segement. But of course you got your "buddy" the repulsive and creepy Michael "cum dumpster" Musto to give your low ratings show some credibilty.
    Ya know I think that Tom Cruise is pretty much out there but no matter how crazy i think the father is I would not make fun of an infant. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? . I won't include "sir" at the end of that phrase because you are not in anyways due the respsect of the word sir. Maybe dirtbag would be more like it.
    You there Olbermann?? I know your ego is forcing you or one of your little knaves to read this. tick-tock Olb, your time is runing out before you make your own head explode on national TV. Do you have any plan in case the Republicans win in November?? Ya better wear your Depends just in case there big fella.
    Then we have the "reporting" on Steve Irwin. Now I know Herr Olberman-boy that by the looks of you, you don't get out in nature much( hanging with Musto don't count) but do you realize that there is a whole different set of parameters of safety between Crocodiles and snakes and Brown Bears?? Hint- there is no safety zone with Brown Bears unless you are about 1/4 mile away! Bears can run 30 MPH UPHILL but crocs (not you, real crocodiles) are ungainly and slow and snakes can only strike about 1/3 their body length. Some expert you are. Apples and Oranges Mr Oranage- mann. You act so smart but your ignorance is blinding you big fool.
    Yeah and Clinton had no culpability for 9/11? If he awsn't so busy sexually assualting women and members of his staff and not so damn polll driven maybe he could have circumvented the attacks. But of course you will defend the left and attack the right no matter what.
    Hey Keith ya wanna go see some Brown Bears with me in Alaska?? I'll show you how to feed them real good and maybe your toilet cleaning ratings might go up too!

    I believe the big slimy nutjob said "so called war on terror". Hey, we know whose side Olberloon is on- the liberal side.
    Nice job Mr.Zeromann on having the world leader of Christianity on your "oddball" segement. But of course you got your "buddy" the repulsive and creepy Michael "cum dumpster" Musto to give your low ratings show some credibilty.
    Ya know I think that Tom Cruise is pretty much out there but no matter how crazy i think the father is I would not make fun of an infant. HAVE YOU NO SHAME? . I won't include "sir" at the end of that phrase because you are not in anyways due the respsect of the word sir. Maybe dirtbag would be more like it.
    You there Olbermann?? I know your ego is forcing you or one of your little knaves to read this. tick-tock Olb, your time is runing out before you make your own head explode on national TV. Do you have any plan in case the Republicans win in November?? Ya better wear your Depends just in case there big fella.
    Then we have the "reporting" on Steve Irwin. Now I know Herr Olberman-boy that by the looks of you, you don't get out in nature much( hanging with Musto don't count) but do you realize that there is a whole different set of parameters of safety between Crocodiles and snakes and Brown Bears?? Hint- there is no safety zone with Brown Bears unless you are about 1/4 mile away! Bears can run 30 MPH UPHILL but crocs (not you, real crocodiles) are ungainly and slow and snakes can only strike about 1/3 their body length. Some expert you are. Apples and Oranges Mr Oranage- mann. You act so smart but your ignorance is blinding you big fool.
    Yeah and Clinton had no culpability for 9/11? If he awsn't so busy sexually assualting women and members of his staff and not so damn polll driven maybe he could have circumvented the attacks. But of course you will defend the left and attack the right no matter what.
    Hey Keith ya wanna go see some Brown Bears with me in Alaska?? I'll show you how to feed them real good and maybe your toilet cleaning ratings might go up too!

    don't know why my post came thru all those times?? sorry for the redundancy good folks

    don't know why my post came thru all those times?? sorry for the redundancy good folks

    Your posts will only come thru once for each time you hit the post button. But it takes a while, so wait a few minutes before punching it again. There is definitely a technical problem with this site, and has been for quite a while. I see hundreds of double and triple posts. Bob...Oh Bob??

    Your posts will only come thru once for each time you hit the post button. But it takes a while, so wait a few minutes before punching it again. There is definitely a technical problem with this site, and has been for quite a while. I see hundreds of double and triple posts. Bob...Oh Bob??

    Olbermann, once again demoralizing the home front. He has to be a paid agent!

    Oh, how nice...an MSNBC newsperson is being quoted by Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid on the senate floor.... Wonder if Maggie Gallagher or Armstrong Jones ever had that honor....

    Olbermann's a giver, Harry...it's not in him to take...

    And there's Richard Wolfe of Newsweek saying they're going to hold Bush's feet to the fire over Musharef trying to placate local warlords by keeping his troops away from Bin Laden territory. Bush said he wouldn't coddle nations that harbored terrorists, and even if Musharef is in an extremely precarious position, yet absolutely vital to the U.S., why not not use it to play gotcha with Bush...

    Just our doing his job for we Americans...that Richard Wolfe....

    Hey, it's our god-given right to scrutinize and question if our govt officials are simply playing politics for their own agendas or if they have the interests of the nationa at heart, Donald Rumsfeld... The fourth estate, however, is sacrosanct...

    Olbermann, once again demoralizing the home front. He has to be a paid agent!

    what could that possibly mean? That he doesn't believe that we are at war? or that terrorism is not real? As a student of OlbyLogic even I am confounded.

    What I love is the idea that somehow denying that there even IS a war on terror is somehow going to resonate with the American people. All we can do is hope KO and his OlbyLoon pals keep it up all the way until November.

    ----

    No, it could mean that the reality of the "War on Terror" has been disputed, and rightly so. You can't have a war on a tactic. I think even the war on terror has changed the name they're officially using to describe it. Many conservatives as well don't like the phrase of "War on Terror" because in itself means that it can't actually be won, it's as trivial as calling something "The War on Air Combat." Nobody is denying that terrorism is a threat, but you can't have a war on the tactic of terrorism.

    Olbermann is just spewing Iranian/Al-Qaeda Propaganda. His show is a dress rehersal for Al-Jazeera International!

    He has to pimp the book. As of this post it has falling to #107. What happen to the great rush for this literary giant!!!!!

    Actually, I'm beginning to believe Keith's continued survival despite dismal ratings is in reality an evil plot by Karl Rove and his Republican minons at GE to take all the paranoid left conspiracy theories, bundle them up in the most biased package possible and give them to the most pompus yutz to read news since Ted Baxter, as part of an effort to make sure nothing that comes out of "Countdown" will neither be taken seriously by the vast majority of the American public, nor even watched by all but the most microscopic minority of prime-time television viewers. That's the only logical explanation of why MSNBC and its parent company would put up for so long with a show that's the equivalent of the 1962 New York Mets in the cable news ratings race.

    He has to pimp the book. As of this post it has falling to #107. What happen to the great rush for this literary giant!!!!!

    He has to pimp the book. As of this post it has fallen to #107. What happen to the great rush for this literary giant!!!!!

    I don't know why there is that posting problem. I reported it to my web host and he told me that it was a Movable Type issue. All blogware sucks so it should be no surprised that MT is buggy. All I can tell is that if hit "post" your comment WILL post. If you get a server error just use the back button and hit refresh. Every time this happens to me I do see that my post IS on the site. It's a pain but what do you want for nuthin.

    So Keith hates it when people attack the media correct? So why did the guy who physically attacked a news reporter in San Diego not get any mention at all? Ohhh probably because he worked for Fox.

    You people are so silly. Your country is going down the tubes because of the incompetency of the Bush Administration and yet you want to slime Keith Olbermann who is pointing out the obvious. Don't you get it. Bush is a liar!! And now his great friend, the leader of Pakistan who is against TERRRORISM, is giving bil Laden sanctuary. Oh yes, Bush is a great leader against who? Not the people who attached us on 9/11.

    So the people on this web site don't seem to think that using media and Al Queda relates the 2. Gee, are these the same people that actually believe no republican has ever suggested that Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 yet over half of the country believed this to be true. How do you all explain how americans got that idea? I'm sure it was from those evil, no good, "liburals".

    As for using "so called war on terror" he is absolutely right. The congress never declared a war on terror, meaning (according to your hero Alberto Gonzales) there is no war. You people don't seem to understand that terrorism is an ideology. You can not have a war on ideology.

    I also love how you all claim the liberals are all trying to help the terrorists attack us. Bill Clinton spent the most money on anti-terrorism than any president before him and was blocked by republicans on every turn, Pat Buchanan calling the threat Clinton was trying to illustrate as false. Clinton tried to pass something very similar to the patriot act in 1996, the right wing went wild and stopped him on every turn again saying there that the terrorist threat is overrated. Clinton is the same guy that stopped the millenium plot from happening, Clinton is the same guy that set up a CIA unit responsible for catching Osama Bin Laden, you know the same unit Bush closed in 2005 saying that Osama doesn't worry him that much.

    Bush is the guy that got a PDB saying the threat of Al Queda striking this country is imminent in August, what does he do? He goes on a month long vacation.

    Clinton spends 2 years setting up a commission to study the threat of terrorism, what does Bush do? He comes into office and in order to not do anything Clinton would have done he throws out that commission's report and appoints Cheney to start over on the exact same thing.

    But yes, its the "liburals" trying to destroy this country. How gullible can you guys be? Will you please stop allowing Rush and O'Reilly to spoon feed you all this propogenda? When will you start thinking for yourselves?

    Now let me refute some of this crap.

    ------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------
    This was followed by a clip of the President asking for legislation to authorize military tribunals. (These have been legal since the time of Washington until a recent Supreme Court decision. That's why "now, only now".)
    ------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------

    No this has always been illegal as the supreme court has shown. Critics have been saying this ever since his program started back in 2001. But please, enlighten me. Show me the law that says the president has the power to hold someone without trial for as long as he wants without telling anyone that he has these people in custody? I'm curious.

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

    The spiel also promised a report on an ABC movie that is "rewriting history" (translation: it dares to suggest that somebody other than Bush also failed to apprehend Bin Laden). No surprise here; it's the cause du jour on the blue blogs.

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

    Are you actually trying to say that Olbermann is wrong? Do you not agree that a lot of those "facts" in that movie were completely fabricated? That is exactly what Olbermann is saying is he is 100% accurate in saying that. I would love for you to point out where he is lying.

    --------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------
    The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann kicked off the hour proper with references to "'Mister' Bush's fear and tell show" and the "so-called war on terror". The latter we assume is the fallout from the so-called attack on 9/11.
    --------------------------------------------
    --------------------------------------------

    As I said above, this is not a real war on terror according to your hero Alberto Gonzales. Congress never declared this to be a war. But I guess you guys don't care too much for those articles in the constitution. Naming this a war on terror is nothing more than trying to gain political points from a national tragedy.

    ------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------
    Hold the phone! Is this the same Keith Olbermann who rails about the executive branch usurping the rights of Congress? Now he's complaining that the President is not usurping legislative responsibilities? When the Wolffe man showed up, Olby was ready with one of his patented leading questions:
    -------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------

    No this is the same Keith, an american, that believes in the constitution. I know you aren't understanding so go reread the parts about the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. What Bush is doing is trying to ignore the judicial branch which decides what is constitutional and what isn't.

    -------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------
    You may wonder how that question could have made any sense, since the President stated his conviction that his actions were within the law. That was easily finessed by KO not running those portions of the speech. OlbySpin continued:

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

    Yeah if Bush said it it must be true. Excuse me for rolling on the floor laughing.

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

    I will try to post about the rest later. Its late here I am going to bed.

    Dear Skep,
    Nice try. But these haters can't think for themselves. They chose to believe everything O'Liely and Rush feed them. Talking points from Rove no matter how ridculous must be followed. These are the people that would have joined the Hitler Nazi Youth Movement if they had been alive at the time. I doubt that many of them have a GED. And yet, poor fools, they are the ones and their family members that Bush will use for cannon fodder. They have an excuse for every lie.

    I had briefly flipped on Countdown towards the end of the 9/11 movie "report" Olbermann did. Maybe I misheard what he said, so here's a question:

    I thought he said that Media Matters said the film was only allowed to be viewed by select rightwingers, that they refused requests by liberals including President, er, *Mister* Clinton?

    So, how did BenVeniste see it? It's one thing for Olby to flip-flop, but within the same segment?

    Flip: No liberals saw it.
    Flop: BenVeniste saw parts of it.

    Olberman's ratings are up 55%, and Fox is down across the board, Hmmm.

    Actually Olbermann's ratings are DOWN about 50% since the end of 1Q06 when they spiked on the heels of NBC's Winter Olympics coverage. What period of time were you referencing?

    CBK, the right wing media that got advanced copies of this film gave previews of it. And he is right, only right wingers were allowed to preview it.

    I guess the genius doesn't do math.

    Robert, you have a source for that? I've been looking for this actually and thats how I found this web site. I can't find any thing about his ratings. I am especially looking for his ratings compared to Oreilly.

    Skeptical, then how did BenVeniste see parts of it?

    Maybe from the right wing outlets that continue to replay it over and over and over and over again. Just maybe.

    What right wing outfit replayed the entire first half of the movie over and over? I'm sure you can tell us, just maybe.

    Ok lets back up, I haven't seen this segment until just now until it rerun. I, like most here, was talking out of my ass. I need to learn to not take anything you right wingers say seriously until I research it myself.

    Olberman never claimed this wasn't shown to any liberals, he said people such as Clinton were specifically denied access to view it. Never did mediamatters say such a thing eighter, what Olbermann mentioned about mediamatters was that teaching materials were released to schools. He never made the claims you say he made. You can watch the video here if you need proof:

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/06/ben-veniste-rips-abcs-fakeumentary-over-inaccuracies/

    More distortions and lies coming from the right wing, no way, how could that be???

    Actually,

    Doesn't Universal now own NBC?

    Skep,

    Talking out of your ass? You mean like your left wing friend Genius when he claims Orange Boy's ratings are up 55%? Yeah, us Right Wingers really know how to distort the truth...

    I guess the genius doesn't do math.
    *************************************
    Well its liberal math where 2+2=5.

    Doesn't Universal now own NBC?

    Other way around -- the scandal ridden French company Vivendi cut a deal with General Electric to merger their studio with NBC, which was looking for a Hollywood partner to match the CBS-Paramount, ABC-Disney and the Fox/WB network-studio pairings.

    Why you should be skeptical of Skeptical:

    > No this has always been illegal as the supreme court has shown. Critics have been saying this ever since his program started back in 2001.

    If you read more carefully you'll see I was talking about military tribunals. FDR used them to try Germans in WWII. So they haven't "always" been illegal.

    > Are you actually trying to say that Olbermann is wrong?

    My God, how could anyone dare to say that? Of course Olbermann is never wrong. Even when he criticizes a movie he hasn't seen, he's still not wrong. He has psychic powers!

    > this is not a real war on terror according to your hero Alberto Gonzales.

    Please point to where I ever said anything about Gonzales being my hero. I'm sure you wouldn't make it up because then you would be talking out of your ass, right?

    > if Bush said it it must be true

    No, whether Bush's statement is true or not is not the point. The point is: if Bush said "A" then it is totally nonsensical and illogical for Olby to claim that Bush was "admitting" "B" (something that was the exact opposite of what he really said). This kind of sematic distortion is called OlbyLogic, and it's about on the same level of rationality and honesty as his lying about Bill O'Reilly. Again.

    I'm very concerned about Craig Crawford. Did he say something to piss off the Quotable Keith? We have heard his chuckling laugh for weeks now. And i have seen his obit in any newspaper. Is Craig Crawford still alive or what. Maybe the Quotable Keith could come up with a conspiracy of why we have not seen Chuckles.

    These numbers are from Monday from insidecable.com

    8PM - P2+ (25-54)
    FNC - O’Reilly Factor - 1,452,000 viewers (294,000)
    CNN - Paula Zahn Now - 995,000 viewers (400,000)
    MSNBC - MSNBC Investigates- 333,000 viewers (194,000)
    CNBC - CNBC Prime- a scratch with 57,000 viewers (a scratch with 24,000)
    HLN - Nancy Grace - 432,000 viewers (145,000)

    -You people are so silly. Your country is going down the tubes because of the incompetency of the Bush Administration and yet you want to slime Keith Olbermann who is pointing out the obvious.

    Well that's your opinion that America is going down the tubes. As for Olbermann pointing out the obvious who believes he is pointing out the obvious? Probably only the liberals who he clearly caters too.

    -Don't you get it. Bush is a liar!! And now his great friend, the leader of Pakistan who is against TERRRORISM, is giving bil Laden sanctuary. Oh yes, Bush is a great leader against who? Not the people who attached us on 9/11.

    *Yawn* typical dull liberal talking points... Bush lied... no WMDS... blah blah blah.

    Time to refute the refutation.

    The spiel also promised a report on an ABC movie that is "rewriting history" (translation: it dares to suggest that somebody other than Bush also failed to apprehend Bin Laden). No surprise here; it's the cause du jour on the blue blogs.
    --------------------------------------
    Are you actually trying to say that Olbermann is wrong? Do you not agree that a lot of those "facts" in that movie were completely fabricated? That is exactly what Olbermann is saying is he is 100% accurate in saying that. I would love for you to point out where he is lying.

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

    1) Johnny was calling Olbermann to task for claiming that the mini-series "places most "if not all" of the blame for 9/11 on the Clinton administration"... How does Keith know this if he hasn't even SEEN THE MOVIE. Even his guest, BenVineste, hasn't seen the whole movie and admits to having no idea how it portrays President Bush. By attacking the series for something that he has not witnessed himself and his guest has not witnessed (did he cite ANYBODY who actually saw the whole movie?)Keith is in fact making baseless accusations.

    2) The series is a docuDRAMA, not a docuMENTARY. ABC admits that the series' creators had the artistic freedom to create composite characters, compress timeframes etc... in order to enhance entertainment value.

    ---------------------------------------------
    The infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann kicked off the hour proper with references to "'Mister' Bush's fear and tell show" and the "so-called war on terror". The latter we assume is the fallout from the so-called attack on 9/11.
    --------------------------------------------
    As I said above, this is not a real war on terror according to your hero Alberto Gonzales. Congress never declared this to be a war. But I guess you guys don't care too much for those articles in the constitution. Naming this a war on terror is nothing more than trying to gain political points from a national tragedy.

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

    You're arguing about semantics here. Technically, the Vietnam War was not a "war" either, it was a "conflict". Did that make it any less serious or deadly? The US congress hasn't issued an official declaration of war since WWII. However, you have a point when saying you can't declare war on a tactic. I think that's why the Bush administration has now taken to calling it the war on Islamo-Fascism (this term better defines our conflict and our enemies). But again, this is just semantics.

    -----------------------------------------------
    Hold the phone! Is this the same Keith Olbermann who rails about the executive branch usurping the rights of Congress? Now he's complaining that the President is not usurping legislative responsibilities? When the Wolffe man showed up, Olby was ready with one of his patented leading questions:
    -------------------------------------------
    No this is the same Keith, an american, that believes in the constitution. I know you aren't understanding so go reread the parts about the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. What Bush is doing is trying to ignore the judicial branch which decides what is constitutional and what isn't.

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

    Wait...WHAT?
    The Supreme Court decision said that Congress must authorize military tribunals in order for them to be constitutionl. Soooooo, President Bush FOLLOWS the Supreme Courts instructions and submits a bill to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH of government for approval. Wow, you lefties are right...President Bush really is a fascist dictator.

    -----------------------------------------------
    You may wonder how that question could have made any sense, since the President stated his conviction that his actions were within the law. That was easily finessed by KO not running those portions of the speech. OlbySpin continued:
    ---------------------------------------
    Yeah if Bush said it it must be true. Excuse me for rolling on the floor laughing

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

    I'll try to paraphrase, so It'll be easier for you to understand.

    Olby: Hey! Didn't Bush admit today that he's been using illegal tactics in the war on terror.

    Johnny: Uhhhh Keith? President Bush just said (in a clip you forgot to play) that he has NOT been using illegal tactics and is doing this because the Supreme Court ordered him to. How does that constitute an admission of guilt?

    Olbyloon: PRESIDENT BUSH IS EVILLLL!!!! *Howard Dean Scream*!

    @ Skeptical:

    If you'll notice I said the following:

    "I had briefly flipped on Countdown towards the end of the 9/11 movie "report" Olbermann did. Maybe I misheard what he said, so here's a question:

    I thought he said that Media Matters said the film was only allowed to be viewed by select rightwingers, that they refused requests by liberals including President, er, *Mister* Clinton?"

    It was a question, hence the question mark after Mister Clinton's name. To ignore that and say:

    "Ok lets back up, I haven't seen this segment until just now until it rerun. I, like most here, was talking out of my ass. I need to learn to not take anything you right wingers say seriously until I research it myself.

    Olberman never claimed this wasn't shown to any liberals, he said people such as Clinton were specifically denied access to view it. Never did mediamatters say such a thing eighter, what Olbermann mentioned about mediamatters was that teaching materials were released to schools. He never made the claims you say he made. You can watch the video here if you need proof:

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/06/ben-veniste-rips-abcs-fakeumentary-over-inaccuracies/

    More distortions and lies coming from the right wing, no way, how could that be???"

    Why would you assume that someone (assuming me?) was talking out of their ass, or laying out distortions and lies? It was a QUESTION. Perhaps I should have framed in in Olbystyle: ask a leading question in rambling form, find someone who will echo my own thoughts, and then "great thanks" them?

    Rob-bob and John-jon, I am willing to presume that you're smart enough to be less than sincere (which would be litotes for use of quasi-jocular or sarcastic tone) when you state your outrage to Olbermann's use of the word "purported" before the phrase "war on terror".

    Frankly, in spite of the fact that the book sits next to the keyboard on which I am typing, I have not the patience to completely re-read Hunter S. Thompson's "Kingdom of Fear." In spite of the fact that I'm fairly certain that my favorite commentary on why it is essentially absurd to launch a war against a tactic is contained therein.

    Now, some lecherous idiot is going to spew some ridiculous diatribe about HST, it's almost certain. And it will be stupid and inane and a demonstration of a total lack of familiarity with the man and his works, and his politics.

    Because it's easiest to lob half-assed insults at a dead man whose books you have never read than to counter-argue that going to war against a theorhetical tactic is a completely unwinnable idea, just like Nancy Reagan's war on drugs.

    Whether it pains me or not, there was a slight imrpovement in the prose, although still the same tired crap (e.g. "Krazy" and other hard "C"s spelled with "K"). Should we start counting how many times you use the word "deplorable" in every one of these?

    If you're going to mock someone and do it effectively, repeating the same words and phrases constantly doesn't do the trick. I think someone on SNL asked for their 1989 skit back, in spite of the fact that skit had range.

    WTG Sar-sar! (I like the shortening of people's names, repeating it and inserting a hyphen I think it is an excellent literary, which I intend to use often in my future posts as it adds much credibility to the words that follow.)

    Excellent use of big words in the daily "Sarah's 'Special Comment.'" Not only that, but the comment is completely consistent with the MO I commented on previously, in that you continue to attack Olby's detractors while claiming not to be an Olby defender.

    Let's analyze the logic (avoiding comment on sentence fragments). You reference being too impatient to open a book that you think probably contains your favorite commentary on the war on terror.

    You then project your views of the editors and commenters of this site with an insult-laden attack on what you think someone may write about the man who may or may not have penned your favorite commentary on "why it is essentially absurd to launch a war against a tactic." (Interestingly, you use the same phrase previously used by long-time poster Nonfactor. Is this a new left-wing talking point I've missed, or is plagiarism afoot? Or could it be that we are in the process of exposing an alias? I doubt that last one, as the writing styles are too different, but you never know.)

    Finally, you write "If you're going to mock someone and do it effectively, repeating the same words and phrases constantly doesn't do the trick." Shall we start counting how many times you use the word "stupid" or variations thereof in your posts?

    The horse is dead, Sarah. Quit beating it.

    Moonbat Sarah is part of Keith's ilk
    So gullible the folks he will bilk
    Keith's a no-talent hack
    At the back of the pack
    Sucking hind tit but getting no milk

    > Should we start counting how many times you use the word "deplorable" in every one of these?

    Please, let's be accurate. It's "infamous, deplorable". They go together. For a very good reason.

    1. Amazing NBC gives the Left wing of the Democratic party a free hour in primetime to put forth thier party's talking points. Would love to see how the money is being exchanged
    2. Is ABC finally "coming around". Seems docudrama on 9/11 may actually put some blame on Clinton and Madeline (not)Albright. Whooa -
    3. Is the Sandy Berger - the one doing the compaining - the same one that stole secret docuements from the Fed archives.
    4. Opie - 10 jobs in 20 years - ouch.

    "Now, some lecherous idiot is going to spew some ridiculous diatribe about HST, it's almost certain. And it will be stupid and inane and a demonstration of a total lack of familiarity with the man and his works, and his politics."

    His actions speak louder than his works.

    It's interesting that the dean of American journalism - David Broder - has written a scathing column condemning those segment of the press for uncritically reporting charges against Rove and the White House in the Joe Wilson matter.

    I'm sure Mr. Olbermann will do a segment this evening examining where the press got this story wrong. With Broder or another critic on.

    Right. And Pat Buchanan will leave his wife and marry Barney Frank.

    SMG

    >>>>>He certainly didn't claim to have seen it himself, but then if some theater critics could review plays they didn't bother to attend, why should Krazy Keith be forced to see a movie before he critiques it?

    Jonny Dollor, I think with this post you are approaching the standarads of RCox. This is awesome. I hope everyone gets your reference because if you aren't paying attention you can miss the fact that this is a reference on two levels. First, the simple true statement that you can't comment on something until you've seen it (and we might point out our liberal friends might think about the secret prisons in this regard). Second, there is the allusion -- to the effete new york liberal theatre culture that Olberman is copying. I can't believe you guys can do this kind of work day after day, for free, on a tight schedule, with this kind of quality.

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You make my day.

    >>>>Hold the phone! Is this the same Keith Olbermann who rails about the executive branch usurping the rights of Congress? Now he's complaining that the President is not usurping legislative responsibilities? When the Wolffe man showed up, Olby was ready with one of his patented leading questions:

    Another one! This is in the classic mode of just plainly putting total hipocracy out on view for all to see. Simple and powerful. And then the twist. In the next sentence, we have the appearance of the "Wolffe man," and again, this is on two levels. First it is a simple and funny coinage of his name, but second, this is a man who changes back and forth in his views like a wolf-man changes from man to beast.

    I hope people here understand what you guys do and take the time to appreciate it. I know I do.

    Olbermann is a deranged human being. He probably has body gaurds to protect him from Cheney's secret police! We should feel sorry to see a mentally ill man on tv. This goes against all civil rights codes in regard to the mentally ill.

    I say out of humman pity, let's demand NBC stops abusing a sick man. For Keith's health sake, stop broadcasting him! It's cruel!

    Olbermann is a deranged human being. He probably has body gaurds to protect him from Cheney's secret police! We should feel sorry to see a mentally ill man on tv. This goes against all civil rights codes in regard to the mentally ill.

    I say out of humman pity, let's demand NBC stops abusing a sick man. For Keith's health sake, stop broadcasting him! It's cruel!

    "Show me the law that says the president has the power to hold someone without trial for as long as he wants without telling anyone that he has these people in custody? I'm curious."

    For starters there is the Constitution which confers the powers of Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces on the President. The U.S. military operates under certain domestic laws and international treaties. Those laws and treaties do not clearly specify how to deal with an organization like al Qaeda. Absent any specific laws on what to do with prisoners who are not part of any recognized miltary organizations or acting as agents for any recognized governments and who are "in the field" but where no uniform, the President is well within his rights to unilterally decide what to do until there are specific laws and treaties that bind the U.S. in this regard. If Bush had wanted to do so, he would have been within his right to order they be hung from the nearest lamp pole upon capture. As stated yesterday, he did not do that because the prisoners were more valuable alive than dead.

    Today there is something that did not exist in the wake of 9/11, a Supreme Court rullng that directs the President to obtain legislative authorization for setting up a special form of military court. The President is abiding by that decision.

    I am not sure what the problem is unless you are seriously proposing that upon their arrest the prisoners, especially the 14 recently transferred to Gitmo, they should have been afforded the same rights as a U.S. citizen or a soldier. There is a REASON that the Geneva Conventions (the first three, not the fourth which was never ratified by the US) apply to soldiers, in uniform, fighting in the military of a recognized government, under specified conditions - to miminize the loss of civilians during wartime.

    Have you really thought this through? Do you REALLY want to say that a person who violates every condition of the Geneva Conventions and is not fighting under the legitimate government of a signatory to the Geneva Conventions ought to be entitled to the same rights as a legitimate soldier? If that's the case then what's the point of even having the Geneva Conventions when you have removed any deterant to combatants in a conflict from blending into the civilian population and thereby making every man, woman and child a party to the military conflict?

    Regardless how you come down on this - and their are legitimate arguments on all sides - this is not even remotely close to the black and white issue you attempt to portray. Your implication that the Constituion is some type of immutable object against which the decisions of government officials can be easily measure is simply a reflection of the shallowness of both your opinion and your undertanding of civics.

    =====================

    "No this is the same Keith, an american, that believes in the constitution. I know you aren't understanding so go reread the parts about the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. What Bush is doing is trying to ignore the judicial branch which decides what is constitutional and what isn't."

    Keith cares about one thing - ratings.

    As for the Consitution, where do you OlbyLoons gets your ideas about American history? Do you ever READ history books or just get your information from Democratic talking points and Daily Kos?

    If we do as you suggest and read the parts of the Constitution "about the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch" we will find no such reference to "the judicial branch which decides what is constitutional and what isn't." Maybe you can provide a link.

    Let me make it easy on you. Here is a link to the Constitution Online: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst.html

    If you look, you will be hard pressed to show us anywhere in the Constitution where it says that the judicial branch decides what is constitutional and what is not.

    I think what you means is Keith believes in Supreme Court Justice John Marshall's majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison in which Marshall assumed "the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution". Through this ruling "the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant."

    Here is more on that case:
    http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

    Just remember, reading is fundmental. Come back and lecture us on Constitutional Law when you have familiarized yourself with some of the basic facts of American history, you nitwit.

    =====================

    "Robert, you have a source for that? I've been looking for this actually and thats how I found this web site. I can't find any thing about his ratings. I am especially looking for his ratings compared to Oreilly.

    Posted by: Skeptical at September 6, 2006 11:59 PM"

    We do not publish ratings here on a regular basis, only when there is some "news" value to doing so. Readers often post ratings data into the comments but that is not down in any organized fashion. Most people here get ratings data from either Inside Cable News or TVNewser. If you go through the TVN archives you ought to be able to find a post each quarter where Brian links a PDF file of the quarterly ratings book for cable news.

    Just one warning. You may not like what you find (assuming you are hoping to find proof that Countdown is doing as well as Keith, MSNBC and his blue blog pals like to claim. As you may know ratings are event driven so the hype (from all sides) about percentage increases and decreases are almost always misleading. I prefer to looking at "rolling averages" to smooth out event driven spikes in viewership to get a better sense of what is going on. And what we see is that since 2004 KO's viewership has gone up from about 200,000 a night to about 300,000 a night so saying he has a 50% (or 55% increase is true). It is somewhat misleading because on such a low "basis", get a large percentage increase in viewers is not that difficult (especially given the aggressive, long-term promotional efforts by MSNBC and KO's pals in the lefty TV critics association. To put that in context, O'Reilly's viewership fluctuates on a nightly basis by an amount of viewers larger than KO's entire audience. There was a brief period when Paula Zahn showed an unexpected drop in viewership last Spring where KO narrowed the gap between MSNBC and CNN but that ship has been righted and KO has tumbled badly ever since. He has slipped back to fourth place and has CNBC's horrible Donnie Deutsch show in his rearview mirror. Of course, you would never know this by reading most press accounts because the constant theme has been how "great" KO is doing. The truth is his ratings have sucked since he first came on the air and they still suck, just a little less than they used to suck.

    =====================

    "I'm very concerned about Craig Crawford. Did he say something to piss off the Quotable Keith? We have heard his chuckling laugh for weeks now. And i have seen his obit in any newspaper. Is Craig Crawford still alive or what. Maybe the Quotable Keith could come up with a conspiracy of why we have not seen Chuckles.
    Posted by: toddrico at September 7, 2006 02:15 AM"

    Toddrico,, if you were really concerned you might have taken the time you took posting here to Google Craig, found his blog and see that he was on MSNBC yesterday afternoon.

    http://crawfordslist.blogspot.com/2006/09/vote-counting-time-florida-primary.html

    =====================

    Sarah,

    Please feel free to keep beating any dead horses that you fancy. That said, I am not sure how my asking a question is "outrage" or why you think people are going to attack Hunter S. Thompson. I like him. He was a great writer - and I even read some his books (gasp!).

    As for the term "War on Terror", I don't really understand your point. You are taking a single, simplistic definition of the term "terror" and attempting, rather weakly but with your thesaurus in hand, to deconstruct Bush policies in responding to the 9/11 attacks. What you are not doing is addressing the point of my comment - if the "war on terror" is "so-called" or "purported" or whatever KO said, then WHAT does he prefer? Maybe you can't answer that but perhaps, since you are defending Keith, you can share with us the basis for your objection to my so-called "outrage". Other than, shove it up your litote and smoke it.

    Robert this is somewhat OT but I am interested in what your regular profession is because I am constantly impressed by both your knowledge and your skill in writing. I don't know how you can stand to watch Olberman everyday and take the time to counter his deceptions so completely and effectively (except of course he is nuts so it isn't THAT hard (LOL). But give us a little curriculum vitae on our favorite Olby-slayer.

    Robert, I will try to get to your entire post as soon as I can, I am busy at work right now so let me address the first thing. Also, sorry about my hostility last night, I didn't think my posts would stay up and it was past midnight when I wrote them. Also, this site really needs a message board for these types of discussions, its very hard to do it in this comment format. If the administrator of this board needs help setting that up feel free to contact me.

    Anyway. The Geneva Conventions were ratified in this country making it the law of the land meaning anyone not following those conventions was breaking the law. You seem to be making the same assumptions as this administration has about how we should treat these prisoners. The 3rd geneva convention clearly states that if it is not clear how a detanee should be dealt with a special commission must be set up to define it. Our country agreed to that. Now, you also seem to be saying that the Supreme Court ruling was just a recommendation to the Bush administration on what he should do. This is clearly not true. What the supreme court clearly stated was that President Bush was in violation of the geneva convention, the law of the land, aka what he was doing was illegal. Yes, Bush now has the right to go to congress which is controlled by his own party and change the laws that say he has to follow the geneva conventions. That doesn't change the fact that what he was doing before was illegal as the Supreme Court clearly stated.

    Also keep in mind that a lot of these people being held have not been captured on the battlefield, many have been caught in the united states or kidnapped from other countries. These people have been detained in secret US prisons around the world, tortured, and then released with no charges brought against them. I am not sure if you are trying to argue in support of this but I can not understand anyone out there actually defending those actions by our government.

    On to point #2 about the judicial bench in the constitution. The link you provided left this out from Article 3 Section 2:

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    That clearly states how the judicial brench of the government is to monitor goverment to ensure that the government functions within the laws of the united states. I am certainly not a lawyer and don't claim to be. Maybe you are as you seem very bright on this topic. What am I missing here?

    "potential retaliation"- Um, sorry, but thats not a legit excuse for not nailing him. Basically, "We're chickenshit" straight from the Donkey's mouth.

    Will you people who are friggin bringing up the ridiculous logic of defending the War-on Terror, get your heads out of the sand (The sand up your, ahem) and stop with the smarmy "Terror is a tactic". One would think that your back-patting elitist super intelligence could grasp the semantics and specifics of the "War on Terror", as it is obviously the war on Fanatical Islamic terror that has been declared BY THEM for the last 60 years.

    "sexually assualting women and members of his staff and not so damn polll driven"-haha, makes sense, as the poll is driving him.

    Skeptical,

    I am reading this site:
    http://www.genevaconventions.org/

    I found this line:

    "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

    Is this what you are referring to when you write "The 3rd geneva convention clearly states that if it is not clear how a detainee should be dealt with a special commission must be set up to define it. "

    Assuming that it is, let me not quibble over "special commission" or "competent tribunal" other than to note that the 3rd convention does not "clearly state" what you claimed but you were in the ballpark (I understand it was late but next time try Googling "Geneva Conventions" first so you can quote documents accurately and not get hung out to dry so easily by the likes of me). Again, setting that all aside...

    Is your point that there is clearly stated meaning as to what constitutes a "competent tribunal"? I did check and the 3rd convention does not actually define the term. Some might read "competent" meaning that the tribunal is convened by an appropriate authority within the "High Contracting Parties", the signers of the conventions and that "tribunal" might mean any body acting in a judicial capacity.

    So, for example, in our country, the way this might work would be that the President of the United States might authorize the Department of Defense to convene something like a Combatant Status Review Tribunal where military officers would sit in judgement on prisoners who were known al Qaeda members and/or captured on a battlefield in country like, say, Afghanistan. The President might authorize the DoD to create such a tribunal based on powers derived from his Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces OR on his powers as chief law enforcement officer OR as chief executive reponsible for the execution of the laws of the land OR under powers granted to him by Congress.

    Seems to me that the Constitution "clearly states" that the President has these various powers and therefore any body he directs to be convened to sit in judgement on al Qaeda prisoners to determine their status under Article 4 of the 3rd Geneva Convention is "competent" given the plain meaning of the convention.

    What would be even better is if Congress were to have authorized the President under the War Powers Act with something like an "Authorization for Use of Military Force" which granted the President the powers to do things like issues a military order on the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism.

    In fact, as I am sure you are well aware (not!) all of these things did, in fact, happen.

    As for what the Supreme Court did or did not "clearly state", they did NOT state, in Hamden, what the President did was "Illegal". To say that only shows that you do not really understand the role of the Court in such cases. The Supreme Court took up the CONSTITUTIONAL issues in the case and voted 5-3 (with Roberts who would have made 5-4, recusing himself due to his prior involvement in the case). The question was whether the President had the authority to convene the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Four of the Justices agreed that he did; five did not so let's not make it sound like this was such a slam dunk. You will also note that the Supreme Court did not order the prisoners set free but used language encouraging Bush to ask Congress for the power to convene a Combatant Status Review Tribunal which would thus resolve the issue of whether the Tribunal was a "Competent Tribunal". I did not say that the rulling was a "recommendation" for Bush to go to Congress but the ruling did contain language to this effect.

    If you would take off your tin foil hat for a moment you would see that the issue is not whether these prisoners should be locked up or shot but how to do that. The larger constitutional issue is about seperation of powers. If you were to study your American history, you would see that there has always been an ebb and flow of powers among the three branches of government. One of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency has been an effort to reclaim power ceded to the legislative branch over the past few decades. You may like that or not but it is not as if this tension is some creation of George Bush; it has always been there since the country was founded.

    I do not appreciate the personal insults, you seem like a smart guy, you do not know me, do us all a favor and stop it.

    The supreme court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the military commissions established by Bush are UNLAWFUL and violate the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Conventions and other human rights standards relating to fair trials.

    What, outside of being a 5-4 decision (I don't hear you complaining about votes split by party lines in the senate as your party controls it) is not clear about that. In the context of this discussion about wether Olbermann should have said Bush was breaking the law he was absolutely correct as the Supreme court has stated.

    And I would love to hear your opinion on wether or not a president (any president democratic or republican) should be allowed to give the authorization to kidnap citizens of other countries, to arrest people at our airports, and then send them overseas to secret prisons without charging them, without letting anyone know he has them, and then simply releasing them like nothing ever happened. Its a simple question, please inform me where that nitwit brain of mine is wrong.

    Hey Olbermann! why do you think it is OK for liberal "reporters" like you to question the government ( AKA attack Bush and conservatives) but you flip out anytime anybody dares question or criticizes the media??
    I want to know when the leftist media mouths are going to go to Iraq and start protesting the way the terrorists are treating American soldiers. Our boys have rights under the Geneva convention too don't they?

    One more thing relating to the competent tribunal we were talking about. Once again the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against the administration specifically stating that they did not create a valid competent tribunal as required by the law.

    It seems to me that all these things that Bush keeps saying are legal really are not. Yet people like you support giving the president the ability to igonore these laws until the Supreme Court finally has to step in which usually takes years.

    riverdog, do you honestly believe that crock of shit? Do you honestly believe that our media is liberal? This is the media that refused to mention the downing street memos (you probably watch fox so dont even know what that is, look it up), this is the same media that supported Israel at every turn in the "war against hezbollah" refusing to put up the most basic of questions, this is the media that refuses to address problems with electronic voting (I am not talking about election fraud, I am talking about documented problems with using electronic systems), yet this is the same media that would not leave alone the fact that Clinton got a BJ for over a year. Again, please for the sake of humanity, stop listening to those liars, Rush and Oreilly.

    Skeptical,

    Insults? Does that mean you are DENYING that you own a tin foil hat or that you were not wearing it while you were posting your comment - please be clear on this vital point.

    Maybe you skipped the tag line for this site but you might want to note that it is "reality-based news for the belligerently uninformed". We are not hear to be friendly to OlbyLoons or be informed.

    I can't really keep up with all the different points you are raising in your scattershot approach to dialog so let me just address a few.

    The problem with your comments is that they too often include the phrase "clearly states". If the Constitution, treaties and laws were as clear as you seem to wish they were there would no need for lawyers, judges, courts, legislatures, law schools, constitutional scholars or history books. We could just put a monkey in charge and have him hand out photocopies of the Constitution while you grind an organ each time a case made its way to the Supreme Court.

    There is NOTHING "clear" about any of this; yet you seem to determined to make a case based on everything being a black/white issue. Now, I would not be debating you at all if you were not making some valid points so consider yourself honored that I am responding at all. The real problem is your vastly overstating the conclusions that can be drawn from those points.

    A great moral philosopher once wrote:

    "The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack."

    Which are you?

    Skeptical and you believe that the media is not primarily liberal?? I know you rail against FOX and call them conservative but in YOUR liberal mind anything that does not include 100% liberal slant and might actually have both sides is "right wing". Don't make me laugh. For years until folks like Rush and Hannity and Fox came along the American populace was spoon fed their news by liberals. Now that these folks along with the internet have come along and given people a real choice you left wingers flip out.
    Tell me honsestly that CNN, MSNBC, and the networks are not liberally biased and I'll say that your liberal bias has clouded you objectivity so badly that you no longer have the ability to discern between what is real and what is liberal bias. Go ahead and tell me for one nanosecond that you don't believe that Olbermann is ultra liberal and I'l tell you you are nuts.
    A few things for the record. Maybe if Clinton was not so busy signing unconstitutional gun laws, selling ( or giving) state secrets to the Chinese, sexually assualting women, trying to hide from his bitch wife and getting BJs from young girls in the oval office he might have gotten Bin Laden before he killed 3000 US citizens.
    I was conservative many many years before Rush et al came on the air. They only spoke my views they did not create them.
    Maybe if you would stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by the like of Olbermann and other looney toons leftists and stop the ridiculous hysterics against Bush and conservatives and THINK FOR YOURSELF you might actually see the bias. Educate yourself on the truth not what some liberal spinmeister liar spoon feeds you.
    Maybe if you would drop the typical liberal condescending attitiude and nastiness you just might learn something.
    and of course like a typical liberal apologist you have not answered my original question. Why is it that the liberal media always questions and rails against Bush but anytime the spotlight is turned on them they crumble, whine, cry, lie and do their best imitationn of the wizard in the Wizard of OZ?? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain right? tell me why people like olber mann has no problems putting himself in self appointed postion of authority yet when someone dares question the "media" he just goes bonkers (well more than his normal bonkers mode) and attacks the messenger? If he can question the govenement why cannot we question him? Therin lies one of the main reasons why the liberal media is declining . They demand accountabilty from everyone else but they refuse to be accountable themselves. THINK FOR YOURSELF!

    Skeptical and you believe that the media is not primarily liberal?? I know you rail against FOX and call them conservative but in YOUR liberal mind anything that does not include 100% liberal slant and might actually have both sides is "right wing". Don't make me laugh. For years until folks like Rush and Hannity and Fox came along the American populace was spoon fed their news by liberals. Now that these folks along with the internet have come along and given people a real choice you left wingers flip out.
    Tell me honsestly that CNN, MSNBC, and the networks are not liberally biased and I'll say that your liberal bias has clouded you objectivity so badly that you no longer have the ability to discern between what is real and what is liberal bias. Go ahead and tell me for one nanosecond that you don't believe that Olbermann is ultra liberal and I'l tell you you are nuts.
    A few things for the record. Maybe if Clinton was not so busy signing unconstitutional gun laws, selling ( or giving) state secrets to the Chinese, sexually assualting women, trying to hide from his bitch wife and getting BJs from young girls in the oval office he might have gotten Bin Laden before he killed 3000 US citizens.
    I was conservative many many years before Rush et al came on the air. They only spoke my views they did not create them.
    Maybe if you would stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by the like of Olbermann and other looney toons leftists and stop the ridiculous hysterics against Bush and conservatives and THINK FOR YOURSELF you might actually see the bias. Educate yourself on the truth not what some liberal spinmeister liar spoon feeds you.
    Maybe if you would drop the typical liberal condescending attitiude and nastiness you just might learn something.
    and of course like a typical liberal apologist you have not answered my original question. Why is it that the liberal media always questions and rails against Bush but anytime the spotlight is turned on them they crumble, whine, cry, lie and do their best imitationn of the wizard in the Wizard of OZ?? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain right? tell me why people like olber mann has no problems putting himself in self appointed postion of authority yet when someone dares question the "media" he just goes bonkers (well more than his normal bonkers mode) and attacks the messenger? If he can question the govenement why cannot we question him? Therin lies one of the main reasons why the liberal media is declining . They demand accountabilty from everyone else but they refuse to be accountable themselves. THINK FOR YOURSELF!

    You completely ignored everything I have said responding with more insults. I had more respect for you before, not so much anymore.

    The one point I am trying to get across to you is that the courts have ruled over and over again that what the administration is doing in fighting this war on terror is illegal. They do not have the power to kidnap citizens of other countries and arrest people here and then send them overseas to secret prisons. Like everything else the supreme court has not sided with this administration on they will once again not side with them on that issue. This means that in context of this blog's post what olbermann has said is completely accurate. You are the one that made the accusation that Olbermann lied, or atleast mislead, not me. I want you to clarify why I am wrong in saying you are not accurate in making that claim.

    I also find it funny that a guy who supports a president that claimed "you are either with us or against us" is trying to accuse me of seeing only in black and white. Let me guess you are the same guy that supports Rumsfeld comparing today's critics of Bush's war policy to nazi appeasers? You are the same guy that supports politicians that claim criticizing a president's policies during a time of war is disloyal to the country? Yes, I am making some generalizations here and would love for you to tell me you don't support any of this, but if you can't I really do find it humorous that you would have the decency to actually accuse anyone of only seeing in black and white.

    I sir do not believe I see in black and white, this is why I have left leaning political views but yet I am trying to have a mature discussion on a right wing blog without spewing pointless insults. I have asked you serious questions. I asked you if I am not clear on something when I don't think I am as I don't pretend to know everything like you seem to do. You don't want to have this discussion because it doesn't follow your black and white view of this world? That's fine, I won't waste anymore of my time.

    Yes riverdog, Fox news is not conservative. Neighter is Rush or Oreilly. They are all moderate and everyone else not as extreme as that is "leftist". If you honestly believe that all hope has been lost for you. Go back to your brainwashing festival you call talk radio and Fox News "the fair and balanced network", I'll stay here in reality land. :waves:

    riverdog, I know you wont read any of this as it doesn't fit your closed view of the world but I'll post it anyway. Yes, this is from a liberal source but if you can't disprove what it says than spare the bullshit that this is not valid:

    The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

    Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

    Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

    In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

    The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

    In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

    Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

    Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

    This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

    Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

    The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

    Indeed.

    Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

    Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

    It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

    Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

    Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

    riverdog, I know you wont read any of this as it doesn't fit your closed view of the world but I'll post it anyway. Yes, this is from a liberal source but if you can't disprove what it says than spare the bullshit that this is not valid:

    The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

    Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

    Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

    In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

    The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

    In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

    Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

    Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

    This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

    Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

    The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

    Indeed.

    Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

    Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

    It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

    Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

    Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

    Skeptical, I have to admit one thing. You are among the most adept cut-and-paste commenters I have seen. You get the entire article, you don't cut off the first or last letter, and you paste it in not once but twice.

    And, to put the cherry on top, you go to the very best sources to do your thinking for you: truthout.org. Perhaps you should have also cut-and-pasted their exclusive report that Karl Rove was indicted and had 24 hours to submit himself for arrest.

    By the way, I note you didn't credit the source or the writer for your diatribe. In some circles that's known as "plagiarism". Some writers have been nominated "worst person in the world" for far less.

    yeah right, if clinton were still president we would have never been attacked. Your post reads like a NY Times op-ed or something from Hollyweird.
    Clinton HAD Bin Laden in the sights of a missle and let him go. I guess there is a lot to be said for pre-emptive strikes after all.
    Ah the good old days of Clinton.

    What did I say from the top of that post, let me repeat myself:

    riverdog, I know you wont read any of this as it doesn't fit your closed view of the world but I'll post it anyway. Yes, this is from a liberal source but if you can't disprove what it says than spare the bullshit that this is not valid:

    Johnny dollar what do you do, you say its from a liberal source yet you don't disprove anything in it. Second, blame the administrator of this site for posts coming in twice, learn a little about how web sites are programmed and how crappy Perl is in this regard before you try to attack me for this being posted twice.

    riverdog, you are posting nothing but the lies of Rush. Clinton never had OBL in his sights, care to provide me with a source of where you got that from?

    Skeptical, it appears that the original author of your cut and paste post derives his conclusions from Sidney Blumental's new book. If Blumenthal is your original source, you should be very careful whether the information can be trusted (in other words, you should be skeptical)

    Blumenthal was the ringleader of the Clinton administration team that was noted for the degree to which it attempted to shift the blame for its failings on to previous administrations. No president did this in the way that Clinton's Blumenthal team did.

    Team Blumenthal was also known to vilify any and all opponents. Those who differed with or dissented from the Clinton's did not exist; instead there was only a "vast right-wing conspiracy", which Blumenthal spent much of his time defining and attacking. When a few women spoke up to complain of sexual harassment from the President, it was again Sidney Blumenthal who was brought out to vilify and insult them and characterize them as "trailer park tramps".

    It is not surprising that Sidney Blumenthal is still inventing conspiracies and misrepresenting historical fact in service of his ex-employers. He states that Hillary Clinton was found inocent of having anything to do with the infamous "Travelgate" affair when in fact a court stated that it appeared she was the chief instigator. He states that the Clintons were found "innocent" of any and all wrongdoing in their famous real estate dealings, when this was not the case (the final Whitewater report simply stated that there was "insuffcient evidence" to convict the Clinton's, mainly because Susan McDougal and Webb Hubbell refused to give the Clinton's up). Blumenthal even denies a fact on the public record- that Bill Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath by a federal court.

    So, Skeptical your trusty source Sidney is of dubious value and I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the truthfulness of anything he says.

    Skeptical, it appears that the original author of your cut and paste post derives his conclusions from Sidney Blumental's new book. If Blumenthal is your original source, you should be very careful whether the information can be trusted (in other words, you should be skeptical)

    Blumenthal was the ringleader of the Clinton administration team that was noted for the degree to which it attempted to shift the blame for its failings on to previous administrations. No president did this in the way that Clinton's Blumenthal team did.

    Team Blumenthal was also known to vilify any and all opponents. Those who differed with or dissented from the Clinton's did not exist; instead there was only a "vast right-wing conspiracy", which Blumenthal spent much of his time defining and attacking. When a few women spoke up to complain of sexual harassment from the President, it was again Sidney Blumenthal who was brought out to vilify and insult them and characterize them as "trailer park tramps".

    It is not surprising that Sidney Blumenthal is still inventing conspiracies and misrepresenting historical fact in service of his ex-employers. He states that Hillary Clinton was found inocent of having anything to do with the infamous "Travelgate" affair when in fact a court stated that it appeared she was the chief instigator. He states that the Clintons were found "innocent" of any and all wrongdoing in their famous real estate dealings, when this was not the case (the final Whitewater report simply stated that there was "insuffcient evidence" to convict the Clinton's, mainly because Susan McDougal and Webb Hubbell refused to give the Clinton's up). Blumenthal even denies a fact on the public record- that Bill Clinton was found guilty of lying under oath by a federal court.

    So, Skeptical your trusty source Sidney is of dubious value and I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for the truthfulness of anything he says.

    Hank, thank you for posting. I have posted this around verious right wing web sites to get objective opinions on it and nobody had the balls to even touch it. I would get a bunch of insults thrown at me, not a single one addressing the actual post (kind of like riverdog did), and my post would be deleted.

    I am sincere when I say I have an open mind on this. What I want to know is what in there is factually wrong. You say the author can't be trusted, I do not like hearing that. I don't care who the author is of anything, you can always find ways that author was wrong in the past (be it a republican, democrat, green, libertarian, whatever). I got that post from William Rivers Pitt, I did not know where he got his information from. But I have been on a quest to find anything thats wrong with the facts and nobody has stepped up to the plate, I would appreciate if you could.

    > You say the author can't be trusted, I do not like hearing that.

    No kidding. That must be why you "forgot" to mention that you lifted the entire article from another site, and none of it was your thinking.

    Skeptical,
    I did not completely ignore everything you said, I said that I cannot possibly address the myriad points you are raising because you are raising so many and I can't keep up with them and I chose to address a few. On top of that you have published about 5,000 words today on this site. Do you really think I am going to bother sifting through all that and responding to every single point you raise?
    There are many things that the administration is doing that have never been addressed by the courts so I am not sure what you mean when you say "over and over again". Maybe you could explain what cases you have in mind?
    Maybe you need to hit the books for a bit. This country is founded on the principle that government rules with the consent of the governed. We are a nation of laws but those laws must reflect the will of the people. A vote at the Supreme Court does not determine the morality of a particular law, policy or action. If the vote had gone the other way would that make Bush's terror policies acceptable to you?
    At the end of the day, the President has whatever power the people are willing to grant to him. Under that system that authority is granted through elections and, in the case of the Supreme Court, through elected officials then appointing and ratifying nominees to the court. It may be news to you but what you describe as the President authorizing the kidnapping of citizens of other countries is considered by most people in this country to be capturing al Qaeda terrorists where we find them and doing what we need to do unravel their organization and prevent future attacks - and the vast majority of Americans support that.
    What you are advocating sounds eerily like the failed Clinton policy of treating terrorism as a police issue and leaving it to the FBI and Justice Department to build cases against terror suspects. Post-9/11, Americans rejected that approach and strongly supported Bush's more aggressive, pre-emptive approach.
    I don't recall making an accusation that Olbermann lied. My comment was posted to address your overstated claims about the Geneva Convention. So there is no need for me to "clarify why I am wrong in saying you are not accurate in making that claim" when I did not make that claim.
    I am not "accusing" you of see things that are black and white. You are, de facto, doing that every time you write "clearly states". It it were as clear as you claim the vote in the Supreme Court would have been 9-0 (or 8-0 with Roberts recusing himself). If it was so clear Congress would be passing legislation PROHIBITING the things to which you object. There would be massive rallies on the Mall in Washington. Keith Olbermann would have viewers!
    Unfortunately you have the logic train off the tracks again by bringing up Nazi appeasers and the old dissent with disloyalty canard. Really, I can't respond to you when your comments turn into exercises in free association with your rattling off whatever anti-Bush tripe that floats into your tiny brain.
    The one thing you said that made sense was "I won't waste anymore of my time". Unfortunately you then proceeded to flood this site with more insipid comments posing as thoughtful analysis.
    As you see determined to keep coming back for more why don't you try answering a question from me: do you want al Qaeda suspects to have the same due process afforded to U.S. citizens? Somehow I don't think you are going to want to answer that one.

    It's a well documented fact that Sudan offered up OBL to clinton and that stopped a missle attack that would have killed OBL but chose not to do so.
    Clinton could have gotten Bin Laden but chose not to. So much for the liberals ridiculing the policy of pre-emptive strikes.
    sceptical you sound like a liberal evangelist trying to convert anyone who does not toe the liberal lock step.
    the truth of the matter is I was conservative long before Rush and you are just another clinton apologist who parrots the same old liberal lies.

    My question remains: how does anyone watch the Pink One?

    His show is part entertainment, part lie, part bluster, and part DNC script.

    And this serves as news? Any wonder why the Dimbulb was not invited to MSNBC's full day of hilarious coverage of the upcoming election?

    My question remains: how does anyone watch the Pink One?

    His show is part entertainment, part lie, part bluster, and part DNC script.

    And this serves as news? Any wonder why the Dimbulb was not invited to MSNBC's full day of hilarious coverage of the upcoming election?

    I saw the ratings for Tues vs. Wed
    BOR (Tues) 2215000 (456,000 in "The Demographic")
    Olby (Tues) 644000 (216,000)

    BOR (Wed) 2287000 (490,000 in "The Demographic")
    Olby (Wed) 529000 (196,000)

    Source: Insidecable

    Robert Cox wrote:
    "At the end of the day, the President has whatever power the people are willing to grant to him."

    Having Cheney and Rumsfeld mashing the "fear and panic" button, saying terrorists WILL KILL US if we don't do what the Administration wants kinda puts a crimp in that argument.
    It's called "duress", and a person under duress is incapable of making a free choice.

    Robert Cox wrote:
    "As you see determined to keep coming back for more why don't you try answering a question from me: do you want al Qaeda suspects to have the same due process afforded to U.S. citizens? Somehow I don't think you are going to want to answer that one."

    Fine, you want trials? Then let's use the benchmark - the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials - as our framework.

    Olbermann should go work for Al Jezeera. Maybe thier audience will understand his drama show.

    Harry Reid has to quote Keith Olbermann to fill airtime. And then Keith Olbermann quotes Harry Reid quoting him to fill air time. This could go on forever.

    It is obvious KO gets a woody when watching Katherine Harris. He mentioned she was sexy at least 4 times.

    G-Monster, it's called irony. Here's a quarter. Go buy a clue.

    G monster.. thier ?... nice to see everyone can wipe you off of the list of people to pay attention to.

    "Interestingly, you use the same phrase previously used by long-time poster Nonfactor. Is this a new left-wing talking point I've missed, or is plagiarism afoot? Or could it be that we are in the process of exposing an alias? I doubt that last one, as the writing styles are too different, but you never know."

    Or it could be that it is impossible to wage a war against a tactic. When you listen to logic and not the talking points you'd be amazed.

    Let me say this again. President Bush has not only proposed a purely political bill, but he's proposed one that can't get passed legally. The Democrats have been trying for 5 years to send the people we have in captivity to a tribunal; the President and the Republicans blocked the attempts. Now Bush wants to send the people to court and what does he propose? A bill similar to the one he already proposed that has met resistance by Republicans, Democrats, and JAGs.

    "At the end of the day, the President has whatever power the people are willing to grant to him."

    That's one of the most ignorant statements I've heard. The President has the power that is granted him by the Constitution and the power granted to him by certain laws, and if the Supreme Court strikes down those laws as unconstitutional the President does not have that power.

    Bush's bill will get nowhere, and the people in prison will stay there until either the Democrats take over Congress and the Presidency to pass a bill to send them to court, or the Republicans and the President agree to the Democrats lawful proposal.

    Robert Cox Wrote:

    >>As you see determined to keep coming back for more why don't you try answering a question from me: do you want al Qaeda suspects to have the same due process afforded to U.S. citizens? Somehow I don't think you are going to want to answer that one.

    Sorry it took so long, but why would I not want to answer that? It's a simple question.

    How do you define a suspect? This is the dictionary.com definition:

    >> 3. To think (a person) guilty without proof

    The keyword there is without proof. What you are saying is lets lock up all people Bush suspects of being terrorists and leave it at that. Have no trial, no hearing, you don't even have to tell anyone you are holding that person. For someone to make that claim in the United States of America is so unpatriotic it puts to shame everything our granfathers have fought for and died for in the past.

    What do I think we should do with those SUSPECTS? Gather up evidance that they are more than just suspects. If that evidance is there lock them up and set up a fair tribunal to deal with them. A terrorist should not have the same rights as american citizens, clearly. But the problem is how can you define someone a terrorist just because your supreme leader claims he/she is a terrorist. How many innocent people that have been locked up by this administration without charges and without a trial been released back into public? This means they were innocent. Unless you are trying to suggest our president is letting known, guilty, terrorists be released so they can attack us.

    I know you will once again claim that I only think in black and white but this is so damn simple, I do not see how an american that is supposed to love democracy is willing to give one man the ability to do as he wants with whoever he wants with absolutely no democratic safe guards in place. And you want to give this to a man that has been proven wrong on so many different occasions now that I would not trust him to mow my lawn. You are doing exactly what the terrorists want you to do and that is buying into fear.

    You have not responded to my last comment about ABC's 9/11 "docudrama", hopefully you will respond to this.

    Olbermann can't get a woody. Trust me. I know.

    Cox--until Congress declares war, this IS a "purported" war on terror. Remember, in the Constitution you righties claim to want to protect, the President cannot declare war.

    Whew, lots of comments to respond to here. Let me give it a shot...

    JP wrote: until Congress declares war, this IS a "purported" war on terror"

    The "war on terror" is a rhetorical device. If you have a better term by all means offer on up and we can discuss it. I don't really care what it's called just so we recognize that there are people out there who believe themselves to be at war with us and have the means to act on that belief.

    =======================

    Nonfactor exchange:

    ==========================
    "At the end of the day, the President has whatever power the people are willing to grant to him."

    That's one of the most ignorant statements I've heard. The President has the power that is granted him by the Constitution and the power granted to him by certain laws, and if the Supreme Court strikes down those laws as unconstitutional the President does not have that power.

    ========

    Cox writes back: Ignorant? Our country was founded on principles derived from John Locke's idea of a social compact that men come together to form a government and that the power of that government comes from the people and can be taken back by the people (see "Independence, Declaration of") Under our laws, if the people of the United States, through their state and federal representatives, vote to amend the Constitution to grant the President certain powers than those powers ARE, de jure, Constitutional. So, as I said "AT THE END OF THE DAY, the President has whatever power the people are willing to grant to him."

    ====================

    Skeptical wrote: "What you are saying is lets lock up all people Bush suspects of being terrorists and leave it at that. Have no trial, no hearing, you don't even have to tell anyone you are holding that person."

    Cox writes back: No, I am not and that is not what Bush did. That you imagine this just shows you to be an OlbyLoon. The issue is not whether these people in Gitmo had hearings (they did, to determine their status as "enemy combatants") or whether they should stand trial (they should and the plans was to convene tribunals for this purpose). The issue is under what authority these things were being done. Bush argued that he had the authority as Commander-in-Chief. SCOTUS ruled that Bush had to ask Congress for the authority. If SCOTUS had sided with Bush in this you would still not have a case where one person was defining someone as a terrorist (the Geneva Convention specifies the exact type of hearings that Bush ordered; Bush did not sit in judgement at those hearings). As for how many "innocent" people were locked up by this administration, as far as I know NONE. Do you have some data to the contrary. And guess what Einstein? We lock up people every day who are later found to be innocent; people get arrested and are held for various lengths of time until they make bail or their case comes to trial. During that time they are incarcerated they are "presumed innocent". By your standard we should simple book and release everyone arrested by the police. And I don't believe you think that but that is the logic of what you are saying.
    You say that we should "Gather up evidance that they are more than just suspects.. If that evidance is there lock them up and set up a fair tribunal to deal with them." So, while we are gathering this evidence we release them or keep them locked up? How long do we give the military to gather this evidence? What if the evidence we have would provide secret information to the terrorists (such as the name of an informant that has penetrated an al Qaeda cell?) so that we have to choose between releasing a known terrorist or losing an informant who is in a position to help prevent future attacks?

    The issue here is black and white in one regard - either you are going to have one type of rules of evidence of another, either you are going to hold a hearing to determine status or not, either you are going to allow people we know to be terrorists access to secret intelligence or you are not, either you are going to allow known terrorists to communicate with the outside world through their lawyers or you are not. You can do the "nuance dance" around these issues all you want but railing against the "evil, incompetent, lying, Bush" does not address having to make a decision one way or another.

    Regarding this exchange:
    ================================
    Robert Cox wrote:?"As you see determined to keep coming back for more why don't you try answering a question from me: do you want al Qaeda suspects to have the same due process afforded to U.S. citizens? Somehow I don't think you are going to want to answer that one."
    Fine, you want trials? Then let's use the benchmark - the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials - as our framework.
    Posted by: Anonymous at September 7, 2006 06:29 PM
    ================================


    Cox writes back...

    I am hardly an expert on the Nuremberg War Trials but I did find this site and read it. I would especially direct your attention to ARTICLE 19:

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html

    Here is what I found...

    ============================

    ARTICLE I: In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereafter called "the Tribunal") for the just and prompt trial and punishment of major war criminals of the European Axis.

    So, on their own authority with no reference to "international law" or some other "higher authority" or reference to precedent, the U.S. and its allies conferred upon themselves the power to judge and punish German government officials and military officers (i.e., the "enemy")

    ============================


    ARTICLE 6: The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. ?
    The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

    (a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
    (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war.  Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
    (c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war,14 or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

    So, just as in Article I where they assumed the power to judge and punish defendants, they assumed the right to create and define "new" crimes. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time in history that declaring war against another country ("Crimes Against Peac") was determined to be an international crime to be punished in a court of law.

    =============================

    ARTICLE 8: The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determine that justice so requires.

    In this Article, the Allied Powers remove the sole defense available to the people on trial. Not surprisingly, almost all of the defendants are found guilty and hanged.

    =============================

    ARTICLE 19
    The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence.  It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.

    This Article gives the judges in the case "carte blanche" in how evidence may be introduced and what type of evidence may be introduced. You might want to note that this Article sounds a good deal like something Bush is now proposing with regard to sensitive intelligence information. And you support this, correct?

    ARTICLE 27
    The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a defendant on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just.

    This would actually be contrary to Article 68 of the Geneva Conventions (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm) but you support the right of the U.S. to execute any defendants found guilty for any crimes at any age so long as the Tribunal determines the punishment to be "just". It also sounds a lot like what Bush is proposing.

    I forgot about this post. Look, I would love to continue this discussion, I really would as I think you trying to justify torturing of people proven to be innocent is something I really passionately disagree with. But it gets kind of hard when you do it on the comments section. For one it takes me 10 mintues to sort through all the different blog postings to get here and then sort through over 100 comments. Can you please set up a message board? Pretty please, I'm begging you here.

    Skep,

    Guess what. I talked to my web host about this. He is looking into it.

    The problem with the double-posting/error messages is apparently caused by the load from the "recent comments" script I added to the home page many months ago. I liked that feature because it gives me a very easy way to see where people are "talking" on the site. As this site has grown in popularity that problem has grown geometrically - more commenters means more load which means more error messages which means more people resubmitting posts which means more load which causes more errors. Got all that?

    Basically the comment threads have grown to the point where we are getting into the 100-300 comments per post on maybe 2-6 active posts at a time. The problem is that the way Movable Type works it is trying to dynamically create the pages every time. The bottom line is that the site has now moved past the point where the off-the-shelf MT software is suffecient.

    The solution is likely something where the blog posts do not have comments but instead a link to a thread on a forum - as I believe you are proposing. He is going to figure it out and get back to me. I mentioned the phpbb software you mentioned, I assume that is open source and can run on a WinNT box; we already have php enabled.

    I don't have a time frame from him yet so keep your fingers crossed and maybe we will have something more to your liking soon.

    Thanks for the interesting and informative site. That’s definitely what I’ve been looking for.
    carlos concert ticket vives carlos concert ticket vives carlos concert ticket vives
    [url=http://carlos-concert-ticket-vives.ocxgf.info/index.html] carlos concert ticket vives [/url][url=http://carlos-concert-ticket-vives.ocxgf.info/carlos-concert-ticket-vives---.html] carlos concert ticket vives [/url][url=http://carlos-concert-ticket-vives.ocxgf.info/carlos-concert-ticket-vives--.html] carlos concert ticket vives [/url]

    Yes. Very good site! worth to visit!
    carlos concert ticket vives carlos concert ticket vives
    [url=http://carlos-concert-ticket-vives.ocxgf.info/index.html] carlos concert ticket vives [/url][url=http://carlos-concert-ticket-vives.ocxgf.info/carlos-concert-ticket-vives--.html] carlos concert ticket vives [/url][url=http://carlos-concert-ticket-vives.ocxgf.info/carlos-concert-ticket-vives---.html] carlos concert ticket vives [/url]