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 15, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - SEPTEMBER 15, 2006

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • PRES. BUSH AT ODDS WITH REPUBLICANS: Howard Fineman, Newsweek

    The opening spiel found the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann being, well, infamous and deplorable. Here's what the President said:

    It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the actions of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

    That was too much for Olby, who shamefully twisted words and fabricated an entirely nonexistent meaning:

    The President tells him and us what we may and may not think.... An America in which a President says it is unacceptable to think something!

    And there was more:

    It's unacceptable to think! Sounds like something straight out of George Orwell's 1984, instead it was something straight out of George Bush's mouth.

    We assume even OlbyLoons don't require an exegesis of sophistry this transparent. KO ran clips of "Mister" Bush's press conference, prefacing them with a lie he first tried out yesterday ("rewrite article 3 of the Geneva conventions"). Naturally NBC News's tonsorially enhanced camera hog got maximum play.

    Krazy Keith tried out his latest bit of casuistry on Pundit for All Occasions Howard Fineman, saying there was "more to this sentence"...but:

    Can the leader of the free world ever, under any circumstances, let alone in answer to his own former Secretary of State, begin a sentence with the phrase, "it's unacceptable to think"?

    Howie ducked the question, describing it as "extraordinary" and went off on a tangent. He predicted the entire kerfuffle will be resolved with a compromise. Olby, always looking to spin something as negative to Bush, suggested that the President looked "angry" and wasn't doing himself a favor. In a shocking, totally unexpected development, Fineman said...he agreed.

    To continue the Bush-bash fest, Professor Jonathan Turley starred in the #4 position. Calling the President "apopleptic", Herr Olbermann described:

    ...the legal and ethical slippery slopes the President is hell bent on running down.

    Olby then quoted from the Geneva Common Article 3, while leaving out one salient fact: it was written in regard to civil wars, and specifically does not apply to conflicts that are "international". We'll see if the Perfessor is honest enough to bring that up.

    Fans of Krazy Keith Konspiracies will be pleased to know he even came up with one for this:

    The President's rush, fury to get this done in only his way is not about getting new information, about protecting against new threats, but about somehow trying to make the way we've already treated dainty, new detainees retroactively OK, is he covering his own backside with this?

    Did the Perfessor buy into this latest bit of Olbermannian tin-foilery? Is water wet? He said "most people believe" the detainees were waterboarded, and "that is undeniably torture".

    Stop the tivo! Keith Olbermann has told us repeatedly that torture doesn't work. John McCain has said the information obtained through torture is worthless because people just say what they think they want their interrogators to hear. But when Khalid Shaikh Muhammed was questioned, he gave up Ramzi bin al Sheed. And Al Sheed gave up someone else. And so on. These interrogation techniques did work, and gave us good information. So by KO's own logic they couldn't have been "torture"! But we digress.

    The Perfessor went on to talk about the "felonies" of Bush, piling on with "violations of international law". Keith described it all as America becoming "just what the terrorists want", and the Perfessor did what all Countdown guests are expected to do. He agreed with the Great and Powerful Olb. Nobody mentioned the eight (at a minimum) terror attacks that these interrogations disrupted. Saving lives takes a back seat to demagoguery on The Hour of Spin. And no, the Perfessor never pointed out how Common Article 3 does not apply to "international" conflicts.

    The rest of the hour was dedicated to Anna Nicole Smith (with Larry Sutton of People magazine), recycled network video about models, Elton John, and Steve Irwin. Finally came the rerun of Olby's insufferable "special comment", prefaced with a slam at Gov Pataki (he vetoed a bill that would have required that admission to a WTC memorial be free). And the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann added a postscript, reprising his earlier barefaced sophism:

    Since then, remember, we have now been told by this President, it is unacceptable to think.

    NAME

    Olby's "worst person" was, all together now, Bill O'Reilly. Scraping the bottom of his vitriol barrel, the discredited sports guy saw fit to make fun of a t-shirt Mr Bill offers on his website. Herr Olbermann also ridiculed "factor gear" in general, describing it as "crap he wants to sell you". Krazy Keith knows that Mr O'Reilly gets no profits from the "crap"--they all go to charity. But no matter; cheap shots always take precedence. Speaking of crap, KO also used the occasion to pimp his book the book that bears his name, bragging about how amazon has run out of copies. Well, that would be pretty elegant spin to explain away a precipitous plummeting in its amazon sales ranking.

    NAME

    There was mention of Krazy Keith's Today show appearance, but no clips. Probably a good idea, since the camermen this morning did not restrict views of Jonah Olbermann to tight head shots. In his ill-fitting suit, Olby made Matt Lauer look positively anorexic. No reporting of poll numbers tonight. No words in protest (or otherwise) over the kill-Bush movie. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 [GUARDED].


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (172) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    172 Comments

    Wednesday night, Sept 13th. Hardball and Countdown each dead last in their timeslot.

    Allready alot of hate from Olby, the most terrible person on TV today.

    2 Quick notes so far on todays broadcast:

    * Note to Keith - You left out the entire quote...President Bush DID NOT just say, "it's unacceptable to think." He said, "it's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the actions of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective". Also note, he did NOT say, "it's unacceptable for YOU to think that..." Many on the Left clearly think that...and that seems acceptable to them.

    * David Gregory tried to imply that in a hypothetical situation of War with Iran or North Korea, that somehow our actions would cause those countries to mistreat Americans if captured. This is the same flawed logic put forth by Keith yesterday. Does ANYONE...ANYONE think that Iran, North Korea or Al-Qaeda will treat any prisoner it captures kindly??? What the f$ck have you been smokin'!? That's the same flawed Liberal logic that gives you the, "We were attacked on 9-11 because of the Iraq War 2003"

    The Zoot suited liberal pimp and defender of terrorists everywhere was at it again tonight. Nice suit Twilight Zone. Still shopping up around 125th street I see.
    Gee Kieth maybe you could go to Iraq and ask Al Queda- you know the ones that made "that hole in the ground" in NY City and ask them their policies reagrding the Geneva convention.
    Once again the big doofy olbyloon cannot remove his head from his posterior long enough to inject anything other than his blatant hatred of George Bush.
    Hey Olbermann if you really care about "fairnes" as much as you claim to HAVE SOME REAL GUESTS on your "news" show. You know, like somebody that might just not agree with you ad suck up to you.

    I'm waiting for Olby to blame George Bush for Gov. Pataki's veto of the bill allowing free entrance to the WTC memorial.

    Hey all. I just couldn't resist commenting on KTO's "Worst Person In the World" segment. True to form, Keith placed O'Reilly as numero uno for, get this, some inaccuracy regarding a shirt description in O'Reilly's store portion on his site. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    For that, Bill deserves to be the "WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD"?!

    For once, Olby actually made me laugh.

    Keith speaks the truth!

    Keith is god. Bush is a despicable POS POTUS. Lesson closed.

    Here you go misleading your readers again. First this show was advertised as replay of his special comment which was just one segment. It was never advertised as the whole show. KO also mentioned that he was taking the the quote "it is unacceptable to think" out of context. Looks like you guys are being what you spend so much saying Keith is on this site, full of bullshit.

    Keith is god. Bush is a despicable POS POTUS. Lesson closed.

    Keith is god. Bush is a despicable POS POTUS. Lesson closed.

    Nothing like a drama queen quoting a dramatist, Rod Serling, in a half-baked political sermon. Great moments in history (LOL).

    > First this show was advertised as replay of his special comment which was just one segment.

    No, first the show was advertised as a replay of the entire 9/11 program. Then at the last minute the promo was changed to advertise it as a replay of just his special comment. If you don't know what you're talking about, you just might be an OlbyLoon!

    It's one thing to insult Keith. KO is brilliant, but his show IS biased, so I suggest if you lean to the right, DON'T WATCH IT. It's designed for people who understand the segments, the jokes, the subtleties (and yes, there ARE subtleties). I've read the comments. You guys just don't get it. Don't beat yourselves up over it. Just pick up the remote, take a breath, and switch over to Fox News where you'll be more comfortable. So, it's one thing to insult Keith. It's another to insult Rod Serling. One of the most brilliant writers of a generation does not deserve to be mocked or insulted by anyone. Period.

    That's the one stop answer for all of the world's problems isn't it? If you don't like something, just don't watch it. No, I'd rather document his lies and distortions and call him on it repeatedly as this blog does so effectively. And hey, if nothing else, it pisses off the liberal types like 9:11 above.

    Hello a--holes -- and how are the storm troopers tonight? Is your freedom still on the march in lockstep for torture? Good luck passing retroactive Geneva Convention “clarifying” laws to protect your war criminal president. When are you imbeciles gonna get it through your thick skulls that it’s a bad idea to allow government to do whatever it damn well pleases? 'Cause this is what you get -- a petulant torture proponent stammering "the U.S. does not torture" from the Rose Garden. My God, how stupid can you morons be? The Founding Fathers would hang your sorry asses.

    Hi Keith.

    Hi Benito.

    The truth hurts, doesn't it. And this is why you hate Olbermann

    This whole exercise by Bush is to cover his own ass over the crimes he's already committed. Olbermann was 100% correct in pointing this little fact out (though you really don't like facts getting in the way of what you believe, do you?).

    If Bush can't get this own party to behave the way he wants, Bush is going down. Hard! And I'll have the popcorn ready to enjoy the show.

    Olby sure doesn't let the facts get in the way of his "special comments." He's not burdened by facts at all, really.

    I wouldn't mention "the facts" if i were you, cause they ain't been on your side for the last five or six years.

    I only told you to stop watching because your "documenting of lies" has proved to be highly inaccurate. If documenting lies is your game, take a look at Ann Coulter. She'll keep you plenty busy.

    Yes, Olbyfacts are so powerful that 99.9 percent of liberals don't even bother watching his show. He ought to be grateful for Olby Watch readers - we seem to be the only ones who know he's actually on the air. If it weren't for us, no one would notice him.

    Keith's show ranks right up there with Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. He is sharp as a tack and he calls it like he sees it. George Bush really does need to be impeached if he is so mentally ill that he does not understand that not everyone thinks alike. This is not 1984 nor is is Hitler Germany. We are free citizens and should be able to express our opinions. And besides that, if Bill Clinton had suggested doing away with the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners, he would have been crucified by the right-wingers.

    He attacked O'Reilly for trying to sell items on his show?...Hello dose "buy my book".."buy my book".."buy my book".."buy my book".."oh please god buy my book" ring any bells KO?

    Hypicrite thy name is Olbermann.

    My God, how stupid can you morons be? The Founding Fathers would hang your sorry asses.>>>

    Assassination....hanging...it has been the darkest of hopes expressed here all day long by the champions of civilized society.

    "Were it not for this program, our folks that do the torture believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland if it weren't for the folks that do the torture," Bush said in defense of his plan for military tribunals for terror suspects.

    Rendition....torture...it has been the darkest of hopes expressed here all day long by the champions of civilized society.

    The criticism wasn't for plugging the t-shirt - it was a joke, pointing out the play-on-words in the description FOR the shirt and simply playing to his key demographic. KO fans are most certainly going to appreciate an O'Reilly joke - so quit taking that part so seriously.

    Invasion....occupation...it has been the darkest of hopes expressed here all day long by the champions of civilized society.

    Keith's show ranks right up there with Jon Stewart and Bill Maher.
    ****************************************************
    Yea a big pile of crap all 3 of them. :)

    I'll say this..at least Stewart and Maher aren't afraid to have opposing viewpoints on their shows their not cowards like KO.

    3K Dead....30K wounded...it has been the darkest of hopes expressed here all day long by the champions of civilized society.

    Maher, like his show or not, actually invites guests who have differing opinions. You can't compare Olby to him for that fact alone.

    The creators of this site surely have done a very special thing and are providing a valuable service(not to mention great belly laughs!). I have been lurking for quite some time, and have noticed a interesting trend. the lower KO sinks in the ratings the more the loons come round to find offence. If they spent as much time watching thier hero cut and paste events to his liking on his "news show" as they spent on this site crying and whining, he might actually have a chance of getting into 3rd in the ratings!!!

    "You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law cause unless you can change the law, see?" Bush said. "If Congress passes a law that does not remove, i mean clarify, the rules ... the program is not going forward, 'cause we're in enough trouble already."

    3K Dead....30K wounded...it has been the darkest of hopes expressed here all day long by the champions of civilized society.
    ***************************************************
    I really wish you people would get it in your head the terrorist who are doing all that killing (you know the ones you and KO never say anything bad about)started killing Americans before 9/11 and Iraq and want to and will keep trying to kill us no matter what we do in Iraq..Because their goal is to force us all to live under their extreme view of Islam.
    Thats what you and KO don't get or don't want to get...and thats the greatest threat we face...liberals who want to put their heads in the sand and do nothing about terrorist.

    "My jobs and the jobs of the peoples here in Washington, D.C., is to protect this country," Bush said. "This enemy has struck us and they want to struck at us again, and we give our folks the tools to protect this country, and then some. That's our jobs."

    Cindy Sheehan is part of his crowd
    Opposing views just are not allowed
    Keith's show rarely viewed
    Cindy Sheehan wants food
    High IQs they were not endowed

    the terrorist will keep trying to kill us no matter what we do in Iraq.

    THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WASTE 100 BILL/100 A YEAR IN THE WRONG WAR THAT WORSES YOUR POSITION.

    ..Because their goal is to force us all to live under their extreme view of Islam.

    YEAH, WELL SOME PEOPLE'S KIDS, RIGHT? YOU DEAL WITH IT. KINDA LIKE THE NAZIS. THE CONSITUTION IS PRE-9/11 THINKING AND A GOOD IDEA, GET IT?

    Thats what you and KO don't get or don't want to get...and thats the greatest threat we face...
    liberals who want to put their heads in the sand and do nothing about terrorist.

    NO, THE GREATEST THREAT WE FACE IS FROM FASCISTS LIKE YOU WHO WANT TO PUT THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND WHILE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION ARE BEING DISEMBLED BY A NEANDERTHAL WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU NINCOMPOOP.

    Bush on terrorists : destroy them by any means neccessary and do whatever it takes to keep America safe.
    Liberals and olbermann supporters: but if Bush does THAY how will democrats EVER get back in power?
    Hey libs tell us again that you are not playing politics with national security and That you worry a lot more about the Constitutional rights of terrorists than the safety and scurity of Americans? Yeah tell us once again whose side you are on.
    What's next libs? maybe you can have ted kennedy draft legislation to make detaining and questions suspected terrorists a "hate crime".
    Terrorists should have only two rights. The right to tell us all they know and the right to die.

    Keith's spewing his crap from Ground Zero
    More hate and cheap shots, that's our hero
    What's Keith's solution?
    More verbal pollution
    During his rant I ordered a gyro

    i am horrified at the comments against Mr. Olberman about his show Count Down on msnbc. To me he speak the truth. One seldome ever hears the truth, and when they do they cannot stand it.
    If the terriorist want to get into our country and harm us, they could simply come over the border from Mexico, right along with the illegial Mexicans. Have you Republicans ever thought about this? Why our borders are not protected. George keeps saying he wants to protect the people of America, then protect us.

    When he went to war against Iraq, I called our Senator Warner of virginia and told him there are no wmd in Iraq, I simply knew there wasn't.
    why wouldn't Bush wait until it was proven there were no weapons before he attacked, and tore up Iraq, he really has done one fine job. Now he must get the oil or bust staying until he does so. England couldn't conquor Iraq, and neither can we, the people do not want us there. period.

    When they call us Nazi's etc. why when he went to war against Iraq, the first thing I thought of was Hitlar, just tell the people they will be attacked and they will fight for you. What a waste of our young boys lives what a waste of our money.
    going against the Generals and the Supreme court to get his way about torture, is foolhardy, he may not be able to control the people of our country much longer.
    It is time for his regime to go. Now saying homeland security reminds me so much of Germans calling their country the home land for the Hitlar.

    We do not kill people without their knowing what they are being killed for.
    I backed going after the terriorst in Pakerstan, cannot get spell check to work when typing a reply to you, this country produces opion and it kills.

    j.smith in old virginia

    LOL

    i am horrified at the comments against Mr. Olberman about his show Count Down on msnbc. To me he speak the truth. One seldom ever hears the truth, and when they do they cannot stand it.
    If the terriorist want to get into our country and harm us, they could simply come over the border from Mexico, right along with the illegial Mexicans. Have you Republicans ever thought about this? Why our borders are not protected. George keeps saying he wants to protect the people of America, then protect us.

    When he went to war against Iraq, I called our Senator Warner of virginia and told him there are no wmd in Iraq, I simply knew there wasn't.
    why wouldn't Bush wait until it was proven there were no weapons before he attacked, and tore up Iraq, he really has done one fine job. Now he must get the oil or bust staying until he does so. England couldn't conquor Iraq, and neither can we, the people do not want us there. period.

    When they call us Nazi's etc. when he went to war against Iraq, the first thing I thought of was Hitlar, just tell the people they will be attacked and they will fight for you. What a waste of our young boys lives what a waste of our money.
    going against the Generals and the Supreme court to get his way about torture, is foolhardy, he may not be able to control the people of our country much longer.
    It is time for his regime to go. Now saying homeland security reminds me so much of Germans calling their country the home land for the Hitlar.

    We do not kill people without their knowing what they are being killed for.
    I backed going after the terriorst in Pakerstan, cannot get spell check to work when typing a reply to you, this country produces opion and it kills.

    j.smith in old virginia

    i am horrified at the comments against Mr. Olberman about his show Count Down on msnbc. To me he speak the truth. One seldom ever hears the truth, and when they do they cannot stand it.
    If the terriorist want to get into our country and harm us, they could simply come over the border from Mexico, right along with the illegial Mexicans. Have you Republicans ever thought about this? Why our borders are not protected. George keeps saying he wants to protect the people of America, then protect us.

    When he went to war against Iraq, I called our Senator Warner of virginia and told him there are no wmd in Iraq, I simply knew there wasn't.
    why wouldn't Bush wait until it was proven there were no weapons before he attacked, and tore up Iraq, he really has done one fine job. Now he must get the oil or bust staying until he does so. England couldn't conquor Iraq, and neither can we, the people do not want us there. period.

    When they call us Nazi's etc. when he went to war against Iraq, the first thing I thought of was Hitlar, just tell the people they will be attacked and they will fight for you. What a waste of our young boys lives what a waste of our money.
    going against the Generals and the Supreme court to get his way about torture, is foolhardy, he may not be able to control the people of our country much longer.
    It is time for his regime to go. Now saying homeland security reminds me so much of Germans calling their country the home land for the Hitlar.

    We do not kill people without their knowing what they are being killed for.
    I backed going after the terriorst in Pakerstan, cannot get spell check to work when typing a reply to you, this country produces opion and it kills.

    j.smith in old virginia

    I'd like to congratulate all the tough guys behind computer screens for knowing so much more about war and torture than McCain, Warner, Graham, and Powell. What could any of them possibly know about the military or defending this country or torture? I'll take the word of Five-Deferment Cheney and AWOL Bush anyday as I'm sure all conservatives will.

    "To me he speak the truth" says Joanne from "old Virginia" yeah and me Tarzan you dumb!
    " cannot get spell check to work when typing a reply to you, this country " DUOOOOH! but thanks! you will now be on permanent display here for libs and olbloons who think that they are better than conservatives based soley on spelling skills. Yeah I know I screw up too , but man Joanne how can you call yourself a true lefty if you cannot even spell Hitler! I mean Calling Bush Hitler is THE platform of the democratic left!
    "When he went to war against Iraq, I called our Senator Warner of virginia and told him there are no wmd in Iraq, I simply knew there wasn't." The bride of Saddam has spoken. we all feel safer now.
    oh and please tell me just what the F@@K is "Pakerstan" is that Old Virgina on percoset? or maybe a new gay bar you spotted Olbermann in? Maybe a coversation OLby had with his friend Stan. probably went something like this:
    "Hi Kieth"
    "Hi Stan"
    "what ya doin' Kieth?"
    "Bend over I am going to Packerstan"

    OK that was mean to insult a loyal and articulate KO supporter on her "first time" but I just could not resist. Either Olby has some loyal foreign friends or he is resorting to getting help from the NY state hospital for the liberally insane.

    Hey Colbert I DID MY TIME! and ya know what in the situations I was in I don't care what they do to the terrorists if IT SAVES EVEN ONE SERVICEMEN'S OR AMERICAN'S LIFE IT'S WORTH IT.
    ya want to know what right I have to speak? Look up the military acronym SERE you dipstick. HEY Colbert if you care so much about the Geneva Convention and ya got such a big pair of huevos you should fly over to Iraq and force AlQueda to live up to the parameters of humane treatment.
    Maybe YOU shold even go to "pakerstan" yourself and find BinLaden seeing as how you are a patriotic American worried about your home countries defense.


    "Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

    Robert and the rest of you o'loofah's,
    You people are slow, huh? I understand. I'd be slow too if my mother and father were siblings. You thought Keith was going to replay his seven-minute Special Comment for the entire hour? You didn't understand the joke about Mr. O'Loofah? How dumb can you be?

    Colbert what's your idea of "homeland security" putting on a condom before you bow in supplication to your hero Olbermann?

    Olbermann is a better writer than most other newscasters (not to mention the author of this blog) could ever be. And isn't that what's important?

    Keith Olbermann: Bringing back eloquence to American television!

    "Olbermann is a better writer than most other newscasters (not to mention the author of this blog) could ever be. And isn't that what's important?"

    Oh really? He writes his own show? Then why is he unable to ad lib? And why do guest hosts sound just like him?

    It is a shame that Dimbulbermann has not mentioned Air America's demise this week.

    After all, Dimbulbermann is next.

    eloquence? does that mean that he could not debate his way out of a paper bag? Maybe eloquence in liberalspeak means -yay, finally the voice of the American socialist party!
    I have seen jellyfish in the gulf of mexico that have more eloquence as olbernuttjob about as much spine too.
    Hey if he is so damn "eloquent" why can he be eloquent with guests that might GASP diagree with him. all he ver has on is guests that massage his ego and other guests like Musto who massage his..........

    Here's a good one -- Krazy Keith thinks that dogs are talking to him. Now we know Keith has mild schizophrenia. No wonder he believes conspiracy theories. Just lookee here:

    http://forthisreliefmuchthanks.blogspot.com/2006/09/anchor-do-little.html

    Olbermann: "I basically I thought I heard this dog talking about something about the Drudge report. I swear. Swear to God."

    Oh Keith, you don't have to convince me -- I already knew you were crazy.

    Saddam is a murderous tyrant!

    The Taliban is a mob of horrible, theocratically oppressive rejects!

    Al Qaeda is a band of convert or die morons that base their crimes on unreasonable and impractical ideals!

    However, how unreasonable is it to wage a war that can't be won? How can we kill every terrorist/muslim extremist on the planet?

    We have put ourselves in an impossible scenario. We have lost the high ground necessary to turn moderate muslims against the extreme.

    We have diverted our resources halfway around the world. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it. We have made this once great nation economically and morally weaker. We have helped strenghten the relationship between China, Russia and Iran. Who don't necessarily like us that much.

    If this were a chess match we would be in check.

    THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WASTE 100 BILL/100 A YEAR IN THE WRONG WAR THAT WORSES YOUR POSITION.
    *******************************************
    No I guess we just surrender like you and KO want and bend over and take it from the terrorist.


    YEAH, WELL SOME PEOPLE'S KIDS, RIGHT? YOU DEAL WITH IT. KINDA LIKE THE NAZIS. THE CONSITUTION IS PRE-9/11 THINKING AND A GOOD IDEA, GET IT?
    ********************************************
    If someone knows what the hell this means please let me know.


    NO, THE GREATEST THREAT WE FACE IS FROM FASCISTS LIKE YOU WHO WANT TO PUT THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND WHILE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION ARE BEING DISEMBLED BY A NEANDERTHAL WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU NINCOMPOOP.
    **********************************************
    Bush hasn't done any of that and just because you and KO keep saying it dosen't make it any less of a lie.


    I think I hit a nerve. :)


    The one thing we never hear from KO,the Libs and the Dems is how they would fight the war on terror...all they got is..."We hate Bush"...oh and "Let the U.N. handle it"..or "terrorism isn't a real threat..unless we can use it againt Bush then it's a real threat."..but mostly it's "lets just quit and be Super Nice to them and they'll stop killing us..wouldn't that be keen?"..:)

    "Darkest Hour"
    by Keith Olbermann

    'Twas dark and steamy in her room
    As man's best friend began to croon
    Growling fierce 'bout Drudge Report
    Oh what evil the canine did snort
    "Leave me alone," I begged the beast
    Drudge was what I fancied least

    Out the window thought I to leap
    So scared, so scared that I did weep
    Bravely, I feigned not to hear
    And stuffed a finger in each ear.
    Kept statue still 'til light of the morn'
    Then me the doggie's voice did warn:
    "Stay here Keith, if you dare"
    That is why I left ass bare

    "However, how unreasonable is it to wage a war that can't be won? How can we kill every terrorist/muslim extremist on the planet? "
    Imagine how the US and it's allies felt in WW2 when they had to fight two world superpowers at the same time?
    What are we to do? surrender? just stop fighting and let them build up stronger militarily and just sit and wait for us to be attacked again and our interests around the world be compromised?
    It it better to just give up and let the chips fall where they may? I know war sucks. just because I am conservative does not mean I like war. I know what war can be like and I also know what war can be like when you are not allowed to win. Attrition, surrender and defeat can be worse than war.
    Can we sit down at some large table and talk peace with this people like we have in other wars. Do you think that for them and their ideology surrender is an option or even a possibility? Do you think that they will give up?
    I don't, not for onr minute. They are the type of enemy who prey on weaknes and defeat. One of the quotes I distinctly remember in a show about Bin Laden is when he said and I am paraphrasing now- The west loves life and we love death. They are just waiting for us to show them that we have not the stomach for the fight. They are perhaps the most dangerous threat to America that has ever existed. And that is not just recycled, parroted scare tactics. Imagine for a minute they get nukes, or a dirty bomb or chem or bio weapons. Think that they will hesitate to use them to rid the world of what they consider the great satan? We have to keep presure on them . If we surrender and back off they will not just shrug their shoulders and consider themselves the winners. war sucks true but what if they brought the war to our country on daily basis like they have in Beruit or Israel? Could you just imagine suicide bombers on a daily basis in say NY city or any other American city? IEDs going off on major American interstates?
    That is why I get so pissed off at the left. This is not Viet Nam. We new damn well once we left Saigon the VC were not going to follow us home. The Muslim terrorists don't have any reservations about bringing the war to American soil if we give them the chance. Sept 11 proved that.

    KfK, you are a genius. It is unacceptable to think otherwise.

    The liberal do gooders know how US POWs will/would be treated. They want to handcuff the US to a bunch of feel good, fair treatment BS, just to hurt the war effort. Liberals are self hating. Why else would you favor Terrorist detainee's, who seek to destroy the US and kill its citizens, with rights they are not entitled to? Has to be liberal guilt kicking in. Hey libs you mind if those of us who dont feel guilt and shame for being who we are and where we are dont get murdered by terrorists? To bad you do mind...
    You libs are gonna have alot of blood on your hands again before the attempted Muslim Conquests are settled. The thing the Left and Islam have in common is everywhere they spread they leave broken twisted backword societies in need of repair.
    Somalia/USSR....Lebanon/France...Kashmir/North Korea....Indonesia/Vietnam....Spain/Spain....Iran/Britain......Iraq/Brussels

    Muslims hate everybody but their own. Liberals hate their own. See the path they both take. Eerie isnt it. One day the children you libs dont abort are gonna ask "what did you do during the Religious/Cultural Wars" and you'll either lie or say I sided with Terror and beheadings,suicide bombers,and burqas,madrassas,and stonings,stabbings, gay hangings, arranged marriage's(slavery) pedophilia and all because George Bush was a bad man. Why kids Bush allowed loud music to be played to detainees that were killers and terrorists, he let interogators subject these killers to extreme heat, and cold too. Why he even allowed sleep depravation(oh the horror) and water boarding. That is when they werent praying 5 times a day for our destruction on prayer rugs payed for by the evil americans who tortured(description above) them. But tell your kids you had the moral high ground as the barbarians waged war. Yes you will have some explaining to do if you survive your own deeds and those of our politicians.

    scooter

    Riverdog

    "Imagine how the US and it's allies felt in WW2 when they had to fight two world superpowers at the same time?"
    ***************************************************
    Imagine if we had KO and the Dems we have now then..We wouldn't of even been able to fight it..They would first say we have to understand why the Japanesse attacked us and not fight back,then they would say Hitler didn't attack us so we can't fight him,of couse KO would call Pearl Harbor.."An alleged attack".

    "This is not Viet Nam."
    ***********************
    Yes I wish someone would give the Libs a map...Viet Nam is in Asia and Iraq is in the Middle East. :)

    No KO and Sulzberger and the treasonous Dims, and MSM would have suffered back then. Maybe even death for treason. Ah the good old days when people would use a disproportionate amout of force to actually win wars. They say all things come back in fashion if you wait long enough. Gee i sure hope so.

    The moral high ground. Isnt that were the rats head when the ship starts taking on water?

    "If this were a chess match we would be in check.

    Posted by: objective disbelief at September 16, 2006 12:16 AM"

    If this was 1942 you'd be in jail or shot.

    You worry about the high ground and world opinion. What about doing the right thing? Even when its unpopular or hard. I guess that never occured to you. Well it did to GW Bush and God will bless him for it. And more people support him than support you so go figure.

    scooter

    Thank you, thank you , for this site. Keith Olberman is interesting only in the evilness of his intent and motive. He needs to be ripped to shreds (figuratively speaking). This man is nauseating.

    NO, THE GREATEST THREAT WE FACE IS FROM FASCISTS LIKE YOU WHO WANT TO PUT THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND WHILE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION ARE BEING DISEMBLED BY A NEANDERTHAL WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU NINCOMPOOP.

    Posted by: Anonymous at September 15, 2006 10:05 PM

    You cant back that up with one example. You useless idiot. What you want are the terrorists to be afforded the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. One example of Bush disassembling those sacred documents. One. Its all inside your head like the voices. And you are so wrong. About everything. Your world view is naive and not based in reality. Europe needs "men" like you and they run the type of free(mostly...for now) society you crave. Go east young liberal!!!

    NO, THE GREATEST THREAT WE FACE IS FROM FASCISTS LIKE YOU WHO WANT TO PUT THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND WHILE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTION ARE BEING DISEMBLED BY A NEANDERTHAL WHO GOT US INTO THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU NINCOMPOOP.

    Posted by: Anonymous at September 15, 2006 10:05 PM

    You cant back that up with one example. You useless idiot. What you want are the terrorists to be afforded the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. One example of Bush disassembling those sacred documents. One. Its all inside your head like the voices. And you are so wrong. About everything. Your world view is naive and not based in reality. Europe needs "men" like you and they run the type of free(mostly...for now) society you crave. Go east young liberal!!!

    boy, the leftist pinko's really don't like Bush, America, Freedom, Bill of Rights, Christianity, etc they get it wrong up and down.

    Example 1........

    Supreme court says Bush has overstepped his constitutional power by ignoring federal laws on detainment and military tribunals.

    Example 2.......

    Federal court rules that Bush overstepped his authority as president through the NSA wiretapping program. (under appeal)

    Example 3.....

    Supreme court rules that Bush can't hold "military combatants" indefinitely under the law of the United States.

    While you may not agree with these decisions, they do show that Bush has enacted policies which are not consistent with the laws and rights of our society according to our judicial system. These policies were advertised as being necessary to the War On Terror but found unconsitutional on three instances. Now he wants to change a document we have been using with no problems for 60 years so that he can justify other laws he has possibly broken. I have never head of any nation, including us until now, complain that the Geneva Convention's protocals on interrogation and imprisionment are vague. I remember early in this war when we had soldiers captured this administration saying they expected our soldiers to be treated in accordance to the Genveva Convention. I guess the "vagueness" is good enough for our soldiers captured by our ememies but not good enough for the enemies we capture.

    You useless idiot. You make my point. Bush hasnt taken one right from us, changed anything to do with the Bill of Rights or Constitution. First one he overstepped, maybe, on military tribunals of enemy combatants. Which article is that in??
    Second Bush may have overstepped on NSA wiretapping program. Where is that in the founding documents? In relation to phone calls from abroad during wartime. Third Bush cant hold military tribunals,for ENEMY combatants but Lincoln did, Roosevelt did. Yes you and 5 people in Black Robes are onto something here. The shame is the thing your onto is the Al Queda Bill of Rights.....not the US Bill of Rights. Your words that "you may not agree with these decisions" is an understatement. I always think back to the intent of the founding fathers on all matters constitutional. And i gotta say I dont see Jefferson, Monroe, Madison and the others granting foreigners protections under our laws. The founders were christians and intelligent and they would have hung those enemies of freedom quickly in my assesment. They would have exiled anyone foolish enough to marry gay people and hung anyone aborting babies. The founders were conservative to a fault and lawyers in black robes have twisted and perverted many of the intentions of those great men. You cheer for this when it weakens a nation or disposes of unplanned babies.

    The problem with our use of the Geneva conventions is that we are the only ones adhereing to it. Ask McCain bout that or Nick Berg. Ask the men of the USS Pueblo bout the geneva conventions. Your side wants to handcuff with rules and conventions our WoT. Whilst no one else follows any rules. First rule of true war......There are no rules!!!!!!!!

    When KO, Turley, and Fineman defend terrorists rights they are wrong. But i take cold comfort in the fact that these Bozos fly alot more than average citizens and live in the Bullseye zones. They just may be dead wrong on some issues.

    scooter

    The following comments are from Malcolm X. Early on he had a grasp of "so-called liberals" and Democrats. Bet it was Johnson who had him executed after he began to expose the Dem Party:

    "The Democrats have been in Washington D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They’ve been down there four years, and they're -- all other legislation they wanted to bring up they brought it up and gotten it out of the way, and now they bring up you. And now, they bring up you. You put them first, and they put you last, 'cause you’re a chump, a political chump.

    In Washington D.C., in the House of Representatives, there are 257 who are Democrats; only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats; only 33 are Republicans. The Party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and still they can’t keep their promise to you, 'cause you’re a chump. Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that Party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that Party, you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race.

    And what kind of alibi do they come up with? They try and pass the buck to the Dixiecrats. Now back during the days when you were blind, deaf, and dumb, ignorant, politically immature, naturally you went along with that. But today as your eyes come open, and you develop political maturity, you’re able to see and think for yourself, and you can see that a Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat in disguise."

    "You, today, have -- are in the hands of a government of segregationists, racists, white supremacists who belong to the Democratic party, but disguise themselves as Dixiecrats. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat. Whoever runs the Democrats is also the father of the Dixiecrats, and the father of all of them is sitting in the White House. I say and I say it again: You got a President who’s nothing but a Southern segregationist from the state of Texas. They’ll lynch you in Texas as quick as they’ll lynch you in Mississippi. Only in -- in Texas they lynch you with a Texas accent; in Mississippi they lynch you with a Mississippi accent."

    "But what would happen when you expel the Dixiecrat, you’re expelling the Democrat. When you destroy the power of the Dixiecrat, you’re destroying the power -- power of the Democratic Party. So how in the world can the Democratic Party in the South actually side with you in sincerity, when all of its power is based in the -- in the South?

    These Northern Democrats are in cahoots with the Southern Democrats. They’re playing a giant con game, a political con game. You know how it goes. One of them -- One of them comes to you and makes believe he's for you, and he’s in cahoots with the other one that’s not for you. Why? Because neither one of them is for you, but they got to make you go with one of them or the other. So this is a con game. And this is what they’ve been doing with you and me all these years."

    Sounds like modern day Maryland liberals, and elsewhere, and how they con the blacks, then when given the chance voted against kwesi mfume. Goes to show even Malcolm wasnt wrong about everything. Read up colbert....americanrhetoric.com

    http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/images/wtc.htm

    For those of you who are offended by our government's treatment of terrorists, please go to the website above. This what you are seeking to protect. You, Olbermann and the other moonbats with BRD are providing comfort to the scumbags who did this to our country. You hate Bush more than the animals who did this. Unbelievable! In KOs own words posted above, "My God, how stupid can you morons be? The Founding Fathers would hang your sorry asses."

    "It's one thing to insult Keith. KO is brilliant, but his show IS biased, so I suggest if you lean to the right, DON'T WATCH IT. It's designed for people who understand the segments, the jokes, the subtleties (and yes, there ARE subtleties). I've read the comments. You guys just don't get it. Don't beat yourselves up over it. Just pick up the remote, take a breath, and switch over to Fox News where you'll be more comfortable. So, it's one thing to insult Keith. It's another to insult Rod Serling. One of the most brilliant writers of a generation does not deserve to be mocked or insulted by anyone. Period."


    Oh sure, Olbermann is a nuanced guy and all his subtle points and humor are flying over our heads like pithy little bats.

    Just harken to the subtle nature of The Oracle's screed in which he bellows out to Sec. Rumsfeld, "Have you no decency, sir!" and on the five year memorial of 9/11, sitting at the site accusing Bush of using the hole as a prop, as he then proceeds to blame Bush for the political wrangling over a memorial there, while subtlety mentioning impeachment.... "It is beyond shameful", The Oracle bellows.... The next day he's back in the studio telling the audience where they can link to the video and buy his book.

    Then there's the little nuanced Countdown things like juxtaposing Bush's head with a groundhog and juxtaposing Justices Scalia and Thomas' images with the dwarfs "Sleepy" and "Dopey".

    Subtle, nuance, and urbane...fer sure... Oh I've no doubts that you're right, that it's all designed for a certain audience, but no audience under the age of ten would be too politically naive as to miss Olbermann's points.

    One more thing, do be aware that if Pres Bush had uttered your statement, "It's another to insult Rod Serling. One of the most brilliant writers of a generation does not deserve to be mocked or insulted by anyone. Period", Keith would be pulling out his hair raving that Big Brother was clamping down on literary criticism...

    Yes, it is important for anyone to keep a sense of perspective even when it's towards some out-of-control demagogue who feels perspective is for sell-outs..... and we generally just laugh and mock Olbermann. But in light of your advice to us let me accord the same to you and say that if you don't like what's said here in Olbermann Watch, Daily Kos and Democratic Underground are just clicks away.

    Perhaps if the Wilson/Plame suit proceeds to trial The Oracle can set up camp outside the Courtroom and reprise the Al Pacino role in "And Justice For All"---- "I'm out of order?! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order!", would make terrific political theater for Mr. Sublety.

    Dispite the seemingly never ending supply provided by the left, sooner or later he's going to run of righteously indignant characters to portray, but maybe by that time he can cycle back around and do it for summer stock. Imagine the veiws about Keith's nuanced performance....

    KO is eloquent? LOL. Good one. I guess if you just listened to the words, didn't fact-check him, and were extremely gulliable and easily led, that might be true. Olbermann and his fans never, ever let facts or reasons get in the way of their addled conspiracy theories about how Halliburton is really running the Iraq war. Nor do they offer up a single good workable solution on how we might win that war. They like to say, "see the Murtha plan". Murtha doesn't have a workable plan to get us out of Iraq. But the liberals believe he does because they have deluded themselves into thinking that he does. While I freely acknowledge serious mistakes were made in the planning of the Iraq war and for the resulting battle for Iraq, I'd still rather take the plan we have now and work with it than abandon Iraq completely and allow terrorists and radical Muslims to have the country, which is exactly what the liberal Dems want this country to do.

    And I ask the liberals this: if Bill O'Reilly and anyone on Fox News was guilty of making the daily mistakes that Olbermann is, how long would it take you to get a petition going to take them off the air? Yet you believe that Olbermann should be allowed to continue on, lying every single day, not presenting a single contrary opinion of any kind, and it's perfectly alright just so long as he spouts the rhetoric you want to hear. And your suggestion to us is to cut off our tv's? Unbelievable but oh so predictable.

    This site is a joke. You people bash anyone who doesn't kiss the Bush administration's pasty white ass all the time--and Olbermann has the guts not to do it, knowing that you (and people like you) will call him one of the following: anti-bush, anti-American, unAmerican, traitor, undermining the troops, undermining the war on terror, etc etc etc.

    I admire Olbermann for standing up in such a partisan hack environment as this, perpetrated by people like yourselves. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm ashamed to call you my fellow Americans.

    Get some class.

    And JustTheTruth, for Bush to have the audacity to tell anyone what's "unacceptable to think" is UN-American. Freedom--you talk about it all the time, how about you people actually live it?

    JP you enormous douchebag. He didn't say it was "unacceptable to think." He said "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the actions of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

    Thinking that there is a comparison (that means similarities) between the US' behaviour and that of Islamic extremist is unacceptable. That's right you are a goddamn baffoon if you think that way.

    Here's a thought. "It is acceptable to think that there is a comparison between the actions of Islamic extremists and those on the American Left who strive to create straw men and bogus claims of persecution in search of their own martyrdom". Where the left sees "nuance" the rest of the thinking population sees hippocrisy and an inability to be consistant that borders on multiple personality.

    I admire Olbermann for standing up in such a partisan hack environment as this
    **********************************************
    KO is the poster boy for partisan hacks..thats all he is.

    He isn't standing up ...he hides behide his show where only his views are given backed up by ass kissers like Howard Fineman who whould never dare challege him.

    JP parroted the olbermann logic-"I admire Olbermann for standing up in such a partisan hack environment as this, perpetrated by people like yourselves. You should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm ashamed to call you my fellow Americans."
    You are just mad that thru the ineffectiveness and wrong headed policies of the democrats they were voted out of office by the American public. Because the democratic party has become the party of far left extremist and anti-American groups they were fired by the American people. Don't blame the American people. Put the blame where it really belongs. Blame Michael Moore, George Soros, Sean Penn, and other Hollyweird morons. Blame Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and other far left democratic hacks. Blame the party that provides the platform for the "blame America first folks.
    You little buddy Olbermann sias in his famous Twilight Zone-hole in the ground sppech that Bush had "squandered" bipartisan unity. it was not Bush that squandered anything it was the democrats, enraged and unhinged that they were not the majority party anymore who squandered the good will and bipartisanship. Democrats were the majority party in congress and used to running things( like this country and the Constitution) into the ground for 40 years,. They were used to having their voice monopolized by the networks and the budding cable news sites like CNN for 40 years. Just like Olbermann they were voicing opinions and ideology unopposed.
    Well JP the feeling is mutual on my part . I am ashamed to call you my fellow American and you should be ashamed to be a follower of somebody like olbermann who is such a blatant left wing politcal hack who does not even have the decency to have any sort of balance on his show. I guess he may be the perfect old school liberal. He takes no dissent, questions or deviation from his far left ideology. He spews forth with his attacks on the President and anybody else he sees fit to demean, denigrate or ridicule. Tell me again about your disdain for the "partisan hack environment". tha's all olbermann's show is a partisan hack environment , but I guess it's OK when it's the far looney left's show.
    maybe you need to look in the mirror and then make your attempt at class, and just remember hypocrisy has no class.

    I feel sorry for Keith Olbermann. Everyday he has to bash his country and root for our enemies. He know it's wrong but is doing George Soros and the Iranian President's bidding for money. I'm sure it's eating away at his soul. We should help him.

    ...or you are Rosie O'Donnell.

    Joanne Smith wrote:

    "i am horrified at the comments against Mr. Olberman about his show Count Down on msnbc. To me he speak the truth. One seldome ever hears the truth, and when they do they cannot stand it."

    I don't think a lack of a spell-checker is your problem but I am curious as to what truth it is that you think Keith is speaking?

    Can you please read this and then clarify:
    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/09/a_few_words_on_1.html

    As you will see the entire premise of the piece - that Bush is responsible for the delays in redeveloping the WTC site - is false. You will all see that even ancillary statements made by Keith are false. So, when you see "truth" do you mean Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" truth" or something else?

    As you are in Virginia and don't seem to me familiar with the causes for delays in the redevelopment of the WTC site, you strike me as precisely the type of person that Keith was attempting to reach with his rant - those who are uninformed about what has been really happening with the redevelopment of the site and are simply looking for anyone who will BLAME BUSH.

    Tom wrote:

    "I remember early in this war when we had soldiers captured this administration saying they expected our soldiers to be treated in accordance to the Genveva Convention. I guess the "vagueness" is good enough for our soldiers captured by our ememies but not good enough for the enemies we capture."

    Typical OlbyLoon. You are referring to soldiers captured by the Iraqi army not al Qaeda. The issue is not how to treat Iraqi soldiers captured during the war but what to do with people we capture who are not part of any legitimate military force (in uniform, operating under a government or, in the case of a civil war, parties to the conflict) like members of al Qaeda. What the Jimmy Carter's of the world are trying to do is advance the ideas contained in the FOURTH Geneva Convention which grants the same protections to terrorists as to legitimate soldiers (a protocol that the U.S. Senate never ratified).

    Instead of demagoging the issue, why don't you OlbyLoons just spell out what it is that you would like to see happen. If you want to make the argument that high-ranking captured al Qaeda members should be simply asked if they would be willing to provide information about their associates, their organization or planned attacks and, that if the answer is "no" be placed in a prison awaiting trial then say so. If you the trial you would like to see should resemble a court martial for a U.S. soldier, say so. If you believe that any person who ends up in U.S. custody should be afforded the same rights as any U.S. citizen say so. To simply say "America shouldn't torture" is not a policy.

    If you can't articulate a policy then what is it that you are asking people to vote for in elections?

    BTW, someone asked why the Democrats will not say what they would do in Iraq. I can tell you. Many Democratic strategists believe that there is no need for them to articulate a policy in Iraq because the polls show that a majority of Americans now say that the war in Iraq was a mistake. The strategy is to just keep criticizing Bush's "execution" of the war in Iraq so as to keep the focus on Iraq (as opposed to the broader "war on terror" issue which favors Bush) and then come to power as the "we're not Bush" party. There are SOME Democrats who feel this is a mistake and that the party SHOULD articulate a comprehensive plan (sorta like a Contract with America thing) but they are in a minority and people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean are calling the shots. This has been the case for about two years which is why the political debates you seen on TV are often two people talking past each other.
    Personally, I think this is a mistake by the Dems, that by not providing their own plan for Iraq and running on that they create an opening for Karl Rove to pick off Dem candidates in individual races and take some House races out of play. The main wedge they are giving the GOP is "we may not be perfect but you know we are going to take the fight to the enemy"; if the Dems allow the GOP to get that message out while the President ratchets up the "al Qaeda is still coming" rhetoric that will be a problem for the Dems. Throw on top of that some terrorists incident or a UBL video in the weeks before the election and you have a recipe for the Dems to miss their best chance to get back the house in many years. From meeting folks in the Democratic party (I have even met Hillary Clinton - GASP!) and watching them talk amongst themselves my sense is that they cannot agree amongst themselves on any aspect of how to deal with Iraq or the terror issue and will never be able to articulate a clear vision of what they want to do. They may get control of the house and even win the presidency in '08 but having gotten it (if they get it) I don't think they have the faintest idea of what to do with that power. I suspect that what they might end up doing if they were in charge will look remarkably similar to what we are doing now. Given this, I don't see any reason to bring in the "B Team".

    There is a real battle going on in the democratic party . They are being pulled to the far left by certain democrats and other entities. they have no cohesive message beacuse they are not a cohesive party. Tneir only unifying message is Get Bush. Other than that they have no message. Hopefully America and Americans will see thru their facade and be smart enought to note vote them into power . Even if the democrats do, by some slim chance get back into power i believe that their dissarray and their beholding to far-far left ideology will not allow them to stay in power very long.
    Democrats always criticize the Iraq war and the war on terror but when asked what their plan is essentially they have no clear ideas or strategy other than saying that Bush is wrong. Re-deployment is not a strategy. Americans have to see that the Iraq and the WOT is only secondary to the democrats real goals. The democrats do not care about winning any war except their war against Bush and the republican majority.
    Much like olbermann, Hillary and the rest of the democrat party, when they do on rare occasion take questions their only quest for success lies entirely on THEIR percieved failures of Bush and co. They cannot run nor can they win on their own ideology or successes because they have none.

    Mr. Cox,

    Actually I am not just talking about soldiers captured by the Iraqi army. We have expressed these concerns about soldiers captured by insurgent groups and Al Quaeda. Your only response to this point is to characterize my comment as "Typical OlbyLoon" and then some knock on Jimmy Carter(didn't this guy lose the election 26 years ago). You did not address the important aspect of this argument which is why after 60 years is the vagueness of Article 3 suddenly an issue. Why now? What has our government done that suddenly makes the so called "vagueness" of the Geneva Convention an issue. As far as your boring analysis of stategy for the Democratic party, I don't really care cause I am not a democrat. My concerns for this country go way beyond partisan issues. I could care less about those. Please see Colin Powell's letter on this issue. I agree with every concern he raised. The idea of whether the USA should be able to legally engage in torture or to interpret the Geneva Convention on our own terms is not a partisan issue. God I hope it isn't.

    Tom,

    First, please consult your OlbyLoon talking point because you now claim to be referring to "war" involving al Qaeda but, as you know, we are not really in a "war", the "War on Terror" is a "purported war".

    Second, when you wrote "I remember early in this war when we had soldiers captured this administration saying they expected our soldiers to be treated in accordance to the Genveva Convention". What soldiers did al Qaeda capture that you would be referring to here? What is the source of this supposed statement? The answer is none and none.

    As would any good OlbyLoon, when challenged on your false statements, you dismiss my criticism of YOUR false claims as somehow ancillary to your point. If that's the case, then why did you raise them in the first place?

    BTW, my remarks about the Democrat Party were, quite clearly, not directed at you.

    To your credit, you do ask a reasonable question: "why after 60 years is the vagueness of Article 3 suddenly an issue?"

    If were interested in a discussion of that question with hyberbole, that would be fine but you surround that question with anti-Bush rhtetoric and then wonder why you can't get a reasoned reply.

    As to the question of WHY NOW?, I suppose it has something to do with the U.S. being confronted by a different kind of enemy - a stateless organization of people who have as their goal killing American civilians. As I recall, we have not faced such an enemy before. Am I wrong about that?

    Many people believe that 9/11 brought into very clear focus the danger presented by al Qaeda. So, even though they are not a nation-state or have clearly identifiable sponsors or bases of support, they are still a very dangerous threat and one that warrant a military response. Maybe you do not but I do.

    From the phrasing of your question, I take it you would agree that the language in Article 3 is vague, right?

    So, given that it is vague, the question becomes who is interpreting that and how.

    Bush believes that he has the right to interpret the meaning of those words and so things like "loud music" and "waterboarding" are acceptable. SCOTUS held that Bush does not have that right, that the Congress must decide. So, how Bush is asking Congress for legislation that would claify the language.

    To me your question is a red herring.

    It is not WHY NOW? but IS IT TRUE?.

    Is it true that the language is vague?

    What do you think, Tom.

    Well Mr. Cox,

    You again show you can't debate without the term "olbyloon" which isn't even a word or a real concept.

    "First, please consult your OlbyLoon talking point because you now claim to be referring to "war" involving al Qaeda but, as you know, we are not really in a "war", the "War on Terror" is a "purported war"."

    I speak for myself. This is not talking points memo but if that theory helps you digest or brush off what i say as irrelavant, then so be it.

    "Second, when you wrote "I remember early in this war when we had soldiers captured this administration saying they expected our soldiers to be treated in accordance to the Genveva Convention". What soldiers did al Qaeda capture that you would be referring to here? What is the source of this supposed statement? The answer is none and none."

    You may be right on as far as my comments about Al Queada and insurgants go. I may be confused as the incident I am speaking about are Iraqi soldiers. Lets specify the situation because I don't think it minimizes my point.

    From NBC

    NBC's Steve Handelsman has more from Kuwait.

    THE IRAQIS GOT THEIR US POW'S NEAR THE OIL FIELDS 75 MILES FROM KUWAIT.

    AMBUSHING A COALITION CONVOY LIKE THIS... KILLING SOME US ARMY TROOPS... CAPTURING OTHERS. THE PENTAGON SAYS 12 ARE MISSING., THE IRAQIS PUT THEIR CAPTIVES ON BAGHDAD TV...FOOTAGE THAT RAN WORLDWIDE ON AL JASEERA AND US OFFICIALS PROTESTED

    DONALD RUMSFELD/DEFENSE SECRETARY: "It is against the Geneva Convention to show photographs of porisoners of war in a manner that's humiliating for them."

    Again we we complain that these pictures of our troops were humiliating to them and therefore against the Geneva Convention. Right now we are debating if methods we have used in "secret prisons" to obtain information should be considered ok under OUR interpretation of the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court did say that we were in violation of international treaties. By law yes we can chosse to redefine those treaties to meet our goals. As an American, I was disgusted at our treatement of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. These prisoners were not just soldiers but also citizens who were members of the insurgency. Yes we are fighting an enemy without a state but the goal of the enemy is no different than enemies we have faced in the past. They hate us and want to kill us, or disrupt our way of life. Our courts have maintained that "enemy combatants" which are not members of a state army are entitled to the same protections as official "prisoners of war". Just because we face a different type of enemy does not mean we have to change our morals when dealing with them. This where Colin Powell makes an important point, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article III would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk." We spend a lot of time talking about our moral values to the world. That's why Bush refers to us as the "Civilized World". Bush is not only asking for a change in what we percieve as morally acceptable forms of interrogation, he is forcing us to accpet his terms by threatening to stop the program. What he is really saying is that he has been asking the CIA to break international treaties in order to get info from the terrorists. Our courts said he was breaking the law by doing this unless Congress rewrites the law allowing these infractions. The "professionals" do not want to follow his orders as they can face war crimes under these same international treaties. What he is not saying is that we can continue to iterrogate suspects under the present legal means which have served us fine for 60 years. As an American do you want your country holding prisoners in secret prisons with no access for the International Red Cross, where we make people think they will drown, where we demean them by making then sit naked in a well lit room for days? Who knows what else we have tried. If we want to be the moral compass of the world, then we have to act in a different manner than our enemies and with regards to the values that make us the "civilized world"

    Bush says the intelligence gathered from these suspects through these means has been valuable. The administration likes to say that we have not been attacked since 9/11. They offer this as proof that programs like the NSA wiretapping program and their methods have interrogation have kept this from happening. Lets look at the big picture. Our mainland has been attacked twice by foreign terrorists. Once in 1993 and again in 2001. The administration would have a string point if we had been attacked here every year or so but we have been safe for 5 years. Maybe they are right but I can't give them credit yet since we have been attacked on their watch just like we got attacked on Clinton's but we did not get attacked again during his presidency. Does Clinton deserve credit for no attacks here for 7 years? I'm not sure about that. They say the intelligence is valuable but offer no proof cause that would hurt national security. That is a decent point but it is hard to trust this administration after the exagerations they gave to justify the Iraq invasion. Because of their track record with misleading and bad intelligence , they owe us something to prove their point rather than just asking us to follow them blindly. We already did that once and it has not gone well.

    I assume from your comments that you have no issues with how we treat captured terrorists. Treating them with any sense of dignity makes no sense since they are not part of a state and want to kill us. I understand but disagree. We will never defeat terrorism by military means. It is virtually impossible. Never in history has any idealogy been destroyed by military might. Part of what we have to do is show the world that we follow a high moral code that our Constitution and Declaration of Independence lay out for us. That is what this debate is about. I believe Bush is on the wrong side.

    A popular book by Peter Schweizer has the title "Do as I say, not what I do : Profiles in liberal hypocrisy" I think that is the issue at hand minus the liberal hypocrisy(that is whole other conversation).

    How is article 3 vague........

    a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

    Waterboarding and forcing a person to sit naked in a well lit room for days are degrading. Would any of you want our soldiers treated like that?

    I wish that our soldiers were treated at least that good! On what planet do you live? Have you not seen th beheadings that these sub-human scum inflict on people? and they even televise it! Our soldiers ARE tortured and beheaded and dragged thru the streets. My position that until the terrorists start adhering to the Geneva convention we should use whatevr means neccesary to get information and win the war. No more political corectness, no more Mr. Nice guy. DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN and stop worrying about what france and the EU and liberal American politicians think.
    We did not even bomb these scumbag taliban or al-queda in Afghanistan because they were at a funeral! WTF?? They were already at the graveyard! we did not even have to drag them that far to push them into their graves and because of being forced to fight a war by stupid politcally correct paramaters we let 100 enemy fighters go? once again WTF over?? Maybe the American spec ops that had the enemy in their sights were afraid Kennedy and Feingold were going to bring them up on "hate crimes" charges.
    This war is just like Viet Nam in one sense. the American leftists do not want America to win the war and it won't let America win the war.

    I wish that our soldiers were treated at least that good! On what planet do you live? Have you not seen th beheadings that these sub-human scum inflict on people? and they even televise it! Our soldiers ARE tortured and beheaded and dragged thru the streets. My position that until the terrorists start adhering to the Geneva convention we should use whatever means neccesary to get information and win the war. No more political corectness, no more Mr. Nice guy. DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN and stop worrying about what france and the EU and liberal American politicians think.
    We did not even bomb these scumbag taliban or al-queda in Afghanistan because they were at a funeral! WTF?? They were already at the graveyard! we did not even have to drag them that far to push them into their graves and because of being forced to fight a war by stupid politcally correct paramaters we let 100 enemy fighters go? once again WTF over?? Maybe the American spec ops that had the enemy in their sights were afraid Kennedy and Feingold were going to bring them up on "hate crimes" charges.
    This war is just like Viet Nam in one sense. the American leftists do not want America to win the war and it won't let America win the war.

    I wish that our soldiers were treated at least that good! On what planet do you live? Have you not seen th beheadings that these sub-human scum inflict on people? and they even televise it! Our soldiers ARE tortured and beheaded and dragged thru the streets. My position that until the terrorists start adhering to the Geneva convention we should use whatever means neccesary to get information and win the war. No more political corectness, no more Mr. Nice guy. DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN and stop worrying about what france and the EU and liberal American politicians think.
    We did not even bomb these scumbag taliban or al-queda in Afghanistan because they were at a funeral! WTF?? They were already at the graveyard! we did not even have to drag them that far to push them into their graves and because of being forced to fight a war by stupid politcally correct paramaters we let 100 enemy fighters go? once again WTF over?? Maybe the American spec ops that had the enemy in their sights were afraid Kennedy and Feingold were going to bring them up on "hate crimes" charges.
    This war is just like Viet Nam in one sense. the American leftists do not want America to win the war and it won't let America win the war.

    I wish that our soldiers were treated at least that good! On what planet do you live? Have you not seen th beheadings that these sub-human scum inflict on people? and they even televise it! Our soldiers ARE tortured and beheaded and dragged thru the streets. My position that until the terrorists start adhering to the Geneva convention we should use whatever means neccesary to get information and win the war. No more political corectness, no more Mr. Nice guy. DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN and stop worrying about what france and the EU and liberal American politicians think.
    We did not even bomb these scumbag taliban or al-queda in Afghanistan because they were at a funeral! WTF?? They were already at the graveyard! we did not even have to drag them that far to push them into their graves and because of being forced to fight a war by stupid politcally correct paramaters we let 100 enemy fighters go? once again WTF over?? Maybe the American spec ops that had the enemy in their sights were afraid Kennedy and Feingold were going to bring them up on "hate crimes" charges.
    This war is just like Viet Nam in one sense. the American leftists do not want America to win the war and it won't let America win the war.

    Typical OlbyLoon reply...

    "You may be right on as far as my comments about Al Queada and insurgants go. I may be confused as the incident I am speaking about are Iraqi soldiers. Lets specify the situation because I don't think it minimizes my point."

    So, you admit your are wrong but then say it does not matter because you are still right! FAKE BUT ACCURATE strikes again!!!

    Does it occur to you OlbyLoons that if you make claims to support some point you are making and the claims you make are false then they don't support your point? And you can't then say, "well it doesn't matter if what I said was not true I'm still right anyway". Jeez, get a clue people.

    You then make a bunch of absurd statements:

    "Yes we are fighting an enemy without a state but the goal of the enemy is no different than enemies we have faced in the past. They hate us and want to kill us, or disrupt our way of life."

    Can you please tell me a single nation-state that we have faced as an enemy that employed tactics like al Qaeda?

    Answer: None.

    "Our courts have maintained that "enemy combatants" which are not members of a state army are entitled to the same protections as official "prisoners of war"?"

    They have? Can you cite the case?

    Answer: No, because this is not true.

    "Never in history has any idealogy been destroyed by military might."

    Really? Ever hear of the Soviet Union? Or maybe Nazi Germany? Or may be Imperial Japan? Good grief. Do you OlbyLoons EVER read a history book?

    I could go on all day but there is so much wrong with what you say that it is hard to motivate myself to bother with this drivel.

    Let me just say that I do not think we should torture every person that we should capture. OK? That's idiotic and no one is proposing that. Instead of citing Colin Powerll or Peter Schweizer or some other random person that pops into your head why don't you try addressing the most salient point:

    Knowing what you know now, if we capture someone we have good reason to believe has advanced knowledge of another attack of the magnitude of 9/11 or greater and, for some reason, they refuse to provide any meaningful information about the planning of that attack (despite being plied with tea and crumpets) what would you do?

    You think you can answer a direct question with a direct answer?

    Listen you Right-wing extremists...when are you going to realize that:

    Al-Qaeda HAS RIGHTS!!!!

    When the 04 and 08 elections finally roll around, we will see which party stands up for the rights of Al-Qaeda and which party (Republicans) continues to deny them the respect they deserve.

    the only rights al-quead has is the right to die! these muslim dirtbags think thet when they die they get 70 virgins and get to meeet their -allah-allah- umphrey or whatever all we should do is arrange the meeting!

    the only rights al-queada has is the right to die! these muslim dirtbags think thet when they die they get 70 virgins and get to meeet their -allah-allah- umphrey or whatever all we should do is arrange the meeting!

    The criteria is not how would I want U.S. troops treated - unless you are proposing some moral equivalency between al Qaeda and American soldiers.

    You ask "How is article 3 vague?"

    The phrase in question is "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". Perhaps you can resolve the entire matter here and now by providing a clear definition of what "outrages upon personal dignity" means. If it's good enough I will pass it along to the President and we can move on.

    Sorry...I meant to say the 06 elections and not 04.

    We on the Left tend to get emotional when standing up for the rights of Al-Qaeda and sometimes make mistakes in our exasperation.

    When we on the Left finally take power here in America again, we will then start up a dialogue with Al-Qaeda so that we can understand and "feel their pain". Then we will finally realize that only through capitulation to their demands and finally our ultimate demise can we truly be free of terrorism.

    Well I was trying to have civilized discussion but you guys just repond to everything without thought. Your opinions are that of a partisan hack with no real poitical or historical basis to your ideas.

    First......

    Padilla case with the supreme court gave enemy combatants the right to have trials before that they could be held indefintely without one.

    Article 3...

    We have easily interpreted this part of the Geneva Convention. It has worked for us well. Why change something when there is no evidence it was not working. That is the issue. I'm sure you never once though in your life that we need to redefine the Geneva Conventions until Bush said we need to.


    Hey I admitted I was mistaken and you still attack me for it. At least I have the guts to admit these things. I still think it did not take away from my position, jsut a setting from where I was applying the position. But while I will listen to you, you just shout back "typical Olbyloon response". Yeah that is classy.


    Please tell me why we must redefine a document that has worked well for us almost 60 years.

    "Really? Ever hear of the Soviet Union? Or maybe Nazi Germany? Or may be Imperial Japan?"

    ?de?ol?o?gy (d-l-j, d-) KEY

    NOUN:
    pl. i?de?ol?o?gies
    The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
    A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.


    Uh ever hear of China or Cuba. The communist party is still powerful in the Soviet Union. The ideaology is not dead. Same with Fascism(Nazi Germany as you called it). There are facist political parties in Europe and here in the US. I am talking about an ideology. Please reread your history books. Those ideologies are not dead. You are welcome to do an internet search for either of these ideologies and you will find plenty of people out there espousing them. Good night Mr. Cox.

    Tom.

    Hoo boy...you OlbyLoons are priceless.

    You say "I admitted I was mistaken and you still attack me for it".

    If you had simply admitted you were wrong I would not have said anything other than "thanks for acknowledging your error". But you did not do that. You said you were right even if the point you made to advance your argument which is another of way of saying you were NOT wrong. What I criticized you for was for advancing some conclusion based on a claim that was not true but when it is pointed out to you that your claim is not true you simply DECLARE your conclusion is still valid without offering any alternative point to support your conclusion. In other words, you may as well have just put up a comment saying "I believe x or y". Now, you are free to do that but don't dare come on this vital blog and post what purports to be an argument for something when in reality you are just offering yet another OlbyLoon polemic masquerading as a "thoughtful" argument.

    And guess what, you don't get "points" for admitting you are wrong when you are, in fact, wrong.

    And so now you trot another "fact" to support yet another OlbyLoon argument. You say: "Padilla case with the supreme court gave enemy combatants the right to have trials before that they could be held indefintely without one."

    You actually believe this be true, right? Un-frickin-believable.

    The case you seem to think you are referencing is Padilla v. Hanft. This case was tried in the Fourth Circuit (Padilla is being held in a Navy brig in North Carolina). There are was an appeal in the case. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that President Bush had the authority to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen who fought the United States on foreign soil.

    Got that? Bush WON!

    Padilla's lawyers then appealed to the Supreme Court but in April the Supreme Court REJECTED Padilla's appeal. So, the issue of whether the President has the authority to hold a person designated an "enemy combatant" in open-ended military detention was not decided. The Supreme Court decision was based on the government's claim that the appeal was moot because the Justice Department decided to put Padilla on trial in U.S. Federal Court for terrorism-related charges and for fighting against U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

    Now, I am sure you do not want to take MY word for it so maybe you will see what TalkLeft had to say:. Jeralyn Merritt who runs TalkLeft is one of my fellow Op-Ed contributors to the Examiner.com and a reputable liberal (one of the few):

    Supreme Court Won't Hear Padilla Case
    http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014451.html

    Hmmm. Maybe she is part of the conspiracy?

    As for "ideologies", you are being absurd. The countries I mentioned were all attempting to "export" an ideology - communism, fascism, etc. - by force and those governments were "destroyed" by military might.

    Now if you want to say that fascism, for example, was not "defeated" because there are still a handful of people in the world who still extol the virtues of, say, the German or Japanese version of fasicism then you have set a very high bar indeed. In fact, so high that your entire point is meaningless.

    I don't think anyone really cares if some nut job in Karachi things the whole world should believe in the Wahabist version of Islam. We care if he has a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. See the difference?

    "Please tell me why we must redefine a document that has worked well for us almost 60 years."

    I don't know. Bush is saying that it's because "9/11 changed everything". Did it?

    Now, I can understand why you are frustrated but don't fret. We are very familiar with OlbyLoonThink here at Olbermann Watch and have VERY LOW expectations.

    Care to try again?

    This place is hysterical. The bushbots, like bushbotbobbie cox are so full of sanctimony that it defies imagination. The ability to use a thesaurus and gainsay do not a scholar make. Don’t worry, little bushbots, I will return to lurking and laughing uproariously at your midget intellects. I truly love you guys; so pathetic you’re actually funny.

    Just can't wait olbytard.. I sit with bated breath and sharpened sword. lurk all ye will and if ye feel froggy leap.

    threats of violence...de rigueur for mouth-breathing bushbots. Boring.

    I laugh when Oblowhard-berman talks and he thinks he actually is a objective unbiased reporter. He only gets parrots on his show who agree with him otherwise he will lose even a simple debate - dare he go one on one with oreilly? coulter? hannity? I doubt it. now the SPIN IS IN on his Show. At least Oreilly talks with others who disagree with him. I dont agree with Oreilly all the time, but more truth is found there over -

    Pete,

    I agree with you that the last thing Olbermann wants on his show is to air both sides of an issue, but don't think for a minute Olbermann somehow is embarrassed by this.

    Olbermann has claimed to be nonpolitical, but as far as I know he's never called himself "obective" (if you're defining objective as being even-handed in airing both sides of an issue).

    Despite his view of himself, Olbermann is a political partisan and to him objectivity is tantamount to entertaining the notion that the earth is flat. He's not going to take the risk of having some neanderthal on air who might sway some fool, no matter how many other people are on his show to rebut.

    It doesn't matter that he's supposedly a journalist, Olbermann sees himself as a member of an elite tribe who have have been activists for all that is good in modern American. He doesn't have any inclination whatsoever to understand the various bases of classical liberalism, paleo-conservatism, neo-conservatism, libertarians. It was the enlightened and activist journalist of the sixties and seventies that captured his imagination and he's still animated by that image.

    He doesn't disdain Fox News for bias, it's the direction of the bias he perceives that he dislikes. They also do things like putting Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton side-by-side on view thus conveying the notion that both have opinions equally worth airing.

    To Olbermann those who differ from him on the issues don't deserve such a thing. That the vieiws of these people have brief exposure in the MSM, and that in order to be dismissed, is all the consideration they merit.

    You Bush guys are stupid stupid heads. I can get creative and call you stupid in interesting ways. I cannot, however, dispute any of the facts that you purport. I can only misconstrue their meaning and misrepresent the context of qoutes so that I can then call you all "stupid stupid heads". I laugh at you all. My laughing is supposed to be a sign of strength, but, in reality, it is a sign of my low self-esteem and miniscule self-worth. After all, someone, somewhere in the world is suffering and it is therefore America's fault for this. Noam Chomski tells me so. At least, that is what I was told at the University. I must feel guilty and because I cannot rebutt the obvious logic that Johnny Dollar and Robert Cox aspouses; I say "you are all stupid stupid heads".

    Funny, the only thing I see you calling any of us is "stupid". Has your vocabularly failed you?

    KO is afraid to have anyone on his show with a differing opinion. Therefore he has like 5 people that appear on his show over and over. The 5 people in the world that agree with him.

    I hereby challenge KO to debate someone that disagrees with him. If he does not accept that challenge he is a chicken. BWAK...BWAK

    I'm sorry, now I am being as immature as KO himself. Statement retracted.

    No need to retract! you are right about Olbermann . He cannot and will not stand the light of dissent in his glowing orange face. he is the worst kind of chicken- a liberal chickenshit.
    But he is the new face of the "progressive" left. the liberals had to start calling themselves "progressives" because the name liberal has such a negative view.
    The new "progressives" will not take any dissent or have any dialog. In their little minds they are right and anybody who does not agree with them is stupid. They think that better than half the country is dumb because they voted for Bush. They cannot get over the '04 election. They are just incredulous that Kerry lost. They are just sad angry sore little losers who have no real plan for America other than anything but Bush. Well I ammend that statement to include that the democrat party has been hijacked by the far -far left and that socialism is an unspoken policy or at least an policy that they won't admit to.
    If you question my accuracy just watch C-span sometime when they have a far left group.

    Anyone remember Schuster swearing up and down on Countdown that Karl Rove's indictment was going to happen "any time" and was inevitable? Never saw Schuster or Olbermann explain exactly how it was that didn't happen. It would seem to me that any sane-minded, rational thinker would have deduced right then and there that there was something very wrong with the commentators/guests/sources used on Countdown. I think that his audience prefers to live in their own little world where reality and things like facts are overlooked, as in his witness diatribe on the WTC center site. What happened there to prevent rebuilding before now isn't Bush's fault as Olbermann and his loons would like you to believe, but instead the product of a lot of fighting between a lot of different parties, none of them the federal government or the president. But the loons go on believing the lies and misleading statements peddled as factual that Olbermann and his five guests repeat over and over. No wonder they are so divorced from reality, they believe he's telling the truth.

    I hereby challenge KO to debate someone that disagrees with him. If he does not accept that challenge he is a chicken. BWAK...BWAK
    *************************************************
    I would nominate Christopher Hitchens to debate KO..that would be fun.

    And just to make it fair we'll do it afer Hitch has hit a couple of bars beforehand..but even drunk as a skunk Hitch would send KO running home to his mother. :)

    I would PAY to see Hitchens v. Olbermann

    riverdog:

    "They think that better than half the country is dumb because they voted for Bush."

    Um...you need to check your math. Bush got 50.7% of the vote in 2004 and, the last time I checked, 50.7% does not equal "better than half".

    As for your claims that we're still bitter about 2004, you're damn right we're bitter. Considering that if Kerry had won because of a state where the supervisor of elections also was the head of Kerry's campaign in that state (as Ken Blackwell was for Bush in Ohio), Republicans would be screaming bloody murder.

    But because it was YOUR guy who benefited, who cares? Who cares that an Ohio State Senator (a Republican State Senator to boot) asked Blackwell to deny Diebold the contract for voting machines because of security concerns? Or that Maryland and California both have decertified Diebold machines for elections because of worries that the machines can be tampered with?

    from anon 5:33: Um...you need to check your math. Bush got 50.7% of the vote in 2004 and, the last time I checked, 50.7% does not equal "better than half".

    Hmmmm..... another example of liberals being way smarter than us conservative rubes. Must be that "new math" (or perhaps I should say "fuzzy math").
    Checking ain't what it used to be. /sarcasm

    Bob,

    Poor Olbermann was once sorely traumatized by Hitchens to the point of apologizing to his audience back in the days of The Big Show.

    The verbal fracas was between Hitchens and a Democratic pollster.

    Keith has cited this hideous experience as the reason he does not present debate from opposing guests.

    It would be progress if he'd occasionally have ONE conservative guest who would offer up a counter argument for the way Olbermann, himself, has framed an issue.

    where I come from 50.7% is better than half. Is there some confusion about that?

    anon 5:33pm, your whining about Blackwell might be more compelling if you could provide some context. Is what happened in Ohio with the Blackwell unusual? He was (is) the Attorney General, right? So you mean that what of his contitutional duties in Ohio was to certify the winner of the elction, right? I recall some similar "outrage" in Florida over with Katherine Harris is Florida in 2000.

    Educate us, over the past few presidential elections how many times was the person who was charged under the constitution with certifying the results of an election also the person who ran the state campaign for one of the two major party candidates?

    Also, is there something inherently wrong in this? Should we have a law that says the person who has the legal responsibility to certify an election should not be allowed to run a state campaign for a Presidential candidate? What about when the person who is running for election ALSO holds this constitutional role?

    I also second the idea of Hitchens "debating" Olberdouche. After the thrashing Hitchens gave Chomski, I'm sure dealing with the orange one would be like Michael Jordan playing a 9 year old in a game of HORSE.


    I did not know about the previous Olbermann V. Hitchens clash. I am frantically searching for video.

    The poll thing is cute. A Hitchens-Olbermann discussion would be interesting to say the least.

    But for sheer entertainment value nothing would be funnier than a Olbermann vs Coulter "smack-down"...

    I did not know about the previous Olbermann V. Hitchens clash. I am frantically searching for video.
    *************************************************
    I didn't either...and he blames Hitch for why he dosen't allow opposing views on his show?

    Man ol'Hitch must of really pushed his button. :)

    Robert Cox:
    "where I come from 50.7% is better than half. Is there some confusion about that?"

    It is when people say it like Bush won in a landslide, as most of you do when you speak about it.

    Maybe you are picking up on the notion put forward by various pundits and members of the MSM that because Bush did not win in a landslide he was required to govern from the center.

    Welcome to democracy where if you win, you win.

    BTW, as we try to be reader-friendly here, I went ahead and put up a poll on who folks would like to see KO debate.

    If people like it I may have other polls in the future.

    It wasn't Olbermann vs Hitchens, it was Hitchens vs another guest who was also appearing on Keith's "The Big Show".

    Here's a blurb about it from Salon:

    http://www.salon.com/media/1998/10/22media.html

    Robert Cox:
    "Maybe you are picking up on the notion put forward by various pundits and members of the MSM that because Bush did not win in a landslide he was required to govern from the center."

    Well, why the hell not? It was pundits like Rush Limbaugh and other righties who said the same thing about Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

    Rush Limbaugh wanted Clinton to govern from "the center"? :D

    Hey "I speak for the left":

    You're kidding right?

    "Welcome to democracy where if you win, you win."

    I don't think that sentiment is any way inherent to democracy as a concept. You could equally substitute anything from a military putsch to a ping-pong game. Precision.

    The reason you might have expected GWB to govern from the center is that he pretty much campaigned on being a consensus builder with the meme "I am a uniter not a divider." I also think if you want to quote the popular tally from 2004 as proof of a "win" then you would have to concede 2000 as a "loss." You should have gone with the standard and more correct rejoinder about the electoral college being the vote that mattered.

    "Should we have a law that says the person who has the legal responsibility to certify an election should not be allowed to run a state campaign for a Presidential candidate?"

    Your point about the election rigging cutting both ways is probably valid. The clear answer to this question above however is obviously yes...and I think a second grader could figure that out. I assume you agree on that.

    >>>>>>Please tell me why we must redefine a document that has worked well for us almost 60 years."

    >>>>I don't know. Bush is saying that it's because "9/11 changed everything". Did it?

    At the risk of totally offending you again, no, it definitely didn't. The electorate may have "distilled to jelly with the act of fear," as Horatio would have it, and jelly is very easy to mold. I think with the aid of a few prominant Republicans, we are now beginning to slough off our moral cowardice and regrow our backbone. I do fret a bit that this morninig McCain seems to be switching subtly from his old line of "we don't torture because of who we are" to "we don't torture because we don't want our enemies to." This may be a sign of some compromise with evil in the offing.

    Kudos on your piece in the Texas paper. I couldn't agree with you and Holmes more forcefully that the right to free speech and association cannot be constitutionally curtailed in the face of vague and immaterial threats. Our rights are something for which we should all be willing to risk a bit, and we should never encourage the notion that safety is categorically more important than freedom.

    ============
    "Welcome to democracy where if you win, you win."
    I don't think that sentiment is any way inherent to democracy as a concept.
    ================
    I am SURE you don't!


    "The reason you might have expected GWB to govern from the center is that he pretty much campaigned on being a consensus builder with the meme "I am a uniter not a divider."

    I know it might make your head explode but many conservatives are very unhappy with Bush because he is TOO centrist. Bush has done little to curb government spending, gave MORE power to the Dept. of Education instead of abolishing it, has failed to open Alaska to drilling, not made tax cuts permanent, etc. When you are as far out on the left as you, everyone looks like a right-winger. The fact is that Bush, like Clinton, is been largely centrist in his policies where centrist means doing what most people support not agreeing with your left-wing agenda.

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

    "if you want to quote the popular tally from 2004 as proof of a "win" then you would have to concede 2000 as a "loss"

    That might make sense if I had ever quoted popular tally from 2004 as proof of a "win". As I did not then you are point makes no sense. All I did was make a statement that is self-evident to all but the looniest of OlbyLoons - that 50.7% is "better than half". Sorry, but the laws of mathematics do not cease to exist because you don't like the outcome of an election.

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

    "Should we have a law that says the person who has the legal responsibility to certify an election should not be allowed to run a state campaign for a Presidential candidate?"

    Your point about the election rigging cutting both ways is probably valid. The clear answer to this question above however is obviously yes.

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

    Thanks for agreeing on the first point but you did not addess my entire question: "Should we have a law that says the person who has the legal responsibility to certify an election should not be allowed to run a state campaign for a Presidential candidate? What about when the person who is running for election ALSO holds this constitutional role?"

    Think hard about that because if you are for disqualifying people who certify the results of an election from running in that election, you are, of course, saying that you think that Al Gore should not have been allowed to run for President in 2000. It is the constitutional role of the President of the Senate (i.e., the Vice President of the United States) to certify the results of a presidential election; Al Gore certified George W. Bush's election. So, I guess it really wouldn't matter how many votes Gore got in 2000 because he should not have been allowed to run in the first place. Right?

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

    As for 9/11 "changing everything" or not, you have gotten to the nub of the issue. If you believe that 9/11 changed things you are going to be more supportive of Bush; if you think it does not change things you are going to not only oppose Bush but see his response to 9/11 as an attempt to use that event to fool Americans into giving up their liberties. This is why these discussions tend to veer into shouting matches. It is my belief that 9/11 demonstrated that we are facing an enemy that is fundamentally different than any enemy we have faced - there is no moral or physical deterrent, they are not part of the world community (a nation-state, the UN, EU, or whatever), and there is no limit to the amount of death and destruction they are prepared to inflict and no limit on to when, how or on whom they will carry out their attacks. To me that is even different than Hezbollah and Hamas because at least there they have some goals and are responsive to some degree to world opinion. When you add this to the that there are "rogue" nations out there who have built (North Korea) or are (Iran)/were (Iraq)attempting to develop nuclear weapons you have a recipe for the next 9/11 being the detonation of a nuke on U.S. soil.

    If you believe the storyline of Tom Clancy's "Sum of All Fears" is total fiction and could never really happen fine; I recall another book he wrote where terrorists flew a plane into the Capitol Building during the State of the Union address decapitating the entire U.S. government. Somehow, after 9/11, that seems somewhat plausible to me as does "Sum".

    The questions is whether the threats we face are "vague and immaterial" or not. If you feel that to be the case then, of course, your argument makes sense. I would argue that have a rather odd, detached view of what happened on 9/11 - that somehow it was not really that bad. I think you called it a "blip", sort of like a traffic accident.

    What I do like about your posting here is that you are articulating something that is the premise on which the left bases its rhetoric - that 9/11 was no big deal, that the threat from terrorism is exaggerated and that "we should never encourage the notion that safety is categorically more important than freedom".

    You asked before so let me now answer. As some long-time readers of this site know, of the roughly 3,000 people killed on 9/11, I personally knew about 100 of them. I used to work as a bond broker on Wall Street, in the Merrill Lynch building which is adjacent to the WTC site and is connected via tunnels. I commuted through the subway station beneath the WTC every day. I knew many of the guys at Cantor and I.C.E. who were killed. Three of my classmates from high school were killed. Two dozen of my neighbors were killed. Classmates from college and grad school were killed. Beyond the 100 that I personally knew - some of whom I was close to, others not so much - every single person I know in the area where I live (the suburbs of New York City) lost someone they were close to whether it be my kids soccer coach, to my son's kindergarten teacher, to the guy who sells my coffee in the morning. All of them. My former bond broker colleagues have told me of listening to their "squawk boxes" crackle as the phones on the other end melted. I don't even want to recount some of the conversations that took place that day which were recounted to me first hand.

    On that morning, I stood at the corner of 34th and Broadway and watched those towers burn and then fall. What I recall most is not so much seeing them fall but the sound and vibration - like a jet roaring overhead. It was not until I got to my office that morning that I wa even able to comprehend what I had just seen.

    In 1993, I worked for a brokerage firm in Chicago; our offices in New York were in the towers and my co-workers in that office suffered smoke inhalation during the first attack. I was often in and out of the office and it may just as well been that I was there that day; luckily I was not.

    When working in Israel during the time of the intifada, I was shot at by a Palestinian sniper while being driven in a taxi near the West Bank.

    So, for me, the threat of terrorism is not quite so abstract or something so easily dismissed.

    I think if you asked them today, my friends, colleagues, neighbors and classmates would gladly trade some "freedom" for "security".

    Unfortunately, you can't.

    They're dead.

    Here you go misleading your readers again. First this show was advertised as replay of his special comment which was just one segment. It was never advertised as the whole show. KO also mentioned that he was taking the the quote "it is unacceptable to think" out of context. Looks like you guys are being what you spend so much saying Keith is on this site, full of bullshit."


    Are you insane? Really? So he mentioned he was taking it out of context, he put it in a completely different context and used it. Please.


    By the way, Torture works. Not saying brutal beating and whatnot, but cohersive interrogation, the basic unpleasant/Pleasant punichment reward system works. If one goes into it under the simplest "What do you know?", no of course it doesn't work. But the key is that the subject doesn't know what the interrogator knows, therefor the interrogator has the subject fill in blanks, among known blanks to keep track of lies. As the old saying goes, "Tangled web we weave..." lies change, facts stay the same.

    Robert

    How 'bout a poll asking whether Olbermann will condemn the Pope for his benign comments or instead point out that the Islamists have gone wild by threatening the Pope's life? I see him blaming the Pope first, then commenting on the reaction in muted tones.

    kfk,

    Most likely because Keith, like most of the media, did not bother to read the actual address. Instead, the media has allowed the radical islamicist to frame the issue. Which is yet another example of how the media is used by our enemies to advance their agenda.

    Just watch, pretty soon we will get a "did muslims go to far?" stories and then a "did the media get it right" stories and then a few "what the Pope actually said" stories.

    So, a few burned churches and a dead nun later the media will pat itself on the back because they gave all sides an airing in covering the story.

    When I see these "burning effigies" and "mulsims riled up after Friday services" video I always look in the background. And sure enough, once again, you see a handful of people jumping up and down and many more people just standing around, talking to each other and otherwise passively observing the spectable.

    I've seen the same video of 10 people burning an "effigy" of the Pope about 100 times - just like we saw, as Don Rumsfeld once noted, the same guy carrying off the same vase in Baghdad about 1,000 times as part of stories of how the Baghdad Museums were being "looted". Setting aside whether the looting of a museum is to be a military priority when our troops are still engaged in battle, it turns out the media got that "looting" story completely wrong (surprise!); most of the stuff was stored away before the war by the curators or stolen by Saddam and his pals.

    What is funny is that the news outlets have all sorts of policies about the ethics of how they use photos and video; that they cannot "crop" images to distort the context of what is happening. And yet we see this type of thing time and again.

    And these "journalists" wonder why they are not trusted.

    I have a feeling were going to get another "special comment" where KO will lecture the Pope about saying bad things about Islam.

    I'll just let the small amount of that first completely stupid stuff slide. I'm guessing it's calibrated to cheapen you enough to be acceptable for TV or something. It is a strange counterpoise to an otherwise moving response. But just to let you know on this one:

    "So, I guess it really wouldn't matter how many votes Gore got in 2000 because he should not have been allowed to run in the first place. Right?"

    Right. The arrangement of elections and certification should be the job of the judiciary. This is a flaw, plain and simple. It's becomming more obvious as the political science of getting exactly 50.1% of the voters is being perfected and elections are promising to be closer. States are starting to move on this matter.

    Then there is method. If I say that 3000 dead by terrorism is no more a tragedy than 3000 dead by auto accidents, you recast it as "you said 9-11 was sort of like a traffic accident." I think that says everything about both your methods and motivation. That is a hysterical, political response. What galls me about this disingenuous imprecision is that we are both talking about personal tragedies, and you still won't drop the politics.

    Now on to the meat.

    I can understand that 9-11 is far more personal for you than for me or about 99.9% of the rest of America, and I'm sorry for you. Maybe in those moments that followed 9-11 where Bush was universally seen as such a strong leader because of his words, a different kind of sympathy and loyalty was formed for you such that you are genuinely personally offended by criticism of him and his approach. If so, I'm sorry. It would explain some of your invective and accusations, and may mean more are to follow.

    The plain fact is that a lot of people all over the political spectrum can rather plainly see that this administration's policies regarding terrorism, especially as they regard ham-fistedly trying to remake the middle east on the cheap, and at the same time relaxing our moral standards to "fit the enemy," are what will make incidents like 9-11 more likely, not less. It will happen, and there will be no accountability. I know that as plainly as you seem to know the opposite. And just as you think I'm not taking terrorism "seriously," I think you are taking it both fictionally and foolishly--like a person who stubbs his toe on a tree and proceeds to shatter his foot by kicking it over and over. Takes that stump very seriously. And no, this does not mean I am a crazed leftist stump-sympatizer.

    There is no room for "revenge" here. There is too much at stake to have tactics and strategy in this matter clouded by emotion. If you say 9-11 changed EVERYTHING, you are not competent in my opinion to lead the effort against terrorism. All 9-11 changed was the emotion, because the foreign terrorists finally got one over on us in a big spectacular way, in a moment of blindness. The emotional reaction to this event is what I argue against. It is a cold, technical problem that needs to be addressed coldly, methodically, and continuously. There is nothing that is going to make it go away. There is no utopia you can devise or bring about where we will not always be faced with it. It is not a war, and we cannot win. We will always be "swatting flies." We can reduce the odds or increase the odds. That is all. Currently I think we are increasing the odds.

    >>>>>"I think if you asked them today, my friends, colleagues, neighbors and classmates would gladly trade some "freedom" for "security".

    Unfortunately, you can't.

    They're dead."
    >>>>>>

    That doesn't stop me from asking the question any more than asking what Thomas Jefferson would have wanted. He's dead too. I am truly very sorry for your losses on 9-11. From the posts of your's that I read, you seem like a decent person, certainly more intelligent and probably no more flawed than the next guy. And senseless death makes me at least as sick as the next guy. But if you will remember back, the question I asked was not the one you have answered. It was quite specifically how you could find a giant memorial to this giant tragic death-fest "inspiring," and specifically more inspiring than the deluded maniacs in the cult of death that perpetrated it, who love that event more than their own children.

    If I had to derive an answer from what you have written here, it would be "fear of constant danger and death." That is your theme. I don't find that inspiring. Politically effective? Yes, it is the strongest political motivator in history. Especially when there are gory details about phones melting and so forth. But inspiring? No.

    Here's hoping we quit kicking the stump in November.

    Here's hoping we quit kicking the stump in November.

    Actually, life lost due to a violent and murderous attack IS more tragic and ghastly than life lost due to unintentional accident. But it's certainly self-serving to argue otherwise when you're assailing opponents for having conjured up an out-of-proportion emotional frenzy in the public as a political wedge.

    Too, I sure wish the possibility of our not "kicking the stump" any longer was predicated on a cold, methodical, and unemotional plan fully articulated by the Democrats, instead of being predicated on the fact that "utopia" has not sprung up in Iraq in three years...

    Anon,
    Let me give you a history lesson since you're oblivious about our Founding Fathers. First, the Founders disagreed. To your points about the Constitution and what the Founders would do" you should try reading the Constitution and history books sometime. If we sign and ratify an international, it has force as law according to the Constitution. You ask where the NSA wiretapping program is mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? Where does it mention a President can wiretap Americans' phone calls? The Constitution was an enumeration of powers we the people delegated to the government. Bush doesn't have the authority to wiretap our phone calls without a warrant, according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Madison and other liberals argued against a Bill of Rights (Federalist #84 written by Hamilton for example). They argued a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution only delegated specified powers to the goverment and all other powers were maintained by the people. Many Founders saw a standing army as the biggest enemy to our freedom. Jefferson wanted the Bill of Rights to include a provision calling for no standing army. You might also want to check out the argument over the aliens and sediton bills and events surrounding them. Jefferson and Madison were criticized for being Francophiles and helping our foreign enemies. The Jeffersonians defended the French during the XYZ affair (they solicited bribes from American officials). Jefferson and his followers also thought aliens (foreigners Hamilton and Adams thought were anti-American) should be allowed to stay and live under our rules. They denied the right of the federal government to eject these foreigners from our lands. Essentially, you would be shocked at how radical and how liberal Jefferson and his followerss were. Did you know Jefferson called for legislatures to help ensure equal distributions of property? Did you know Jefferson thought the Constitution should be torn up and redone every 19 years? I know you're shacoked by all this and thinking it can't possibly be true because Rush never once mentioned any of it. Do yourself a favor dittohead. Go read some history books and get back to me.

    Since the Supreme Court justices are just "men in black robes" I suggest you buy a black robe and apply for the job. I'm sure you'll be nominated and appointed with no problem.

    Ask John McCain about the Geneva Conventions and torture? OK I will. "His decision to take a stand on this issue is not based on a political calculation," said Eileen McMenamin, his spokeswoman. "He believes this is the right thing to do to protect American servicemen and women, and our values." "We are not saying the CIA cannot carry out a programme," Mr McCain said yesterday. "We are saying it cannot amend the Geneva conventions, which calls for the kind of treatment of prisoners that fall under Common Article 3." Mr Snow said that Michael Hayden, the CIA director, had concluded that under the McCain legislation, "the CIA programme would have to be shut down".
    Mr McCain criticised Mr Hayden, saying: "He's trying to protect his reputation at the risk of America's reputation." Just for the fun of it I asked Colin Powell too. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 [of the Geneva conventions] would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk," Mr Powell wrote in a letter to Mr McCain released yesterday. It kinda sounds like McCain and Powell might be against Bush on this. Well better luck next time.

    Before you argue any further about the Founders, I have quotes from them too.

    Colbert what you know about the US Constitution could fit along nicely with your brain on the head of a pin you codescending little leftard.
    Maybe if YOU could learn to read then you could go back and read your own ludicrous unintelligble ,incongruous, small minded little ramblings. Maybe you could see just how ignorant and stupid you sound. Would'nt you be happier going to some leftist anti-American websites like democratic underground or the daily kos where you could commune mentally with the likes of other kos-munninsts?
    What's next colbert? are you going to make a case that the founding fathers were all closeted gay- abortion doctors who envisioned America as a Godless socialist utopia? Maybe you should read the REAL history of America not some politcally correct feminist revisionists drivel that you seem to like to use to back up your "points". Maybe you should just learn to read without your liberal blinders on. Maybe you should just learn to read period. give it up colbert the Founding Fathers were not socialists no matter what you say and if they were here to read your crap and defend themselves they would give you the smack down you so desperatley deserve. idiot.

    To scooter, riverdog, everyone criticizing criticism,

    Are Judge Napolitano, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, William F. Buckley, Frances Fukayama, Bill Kristol, the eight generals who called for Rummy to go, Colin Powell, John Warner, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, etc. all terrorist-loving, America haters who want to surrender? They all have criticized Bush's policies in the war on terror and war in Iraq.

    Here are some links which describe how badly Bush is doing defending the homeland, from airports to seaports to rails to chemical, biological, nuclear facilities to the borders.
    http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/homelandsecurity.html
    http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/airptsec.html
    http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/terrorism.html
    http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/oif.html
    http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/transportationsecurity.html
    In addition to that, we all know the horrendous marks the Bush received from the 9/11 Commission for not following their recommendations.

    The U.S. military's top legal officers on Thursday criticized a White House plan for military tribunals to try foreign terrorism suspects because it would allow convictions based on evidence never seen by the defendants.
    The military judge advocates general, senior legal advisers to their branches of the armed forces, told Congress the plan failed to give suspects enough legal rights because it restricted their access to evidence.

    I've already brought up what our military says about the major problems in Afghanistan and Iraq so won't get into that again.

    None of this is liberals talking. This is all from the government, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, conservative commentators, and the U.S. military.

    riverdog,
    If you're correct about the Founding Fathers why can't you refute my statements with facts? Everything I claimed Jefferson and his followers advocated is true. Which history books should I read? Give me some books and authors? I bet I know. Include the ones who claim the Civil War was a barbaric attack by the North on the innocent South and the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional.

    Mr Cox

    Your post @ 12.07 PM brought me back to that day. I had never been in or even seen the Twin Towers in person. However that day left me a different person. Never again will I feel as safe or confident of the future.

    Your loss must have been overwhelming. I am glad you have chosen that loss to inspire you to rally as many of us as you can to fight back and defeat these animals.

    I used to be ashamed of myself sometimes because I had NO respect for President Clinton at all. Compared to the way many feel and speak of President Bush, I was a piker. I think that many of these dissenters hate him so much they would, given a choice, rather see Bush Cheny, Rove and Rumsfeld tried and executed than the islmofascists that we are locked in a fatal contest with tried and executed.

    Mr. Cox, I hope you will set up your 12.07 post on the home page so that it can be referred back to by those of us who are inspired by it.

    Janet Hawkins

    here is a site for you colbert ' www.shutthefuckupyoustupidleftard.com
    Yeah when conservatives criticize they do it to help America win when you leftists criticize it is to see America lose.
    When conservatives criticize they do it to help the President and the country win the war on terrorism.
    when leftist scum like you colbert criticize it is to only try and help the far left democrats win the next elections.
    so what are we to do colbert, you pass yourself off as a fuckin know it all. tell us your brilliant plan. Show us that you are not only an "expert" on the US Constitution but what a brilliant military tactician you are.
    I am not criticising criticism I am criticising YOUR criticism and your motives for that criticism. Do you really care about the well being of the troops, the war on terror, and the well being of your country or are you criticisms soley intende to attack the President and wish him failure because he is not of YOUR politcal persuasion and party?
    It may not be "liberals talking" but liberals are sure using it to their percived advantage in an election year. A failure of the President and a failure of this country is only a "win" for liberals. Colbert you are disingenuous, manipulative, opportunistic, misinformed and blatantly partisan and anti- American. and I stand by my saying that you are Anti -American because you put the well being of your political ideology over the well being of your country.

    Janet Hawkins,
    I couldn't help noticing you didn't respond to my post. You only responded with invective against people who attacked conservatives. I asked legitimate questions other conservatives have asked but you never answered. Why is that? All I've seen from you is attacks on liberals. If that's all you're here for fine. But your first post purported to be an attempt to have a real disussion of the issues.

    Colbert says

    "To scooter, riverdog, everyone criticizing criticism"

    You need to distinguish the difference between those here who have criticised someone's political stance and the repercussions of that stance, from those who have argued that certain criticism is an attempt to stifle speech simply based upon the status of the person issuing the criticism.

    Cecelia,
    I meant "everyone" to include the people in this thread who claimed anyone criticizing Bush wanted to surrender to the terrorists. I was simply pointing out that many well-known conservatives have also critized Bush.

    riverdog,
    Hitler would be proud of you. Would Shinseki be a military tactician? He said we needed more troops but wasn't listened to. Might McCain know something about the military? He says we need more troops. Might the eight generals who called for Rummy to go be military tacticians? You want a plan? How about we put more troops into Afghanistan (however many our generals say are needed) and try to kill the Taliban and al Qaeda? How about we tell Musharraf that not allowing us into the provinces of Pakistan to track down al Qaeda members is unacceptable. Whatever threats and persuasion Bush used after 9/11 to get Pakistan to pretend to help should work again. But this time we use U.S. or NATO troops instead of relying on warlords and Pakistanis who weren't into getting al Qaeda. If the terrorists will follow us anywhere, they'll follow us into Afghanistan and we can kill them all there. If the Iraqis want to kill themselves over some difference of religious understanding, have fun. We can't stop them anyway and if they're that beholden to religion they're useless and should be dead. Then we develop alternative fuels, raise CAFE standards and give incentives to become energy independent ASAP. In the meantime, we get control of our borders and do real homeland security. What is your plan riverdog? "Stay the course?"

    colbert your idea of a "discussion" is telling us all how smart your are or how smart you think you are. Now you come across as all diminutive and submissive and even try a vain attempt at being nice and offering an attempt at what you call "real discussion" . To which I say bullshit! yeah Colbert and all I have seen from you is attacks on the President, conservatives and of course common sense.
    Hey dipstick! the site is called olbermannwatch.com. in my humble opinion with a name like that it is designed to criticise and attack liberals, especially condescending liberals like you who come here and spew your bile. You are good at telling us all how smart you are but pretty piss poor at SHOWING us how smart you are. You spew invectives and demeaning innuendos but then start whining like a little kid when I get all tribal on your ass.
    You are just like your hero olbermann. You cannot stand the real and bright light of true discussion. Your idea of a "discussion" , as proved in most of your past posts is just ridiculing everything that is not "smart" enought to agree with your liberal worldview.

    riverdog,
    Nuance isn';t your strongpoint. I responded to Janet Hawkins talking about having a real discussion because she came off as reasonable at first. All I've ever read from you is anyone who disagrees with Bush is anti-American. Joe Scarborough wrote an op-ed in the Washigton Post that slams Rpublicans and Bush. You better go censor him.
    Of course you want all liberals to stop posting here. You aren't smart enough to debate us. All you have are Republican talking points and Rushspeak. You've tried arguing the Founders are conservatives and founded a Christian nation but haven't given any proof to back it up. I listed concrete policies the Founders advocated. I've described how the Constitution was formed and why we have the rights we do. I explained Jefferson and many Founders were Deists. You have no facts to back up any of your assertions. All you have is rhetoric. I'm sure you expect that to shut me up and are astonished when I can quote the Founders and explain what they stood for with actual facts. I know you want me to leave because you feel overwhelmed at my extreme intelligence and can't argue back.

    My only objective is WINNING. if that takes more troops and escalation so be it. WE WIN.
    You say Hitler would have been proud me you little shit? Hitler would have loved YOU. With tacticians and Americian apologists like you Hitler and the Japs would have won WW2.
    what's your plan ? just surrender? Yeah maybe a traitorous nitwit like Kerry would be the answer or maybe Gore? yeah he would not let the troops use their tanks and Humvees beacuse they are not emission compliant.
    tell me colbert do you really care about winning?

    Colbert,

    From what I've read the remarks about some critics wanting to surrender to terrorists have been narrowly made to very specific critics indeed... but I'll assume you are aware of the distinctions that I've made, anyway.

    riverdog,
    Kerry won three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. What did Bush do? Tell us about Bush's war heroics. Hitler hated decent just like you do, riverdog. Fox News' Brian Kilmeade and his Fox Friends' cohosts claimed our government should be able to censor the media. In fact, he called for pre-approval of the media by the government. Do you agree with that? That sounds like Hitler. I gave you my plan for winning. Can you read? You seemed to be commenting on it, then asked if I have a plan. Bush opposed armor for our troops. He sent them in to die. How do you feel about that?

    You've already admitted the Bill of Rights should be discarded. That is the most anti-American thing I've ever heard. You have no idea what this country is all about. You have the same ideals as the terrorists. You and Osama are one and the same. You're both anti-freedom, religious zealots.

    You wrote:

    "If I say that 3000 dead by terrorism is no more a tragedy than 3000 dead by auto accidents, you recast it as "you said 9-11 was sort of like a traffic accident." I think that says everything about both your methods and motivation. That is a hysterical, political response. What galls me about this disingenuous imprecision is that we are both talking about personal tragedies, and you still won't drop the politics."

    I have no idea why you think restating something your said is a "hysterical, political response". You did make precisely this comparison (actually you said, for some reason 30,000 traffic deaths - maybe that a typo) did you not? But now you think it is "disingenuous" of me to note that in my reply. Why? You DID say this, did you not?

    As for Bush and my being "genuinely personally offended by criticism of him and his approach", I happen to believe that his response to the 9/11 attacks has been the correct response. I had thought that our approach to dealing with the rise of regional powers (North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China, Pakistan, India, etc.) and terrorism after the fall of the Soviet Union was wrong for many years and that what we are doing today (going on the offensive) is what we should have been doing for the past 15 years. That's not some irrational response to 9/11 or my supposed "bonding" with President Bush as you seem to imagine.

    I have been a subscriber to Foreign Affairs and The Economist for many years. I have attended CFR meetings. I have lived, worked and travelled in countries around the world. I have consulted to foreign governments and done a fair amount of writing on global politics and economic interdependencies. I have a graduate degree in economics from the University of Chicago. I read a great deal and live in New York where I have had the pleasure of knowing many people from different parts of the world.

    In other words, my views are not as "knee jerk" as you seem to want to think. I was studying and discussing the low grade civil war in Yemen and the rise of Wahabism - and the implications for Saudi Arabia, the broader middle east and globally - long before that morphed into what became the al Qaeda jihad. Long before you had even heard of bin Laden. 9/11 did not cause me to FORM an opinion but confirmed a long-held opinion that proved to be correct: that if we did not confront wahabism we would come to regret it.

    You wrote "I know that as plainly as you seem to know the opposite."

    Perhaps, but this difference is that I know what I am talking about and, so far, I see no reason to believe that you do.

    You wrote:

    "If you say 9-11 changed EVERYTHING, you are not competent in my opinion to lead the effort against terrorism"

    I addressed the previously and you chose to ignore it. I will simply repeat what I said earlier and hope you will address yourself to what I say and not what you imagine:

    It is my belief that 9/11 demonstrated that we are facing an enemy that is fundamentally different than any enemy we have faced - there is no moral or physical deterrent, they are not part of the world community (a nation-state, the UN, EU, or whatever), and there is no limit to the amount of death and destruction they are prepared to inflict and no limit on to when, how or on whom they will carry out their attacks. To me that is even different than Hezbollah and Hamas because at least there they have some goals and are responsive to some degree to world opinion. When you add this to the that there are "rogue" nations out there who have built (North Korea) or are (Iran)/were (Iraq)attempting to develop nuclear weapons you have a recipe for the next 9/11 being the detonation of a nuke on U.S. soil.

    You wrote: "The emotional reaction to this event is what I argue against. It is a cold, technical problem that needs to be addressed coldly, methodically, and continuously."

    That's a "great" analysis. Too bad it does not MEAN anything. It's funny how you liberals like to criticize those who disagree with you as failing to see the "nuance" and seeing things in black and white yet your arguments are always couched in black and white terms. In this case, it can't be that there would be an emotional reaction to the 9/11 attacks five years ago that would then motivate executing a cold, methodical strategy to effect a response because you are either emotional OR cold, technical and methodical. Even more strange is how your earlier posts you blithely dismiss the response to the 9/11 attacks and characterize those attacks as no different than fatalities from traffic accidents but now say that there needs to be a continuous response. Make up your mind.

    You wrote: "It is not a war, and we cannot win. We will always be 'swatting flies.'"

    I am sure at the MoveOn.org meetup that sounds like a profound thought but in the real world that does not exactly lay the basis for a game plan now does it? You may not like it but the fact is that we have killed or captured most of the al Qaeda leadership from 9/11, we have killed and captured many AQ operatives and leaders, we have disrupted many planned attacks, we have taken away the AQ training bases in Afghanistan, choked off a great deal of the AQ funding. I would expect that there is plenty going on that we do not know about as well. And, knock wood, there have been further attacks in the United States. Now, I know you liberals like to come up with all sorts of explanations as why none of this matters but all this seems kind of important to me.
    This, of course, leaves out Iraq but since Iraq is not "really" part of the "war on terror" (and there is really no "war") we can set that aside, right?

    You wrote: "if you will remember back, the question I asked was not the one you have answered. It was quite specifically how you could find a giant memorial to this giant tragic death-fest "inspiring," and specifically more inspiring than the deluded maniacs in the cult of death that perpetrated it, who love that event more than their own children."

    Actually, I do "remember back". You did not ASK a question, you made a statement. What you said, QUITE SPECIFICALLY, was "I think those two inspiring shafts of light they've got there now must be more inspiring to the terrorists and the NY Power Authority than they are to anyone else. When are we going to quit acting like crazed victims and stop making a fetish of our "terrible suffering?" I guess the answer to that is "when people quit seeing a way to make a profit off of it.""

    Apparently even you are not prepared to defend THAT statement because you keep going out of your way to distance yourself from it. If you look at what you wrote more carefully and how I responded you will see that I never said anything about finding any memorial "inspiring". Those were your words contained in a straw-man you put forward, remember? And no matter how many times you keep try to stick them in my mouth I am not going to let you do it. Why don't you try stand by what you say and when you are purporting to quote me use my actual words?

    Now you compound that by "deriving" an answer to a question you never asked about something I never said to conclude that I must favor memorializing "fear of constant danger and death."

    All this while propounding the notion that your opinions on these matters are heartfelt while mine are borne out of political expediency. And you wonder why I think you are an OlbyLoon.

    You just outed yourself...again.

    PS, and to all you OlbyLoons out there, why don't you do what I do and simply copy/paste words from previous posts. It serves no purpose to paraphrase someone when the actual words are right there in the same comment thread. Copy and paste, people. Copy and paste!!!

    Colbert you are a legend in your own mind. I trounced you on the founders and their intent and you did not like it because it did not fit into your little liberal mind. You are good at olbermannspeak but nit smart enough to formulate your own thoughts. Your hatred for Bush shines thru your every sentence.
    You proved nothing about the founders. I do not know what liberal textbook or liberal community college professor you got your illegitimate ideology from but you prove your ignorance well. You cannot tell me why you belive that every ammendment to the Costitution is an "individual" right except the second ammendment. Go ahead and tell me that the founders intended that abortion or so called gay "marriage" or any other liberal causes were intended when the founders wrote the Constitution. Tell me that the Founders would approve of the type of socialism that is the platform of today's democrat party.
    You even used slavery as an issue and you did not even know that Linclon was a republican!
    in closing you say: "I know you want me to leave because you feel overwhelmed at my extreme intelligence and can't argue back." No you have not any "extreme intelligence" ( what kind of idiot would even think of writing that about himself???) and no it's not because I can't argue back- i have proven yopu and your motives and your information wrong every time.
    I don't want you to leave for any other reasons except that you are conceited, condescending, narciccistic little a--hole.

    The press should be censored only in the interest of national security just like it has been in every war this country has ever fought.
    Show me ( you do know how to cut and past don't you mr. "extreme inelligence"?) wher I ever said that the Bill Of Rights should be discarded!! It is you who wants to re-write and re-interpet ( and thus effectively discard) the BOR. You ony want to subvert the BOR to suit your liberal causes. You even stated , in your glaring ignorance , that the founders wanted a socialist society free from the influence of God. You actually belive that the founders said that there should be freedom FROM religion not freedom OF religion. You pick anc choose what ammnedments you want. You obviously have no continuity of thought. Every ammendment to you is an "individual " right" except the 2nd ammendment which suddenly you interpet as being a collective right i.e. only the state has a right to own firearms not the individual. According to your rationale only the state has the right to free speech, search and siezure etc. Which is of course is the perfect raionalization according to liberals that the founders intended America to be a socialist state. Yup you have extreme intelligence allright. I guess for someone with a single digit IQ you may well be real, real smart.
    Sometimes colbert I don't really know if you actually believe all the bullshit you write or you are just auditioning for a part on the olbermann comedy and sedition hour.

    I have reviewed the debate between Colbert and riverdog and have determined that riverdog is the winner.

    Congratulations!

    Thank you sir! but it is not much of a challenge having a battle of wits with someone as unarmed as colbermann.

    riverdog,

    "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787.
    "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
    "The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.
    "The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. This might remind you of Bush paying "journalists" to print his views.
    "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.
    "I am... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.
    "The art of printing alone and the vast dissemination of books will maintain the mind where it is and raise the conquering ruffians to the level of the conquered instead of degrading these to that of their conquerors." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1821.
    "To preserve the freedom of the human mind... and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement." Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799.
    "No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804.
    "No government ought to be without censors, and where the press is free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defence. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth whether in religion, law or politics. I think it as honorable to the government neither to know nor notice its sycophants or censors, as it would be undignified and criminal to pamper the former and persecute the latter." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792.
    It doesn't sound like Jefferson favored censoring the press.

    Robert,
    Speaking of debates, you never responded to my response in the September 13 thread. You're a typical conservative after all. As soon as facts are brought into debate you run away. I hope you learned
    how to read a simple graph anyway. That's obviously difficult for you.

    No need to censor the press but just like we need checks and balances on prety much everything we need checks an blances on the press. Your obvious disdain for Limbaugh et al equals my disdain for olbermann and others of his ilk. The press touts itelf as being "watchdogs" but who is watching the watchers. When is the line crosse from responsible objective journalism to outright slandering and pandering. Rush ADMITS he is a conservative, he also takes callers who disagree with his POV. So tell me what is your little buddy's Olbermann's policy- oh wait I already know- he is one hour preisantial smear and fear fest followed by idiotic recycled internet mind masturbation. Thsi is a sigh about the vagaries and distortion of one man who needs to be held accountable for his one man crusade against the President. I do agree with Olbermann and Voltaire . I will defend olbermann's right to say what he will but will you not, even if you disagree strongly with me ,admit that I too have the right to criticize Olbermann himself? I would be willing to bet that though he may not like or agree with what io write olbermann himself would agree that I have the right to write. I would NEVER suggest that anybody be censored ( well NAMBLA and other child predators excepted). I don't neccessarily want to see Kiteh silenced. He does a service in my opinion. He polarizes people lie you and me. He gets them pissed off stirred up, angry, motivated to type 600 word criticisms anonomoulsy on websites like this. hey jousting from horses is out and the pen is mightier that the sword and all that good stuff. He's got the right , you got the right and I go the right. So we all write but we are not all right and that is OK- the constitiution allows us to both make an ass out of ourselves , each other,and also anybody unfortunate enought to come into range.
    You can stop quoting Jefferson. What books by him and about him I don't already have I can get online or if I have to as last (gasp) resort go to the local public library. Save your little fingers and keyboard at last maybe something has been found that we can agree on. One out of one thousand ain't bad. You will never get me to support censorship .

    riverdog,
    "According to your rationale only the state has the right to free speech, search and siezure etc."
    We don't have the right to search and seizure you inbred idiot. We have the right to be secure against unreasonable seaches and seizures.

    Now on to your religious rant. The Treaty of Tripoli (1797) says "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The Constitution stipulates that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI).
    Jefferson founded the first secular university (Virginia) and wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Madison wrote the "Memorial and Remonstrance." A book full of their relgious-related writing is "Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State," edited by Lenni Brenner. The Jefferson Bible was created by Jefferson using a razor to cut out parts of the Bible. He didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus and thought the concept of a Holy Trinity was superstition. He was accused of being an atheist.
    Now more quotes:
    "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." - Jefferson to Danbury Baptists (1802)
    "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" - Madison
    "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved, I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker, in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." - Thomas Jefferson
    "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
    "We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Virginia Baptists, 1808.
    "In our early struggles for liberty, religious freedom could not fail to become a primary object." --Thomas Jefferson to Baltimore Baptists, 1808.
    "Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
    "Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817.
    "No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817.
    "I do not know that it is a duty to disturb by missionaries the religion and peace of other countries, who may think themselves bound to extinguish by fire and fagot the heresies to which we give the name of conversions, and quote our own example for it. Were the Pope, or his holy allies, to send in mission to us some thousands of Jesuit priests to convert us to their orthodoxy, I suspect that we should deem and treat it as a national aggression on our peace and faith." --Thomas Jefferson to Michael Megear, 1823.
    Here's a link for you: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
    Do you still think you agree with Jefferson on religion and religious freedom?

    riverdog,
    First you say "the press should be censored only in the interest of national security just like it has been in every war this country has ever fought." Now you say "no need to censor the press but just like we need checks and balances on prety much everything we need checks an blances on the press." What checks and balances do you suggest if not censoring the press? Jefferson was clearly against checking and balancing the press by government. He wanted to let the people check and balance the the press through reason and the free market of ideas. If someone is slandered they are free to sue in civil court. Other than that, the press is free to print what it wants. Rush can say anything he wants and people can document his lies.
    I agree with your right to say anything you want. Have I said you should be banned from here or not allowed to post?
    I was typing as I was reading your post. But it looks like we do agree on freedom of speech and press more or less.
    Contrary to your opinion of me I was a member of the NRA even though I've never owned a gun. I became a member in response to the same anti-gun histrionics you complain about. I let the membership lapse because I wasn't involved in it and have never owned a gun so it seemed pointless to continue.

    riverdog,
    "According to your rationale only the state has the right to free speech, search and siezure etc."
    We don't have the right to search and seizure you inbred idiot. We have the right to be secure against unreasonable seaches and seizures.
    you know what i meant you self serving mental masturbator. I fucking know we have the right to be free from search and siezure I am just impluying under your parameters of interpetation of the second ammendment as realted top the reat of the BOR. Dont be such a leftard. For once act and talk human ok?
    On freedom of the press I am adamant about free speech but just as strongly opinionated on where to draw the line. Just as the 2nd ammendment does not give me the right to own nuclear weapons and the first does not allow me to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or compromise national security. You want Iran knowing where our subamrines or troop movements are? With freedom comes a certain amount of responsiblity you should be old enought to undertsand that.
    We are splitting hairs here. I support a free press WITH accountablity on their part. Nobody gets free reign without accountabilty . thus my disdain for olbermann- he takes no questions he only preaches. And no i don't care if the NSA or any other governemnt agency taps phones, email, etc in reagrds to international communications regarding terrorism. I don't see the differnece between giving up your fourth ammendment rights to get on a plane or be searched by US customs going in or out of this country and wiretapping in the context of the NSA. I am not saying that i like it but I can live with it in order to have some safety. I hate compromising rights but I try to be a realist. In public I decry the Brady Bill but in private I do appreciate the fact that not everybody should have access to firearms. I have A CCW permit, have been screened by the FBI and have a pretty good gun collection myself but I agree not everybody should have the acccess I do. But I earned it thru having never been in trouble and generally being a good citizen
    " Jefferson was clearly against checking and balancing the press by government. He wanted to let the people check and balance the the press through reason and the free market of ideas." OK good point- that seems to be what we are excercising here and now. Bless the internet where true democratizationa and free enterprise cross beautifully.
    in regard to jefferson , the founders and religious freedoms I am still adamant about the point that they impied and meant freedom "of" not freedom "from" religion. I jsy don't see all the fuss with the ACLU attacking the ten commandments in courts and moments of silent prayer in schools. As you know there is a revolt going on in many parts of the country over this. I just wish that the founding fathers had instituted the concept that there shall be separation of school and state because there are an awful lot of folks out there really, really upset with both the cost and content of public education Congatulations on being a one time member of the NRA they are MY ACLU and you should consider joining again. if the democrats should by some slim chance get back in power in our lifetimes then the one real concrete thing that made them lose power in the first place will be back- their negation of the 2nd ammendment- that's the one that puts the teeth into protecting all the other ammendments we bitch and yell and insult in vile terms each other but e have some common ground - still a little swampy tho.

    riverdog,
    Personally I don't generally argue religion because I realize everyone has their own views and religion is a very personal matter. I hate having religious views being pushed on me. I hate when people (Jehovas) try to convert me. I disagree with much of religion and think it is ridiculous for people to kill over religion. I have no problem with kids praying in school on their own or in groups as long as 1) it is not disruptive of a class and
    2) it is not mandated or led by teachers, which could make children feel pressured into praying.
    As far as displaying the Ten Commandments in public, I don't see the need to. Assume you work eight hours, five days per week and sleep eight hours per day. That leaves 56 hours every week free to do anything you want. If you want to read the Bible and attend Church for that much time, you're free to. I don't understand how Christians feel like they're being persecuted. Listening to some of them, you'd think they're being arrested on their way to church or every time they open the Bible.
    I think I take rights further than you do, meaning I want less restrictions. I see rights as you can essentially do anything you want unless you are physically harming someone else or taking away their rights.
    If you read the Second Amendment to mean no restrictions, we could own nuclear arms. So obviously there has to be restrictions. I think the Second Amendment is the hardest to square with what the Founders intended because weapons have advanced so much. Press, speech, religion, etc. haven't changed as much as weapons have. So we have to use more thought determining who is too dangerous to have weapons and what weapons are too dangerous for the public to have.
    I agree with you that our education system sucks. It's a disgrace and an embarrassment. My biggest disagreement with the Democrats is them selling out to the teachers union. Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers, knew education of all citizens was extremely important for a democratic republic.
    They wanted poor citizens who couldn't afford tutors or private education to have an education. Hence public schools. We need to educate our children but the system is badly broken.

    Robert you have to forgive me. I am just beginning to learn how seriously you take your aim with this site (I guess the astonishing amount of time you spend at it should have clued me in.) You shift tactics, constantly move the goal, and constantly misunderstand things in any way that lets you get a zinger over and portrey me as a lock step radical leftist dum-dum, or "Olbyloon," as you have it. This is because your aim is not to have a conversation with real people, but to constantly both create and address this stereotype, and loudly celebrate your superiority to it.

    You reignite a dead and buried conversation with this:

    "You asked before so let me now answer."

    And proceeded to lay out just how scary AQ is, complete with dead bodies and images of melting radios. Robert, what question did you THINK you were answering there that I asked, before later remembering that I never asked a question. I presumed it was the one that we left the argument off with, why you might think a memorial to 9-11 is so important, which is what you came in flaming me as a terrorist sympathizer when I raised the notion that I personally thought it was perhaps counterproductive and more inspiring to terrorists. If it wasn't that question, what was it?

    Then you come back and state that there was no question asked, that you were "answering" a statement that I had made. O.K. Which? The very one about the memorial being more inspiring to the terrorists than to Americans. Oye. But you won't take the opposite side of that, because that would "stuff words in (your) mouth." Wow my head really does hurt.

    This "argument" has grown so ungainly, with such a hodgepodge of "moveon.orgs" and accusations of terrorist sympathizing and mindless pigeonholeing that it is nothing more than a meaningless venue for you to spout steam at the ghosts of Michael Moore in your head. But again, that is pretty much the stated purpose of this site.

    One point, devoid of clutter: In my opinion, a giant memorial to 9-11 would be more inspiring in general to terrorists than to the victims and opponents of terrorism. That is my opinion, I am open to correction or persuasion based on argument or explanation.

    I'm equally open to just dropping it. It is a minor comment that was ancilliary to another argument, whether or not the feds had any tools at their disposal to get the memorial built quicker. I think we agree they did. I never advocated the use of those tools (obviously, since I am not really for the project at all) but that didn't stop you from calling me a closet communist for pointing out that they exist and that this president has used them before for his own financial gain. And the ghosts swirl on.

    Eric Bob,

    I'd vote for "dropping it" and letting the readers decide.

    I did find THIS humorous:

    "In my opinion, a giant memorial to 9-11 would be more inspiring in general to terrorists than to the victims and opponents of terrorism. That is my opinion, I am open to correction or persuasion based on argument or explanation."

    Besides the obvious, that your opinion is worthless because it is based on your uninformed assumptions about what inspires terrorists, what inspires victims of terorism and the relative level of inspiration to each. It is less than worthless because it is entirely besides the point. You have assumed, again incorrectly, that the purpose of the 9/11 memorial at the WTC site is intended to "inspire" someone. And it is true that some, like the loony lefties who attempted to the co-opt the project with their absurd "tolerance museum", have advanced this notion.

    I would like to be able to visit a 9/11 memorial at the WTC site as a way to remember those that I know that died there and to honor those who died trying to help others. I hardly think I am alone in that.

    I am really not interested in your view of whether my doing so "inspires" terrorists or is somehow "inspiring" my "fear of constant danger and death".

    "I'd vote for "dropping it" and letting the readers decide."

    Decide what? If you had taken this tack from the start (perhaps SHOWING that you are not interested in this view by not pulling it out of another discussion and attacking it, rather than letting me know over and over how NOT interested in it you are) we could have saved the carpal tunnel. You even brought it up again out of the blue after we dropped it before.

    "I am really not interested in your view of whether my doing so "inspires" terrorists or is somehow "inspiring" my "fear of constant danger and death"."

    Another twister. Ah well. You level of disinterest has been noted and the matter has been dropped.

    Decide whether or not you are a fool.

    Whooohooo! You go girl!!

    I think they should decide whether or not YOU are a fool!!!

    Ha Ha Whoooohoooo!

    Zingers!

    Maybe we can have a reader poll.

    The majority. The majority. Yes.
    Let's hear from the majority.