Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter


    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: Bwaaaaaaa - "Olbermann burned a lot of bridges at MSNBC". No shit? <a href=... [more](20)


    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href=" [more](9)


    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)


    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)


    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:

    KO Countdown Clock

    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/ on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes "My Faves" Set 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
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    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
    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
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    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
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    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
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    Verum Serum

    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
    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
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    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 Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    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


    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com


    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch


    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz

    David Lunde

    Alex Yuriev

    Red Meat

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to

    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
    Visit this group

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

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help

    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

    September 6, 2006
    Harry Reid Quotes Olbermann on Senate Floor

    Extreme Mortman sends along this unbelievable tidbit from the "Dump Rumsfeld" debate on the Senate Floor. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid actually quoted KO's Rummy Rant today. Good God! I wonder if a clip of Reid quoting Keith will make it into any future Countdown episodes?

    Posted by Robert Cox | Permalink | Comments (62) | | View blog reactions


    Because you didn't use the words "Senator Harry Reid" in your title you must harbor a grudge against him and not think he was rightfully elected. amirite? Keith also showed this on his show, who wouldn't?


    Yes, I have a "grudge" against Senate Minority Leader Reid. In fact, I am thinking of setting up a site called "Harry Reid Watch". We will do nothing but report on the doing of the dynamic Senator from Nevada whose soaring rhetoric and steadfast resolve to say little and do less has inspired hundreds if not dozens of Americans.

    As for Keith airing the clip on his show, I did not see the entire show because I was too busy watching the Yankees pound the crap out of the Kansas City Royals but thanks for the heads up. My question was more to the point of whether he would air it repeatedly.

    I would like to give "great thanks" to Randy Johnson for pitching 7 no hitter innings.

    He showed it. The context - it was thrown in at the end of the show. He didn't make a big deal out of it. He looked surprised actually.

    He showed it. The context - it was thrown in at the end of the show. He didn't make a big deal out of it. He looked surprised actually.

    The depravity of the liberals is now in full bloom. The ABC 9/11 miniseries is being attacked for telling the truth about BJ Bill Clinton and Sandy Burglar:

    Lefties are continuing to call 9/11 an inside job:

    The loony left is screaming about Rumsfeld (see Olbyrant # 22122)

    and Harry Reid is quoting a failed sportscaster's insane ramblings! That is some swell party. If they get control, the liberals will finish what Jimmy "worst President ever" Carter started.

    Part of me wants the left to see the lefties win just to watch the horror on their faces as they see their pie in the sky vision was a mirage. Unfortunately, the rest of us would have to suffer as well.

    "The ABC 9/11 miniseries is being attacked for telling the truth about BJ Bill Clinton and Sandy Burglar:"

    These attacks on the media by powerful figures has got to stop. Why, we're facing a form of fascism with this type of behavior.

    I'm sure Olbermann will deliver a special commentary condemning this intimidation of the press.

    Then again, probably not.


    "...Harry Reid actually quoted KO's Rummy Rant today."

    RCox, don't be naive. Olberman and the Dumocrapic party are both controlled by the exact same looney left. You will not only hear the same sentiments, but the exact same phrasing on issues from gays to blacks to mexicans to welfare to war to pollution to oil drilling to....


    I expect all guns blazing from Olby as he critiques this blatant attempt to intimidate the free media. I mean, remember the furor when the right wing zealots put a hold on that righteous Reagan docudrama? You know, the one where Ronald raped Nancy and threw cigars at Interns while drinking and doing coke?

    I am no clairvoyant like yourself SMG, but I am going to go out on a limb and guess that Olby will attack the miniseries! That's right, he wil openly contradict himself once again and in the most partisan manner possible.

    This simple one-sentence post makes one heartsick:

    "Whatever those secret CIA interrogation methods are that apparently helped save U.S. lives, we can be sure that a lot of liberals oppose them..."

    It's from National Review's editor, Rich Lowry. Notice he has no idea what these "interrogation methods" are; but wants to use them to smear "liberals" nonetheless. Notice that it appears perfectly clear that waterboarding and hypothermia are indeed among such authorized methods, and yet Lowry thinks it somehow scores a point to say that "liberals" oppose such things. Well, yes, plenty of liberals do oppose such things. So do plenty of conservatives. Does Lowry? Does he favor the United States using techniques, like the "cold cell", finessed by Stalin and documented by Solzhenitsyn in the "Gulag Archipelago"? Does he favor water-boarding? This is not a liberal-conservative issue. Plenty of conservatives oppose torture and the unbounded power of an untrammeled executive to detain and torture whomever he designates an "enemy combatant" at will. This is an issue about the core meaning of the West - and this president's relentless attack upon that inheritance.

    Permalink :: E-Mail This :: Trackback (2)

    So Bush admits he ran a secret gulag of extra-judicial black sites where the CIA tortured detainees. And now he's sending some of the victims to Gitmo. Why? It's 9/11 week in the Congressional campaign and Khalid Sheik Muhammad is one terror detainee who should indeed be detained and interrogated as a prisoner of war. But Spencer Ackerman has some further thoughts:

    Look deeper and not only is the White House not giving an inch in the debate, the KSM Shift of 2006 actually takes a mile. That's because, to be blunt, we have tortured the dickens (to use a Rumsfeldian locution) out of KSM. All Guantánamo detainees, according to the Supreme Court, have the right to at least some access to the U.S. legal system. KSM, therefore, will pose an interesting test: Should his probable trial reflect the legal doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree" - that is, will evidence obtained through torture be admissible in the military tribunals or not? McCain's Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 says "of course not!" but Bush indicated in his infamous "signing statement" that he thinks he has the right to torture whoever he pleases.

    Now Congress will face a very unpleasant question: Unless it rejiggers the military tribunals to bless torture/coercion, KSM and other Al Qaeda figures might in fact be set free by the courts. Is Bush so cynical as to force Congress into the odious position of either setting the stage for murderers to walk out of Gitmo or blessing torture? Of course he is!

    I've learned through bitter experience that almost every time the Bush administration announces what appears to be a relaxation of its illegal and unconstitutional torture and detention policies, it's usually part of a gambit to retain and expand them. More on this later. I need some time to analyze and scrutinize the announcements.

    We know how the right-wing blogosphere did their best to turn away from, deny, ignore or minimize the introduction of torture as an interrogation technique by president Bush. We also know that John Kerry focus-grouped the issue and decided not to challenge the president on it once during the campaign. But Eric Umansky shows how the press played its part too. His full report is here. One of the more gripping nuggets is the New York Times breaking the story of the premeditated military torture-murder of an Afghan detainee, by hanging him from a cell ceiling and beating his legs until, according to a military medical examiner, they had "basically been pulpified." The NYT had the Carlotta Gall story first. Foreign editor Roger Cohen lobbied frantically for it to be on Page One, but it ended up buried in the paper. This was long before Abu Ghraib and showed that the torture policy long predated that scandal - and caused it. Money quote:

    Carlotta's piece was 'the real deal,' he told me. 'It referred to a homicide. Detainees had been killed in custody. I mean, you can’t get much clearer than that. I pitched it, I don't know, four times at page-one meetings, with increasing urgency and frustration. I laid awake at night over this story. And I don't fully understand to this day what happened. It was a really scarring thing. My single greatest frustration as foreign editor was my inability to get that story on page one.'

    Fear and denial. It is indeed hard to believe that a president could have set in train a policy that would end in U.S. troops believing they could treat any captives like animals. But those were the limits they were operating under. And the man responsible is still president, his torture-implementer, Don Rumsfeld, is still secretary of defense, and the man who helped provide the legal cover is now attorney-general.

    t's right there in the president's speech yesterday: once again, baldly stated, as if saying it more categorically makes it true:

    I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it - and I will not authorize it.

    There is no other way to say it. On one of the gravest moral matters before the country, this president is knowingly stating an untruth. The lie is sustained by this evasion:

    I cannot describe the specific methods used - I think you understand why - if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

    But we know - and the enemy knows - what the techniques are. They've been listed and documented and debated. We also know what was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the case cited specifically by the president in his speech yesterday - because Bush officials told us. The New York Times reported the following:

    "Senior officials have said Mr. Mohammed was 'waterboarded,' a technique in which his head was pushed under water and he was made to believe that he might drown."

    In another case of a detainee, Mohammed al-Qhatani, we actually have a log of what was done to him. He was deprived of sleep for 55 days, subjected to the KGB-perfected "cold cell" hypothermia treatment, and terrorized by unmuzzled dogs. Medics had to administer three bags of medical saline to Qhatani, while he was strapped to a chair, and aggressively treat him for hypothermia in hospital, before returning him to a torture cell. These facts are not disputed. Far, far worse has been done to detainees in less closely monitored "interrogations" in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the secret sites (now admitted) in Eastern Europe. (Yes, Dana, you deserve your Pulitzer.) Dozens of corpses are the result of the president's "safe and lawful" interrogation methods.

    If the president wants to argue that all this is necessary, that we need to breach the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the public, then he should say so. He should make the argument, and persuade Americans that torture should now be official policy, and seek explicit legislation amounting to a breach of the Geneva Conventions. That would be an honest position. He would gain the support of much of the Republican base, a large swathe of the conservative intelligentsia, and the contempt of the civilized world. We could then debate this honestly, including the torture techniques he has authorized and supports. Instead he lies.

    Am I splitting semantic hairs here with the word "torture"? The definition of the word, in the U.N. declaration to which the U.S. is a signatory is as follows:

    "[A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession ... when such pain or suffering is inflicted at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

    In the cases the president cites, he authorized torture as plainly stated in U.S. law and common English. Moreover, he says he has set up an elite group trained specifically for torture, the kind of elite torture-squads once dear to South American dictators. They have, he reassures us, 250 extra hours of torture-training over regular CIA interrogators. The president is asking the Congress to establish this in law. Yes, this is America. It just no longer seems like it.

    Then there is the president's second untruth about who actually has been detained at Gitmo and elsewhere:

    It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo. These aren't common criminals, or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield - we have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo.

    Again, as has been exhaustively documented, this is false. Dozens of Gitmo detainees have been released with no charges brought against them, just as the U.S. concedes that up to 90 percent of those jailed at Abu Ghraib were innocent. Read this op-ed about just one man detained for four years at Gitmo, even though the administration conceded he was innocent. Earlier this year, to cite another investigation, the National Journal examined court documents relating to 132 "enemy combatants" at Gitmo, or about a quarter of the detainees there. Money quote:

    National Journal undertook a detailed review of the unclassified files to develop profiles of the 132 men. NJ separately reviewed transcripts for 314 prisoners who pleaded their cases before Combatant Status Review Tribunals at Guantanamo. Taken together, the information provides a picture of who, exactly, has been taken prisoner in the war on terror and is being held in an anomalous U.S. military prison on an island belonging to one of America's bitterest enemies ...

    The first thing that jumps out of the statistics is that a majority of the detainees in both groups are not Afghans - nor were they picked up in Afghanistan as U.S. troops fought the Taliban and Al Qaeda, nor were they picked up by American troops at all. Most are from Arab countries, and most were arrested in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities.

    Seventy-five of the 132 men, or more than half the group, are ... not accused of taking part in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... Just 57 of the 132 men, or 43 percent, are accused of being on a battlefield in post-9/11 Afghanistan. The government's documents tie only eight of the 132 men directly to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan.

    Here's another little detail worth remembering, also uncovered by National Journal:

    Much of the evidence against the detainees is weak. One prisoner at Guantanamo, for example, has made accusations against more than 60 of his fellow inmates; that's more than 10 percent of Guantanamo's entire prison population. The veracity of this prisoner's accusations is in doubt after a Syrian prisoner, Mohammed al-Tumani, 19, who was arrested in Pakistan, flatly denied to his Combatant Status Review Tribunal that he'd attended the jihadist training camp that the tribunal record said he did.

    Tumani's denial was bolstered by his American "personal representative," one of the U.S. military officers - not lawyers - who are tasked with helping prisoners navigate the tribunals. Tumani's enterprising representative looked at the classified evidence against the Syrian youth and found that just one man - the aforementioned accuser - had placed Tumani at the terrorist training camp. And he had placed Tumani there three months before the teenager had even entered Afghanistan. The curious U.S. officer pulled the classified file of the accuser, saw that he had accused 60 men, and, suddenly skeptical, pulled the files of every detainee the accuser had placed at the one training camp. None of the men had been in Afghanistan at the time the accuser said he saw them at the camp.

    That's the "rigorous process" the president spoke of yesterday. It doesn't exist - and never has.

    "guess that Olby will attack the miniseries!"

    Well, to be fair, if this miniseries - or any historical re-creation - inaccurately portrays events, then that should be criticized and the inaccuracies corrected.

    It's just that, as you point out, when claims of inaccuracies come from the political right they're characterized by the likes of Olbermann of having Nixonian or Orwellian or McCarthyite overtones.

    Y'know, Mr. Olbermann to me is just a silly reporter/journalist/news readers. The documentation at this site of this is irrefutable.

    Again, silly man. Nothing more, nothing less.


    It seems that the "dramatization" of events is the main criticism leveled by Clinton. I certainly "feel his pain." The only problem is this is the left's game. If they want the truth, they have to be willing to be truthful themselves. I think we all know ABC is no right wing propaganda machine, what with their liberal news department and all.

    As far as Kean being involved in the miniseries and the 9/11 commission report being used as a basis for the series, it is most likely not accurate. After all, that report was influenced by none other than Jamie S. Gorelick, the wonderful developer of the "wall" between security agencies and a Clintonista who sat on the 9/11 Commission:

    I find it interesting that a film based on a watered down report of Clinton's lack of vigilance is attacked. Imagine if the actual truth were told!

    Yeah, KfK, why ever would this docu-drama be criticized? It's almost unbelievable, oh wait. They're inventing conversations that never happened to make it seem like the Clinton administration could have taken out Bin Laden but didn't want to. It doesn't sound as bad when you leave it out, but when people say the truth you start to wonder.

    And didn't Bush say that even mentioning these secret prisons was endangering the men and women who served in the military? I guess you can mention them now because it fits your political needs.

    If the President wanted these men put on trial as soon as possible he would have adopted the Democrats plan to put them in a military tribunal 5 YEARS AGO! Instead he stalled, because justice can wait for a well-timed photo op. The truth is, is that the President's plan will not pass; it's met by opposition by important Republicans and Democrats. You won't be able to try people without showing them the evidence you have against them.

    Now I didn't see the whole Harry Reid speech but from what I did, I didn't see Harry say Keith's name.

    Harry probibly thought, why bother nobody watches this show anyway. Or.........

    When givin' the move-on, media-matters, talking points for the day, Harry said. Who is this guy? Does he have a show?

    Once again liberals and democrats show just why they should never be voted for or listened to. I know that you leftards hold the rights of terrorists in higher regard than us taxpayers. I know that you are rooting for the terorists to win just so you can further attack Bush and the conservatives.
    Here is some news for you lefties. I don't care what ways we use to get information from the terrorists. IF it can save one of our boys on the battlefield or even just one American citizen, JUST ONE, then I really don't give damn what happens to these dirtbags.
    I know that you left wingnuts will do ANYTHING to attack Bush and conservatives . How about considering the lives of Americans FIRST?

    Do you think David Broder was talking about KO in this piece?

    Do you think David Broder was talking about KO in this piece?

    With respect, the whole "Let's play nice" argument doesn't work for me when you're talking about preventing the deaths of innocent American people. Do whatever you have to do. Again, that's my opinion, but I don't think it's President Bush's policy. The 'rules of engagement' changed after I saw Nick Berg get his head sawed off.

    "The 'rules of engagement' changed after I saw Nick Berg get his head sawed off."

    So you watched that huh? And so it worked. They turned you into one of the champions of anti-civilization. Congratulations.

    "Do whatever you have to do."

    That is such a cop out. Why is it assumed that "what you have to do" must be the most inhumane, irrationally angry response you can muster? Are you really so confident that all you have to do to be safe is jettison your own (very loosely held) humanistic principles? Do you really think that will help rather than hurt? The problem with the right on this is that they think it is enough to "be tough." It isn't close to enough. It doesn't work. It didn't work for the Soviets when they ran the secret prisons, and it won't work for us now. In the long run, our strength and our moral strength are not separate things. Mind-numbing.

    Who ya gonna believe? Bush or the military? Here's the president yesterday:

    I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks -- here in the United States and across the world. Today, I'm going to share with you some of the examples provided by our intelligence community of how this program has saved lives; why it remains vital to the security of the United States, and our friends and allies; and why it deserves the support of the United States Congress and the American people.

    And here's Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, the Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, also yesterday:

    "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility." And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there."

    "Do whatever you have to do. Again, that's my opinion, but I don't think it's President Bush's policy."

    Nice. This exactly mirrors the administration line. We don't torture. We just use totally legal "enhanced" interrogation techniques that sometimes result in death. But we never ever torture. But it is legal and justified. And you have to do anything to keep America safe. But we don't torture. But we wouldn't be wrong if we did torture. But we don't. And it's legal. And we don't. But you can't make it illegal without endangering Americans. But we don't do it and never will.

    The whole thing is a thin sham just to keep words like "waterboarding" our of the mouth of the president. You know, our president. The one who runs the secret prisons that don't torture, but which must be secret and can't be on American soil. Disgusting.

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

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

    Source: Insidecable

    Nonfactor wrote: "They're inventing conversations that never happened to make it seem like the Clinton administration could have taken out Bin Laden but didn't want to."

    You might want to listen to Bill Clinton talking about how he was offered Bin Laden and "pleaded with the Saudis" to take Osama. You can hear his wife Hillary try to lie her way out of it as well.

    I wonder if this audio made the fine miniseries which is currently being edited to BJ Clinton's fine discerning taste.,0,6155461.story?coll=cl-tv-features

    By the time it is done, the "road to Bin Laden" will have two exits only, and both will lead to Crawford. How's that for your precious "truthiness" you leftist jerks.

    How about we let Bin Laden and Zarqawi edit the film too? Let's let anybody edit the film (except Bush, of course). After all, history favors those who write it! Now if only super Bill could go back and destroy the paper trail from his admisnistration he'd be all set.

    "Now if only super Bill could go back and destroy the paper trail from his admisnistration he'd be all set."

    I think BIll had Sandy take care of the paper trail. It's still in his pants.

    You people, and our president, have the moral sense of retarded eight year olds. Which also happens to be the documented mental level of Abu Zubaydah, the man Bush lied about in his speech.

    Standard OW reader:

    "If American lives are at stake, I myself will rip the balls off one of those Al Kaeda fuckers and eat them in front of his children."

    Real American:

    "American lives, and many other lives, ARE at stake. This is precisely WHY we cannot abdicate our responsibility for moral leadership. This is WHY we will not join the forces of anti-civilization."

    Thanks Rasto, you always add so much to the debate!!

    Sorry righties, when it comes to the greatest moral question of our generation, our president -- known for manly candor in many things-- is flat out a mincing, stammering, liar.

    If you and he believe torture is justified and neccessary, SAY IT. Don't lie and mince and try to confuse the definition and create moral wriggle room. Say "we torture and run secret prisons because we have to, because otherwise our vaunted enemies will destroy us, and we think it's right."

    I believe torture is justified and neccessary. We torture and run secret prisons because we have to, because otherwise our vaunted enemies will destroy us, and I think it's right.

    Next issue please!!

    "With respect, the whole "Let's play nice" argument doesn't work for me"

    Yeah, let's go with the "let's play the way every failed third world dictator plays." That works every time doesn't it?

    It's going to be interesting (in a multiple-vehicle-accident-involving-a-circus sense of interest) to see how Olbermann covers the ABC 9/11 series controversy this evening.

    My guess is he'll have Dave Brock on. To be balanced with Richard Ben Veniste.

    Maybe the other way around.

    But he'll aggressively question them, I'm sure.


    "Next issue please!!"

    Yeah, I'd be calling for the next issue too.

    The next issue is whether the president should be lying about torturing people. What do you think on that? I mean, you all seem to agree that it's just peachy to electro-shock naked people with billy-clubs up their butt and all that, but should or should not the president lie about it?

    "We do not torture. We use enhanced interrogation methods."

    -GW Bush
    -N. Khrushchev
    -P. Pot

    The President should deem it classified. "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." Hey, that movie's on tonight.

    I'll give a prize for anyone who can come up with the most creative enhanced interrogation technique. I hear Saddam once had a guy sawed in half and sent each half in separate boxes to his parents. Classic.

    "The President should deem it classified. "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall." Hey, that movie's on tonight."

    Yeah! It's just like a movie! Cool.

    So long yall. Try not to grow a soul.

    hey rat's ass -I believe torture is justified and neccessary. there I said it. if it saves just one of our boys in battle or one American citizen then it is worth it. You don't like it too damn bad - go tell clinton or olbermann but I don't want to hear it.
    what ever happened to good old sodium pentathol or LSD for interrogations? An old story I heard years ago in a far away place. Take the prisoner feed them a few thousand mikes of LSD-25 and hang them up in a duffel bag in the woods at sunset- by midnight they will will be singin'.
    I really wish that the liberal left would show half as much concern for our servicemen as they do for the "rights" of terrorists. But they want the terrorists to win because it will give them just one meore thing to bash Bush about.

    Ahmm the team with the 190 million payroll rebounded from being shutout by the Royals the night before ? Wow,, quite the accomplishment.... The Yanks will do badly in the post season again this year... The Yanks and this POS POTUS both belong in the gutter..

    Here is to hoping that our administration is tortured.. I would love to see the Bush twins raped and unable to get an abortion... that would be perfect..

    "I know that you leftards hold the rights of terrorists in higher regard than us taxpayers"

    When did anyone ever say that? Red Herring, Red Herring!

    "I know that you are rooting for the terorists to win just so you can further attack Bush and the conservatives."

    Wow, another one, but I'm not surprised.

    "Here is some news for you lefties. I don't care what ways we use to get information from the terrorists. IF it can save one of our boys on the battlefield or even just one American citizen, JUST ONE, then I really don't give damn what happens to these dirtbags."

    How do you know torturing people helps protect soldiers lives? How do we even know the people tortured are terrorists, there have already been a few innocent people who've been mistaken for terrorists.

    And, KfK, no matter what you say you can't change the fact that the producers of this docu-drama created conversations and situations that never really happened.

    "And, KfK, no matter what you say you can't change the fact that the producers of this docu-drama created conversations and situations that never really happened."

    Oh yeah, I forgot that you saw the film and fact checked it already!

    How about the voice of Bill I posted above? Funnt how you lefties always ignore these "inconvenient truths"! BJ Bill was FANTASTIC. No more to be said. In fact, no more is ALLOWED to be said!

    Did anyone see Ted Koppel on Today this morning promoting his new show, The Price of Security, on the Discovery Channel?

    He said "a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested".

    Matt Lauer immediately challenged Koppel on that statement, pressing Koppel to acknowledge his own liberal bias and questioned whether given that bias Koppel could be trusted to take an objective look at the issues being raised in the show.

    ...and then I woke up.

    "Oh yeah, I forgot that you saw the film and fact checked it already!"

    They've been showing clips of fake conversations and situations for the past week. Continue with your claim that it's true though, it makes you look even more reactionary.


    I have a feeling that even if it were not for the "fake conversations" you'd object to this film. Any narrative that does not begin with "blame Bush" is going to upset your applec cart.

    Out of curiosity Robert how did you feel about the Reagans miniseries?

    All historical fiction "fakes" conversations for the sake of dramatic context.

    Complete fabrications in the sense of scripts that completely skewer reality in order to frame events in some political light are egrecious and I understand how any would decry that sort of treatment.

    One the things they did in the Reagan drama was to have Reagan mouth homophobic dialogue. The writers argued the validity of this tact, based on their perceptions of how Reagan treated funding for HIV research at the begining of the that crisis. Of course this is a perilously subjective and political basis for building scenes that made the Reagans seem like bigots.

    The truth was, as early as his governorship in California, the Reagans were known to be surrounded by a gay posse or gay salon, might be a better description-- of show-biz artists, etc.

    I have no problem with Democrats and liberals of all stripes protesting what they feel is unfair and inaccuate treatment in the 9/11 thing.

    However, for Dem leadership to write a letter using the authority of their office to issue an implicit threat to Disney regarding federal investigations, is beyond the pale. If Republicans did such a thing with the Reagan miniseries it would be beyond the pale as well, and I hope they did not.

    Otherwise carry on the protests, libs. Do all the practices (rant, rave, write editorials, plan boycotts) that libs have heretofore characterized as being forms of censorship when their opposition has engaged in them...

    "Robert how did you feel about the Reagans miniseries?"

    The same at this Path to 9/11 miniseries...I did not watch the Reagan thing and I won't watch this either.

    In this case, I was there on 9/11 and I have not had the slightest interest to watch ANY of the dramatizations - Flight 93, World Trade Center, whatever. I will not watch any of the media coverage of the event. I am going to watch football or baseball. I don't need television networks to tell me what happened or how to feel about 9/11.


    I've read that it's been media policy for the last five years not to give lenghthy play to footage of the planes crashing to the WTC or to the buildings toppling down.

    Their fear has been that this would inspire their audience to go out and mug a Muslim. So the media has already made decisions on what you can see based on how they think it will effect you.

    I hear that CNN is going to do a cybercast of their coverage of 9/11 as the events unfolded. Damn time. I just wish they'd do it where I could TIVO it.

    I did not see any of the TV coverage on 9/11 and I am sure I do not want to watch it now. I can't imagine wanting to TIVO it.

    I do agree, however, that if more people saw what it was really like down there with people leaping out windows, bodies landing all over the place...let alone when the towers fell. From what I have read, outside the US a lot of people did see unexpurgated coverage but in the U.S., at least from 9/12 on, I did not see that much that showed the reality of what was happening down there.

    What happened on 9/11 was not done by Muslims any more than Warren Jeffs is a Mormon or David Koresh was a...whatever he was. These people are nut jobs not Mulsims. That said, if we are going to start giving them all sorts of rights reserved for American citizens then I hope we adopt a shoot to kill policy with the terrorists.

    That said, if we are going to start giving them all sorts of rights reserved for American citizens then I hope we adopt a shoot to kill policy with the terrorists.

    Do you for example mean things like the right to a fair trial? The protections of the geneva convention, Things like that?

    because if that is what you mean don't you think we are on a slippery slope? If i remember corrctly from one of your earlier posts you knew people who where in the trade center on 9/11. So that makes wanting to shoot anyone suspected of terroism pretty understandable, but "suspected" is the keyword here. First prove they are a terrorist, then shoot them.

    I am realy not trying to patronize you with this but I am trying to understand what you meant, because if it is a fair trial what is wrong with that? We pull out our evidence and get a conviction. it makes us look good in the eyes of the world, just like we did at nuremburg. Doing it that way also insures we convict the nut jobs and avoid (as much as possible) Accidently hanging an innocent muslim.

    "What happened on 9/11 was not done by Muslims any more than Warren Jeffs is a Mormon or David Koresh was a...whatever he was. These people are nut jobs not Mulsims."

    I think that's the most liberal thing I've heard you say.

    "I have a feeling that even if it were not for the "fake conversations" you'd object to this film. Any narrative that does not begin with "blame Bush" is going to upset your applec cart."

    You'd be wrong.

    No. I'd be right.

    Not only the webmaster of a prestigious site such as this, but a prescient being! Mr. Cox, what can't you do?


    Life is simpe: I am always right. And you are always wrong.

    Once you accept reality you will find an inner peace you have never known. Enjoy it!



    As for shoot to kill, If the choice is between capturing terrorists and bringing them to trial with the same rights as U.S. citizens in a U.S. court then I would prefer we shoot them in the field rather than capture and interrogate them.

    Hyperbole aside, I am open to some reasonable compromise that puts some checks on the government. Yet, I do not believe that we can have a solution for dealing with the al Qaeda leadership that grants them rights as if they were American citizens. I also do not believe that al Qaeda members should be treated as if they were soldiers of a legitimate fighting force. I don't see how closing Gitmo is going to solve anything because we are not going to have put the terrorists somewhere.

    I don't know that there is any easy answer here because it depends on your starting point. If you start from the premise that a person in Gitmo is innocent until proven guilty you are going to want to see them treated with kid gloves, to get full rights, attorneys, access to all evidence and witnesses against them, etc. If you start from the premise that al Qaeda is planning to detonate a nuke in a major U.S. city you will want wiretapping, rendition, secret prisons, summary execution, torture. Maybe I'm wrong. Tell me how.