Friday's ratings are out. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

http://insidecable.blogsome.com/2006/10/16/fridays-numbers-22/#more-3587

I have a feeling KO is being forced to do the Ashcroft interview..because there is no way KO would have anyone on his show that might not follow KO's rule.."Agree with everything I say or you won't be on my show" unless he was read the riot act for being too onesided...even for MSNBC .

Yeah, it must be karma.

Poor Keith. Back down to 4th overall in the ratings and 4th in his coveted demo.

Tomorrow's ratings should be fun. O'Reilly has the President, and an alternate point of view from Bob Woodward.

For your libs, an alternative point of view means one that varies from someone else's. Other than tonight's appearance by Ashcroft, you never hear alternate points of view on KO's 4th place show.

What's even more fun is comparing O'Reilly's re-run at 11pm to Keith's first-run prime time show. He still gets buried.

Swine are in the air, and ice is coming out of volcanoes with the Ashcroft interview tonight, and rather than getting Howard Beale in the 24 1/2th Century, we're actually getting a combative, but polite interview (maybe a little too polite for the MoveOn types -- it will be interesting to see their crituques tomorrow).

Hopefully, this sudden turn of allowing Republicans access to the satellite dishes beaming into Seacaucus wull be a permanent change to the show, and the suits at MSNBC have realized that if O'Reilly can have guests on whose ideas are counter to his own, Keith can manage to pull off the same trick.

To be fair to Krazy Keith his Ashcroft interview didn't work.
KO is used to interviewing people on the same team who've read the questions and answers.
Ashcroft droned on not knowing KO wanted him to as all his usually lackeys have done in the past buy into the conspiracy.
NO Keith you will not be considered an illegal combatant you paranoid orange fella....lol.

Olby is the expert at being a worst person.

The guy is just not good at asking questions to the other team. I did watch with an open mind.

...this just in...

BOR is named WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD for the 2,034,049th time!!! Krazy managed to get in "Moron" and the ever popular Bill "Orally" jibe.

-That Keith... gotta love him! He never lets being in FOURTH PLACE every night doesn't keep him down!

Well, Olby's better at "interviews" when he can learn his lines from the script before the show.

Wow. Could that interview have possibly been less entertaining?

He claims Ashcroft and everyone connected to Bush is so awful, but the most insightful question he can come up with is a hypothetical one.

For you libs, hypothetical means supposing something could happen that has not happened.

Wow. Could that interview have possibly been less entertaining?

He claims Ashcroft and everyone connected to Bush is so awful, but the most insightful question he can come up with is a hypothetical one.

For you libs, hypothetical means supposing something could happen that has not happened. Ashcroft showed how ignorant KO really is.

There was no joy in Olbyville as KO had to interview someone who wouldn't sit in the echo chamber.

Ah, Olby interviews Ashcroft. Every question Olby asks, Ashcroft comes back with a reasoned, cogent answer. Olby doesn't have a clue, doesn't know how to respond.

BUT, tomorrow, his writers will give him the words to respond. There will be a blazing critique - TOMORROW. Not today though.

Clueless Keith, can't think on his feet. And Bush is the moron?

For you libs, hypothetical means supposing something could happen that has not happened.

Posted by: bigred at October 16, 2006 08:56 PM

You mean like hypotheticaly the truth could pass through a mind brainwashed by a bunch a radio dick heads and fox. Better chance of hell freezing over.

Clueless Keith, can't think on his feet. And Bush is the moron?

Posted by: ZzzzDad at October 16, 2006 09:10 PM

Yes, he is.

Keith in NO Bill O'Reilly in the interviewer department or ratings department or truth department or fair and balanced department.
KO looked a bit timid doing an interview with someone who doesn't have the script.
I'm sure the Koz-maniacs were out on the dorm room ledges tonight....lol.

Notice the people who have fully legitimate criticisms of KO generally do so in a polite, respectful manner.

The people who support KO are reduced to name calling.

It's the same old problem with libs. They have no answers. No solutions. No plans. They just attack.

Olby's little honey isn't old enough to be included in the coveted 25-54 demo. By the time she's old enough to be in it, he'll be out of it.

Notice the people who have fully legitimate criticisms of KO generally do so in a polite, respectful manner.

The people who support KO are reduced to name calling.

It's the same old problem with libs. They have no answers. No solutions. No plans. They just attack.

Posted by: bigred at October 16, 2006 09:15 PM

Oh my God. You are kidding right. Have you visited here before? I am at a loss for words.

About the Kos maniacs: Do their parents' basements have ledges?

This just in.

You are mindless slaves of Beelzubub.

This just in...

You have been hypnotical entranced to obey only the will of Limbaugh. Submit slave. Bow to the lord of ignorance. Kiss the feet of Hannity and Coulter. Liberals are scum and want to do things like provide heath care. Must stop gay agenda. Must start more war. More war slave. Love it and hate all who oppose you.

On another note...

You are mindless slaves. Your country has been at war for almost four years. You are in debt. The religious leaders are "Kooks". And you want more. More war. More debt. More kooks.

On another note: BigRed, you are correct. All they can do is name-call in lieu of making any sense whatsoever.

Sense is the last thing you want. You want to win. You want to be right. Sense would tell you that this country made a horible mistake when they reelected the decider. He has us in a war that he doesn't know how to end. He is leaving us in debt. He has divided our country. He is a failure in defending the constitution. He has "decided" that his will alone is law. And you think Keith is crazy.

I find it the worst violation in journalism for Keith to continually permit his audience to think that the new detainee bill subjects Americans to the jurisdiction of military commissions. In fact, citizens will have the full panaple of habeas corpus provisions that they're entitled to in any article 3 court.

This is not the first time he's done this. And it's unfortunate that Ashcroft didn't point out the truth. But then it is so extremely rare that KO invites anyone on his show that is not a KO lapdog.

In fact, tonight may be the first time, to my knowledge.

Ok, all you brilliant libs.

Tell me what the Democrats solution to ending the war on terror or improving the situation in Iraq is.

Don't just Bush bash. Give an alternative. The people you vote for can't. Their "solutions" are the same things we're already doing. Or just attacking Bush.

What would KO do?

the koz-maniacs are not happy tonight...they did not like KO's interview with Ashcroft either....
At least we agree on something...KO is not good with the other team.

Ok, all you brilliant libs.

Tell me what the Democrats solution to ending the war on terror or improving the situation in Iraq is.
Posted by: bigred at October 16, 2006 09:57 PM

There is no end to the war on terror according to President Bush. Look it up, he said it. As far as Iraq, thats like breaking a glass and then expecting someone to put it back together. The present administration broke. Some poor slob, republican or democrat is going to have to pick uo the pieces and try to make the best out of a bad situation. And why do you put dems in a corner and say what is your plan. Please tell me again. What is the republican plan for Iraq. Stay the course? What the fuck is the course anyway?

they voted for it before they voted against it....and then they stuck their finger into the wind....and changed their minds again...lol

that last one was me again by the way.

Stay the course of course of course, Thats the plan. More war. More debt. More bullshit.

Johnny,

I was actually reluctant to take my dog for a walk tonight. With Olbermann interviewing Ashcroft the possibility that a meteor could come crashing down on my head seemed much less remote.

We do have to give K.O. some credit tongiht for acting like a real journalist.

KO is used to pontificating knowing that his usually guests will just jump on the hate Bush bandwagon the guy has forgotten how to ask a question...I give him a D for the Ashcroft interview.
I must be spoiled by watching FOXNEWS....lol.

I must be spoiled by watching FOXNEWS....lol.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2006 10:16 PM

If the only music i ever hear was country bumpkin i would probably think it was great. I heard classical, jazz, jazz fusion, rock. I know better than to like only bumpkin. Get off the fox fix and you might start thinking for yourselves one day.

Olby sits at the feet of Michael Moore.
Journalistic credentials? ESPN.

Olby sits at the feet of Michael Moore.
Journalistic credentials? ESPN.

Dose anybody still belive KO is the new Edmond R. Murrow after this Ashcroft interview?

Reagen sat at the feet of Hollywood.
Political credentials? Bed time with Bonzo.

Dose anybody still belive KO is the new Edmond R. Murrow after this Ashcroft interview?

Posted by: mlong at October 16, 2006 10:30 PM

He gets balamed for not having any "right" people on and then when he does he gets ridiculed.

"Acting" like a real journalist? He can't even do that. It was a horrid excuse of an interview. Ashcroft is rather dull anyway, but he ran circles around every question KO asked.

Real journalists don't ask rhetorical questions based on conspiracy theories. They look for an event that actually has some basis in reality and probe into that.

For you libs who attention deficiencies, KO framed is as a rhetorical question, and Ashcroft swatted it down like a housefly. Imagine the field day someone like Cheney would have the Orange Man.

Anon,
The Congressional Democrats voted against the war in Iraq.

Imagine the field day someone like Cheney would have the Orange Man.
Posted by: bigred at October 16, 2006 10:42 PM

I imagine Big dick Cheney in an orange jump suit.

So--the orange colored putz--olbytard is calling manes?HMMM? O'Reilly is a "moron"? Lets see--the man who never played a sport in his entire life--he was busy inside helping OlbyMommy no doubt and chating with an even more creepier teenaged Micheal Musto on the phone about boys they liked---and who went to a big bucks private High School---and then could only get into Cornell is calling O'Reilly--who went to Marist and then to Kennedy School at Harvard?

He gets balamed for not having any "right" people on and then when he does he gets ridiculed.
***********************************************
When he makes it a habit of having more people from the other side on a regular bases then maybe we'll cut him a litte slack but I think it'll be awhile before another opposing view is heard on his show.

Plus it was a bad interview.

O'Reilly is a wise ass know it all big mouth who is making millions playing on your hatred of anything that you can't understand. You can have the cultural warrior. He is a smuck.

LOL. You mean the libs aren't happy with his interview? You mean they realize he really may NOT be Edward R. Olbermann? See, it's easy to look like a hero when you're interviewing people who agree with you but when you actually get someone who doesn't, well that seperates the former sports anchors from the real journalists. Guess which category KO doesn't fall in? So will they ask for refunds on his crappy book now? Or will he have to issue yet another "special comment" to regain the liberal love?

Codas, as you put it the glass of Iraq is broken. Someone has to put it back together.What kind of plan could you expect a poor helpless Dem to propose.

President Bush plans to stay in Iraq untill the glass is fixed OR a new one fashioned.

All I've seen the dems trumpet as a plan, with the exception of the ultra liberal Liebermann, is to run out of Iraq over the glass with bloody feet. Then those that are innocent Iraqis can walk and roll around in the broken glass.

Your assertion that President Bush said the War on Terror would last forever is WRONG. President Bush said the War on Terror could last a generation or more or untill its won. And Iraq is a major theater in that war.

I approve of and agree with the goals the President has outlined in this conflict. The strategy to achieve those goals has been set by the military and may change from time to time. At any rate, neither you nor I are remotely qualified to be planning strategy.

If you remember President Johnson planned air attacks and I've heard had his finger in ground strategy too. And that went well, didn't it?

One of the biggest military blunders in WW2 was Operation Torch conceived by and planned in detail by Winston Churchill. Even the greatest of men can make mistakes when they stray into someone elses field of expertise.

So sorry. I forgot my manners. That last post to Codas was by me.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet Hawkins,
Bush is hardly a great man. He's a phoney Leftists tricking consevatives. He didn't mobilize this nation like FDR did for war.
O'rEilly exposed him for the fraud he was. When told point blank that China, Russia and France aren't on our side he naively said " I ujust spoke with Putin." He's living in a fantasay world and has a;;owed the French, Russiand, Chinese Islamo-Fascists and the George Soros led International Leftists run all over us. He doesn't have the balls to deal with our foreign and domestic enemies. the fact that a pipsqueek traitor like Olbermann is still breathing is proff of his weakness.
I hope the Dems win Congress. Atb least they're honest Leftists that admitt their sympathy for our enemies. Hopefully that'll wake the American people up and Giulliani will win in 08 or a Military Coup!

President Bush plans to stay in Iraq untill the glass is fixed OR a new one fashioned.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 16, 2006 11:11 PM

What has happened so far in Iraq that would make me believe that the glass will bo fixed or that the new one will be more secure than the old one. I have to say that when 911 first happen i thought, oh God, we have Bush, how comforting. Then it might suprise you to know I thought he did a wondeful job after it happened. He spoke at that church gathering if you remember and he didn't stammer or stutter once. He was presidential and I felt comforted. I will always give him the respect he deserves for going down to ground zero. Sorry to say, for whatever reason or whoever got in his ear ever since then he has been wrong. I really blame Cheney. I think he is a misguided human being. The Iraq war was and is a tragic mistake.

Janet Hawkins,
Bush is hardly a great man. He's a phoney Leftists tricking consevatives. He didn't mobilize this nation like FDR did for war.
O'Reilly exposed him for the fraud he was. When told point blank that China, Russia and France aren't on our side he naively said " I ujust spoke with Putin." He's living in a fantasay world and has allowed the French, Russians, Chinese, Islamo-Fascists and the George Soros led International Leftists run all over us. He doesn't have the balls to deal with our foreign and domestic enemies. the fact that a pipsqueek traitor like Olbermann is still breathing is proff of his weakness.
I hope the Dems win Congress. At least they're honest Leftists that admitt their sympathy for our enemies. Hopefully that'll wake the American people up and Giulliani will win in 08 or a Military Coup!

Janet Hawkins,
Bush is hardly a great man. He's a phoney Leftists tricking consevatives. He didn't mobilize this nation like FDR did for war.
O'Reilly exposed him for the fraud he was. When told point blank that China, Russia and France aren't on our side he naively said " I ujust spoke with Putin." He's living in a fantasay world and has allowed the French, Russians, Chinese, Islamo-Fascists and the George Soros led International Leftists run all over us. He doesn't have the balls to deal with our foreign and domestic enemies. the fact that a pipsqueek traitor like Olbermann is still breathing is proff of his weakness.
I hope the Dems win Congress. At least they're honest Leftists that admitt their sympathy for our enemies. Hopefully that'll wake the American people up and Giulliani will win in 08 or a Military Coup!

codas,
The only reason the Iraq war was a mistake is because we didn'tgo in with enough troops and stopped right there. we should've leveled the place Mongol style and then level Syria, Iran and saudi Arabia.

Janet,
Bush to NBC News in August 2004: “I don’t think you can win” the war on terror.

Colbert,
With incompetent leaders like Bush and treacherous leaches like Olbermann, Soros, NY Times and the French of course we can't win!

codas,
The only reason the Iraq war was a mistake is because we didn'tgo in with enough troops and stopped right there. we should've leveled the place Mongol style and then level Syria, Iran and saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Red Wolf at October 16, 2006 11:30 PM

Why didn't we secure Afgahnistan? The Taliban is a dangerous crew and I knew that before 911 when they were blowing up statues of Buddah that were a thousand years old. We want to believe we could just whip everybodys ass if we want. When has that ever happened? If a country came here and invaded us for our own good how would you respond? I would be in the hills with a gun. I wouldn't think twice about making "them" pay a horible price for being in my backyard. Don't you think other humans see it that way? None of the countries you mentioned are going to roll over for us. What is the great reward or light at the end of the tunnel that we are walking through?

Although I hate the scumbags, I do give the Islamo-Fascists credit. They have strenght of conviction support from the population and their media is helping them!

Codas,
We should've leveled Afgahnistan and helped India level Pakistan.

"We want to believe we could just whip everybodys ass if we want. When has that ever happened? "
The Mongols whipped all their opponents.
If a country came here and invaded us for our own good how would you respond?"

What was 9/11 and all the other Islamic attacks beginning with the Iran Hostage crisis in 79.
Because of the strenght of their convictions the Muslims will win.

"

The Mongols whipped all their opponents.

We are not the Mongols. Iraq has been a learning tool for terrorist who now know how to fight us. Just a little here and there. Nice going Bush and Cheney.

Codas, you put words in my mouth. I believe that President Bush is light years ahead of President Johnson and not up to the level of Churchill. But when it comes to Churchill there are probably none to match him in the 20th century.

I do, however, assess President Bush this way. He is a man of character with the broad understanding of what we face. He has one of the best qualities of President Reagan, my vote for second behind Churhill and only in front of FDR, which is delegating to those with the expertise.

As you might remember President Carter was a MICRO manager. And he was a poor excuse for even a bad president.

Whether he did or didn't use a malapropism right after 9/11 is meaningless. We'll skip that comment of yours.

And that brings us to the point you didn't address. What credible goal have the Dems come up with? And, how do they propose pursuing it. Not in excruciating detail, but in broader strokes which is all we should expect. The nitty gritty details comes in implementation.

I've heard some say redeploy to Okinawa. That is a broad goal but they never include what their goal in Iraq is.

Vice President Cheney is not the issue. I disagree with you about him, but so what. President Bush has always struck me as a man who knows his own mind.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

the leftys are crazed dogs this evening!~

President Bush has always struck me as a man who knows his own mind.
Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie
Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 16, 2006 11:51 PM

That is not enough for me. My dog probably knows her own mind. Bush doesn't seem to know how to accept he made a wrong turn and adjust his direction. They need to either walk away or put 400 thousand troops in there. The fact that he didn't do that from the start should make YOU wonder if he is a Churchil or not. He isn't. Sorry. They cover their buts with "hey, stuff happens". Well there job is to know that already and be prepared. They screwed up. If I screw up my job I am fired. If I accidently kill someone on the way to work there is a chance at a manslaughter charge not a medal.

billy,
You aren't dumb enough to compare Marist to Cornell are you? Cornell is one of the best universities in the country. It's a member of the Ivy League. I know from your previous posts that you're sexually attracted to Bill O'Reilly but that doesn't make Marist a great school.

Codas, you talk a lot but you don't listen. So I'll repeat myself again. I said the greatest man of the 20th century ,Winston Churchill, made a colossal error with Operation Torch, that he conceived and planned. That President MICRO manager Carter was an utter failure. President Johnson was a failure as a military planner.

I also said that President Bush shares a quality with the second greatest man of the 20th century. The quality of delegating to others the responsibility to implement the goals he sets, ie to develop the stategies.

You also seem to be adverse to answering a direct question. What Dems have proposed as goals and in very broad terms what strategies to achieve them? This is the third time around for this. I haven't heard of anything more than redeploy to Okinawa, with no word of what else to do. If you know something I don't know, PLEASE share it with me.

I'm glad that you have such a forceful dog. My rescued Grey Hound would be Miss Pitty Pat from Gone with the Wind if he was a human.

Now, I'm going to bed. I'll check tomorrow morning for any enlightenment you can shine on me.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I'm glad that you have such a forceful dog. My rescued Grey Hound would be Miss Pitty Pat from Gone with the Wind if he was a human.

Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 17, 2006 12:41 AM

My dog is a pitbull who only wishes she had thumbs so she could open the fridge by herself. If she was human she would kill everything and everyone I think.
I don't really have an answer of the democrats plan for Iraq. Although I don't think they have been in a position to really have an impact to this point. That is going to change soon though.

you talk about Keith not wanting people on his show who "dont follow his rules" when lets be serious here people...it is the fox news gods you have learned to worship who do that, wait im sorry....fair and balanced...my mistake

you talk about Keith not wanting people on his show who "dont follow his rules" when lets be serious here people...it is the fox news gods you have learned to worship who do that
**************************************************
Oh course you can give examples of where Hannity and Combs or O'Reilly have banned people from their shows or don't have people on their shows who disagree with them?

You can't because thats the nature of their shows they bring on people for debates of the issues not just to rubberstamp what the host says.

JOhnny Dollar wrote:

"). Funny, he was never that interested in the investigation of William Jefferson (D), and only reported on it long after raids and guilty pleas, and after weeks of hectoring from Olbermann Watch."

Um, Jefferson hasn't pled guilty to anything. He hasn't even been CHARGED with anything. The matter is still under investigation, though one Jefferson aide and one "money man" have pled guilty.

And over the weekend the Lousiana Democratic Party endorsed one of his opponents over him. It's the first time "in recent memory" that the incumbent Democrat has not been endorsed by his own party. He still gets to run, but without party support it is doubtful he'll win.

And as for Senator Harry Reid, I've said my piece to the point where cee is probably sick of hearing me talk. And this piddly-ass land deal is microscopic compared to the BIG, WHOPPING scandals that the Republicans brought to the table. In fact, the Ethics panel is probably not even going to be able to argue an actual sanctonable offense even happened.

Codas, I had to borrow Miss Pitty Pat's smelling salts. You are the second person to answer my often asked question and the first to give an honest and believable answer.

You state you don't have an answer for what the Dems would do, BUT they haven't had a chance to have an impact. And finally, that is going to change soon.

Codas, that is the crux of the matter. WHAT WILL THEY DO??? I have many criticisms of the Bush administration's handling of the battle in Iraq. However, based on the overall philosophy of the Dems I'm fairly certain I'll despise their goals and methods. I also disagree they haven't had a chance to have an impact yet. They do by the incessant carping and facetious claims of brutallity and imaginary fascist tactics by the current administration.

I want our government to move fast and hard towards more of a WW2 mind set. We gave the Japanese fair warning (including leaflets to inform the civilians) and then we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. We then followed up with Nagasaki (sic?). In spite of that, we might have had to invade the Japanese islands if the attempted coup after Hirohito had recorded his speech to the Japanese people of Japan's unconditional surrender had succeeded.

At Casino Pass in Italy we bombed the monastary eventually. Dresden was annilated in the waning days of the war.

We were fighting brutal enemies and employed brutal methods. My preference would be to employ similar tactics today. Give Falujah 2 or 3 days warning and then raze it to the ground. If they use ancient mosques as storage depots and tactical positions, take them out. They should be no more sacrosanct then an ancient monastery or a beautiful historical German City.

I believe the pig in a poke that you are promoting would lead to an even kinder gentler war. And I will do everything I can to prevent that.

Codas, I think we are in a much tougher position than we were in WW2. Then, we were ONLY fighting other governments. Today's war has to be with both governments and a diffuse death loving population spread in many governments and encompassing untold millions. Not only do we have to deny them nation states that protect and aid them, we also have to ferret them out around the world and protect ourselves at home. As an added complication they are unlawful enemy combatants, not uniformed soldiers following a legitimate chain of command.

If I had my druthers I would unleash your pit bull on them. Unfortunately, that isn't possible. So I will continue to do what I have been doing. Work for and support those willing to come the closest to doing what I think is necessary.

Well, now that I have solved the world's most pressing problems I really am going to bed this time.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

What a strange site .. the author is just a hack of the radical right, so what credibility does he have to discredit Olbermann's? I notice you didn't mention what the Republicans on his worst persons list did, or who they were. I see a lot of name calling here and uncivil discourse, but not compelling arguments of substance.

codas,

Grammie says it well for me.

In the reality of the world, total war will defeat an enemy. The hundreds of thousand dead at the hands of the invading US forces in WWII are often forgotten by people because the enemy was so ruthless and evil. Harry Truman correctly used two nuclear weapons that put a quicker end to the war in the pacific. Thousands of civilians, women and children were killed instantly and many suffered after with radiation sickness. What of these people? Were they any wrongly killed so that you and Sir Loin can drive over to Walmart and pick up cheap CD's? We "excuse" their deaths for the call to the end of the more brutal actions of a ruthless enemy.

Grammie covered the european conflict well and showed the reality of total war. The Soviets were even worse then we were in their westward offensive, but they won over the Nazis as well.

So what is your response to that reality codas? You and Sir Loin hate war so much but live in a world functioning well FOR THE TWO OF YOU BECAUSE of it! You may say Iraq and Afghanistan and even, "The War on Terror," is not WWII. That argument does not address the reality of the world we live in. When a group of people decide to use violence against another group of people, what should THE GROUP attacked do in response?

Our armed forces in Iraq are the targets of a ruthless enemy that does not wear a uniform, uses civilians as shields, kills civilians based on religious views and employs REAL torture like cutting off heads of prisoners. What are we supposed to do now?

These tough questions are IGNORED by the democrats and I am afraid as more pressure is brought upon the current administration, Bush will relent and Iraq will be yet another Vietnam....a war retreated from because the will to fight EFFECTIVELY was lost.

BTW is that substanitive enough for you, Nominay?

Nominay,

You must have missed the memo. You forgot the "I just stumbled on this site when I googled Olbermann" line that is part of the boiler plate for Olbermaniacs before they call RC a right-wing hack with no credibility.

it figures colbert would come here as usual and display his sicko homosexual tendencies.
as to all the war talk here what do we do?? do we just up and leave iraq in a quagmire? what will come of it? If we do just up and leave it bacially in anarchy we will have to go back eventually. Those that critize Bush really have no sound plan to face the consequences of leaving.
Cee your points and arguments are very well taken. I think that the anti-war movement has not so much to do about being anti-war but the left being anti -Bush. Is America going to compromise safety and security because of the leftist Bush derangement syndrome?
The liberals or progressives always say that we are not safer but have they thought of the consequences of not fighting the terrorists? Gee what will they do with all that free time?

To the liberals who only see the problems with fundamentalism in Christianity and overlook the MILLIONS of VIOLENT fundamentalists in Islam, the following NYT quote.....

10/17/06 "In the northern city of Mosul, a priest from the Syriac Orthodox Church was kidnapped last week. His church complied with his captors’ demands and put up posters denouncing recent comments made by the pope about Islam, but he was killed anyway. The police found his beheaded body on Wednesday."

To morally equate the behavior of militant muslims with the secular armed forces of The United States of America or the evangelical Christians in the US seems easily refuted by the example above. This is what is being fought over in Iraq and Afghanistan....stop ignoring it!

The article continues and yes, the NYT bias comes out in spades that, you know what?....it's the US's fault that muslims are killing people. Wow, what objectivity!

My goodness...I actually agree with KO on something.

He's right about Buck O'Neill. It is a shame that O'Neill did not live to see his eventual inducation into the Baseball Hall Of Fame. It should have happened a long time ago.

Keith Olbermann: Right about Buck O'Neill, wrong about everything else.

So what is your response to that reality codas? You and Sir Loin hate war so much but live in a world functioning well FOR THE TWO OF YOU BECAUSE of it! You may say Iraq and Afghanistan and even, "The War on Terror," is not WWII. That argument does not address the reality of the world we live in. When a group of people decide to use violence against another group of people, what should THE GROUP attacked do in response?

Posted by: cee at October 17, 2006 07:39 AM

You chastise me for hating war. That's sweet. You say that hundreds of thousands of deaths are "excused" in order to end more brutality. How dare I have a problem with that and then buy a CD at WalMart. I need a deeper apreciation of the reality of total war. I think you just called me a pussy, am I correct? What should the group who is being attacked do? that is a good question. I think a good first question would be why are we being attacked. How can you know what your dealing with if you just respond without thinking first of all. Maybe a good assesment of what it will take to respond and get the job done. Perhap try not to do things that will leave us more vulnerable to another attack in the future. We wouldn't want to spend 300 million and a few thousand of our soldiers going "to the wrong house" so to speak. I would say we should give our soldiers the best equipment they could have. Then I think I would explain to the country in no uncertain terms just what the cost might be to us as a nation and make sure that I held my credibilty with the public, and that the enemy understood exactly that we were coming with full force and resolve to finish the job. If someone in position of authority was found to be incompotent they would be replaced not given a medal that's for sure. I would never "excuse" killing civillians, I would regret that very much and make some sort of compensation to their families after the war. I would not declare victory until I could walk down the street or drive to the airport without getting blown up. Oh, but I forgot. I am just a liberal pussified democrat. Please tell me again. What would you do. Incinarate them all. Kill them all, it's worth it. Radiation is not strong enough to effect a true blue American. Nuke Their fucking asses. Oh it will be so fun at the bible meeting and the church picnic to tell tales of our bravery. Lobbing nuclear missles and praising Jesus for his saving grace. And let the people say AMEN and amen.

Your right cee. I have seen the light. My christian upbringing has been manipulated by extremists in my church leadership. How could I have been so wrong. Should we nuke Iran first or North korea. I think that if we do Korea first we might might be able to get a couple of hundred million Chinese in the process. Fuck em. Their don't like Jesus anyway and they are going to burn in hell. Lets get em nice and warm before they go. We will send out flyers to the middle east and let them have a chance to run. Then lets turn that fucking place to glass. I think we should use some good old fasioned mustard gas on the Mexicans. Die you fucking dirty stinky scumbag peice of shit. Texas is mine fucker. Yeah, I'm getting it now guys. After everyone is dead, it is easy to see. It's all worth it. We are here, and they are gone. They are dead because they should be dead. I get it now. It's just a sacrifice I have to make. Thank you guys. You will be seeing a new attitude in my postings now. I have been born again and the Lord has shown me the light and the life in the blood of my enemies.

I actually will give KO credit as John Ashcroft is a dissenting opinion from his own...something we constantly beg for. Maybe he can keep this up and have at least one a week or something.

As far as BOR goes...WPITW for the exactly how many-ith time...this after all the hoopla of FI and Miami football brawl (including U of Miami's announcer condoning & egging them on)..that one guy constantly swinging his helmut as a weapon...not to mention of course any terrorists/murderers/rapists etc

"This just in.

You are mindless slaves of Beelzubub.

Posted by: codas at October 16, 2006 09:23 PM

This just in...

You have been hypnotical entranced to obey only the will of Limbaugh. Submit slave. Bow to the lord of ignorance. Kiss the feet of Hannity and Coulter. Liberals are scum and want to do things like provide heath care. Must stop gay agenda. Must start more war. More war slave. Love it and hate all who oppose you.

Posted by: codas at October 16, 2006 09:31 PM

On another note...

You are mindless slaves. Your country has been at war for almost four years. You are in debt. The religious leaders are "Kooks". And you want more. More war. More debt. More kooks.

Posted by: codas at October 16, 2006 09:36 PM"
-------

Finally, coherent arguments from the left

Oh but connor, I have been changed. My eyes are open now. KILL THEM! Yeah baby. It can be fun.

That is what you want from me isn't it? I mean I don't want to misinterpet you people.

"Oh but connor, I have been changed."

you have a dry diaper on now...lovely /sarc off

You have a dick for a brain. lovely? sarc on

What's a matter codas...I can't play along like you?

I like to play, but I really don't get the love for war that some people have here. It's just me I guess.

O'Reilly is a wise ass know it all big mouth who is making millions playing on your hatred of anything that you can't understand. You can have the cultural warrior. He is a smuck.

Posted by: codas at October 16, 2006 10:52 PM
---------------
But KO is an elite non-partison journalist?

But KO is an elite non-partison journalist?

Posted by: connor_in at October 17, 2006 10:53 AM

No he isn't non-partisan at this point. Thanfully.

Anon,
The Congressional Democrats voted against the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Colbert at October 16, 2006 10:43 PM

---------
In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq...

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133....

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate...

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against.

---> Source http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Just to keep the record straight Colbert

I'd like to commend you guys for all the work you are doing. We need to shut down liberals like Olbermann who constantly delight in reporting our many scandals and problems.

With luck and your persistence, he won't last very long (even though it looks like he's doing the best of all of MSNBC). With even more luck maybe we could get a hot blond to replace him (I would suggest Coulter but she seems to cut and run whenever she's confronted).

I'm glad to see you guys aren't cutting and running when confronted. Instead, you're properly either ignoring the liberals or denigrating them. Keep it up!

Though I see we need to get you guys some more money to fix your errors when people post. I'll see what we can do.

Justus... I do not want KO off the air..what fun would that be...he has the right to express his opinion...most lefties here tell us he is courageous for expressing his opinions in a world where it is impossible to find people across the broad range of media who agree with him (snicker, chortle, guffaw) My only points are, I want him to admit they are opinions and quit saying they are fact as well as admit his bias

codas,

Is that really you codas, because you sound very different than your tone previously.

I apologize if I implied your should love war or that I love war. I want to make it clear, I do not love war. I do not think you are a coward either (I don't like the word you used). Again, sorry if I left that impression.

My point was, the paradox of your and Sir Loin's pacifism now in the present verses reflections on the past. Your various other point regarding the mechanics of how the current conflict is being conducted are way off my point, but, ok, I understand your irritation. If you are a pacifist just say so and I'll stop asking you about your view of war. But if you are not a pacifist, then I do have a ideological issue with you with regards to "religion" and the reality of war.

Just answer my simple question, I'll state it again....

So what is your response to that reality codas?

I'll remind you that the question refers to the response to German and Japanese aggression in WWII. Please try to answer that question before you turn your guns on my, "love of war," which is a mischaracterization. If you are against the use of war or violence of any kind, 100%, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week then just say so and I'll let it rest. But if not, and you think some disputes can be resolved with power and violence in some cases, then we have a valid debate, don't we codas?

cee:
I see your game now...you tricky republican, you.
You try to pin someone down and answer a specific question to get a specific answer so then you could probably reply in some sort of rational discourse!!!!

Well no go cee...that would be a real debate and is the last thing these guys would fall for

That and throwing around your fabricated statistics like 100% & 24 hours a day & 7 seven days a week, please cite where these "factual statistics come from, so that I may ridicule your source and or ingnore the stats at that time

I cee right thru you now!

Yeah, connor, I know, I know. We have to say "freedom of press" and all that jazz. Its just that from what I've ben reading here, it seems like this Olby points out stuff not covered by anyone else in the media so its kinda annoying.

So what is your response to that reality codas?

Posted by: cee at October 17, 2006 11:23 AM

I am not a 24 hour a day pacifist. I find it hard to have to answer and give solutions to messes that were made by people who's best answer to me is, after they make a mess,"Well, what would you do?" How about not fucking everything up so bad in the first place. I never hear any answers from your "side" other than rhetoric and tough talk. I am cornered and expected to offer the sollution to age old questions. I guess that's fair enough. It would be nice to start with if you actualy go after the people that are attacking you. Over estimating your own strength and thinking you can invade, occupy and rule over countries that you can't even speak their language would be stupid. Maybe, just maybe if you mind your own business in the first place, and don't meddle in others affairs they might not attack you. Oh I know. I am blaming America first, right? I am it might suprise to know a supporter of Pat Buchanon when it comes to the middle east. He has been saying all along to stay the hell out of there. You say I don't understand the reality of war. I say you don't even have a clue of the consequences of what we did in Iraq. You look the other way. It has to be worth it because Bush and all his Fox friends say it is. Well cee, burning peoples family members alive can make a man a little angry. There are plenty of angry people who are going to strike back at another time and another place. Then, after being the ones who created the situation in the first place, their best answer will be, Well what would you do?

cee:
translation of codas response "ignoring question/argument...obfuscating...have a nice day unless you vote R"

connor.

You feel the need to be sacarstic don't you. I answered the question. You only see what you want and need to see. Anything out of that realm is beyond your grasp.

codas,

You ignored my question regarding the use of force in WWII...again. Fine. But needless to say, it is hard for me to argue with your, "should of, could of, would of" points, but I'll try.

Just so that I make myself clear....You stated you are not a pacifist. So this means violence is a means you morally accept in certain situations. Right?

"It would be nice to start with if you actualy go after the people that are attacking you."
1) War in Afghanistan - The Taliban supported Al Queda and gave them safe haven.
2) War in Iraq - Saddam Hussein had used WMD's in the past and it was suspected he was still intent on developing his WMD program. This last point was in direct violation of UN resolution.

"Over estimating your own strength and thinking you can invade, occupy and rule over countries that you can't even speak their language would be stupid."
1) We conquered both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in short order with few deaths.
2) Occupation has been thwarted by many issues that only a few people thought would be as bad as they turned out to be (sectarian violence, Al Queda's involvement in Iraq, and Iran's influence).
3) We do not rule in either Iraq or Afghanistan...they have their own elected officials, armies and law enforcement.

I have to get back to work, but will post more later.

cee:
"I'll remind you that the question refers to the response to German and Japanese aggression in WWII."

codas:
where in your response to cee is anything pertaining to German and Japanese aggression in WWII?

fuck it. you people are thick.

Posted by Redwolf:

"Janet Hawkins,
Bush is hardly a great man. He's a phoney Leftists tricking consevatives. He didn't mobilize this nation like FDR did for war.
O'rEilly exposed him for the fraud he was. When told point blank that China, Russia and France aren't on our side he naively said " I ujust spoke with Putin." He's living in a fantasay world and has a;;owed the French, Russiand, Chinese Islamo-Fascists and the George Soros led International Leftists run all over us. He doesn't have the balls to deal with our foreign and domestic enemies. the fact that a pipsqueek traitor like Olbermann is still breathing is proff of his weakness.
I hope the Dems win Congress. Atb least they're honest Leftists that admitt their sympathy for our enemies. Hopefully that'll wake the American people up and Giulliani will win in 08 or a Military Coup!"

Cough, cough. I hate to break it to ya redwolf but Russia, France and China have never been with us and never will. Plus, do you think the President is going to tell us about national security. Give me a break. You can't have your cake and it it to. There is nothing GW can do to please any liberal and he doesn't personally care either. He's not out sniffing the wind or whatever he can stick his nose into because he "can" like Willie "the draft dodger" did. Nobody knows what is going on between our countries.

Posted by Redwolf:

"Janet Hawkins,
Bush is hardly a great man. He's a phoney Leftists tricking consevatives. He didn't mobilize this nation like FDR did for war.
O'rEilly exposed him for the fraud he was. When told point blank that China, Russia and France aren't on our side he naively said " I ujust spoke with Putin." He's living in a fantasay world and has a;;owed the French, Russiand, Chinese Islamo-Fascists and the George Soros led International Leftists run all over us. He doesn't have the balls to deal with our foreign and domestic enemies. the fact that a pipsqueek traitor like Olbermann is still breathing is proff of his weakness.
I hope the Dems win Congress. Atb least they're honest Leftists that admitt their sympathy for our enemies. Hopefully that'll wake the American people up and Giulliani will win in 08 or a Military Coup!"

Cough, cough. I hate to break it to ya redwolf but Russia, France and China have never been with us and never will. Plus, do you think the President is going to tell us about national security. Give me a break. You can't have your cake and it it to. There is nothing GW can do to please any liberal and he doesn't personally care either. He's not out sniffing the wind or whatever he can stick his nose into because he "can" like Willie "the draft dodger" did. Nobody knows what is going on between our countries.

You think we are winning in Iraq.
You think we have Afgahnistan.
I don't even know what to say. YOU win. Have your wars. I hope they draft YOUR kids. You are in a state of total denial. You are lost souls if you ask me, but who is.

Codas, I have to ask myself a question. Why would someone spend so much time on a board that the oeverwhelming majorities opinion is polar opposites to yours? Do you think you are going to prove anything here or are you here defending a moron like Olberman? To answer the question to myself, I'd say you are a Simple Simon who has way too much time on your hands and when he aint using his hands on himself he is on here making himself look like an ass. Why don;t you go on over to AirAmerica.com where you'll find the same didiots sharing the same views as you do? Oh, that's right, AA went bankrupt.

I am not a 24 hour a day pacifist. I find it hard to have to answer and give solutions to messes that were made by people who's best answer to me is, after they make a mess,"Well, what would you do?" How about not fucking everything up so bad in the first place. I never hear any answers from your "side" other than rhetoric and tough talk. I am cornered and expected to offer the sollution to age old questions. I guess that's fair enough. It would be nice to start with if you actualy go after the people that are attacking you. Over estimating your own strength and thinking you can invade, occupy and rule over countries that you can't even speak their language would be stupid. Maybe, just maybe if you mind your own business in the first place, and don't meddle in others affairs they might not attack you. Oh I know. I am blaming America first, right? I am it might suprise to know a supporter of Pat Buchanon when it comes to the middle east. He has been saying all along to stay the hell out of there. You say I don't understand the reality of war. I say you don't even have a clue of the consequences of what we did in Iraq. You look the other way. It has to be worth it because Bush and all his Fox friends say it is. Well cee, burning peoples family members alive can make a man a little angry. There are plenty of angry people who are going to strike back at another time and another place. Then, after being the ones who created the situation in the first place, their best answer will be, Well what would you do?

Posted by: codas at October 17, 2006 11:49 AM
------
No codas, seriously, point out the answer to cee's question re: WWII germany and Japan aggression and I will admit to being thick...or is it just that you cannot and wil not answer except in rhetoric that merely ignores and obfuscates

Posted by codas:

"fuck it. you people are thick."

Then you go on to tell us to send our children to fight. One things for sure we cna not count on people like you. It's people like you that make a Viet Nam. More and more we see that it's people like you and liberals that are giving terrosit strength, hope, resolve......

You have trouble verbally debating. I can imagine how you would be with someone in your face or in combat.

To borrow a line from you r super hero codas,

"Here kitty, kitty"

I am a dumbass. I admit it freely.

codas...I did not call you a dumbass...merely asked a question

I did not post the 12:32. It is sarcasm from someone. It seems I have gotten ganged up on here. Cool. I especialy find it cool that Larry Brock uses a Olbermann type of insult on me. Sometimes you become what you hate, huh Larry.

I think Air America has been a huge success. The so-called "business model" was politically driven, meant to quickly expand into a majority of the American markets, driven by a sense of urgency that certain facts and opinions were being ignored by the mainstream media, and the right wing media had gone from dominating talk radio to dominating talk radio AND cable news. Air America's mission was always to influence the political culture. Did they succeed? Well, SOMETHING sure as hell has influenced the political culture over the past two and a half years! It looks like we're all about to find out just how much.

And they're not dead yet. They're still on the air today. KMart filed for chapter 11 protection how many years ago? And I still buy my catfood there.

A lot of the individual affiliates have done quite well. In the end, they may have to change their business model, but I don't think they're going anywhere.

I'd say you are a Simple Simon who has way too much time on your hands and when he aint using his hands on himself he is on here making himself look like an ass.

Larry, thats funny. I thought the same thing about you. But you don't have to make yourself look like an ass. You are one.

I love the way some people complain I don't answer the question. I have just been called a pussy, a dumbass, and a jerk off basically. Not to mention a coward. That's real great debating on your part. Here's one from my heart. Fuck you all. I'm still here.

Codas, what do you expect out of a bunch of rabid Keith Olbermann fans? They see their Leader call Mike Wallace a Monkey, Roger Ailes a fatass, etc. It's all they know.

Come on now. Call me some more names. I love getting you pissed. You are pissed. Because you don't like being talked back to. You are losing CONTROL.

I love the way some people complain I don't answer the question [YOU DON'T]

I have just been called a pussy, a dumbass, and a jerk off basically.Not to mention a coward. [AND YOU CALL NO ONE ANY NAMES, IS THAT CORRECT?]

That's real great debating on your part.[AND YET YOU STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER ONE FRELLING QUESTION...GREAT DEBATING ON YOUR PART]

Here's one from my heart. Fuck you all. [CANNOT/WILL NOT DEBATE, SO RESORT TO NAMES/PERSONAL ATTACKS...CHECK OFF FROM DU PLAYBOOK, OK, NEXT]

I'm still here. [WOO-HOO, GOOD BOY (pats on head)]

Posted by: codas at October 17, 2006 12:51 PM

So Connor. . .remember that offer that Bob made yesterday to Oliver Willis that if one of you could find one factual error he's made about KO he'd shut down this blog. How's that research coming for you? Shouldn't that be your number one priority since you hate this blog and everyone here who disagrees with your pitiful notion that Olbermann is some sort of modern-day Edward R. Murrow?

um, brandon...please check out my posts, why would I want to shut this place down and since when do I think KO is anything other than a scary uncle? I think you may have the wrong name

connor,

What have you ever said that isn't sarcastic? What answer do you have for anything? If you had an original thought once in your life it would probably freak you out so much you wouldn't know who you are anymore. I say what I feel and think. If people think I am a pussy for it, so be it. And I generalize when I insult, unlike Mister Larry Brock who felt the need to insult me. Then he thinks I have too much time on my hands. Ha ha. He should get a life. I am doing fine married to a women I love Larry. And if I do something other than post here with my hands, it's none of your dirty minds business is it. Unless the thought of it gets you off, you sick mother fucker. You want me to be like you. Insulting, sarcastic a--hole loudmouth. I can do that. No problem. I try talking sense to these people, was that you connor who said that too or am I mistaken. Yeah. I know how it feels. Thanks for showing me how to respond in like manner. That is how I will do it from now on.

my dear friend codas...
Last week I tried to engage you in a rational discourse...tried and tried most of the day...even had a few reasonable exchanges back from you when you appeared to be the only leftie around (although still ignored my points when it conflicted with your ideology)...then Sir Beef and I forget who came online, started cursing and hurling accusations at people without provocation and you simply joined in and left all hope for an actual debate wither and die...

therefore, I now engage the left as they choose to engage others...not all my posts are sarcastic...see any number of my posts that ask you to answer cee's question...which you still have not done and probably never will but OK, fine...just don't expect credibility or people to respond to you in any other way then you repond to them ignore, denigrate, obfuscate the mantra of the left

connor,
As honestly and without any sarcasm or hostility I have to ask you, what answer do you want. Do I think I can solve the Iraq conflict? Hell no. Was the response to Germany and Japan correct. Hell yes. I am not a pacifist I said. It is an unfortunate reality that some people will not respond to reason. I work with Mental heath substance abusers. I know what a lack of a rational mind can do. I hate when I start insulting and I like this site because who wants to just listen to stuff they already know and people that agree with them all the time. I don't. Believe it or not, even though I may state a position that is opposed to yours, if you say something inteligent I actually might think about whatever it is we discussed in a diferent light. I hope that people do that with some of the things I say. I know you can't change eveyones mind, I don't want to. But no. I don't have the answer to the war on terror. Sorry. If I get the answer I will be sure to let you know.

PEACE for crying out loud

Ashcroft is gonna be on? My GOD! Maybe someone actually mentioned to Keith that things like conflict and multiple views on a subject are COMPELLING & INTERESTING to watch!!

Hell, I hate Kieth but he is so partison I'm curious to see how he conducts an interview to someone not from his own chorus.

Codas...God bless you for a cogent, honest, heartfelt answer. As I have said before on this site, I may not agree with your views, but will defend to the death your right to have them. Anytime I am around and you want to engage in rational debate simply say hey...will be more than happy to

thank you.

Codas, this will be the last time I engage with you in debate. I understand why we have been talking at cross purposes.

I know what I am against, but more importantly I know what I am FOR! And passionately so!

You know what you are against only. And that condenses into Bush & Co screwed up so get rid of them. Replace them with ANYBODY, JUST GET RID OF THEM! Codas it is impossible to argue from the negative only. And that is where your frustration comes from.

You also told Connor that you "generalize when you insult". That is a good way to lose the good will of people who don't hurl around insults, sexual innuendoes and epithets. You can include me in that last group. And I have never done that to you or others.

And, Codas, when you get bent out of shape with a man like Cee and attack him like you did earlier you are not advancing your cause. You say you hope to be persuasive. You hope through rational discouse to perhaps change someone's mind a bit.

First decide what you are FOR. Then start engaging in rational discourse and marshall your arguments to prove that your way is a better way. I am open to a better course. No one has outlined a different direction yet much less somtething better.

Good luck, Codas.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I hear you Janet.

sometimes you all just drive koo koo for cocoa puffs!

sometimes you all just drive ME koo koo for cocoa puffs!

connor_in,
Congress includes the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate Democrats voted 29-21 in favor of the resolution. The House Democrats voted 126-81 against the resolution. Thus, Congressional Democrats voted against the resolution, 147-110.
Just to keep the record straight.

anon at 8:02,
Is that you Billy? Are you afraid to post as yourself? I understand. You're probably worried i'll copy and paste your post where you graphically describe Bill O'Reilly's gentialia and what you want to do to it.

Everything the Bushies have predicted about Iraq has been proven wrong. Why would we believe their predictions for what happens if we pull out? It can't get much worse. The Bushies got us into Iraq and screwed it up. Where is their plan to fix it? The Democrats will only have control of Congress, not the White House or Pentagon. You act as if the Democrats will be running the Iraq War in January. Bush will still be in charge, unfortunately. But rewarding the people who screwed up because someone else hasn't fixed their mess yet speaks volumes about Republicans' "personal responsibility."

Anon at 5:18 pm is me.

yup, call yourself anon or colbert you are always the a--hole.

anon,
That's a great comeback, little Billy. I'm sorry I brought up your disturbing posts about your sexual fantasies with Bill O'Reilly. I bet you get excited when Olbermann call him Bill Orally.

Congress includes the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate Democrats voted 29-21 in favor of the resolution. The House Democrats voted 126-81 against the resolution. Thus, Congressional Democrats voted against the resolution, 147-110.
Just to keep the record straight.

Posted by: Colbert at October 17, 2006 05:09 PM
--------
oh my little mutton-headed Colbert
,,,you make me laugh so much...
your statement was that congressional dems voted against the Iraq resolution, thus making it sound like they ALL did...
nearly 43% of all congressional dems voted FOR it &
58% of dem senators voted for it

I too could say that congressional Republicans voted against the resolution (there were after all more than 2, so grammatically it is correct, but it gives the wrong impression.)

My next question is how you feel about this line from the CNN.com story:
"The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait."???

just curious and keeping the rcord straight and CLEAR...

only you have homo fantsies colbert unlike normal people.

"only you have homo fantsies colbert unlike normal people"

Why is that people think republicans are homophobes again?

Connor,
The person I responded to claimed the Congressional Democrats voted for the resolution. I've heard many on the right make that same claim. Are you saying all those conservatives really mean all Congressional Democrats voted for the resolution? Are you really that stupid?

The resolution was to go to the U.N. Security Council. The point, as stated by Chuck Hagel, was to put strength behind our effort to get U.N. weapons inspectors inside Iraq. The way to put strength behind the attempt was to give Bush discretion to go to war if inspections failed. The inspections were still being conducted but Bush cut them off and went to war anyway. If you recall, the prevailing thought was Bush was going to war with or without the resolution. Conservatives were making the case Bush didn't need Congressional approval to attack Iraq. Many people viewed the resolution as a way of delaying, and possibly preventing, the war.

Why is that people think republicans are homophobes again?
why is that people think that all liberals are homos ? calling somebody a "homophobe" is a real laugh. Just a another feeble attampt by the homofascists to demonize normalcy.
nobody is afraid of homos we just don't agree with their sick sexuality. it is not normal people who have a problem it is the gays and their little liberal cheerleaders who have the problem.
but we will see come Nov 8th how the referendums in eight states do on legitimizing the gay agenda.
so far in state referendums the gay agenda is batting ZERO.

so far in state referendums the gay agenda is batting ZERO.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 18, 2006 10:49 AM

We do have a higher percentage of republican politicians who are actually gay than we used to think we did now don.t we. THE GAY AGENDA is taking over your party.

cee, I'm looking for a debate based on substance, evidence, and facts, not attacks and "he's wrong because I say so" comments. Also, I don't know who Janet Hawkins is, so if that's meant to be an insult I don't get it.

Nominay,

I think I have been more than fastidious on expressing facts regarding the war in Iraq using the lense of history of the US waging war....please tell me what specific post I just dismiss someone with, "you're wrong."