Olbermann Watch - MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

October 18, 2006

COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - OCTOBER 18, 2006

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

Host: Keith Olbermann

Topics/Guests:

GOP IN CRISIS: Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly columnist and MSNBC political analyst; Joe Trippi, Democratic strategist
IRAQ'S POLITICAL FREEFALL IN THE U.S.: Thomas Ricks, Washington Post military reporter

It's a big night. Herr Olbermann bellowed his way through the opening spiel: "Desperate HouseRepublicans", Hastert "on the ropes", Iraq "a helluva mess", "Mister" Bush in the polls, and the "highly improved" Bill Jefferson Clinton. And naturally, a plug for tonight's isnt-that-special comment [1]:

The loss of habeas corpus

KO wasted no time in getting the spin cycle on high:

A politician like Dennis Hastert will say anything.

Well, at least he won't lie about habeas corpus. But more on that later.

Krazy Keith cited a new poll because it showed Bush below 40% (we noted previously how he hasn't cited polls that show him above 40%). Rove is confident. Barbara Bush says it's "a terrible year". The Hill says the GOP will focus on taxes and national security weakness and appeasement. Secret RNC reports show no dropoff. Say, isn't it time for Olbermann's Brain?

Sure enough, Craig Crawford chortled his way into the seat of honor. Republicans are "panicking". The White House is "in denial". "This is [sic] bad numbers." At Olby's suggestion, Brain was happy to opine that the GOP fears Dem subpoenas more than Dems coddling terrorists, but added that "Speaker Pelosi" has ruled out impeachment hearings. Herr Olbermann asked of Hastert:

Is there no sewer this man will not crawl through just to save his job right now?

Craig chuckled that he wouldn't "put either party past" much in these political times, so Olby tried another tack, trying to give the impression that most people actually favor higher taxes:

Has this equation, tax burden vs standard of living, somehow shifted into the favor of Democrats.

Brain demurred again from Krazy Keith's spin, diverting the topic to turnout and special interest voters. Crawford, possibly because he didn't parrot every last syllable of OlbySpin, only got thanksed (no "great") as the discredited sports guy swung the topic to B.J. Clinton. KO all but had an Olbgasm introducing a lengthy clip of B.J.'s platitudes, and then introduced Trippi:

...known best, perhaps, for the successes he shared as campaign manager for Howard Dean in 2004.

Successes? Oh yeah, we all remember Democrat Presidential nominee Howard Dean. And President Dean too. Herr Olbermann started slobbering again about B.J.'s comments (never once referring to him as "Mister" Clinton) re "discussion about actual ideas"; Joe likened it to his "common ground" speeches, a "stark contrast to Bush". KO sermonized about GOP plans to go negative and run an agressive voter turnout campaign, and Trippi talked about "playing the card of fear". He avoided lambasting voter turnout efforts, a wise move considering the "successes" he had with Dr Dean in that regard.

All Keith was interested in was what the Dems could do to make sure they win. Is there turnout effort good enough? Should they borrow more money? We've never seen him express these concerns about Republican campaigns, but then, when was the last time he brought on a GOP political strategist to chew the fat? At least within the parameters of The List: NEVER!

After great thanksing his Dem guest, there was another plug re the fictitious "loss of habeas corpus" [2], and the #4 story was about Democrat ads that feature Bush, who is "not a lame duck, but rather an albatross" (taped report recycled from NBC). Olby great thanksed the machine that played the video, before teasing again how "Mister" Bush was "signing away habeas corpus" [3] (lather, rinse, repeat--the credulous will swallow anything if you say it often enough). Then oddball and the #3 segment: the Iraq war and comments by James A Baker.

Monkeymann tried to twist a Bush quote into comparing Iraq to VietNam, but Ricks backed away from that attempt. Baker's purported alternatives (stability vs withdrawal) were discussed, with Ricks predicting that stability will be the preferred path, even if it means a less democratic government. After Ricks, another plug [4] that included the lie:

We have let the Bush administration destroy habeas corpus, and with it our freedoms.

And then, yet another tease for you know what [5]. The #2 story: taped video on Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, Whitney Houston, Bobby Brown, and another plug for...whatever. [6] The "worst person" segment was baseball oriented, with KO ironically criticizing someone for "homophobic jokes". Even more bizarre, he slammed ABC for mistakenly putting the late Mr Lidle's year of death as "3006"--this from a slovenly hack who was denigrating the man just minutes after his death.

Then it came. "Fat Ass" Olbermann's staff of moveon writers must have worked overtime to create such a sanctimonious sermon, riddled with hyperbole and falsehoods, amounting to little more than a steaming pile of semantic dung. [See APPENDIX below.] Suffice it to say that habeas corpus is not "gone" and has not been suspended for any US citizen. It is blatantly false to claim that you have to "convince" someone to give you a "hearing" when every enemy combatant gets hearings, including appeals to the DC Court of Appeals and if necessary the US Supreme Court. And they are not the "lackeys" of Monkeymann's diseased fantasties. It's not "Mister" Bush who lied. It's Keith Olbermoronn.

Dogs that did not bark: North Korea moves ever closer to a second nuke test, but Edward R Olbermann could care less. Gas prices lower, housing market stronger, and the Dow breaks the 12,000 barrier for the first time in history. New analysis of recent poll numbers suggests a glimmer of hope for the GOP; that's enough for KO to ignore the story. Just like the newly discovered Al Qaeda handbook. And disgracefully, Krazy Keith has allowed to stand his baseless smear of Chris Mihlfield and Albert Pujols, lifted from a discredited and retracted blog entry.

~~Olbermann's book~~ The book that bears Olbermann's name has sunk to #125 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" is #12. And O'Reilly's book stands at #2 on the New York Times Best Sellers. Tuesday's ratings could not have been encouraging for Krazy Keith: third place in overall viewers, and a miserable fourth place, in Keith's coveted, all-important, critical, beloved, key "demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 13 [DANGER!].

---

APPENDIX: Edward R Olbermoronn's latest propaganda spiel:

We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived as people in fear.

And now--our rights and our freedoms in peril--we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before--and we have been here before led here--by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110.000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: "It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen--he is still a Japanese."

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been only human.

We have let Roosevelt's "fear of fear itself" overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, "the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass."

We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always wrong.

"With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly--of course--the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And -- again, Mr. Bush -- all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that "the United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values" and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "unlawful enemy combatants" and ship them somewhere--anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "unlawful enemy combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant"--exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

"These military commissions will provide a fair trial," you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, "in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them."

"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain "serious mental and physical trauma" in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

"One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks," you told us yesterday, "said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America."

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

And did it even occur to you once, sir -- somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know--just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died -- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, Sir, all of them--as always--wrong.

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

Olberverse Reax:

The OlbyLoons

Impolitic: "Keith speaking truth to power once again"

The Blue Herald: "Olbermann is smoking hot..."

Petulant Rumblings: "Once again, Keith Olbermann articulates rage better than anyone"

Anysia: "Keith Olbermann lets him have it"

The Raw Melos: ?...the bar by which future generations of journalists should be measured"

Doug Krile: "special"

The Apostates: "You might be surprised"

Truth, Justice and Peace: "Now we know"

Les Enrages: "American genius"

Impolical "Must see Olbermann"

AlterNet: "Bush signs, Olbermann mourns"

Colorado Boob: "WOW .... I mean WOW ...."

Relevent Torture: "There's nothing I can add"

Newshounds: "Most Compelling TV Comment Since Murrow...not a partisan diatribe...Watch it and tell your friends"

Oh Well: "another home run"

Dad's on a rant again: "Maybe we should join him?"

The Agonist: "will just blow you away"

Online Journal: "Except for MSNBCâ€™s Keith Olbermann, few television news reporters have bothered to mention that the Military Commissions Act has changed the U.S. justice system and our approach to human rights"

The Reid Report: "He sounds more depressed than me"

Skpetical Brotha: "Keith Olbermann is the Bomb, for real though"

Demokat: "I have always had quite a crush on Keith Olbermann, but after his commentary last night, I think I'm in sweet, sweet puppy love with the guy"

HuffPo: "a heroic performance"

Clear-Thinkers

Newsbusters: "suggested Bush was as big a 'threat' to America as the 'terrorists.' "

Hot Air: "Olbermann Watch debunked it before the show aired"

The Spoof: President Bush: "Keith Olbermann is an Unlawful Enemy Combatant!"

Time.com: "a clear example of the thinking that pervades this increasingly powerful part of the Democratic base"

The Bullwinkle Blog: "Keith Olbermann (Warning: MSNBC link) is pushing fear-politics again"

Red State: "I guess we'll never know how he managed to get control of his broadcasting studio long enough to send out this polemic"

TV Squad: Olbermann too preachy?

Ad PulpRighteous Indignation Is A Tough Sell

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

UPDATE: How far over the deep-end has Keith gone? When the John Birch Society sings your praises it's time to check yourself into rehab.

Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (213) | | View blog reactions

213 Comments

By codas on October 18, 2006 8:34 PM

So nice to have a voice of reason like Cintons telling the truth. I know you all love him. He knows that too many people have their minds made up before you say a word. There is no one like that here though. Uhem.

By Count on October 18, 2006 8:38 PM

OLBY & A WORSE SHOW

By Count on October 18, 2006 8:41 PM

I can not beleive this guy is still on television. I'll bet this blog gets better ratings than his show.

By Jim on October 18, 2006 8:52 PM

MSNBC comes in 4th place at 8,9,10, and 11:00 in the all important, critical demographic Tues night. This counts MSNBC's specials at 10 and 11. KO was close to 5th place again.

By Little Feechie on October 18, 2006 8:53 PM

Worse person in world tonight...Major League Baseball working with a company for customized funeral caskets of a dead person's favorite team.

Olby is trying to affect people's last rites wishes. If I want a casket with the NY Yankees, why is Olby trying to stop me?

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 8:53 PM

Steve Lyons is a "worser" person in the world for his stupid comments, but according to Olby, it's OK to make misogynistic comments. Olby does it all the time.

By Little Feechie on October 18, 2006 8:54 PM

Worse person in world tonight...Major League Baseball working with a company for customized funeral caskets of a dead person's favorite team.

Olby is trying to affect people's last rites wishes. If I want a casket with the NY Yankees, why is Olby trying to stop me?

By codas on October 18, 2006 8:54 PM

I can not beleive this guy is still on television. I'll bet this blog gets better ratings than his show.

Posted by: Count at October 18, 2006 08:41 PM

His show is still on. There are people who don't agree with your politics and who don't like fox news. This country is turning a corner. Get ready.

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 8:55 PM

Olby is the queen of melodramatic fear mongering.

By Brandon on October 18, 2006 8:57 PM

maybe the Post articles have had their impact. No Murdoch employees targeted for WPITW for the last two days.

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 8:58 PM

Rumor has it that NBC (mostly MSNBC and CNBC) will swing the budget ax soon. Wouldn't it be great if Olby got a pink slip?

By codas on October 18, 2006 8:58 PM

Thank you Keith.

By Little Feechie on October 18, 2006 8:59 PM

He's off the reservation again...Olby...further to the left than Michael Moore...Olby sits at the far left.......get the man some lithium please.

By cheneyhasaweathermachine on October 18, 2006 9:00 PM

i love it when he starts listing things and calling Mr. Bush sir ...you sir blah blah blah you sir blah blah blah, you sir blah blah blah.

dont plot to destroy the united states of america and you will have nothing to worry about mr. olberman

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 9:02 PM

A man who has the nerve to speak the truth in a time of need. At long last.

By AWOLbUSH on October 18, 2006 9:02 PM

bushler just bought land in Paraguay to flee to when he gets indicted for war crimes!

BWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAH!

By cheneyhasaweathermachine on October 18, 2006 9:02 PM

i love it when he starts listing things and calling Mr. Bush sir ...you sir blah blah blah you sir blah blah blah, you sir blah blah blah.

dont plot to destroy the united states of america and you will have nothing to worry about mr. olberman

By Little Feechie on October 18, 2006 9:03 PM

"Not John Walker Lynn, but George Walker Bush"....

the holy secular progressive gospel, according to Olby.

By mitch on October 18, 2006 9:09 PM

I like the new law, maybe O.K. will be picked up by the CIA and be sent some where far far away!!

By Brandon on October 18, 2006 9:09 PM

but this will land him front and center on the front of every radical leftist blog and website on the internet. And it might, MIGHT, improve his ratings from 4th to 3rd for a night or two. So it's well worth it for Olby, no matter how dead wrong and convoluted his argument.

By mitch on October 18, 2006 9:10 PM

I like the new law, maybe O.K. will be picked up by the CIA and be sent some where far far away!!

By JohnB on October 18, 2006 9:14 PM

Olbermann admitted on Dan Patrick's show Monday that he and Steve Lyons didn't get along when they worked together on Fox's baseball telecasts. So, why not pile on, Keith?

By SteveMG on October 18, 2006 9:14 PM

Not one quote from Mr. Olbermann from the actual law.

Not one sentence from the law shown on the screen.

If the law, as KO claims, takes away our habeas rights, then he should be able to show on the screen the passage or provisions that do that.

But he didn't.

Because it's not there.

Just like his credibility.

It doesn't exist.

SMG

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 9:20 PM

Krazy Keith Olbermann.....Illegal Combatant!
Citizens arrest anyone...hehehehehheeee.....lol!

By Bill O'lielly on October 18, 2006 9:22 PM

ask Jonathon Turley if it exists

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 9:24 PM

JohnB, Olby had few kind words for a dead man. Why would he have anything nice to say about a fellow co-worker? He has few nice words for any of his past or present co-workers. That's his unfortunate legacy.

By strom on October 18, 2006 9:27 PM

"Olby is the queen of melodramatic fear mongering."

No... I think that award still goes to George W. Bush. There's a bogeyman in a turban hidin' under your bed. Better give the executive branch more power so they can have the "tools" to stop him.

By strom on October 18, 2006 9:28 PM

"Olby is the queen of melodramatic fear mongering."

No... I think that award still goes to George W. Bush. There's a bogeyman in a turban hidin' under your bed. Better give the executive branch more power so they can have the "tools" to stop him.

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 9:28 PM

Olby's a drama queen in general.

By strom on October 18, 2006 9:29 PM

"Olby is the queen of melodramatic fear mongering."

No... I think that award still goes to George W. Bush. There's a bogeyman in a turban hidin' under your bed. Better give the executive branch more power so they can have the "tools" to stop him.

By eyespikthruhed4ko on October 18, 2006 9:32 PM

O'lielly, Turley is the biggest joke I've seen in awhile...do you really expect us to believe what that moron states is actually true?

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 9:32 PM

the only thing that immediately comes to mind upon listening to another special comment from this kook is what a fucking windbag. What a whiny moron. Of course he makes no impassioned pleas for any of the other so called rights we have lost under 40 years of democrat rule in the congress. of course he makes no mention of any of the other violations of the Constitution that are perpetuated daily upon the American people by any govenrnment from local to federal.
Hey olbermann don't you have "security" coming into the building where you "work" ? Do you and your company demand that upon entering your place of employment that people need to surrender their Constitutional right to be free of unlawful and unwarranted search and seizure? I guess it's OK for someone to surrender THEIR rights for your safety and security. I guess your sense of moral outrage only extends as far as you can further persecute this President in hopes of prosecuting him. I guess that living in NY you think that the city can deprive people of their second ammandment rights in order for you , in your small delusional mind to have some safety and you have no problem with depriving that basic human right every bit as important and even more important in history, the right of self defense.
Our rights under the Constitution are void where prohibited by law in many many ways yet you conviently use the denying of rights of terrorists and enemy combatants to blindly, rabidly attack the man who you do not even have the decency and respect to addres as President Bush only Mr.Bush while you refer to clinton of course as president. What utter hypocrisy! what utter bullshit that sprouts from your liberal foul bias mouth! What utter hysteria you seek to further all in hopes that your party, the democrats, especially the progresive wing of that once great party can regain power. And you may be right about one small item you mentioned tonight. God help us if the democrats who have been taken over by the far, far left lunatic fringe ever get their little socialist mitts on this law. What fun they would have declaring anybody who is not politcally correct an "enemy" . You do not mention that you have dsecribed yourself as being "politcally correct" yet that one phrase describes a forceful liberal ideology which itslef demonizes and censors all opposing viewpoints. The recent debacle at a liberal college where the right of free speech was literally phyicially attacked and yet you count yourself amongst one of those people who would deny the right of free speech to those who oppose your radical liberal views. Once again mistah olbermann what utter hypocrisy you display
Liberals coming here in with their progressively clouded mind ask why this site even exists and it is beacuse of nights like this when you sit there on national TV with self righteous indignation and pomposity and attack the President of the United States all the while supporting your own form of censorship, hypocrisy and subordination of the Bill of Rights . THIS IS WHY THIS SITE EXISTS! to show the world your delusional mind clouded by your outright hatred of President Bush. You are really one sick man mistah olbermann and it sad that you have been given a national platform to spread your sickness.

By eyespikthruhed4ko on October 18, 2006 9:33 PM

O'lielly, Turley is the biggest joke I've seen in awhile...do you really expect us to believe what that moron states is actually true?

By Little Feechie on October 18, 2006 9:40 PM

Like him or not, he sure left his guts on the set tonight!.....love the camera angles...olby reminds of Citizen Kane.

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 9:43 PM

Turley deals in the theoretical world.
Krazy Keith uses fear to scare the Kos-maniacs....I thought that was the GOP way?
What a hack KO is!!!

By Scott on October 18, 2006 9:47 PM

Did anyone else notice that KO's entire statement, other than the part where he repeatedly referenced the transgressions of past Democratic Presidents, hinged on "What if"'s?

What "(i)f you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant"--exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not?"

What if Bush "lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?"

What if "some irresponsible future president and a "competent tribunal" of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of "unlawful enemy combatant" for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?"

What if? What if? What if?

What if KO actually truthfully reported the content of the law? Instead of twisting, spinning, taking parts out of context in a blatant, partisan attempt at fear-mongering.

What if?

By SteveMG on October 18, 2006 9:48 PM

"sk Jonathon Turley if it exists"

Hey, O'lielly, where in the law does it take away American citizen's habeas rights?

Don't you find it interesting that Olbermann doesn't quote from the law?

Neither did Turley?

Here's a link to the actual bill:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3930enr.txt.pdf

Where in the bill does it take away the habeas rights of Americans?

We can debate whether legal resident aliens should have habeas rights or not. But what we cannot debate is that the law DOES NOT take away any rights of American citizens.

Olbermann and Turley are flat out wrong. Just wrong.

Don't take my word. Read the frigging bill.

SMG

By Little Feechie on October 18, 2006 9:53 PM

I actually watched more Olby than O'Reilly tonight....quite scary...

A modern day Howard Beal !!

Olby is the darling of the Manhattan cocktail circuit...he has Gravitas with the left...I don't agree with him, but he has captured the imagination of the leftists....

he can vomit at Bush while calling him sir !!
Olby, it's obvious you don't respect Bush...cut the sir crap.....you may have more credability with me.

While I am a registered democrat in Manhattan, I left the party years ago....

By GM on October 18, 2006 10:15 PM

Olby was infamous for making gay slurs when he was an anchorman in LA. I guess now he's on national tv it's wrong to do that?

By Anonymous on October 18, 2006 10:33 PM

The state that licensed Odormann's psychiatrist should immediately revoke that license. Even the most mediocre physician would have told Odormann long ago that George W. Bush is not in Meltdown's studio. Such mediocre physician would have admonished Odormann not to address a person (i.e., Bush) who is not in Odormann's presence as Odormann repeatedly does during his unspecial meltdowns.

By mlong on October 18, 2006 10:49 PM

Well that "special comment" should finally get those ratings up to #1...after all 10th times the charm.

Didn't KO say something about doing too many "special comments" because they would start to be a joke or something like that?..Quess what KO they started being a joke after the first one.

By Colbert on October 18, 2006 10:57 PM

John B,
Your comment about Steve Lyons illustrates a huge part of what's wrong with our politics. Keith can't denounce someone who he doesn't get along with? No matter what someone does we have to wait for the person's friends to denounce him? And if the denouncer isn't on our side then we denigrate everything he has to say? That sounds about right.

By Allan on October 18, 2006 10:57 PM

Great commentary.

No one can deliver it like KO.

No wonder you all claim he won't debate others: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company would not have the nerve to appear, with his talent for tearing them apart.

Notice that he came down pretty hard on some past mistakes by previous presidents, many of them Democrats.In the video, the president that apologized for the Japanese internment during WW2 was none other than Ronald Reagan, a Republican no less! Such partisanship and hypocrisy!

But the HateOlby crowd here is only interested in that jilted woman and other petty stuff, who cares about this tragic war in Iraq, the loss of our privacies and of Habeas Corpus,...that's small stuff...this jilted woman story is much jucier. Yawn.

Like they say, politics is all about hypocrites calling other hypocrites hypocrites.

Oh by the way...Bob...10 more US soldiers killed yesterday in Iraq. You can check the news this time. Today so far 1 and counting...

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=10-2006

By Colbert on October 18, 2006 10:58 PM

John B,
Your comment about Steve Lyons illustrates a huge part of what's wrong with our politics. Keith can't denounce someone who he doesn't get along with? No matter what someone does we have to wait for the person's friends to denounce him? And if the denouncer isn't on our side then we denigrate everything he has to say? That sounds about right.

By mlong on October 18, 2006 11:07 PM

No wonder you all claim he won't debate others: Bush,Rumsfeld and company would not have the nerve to appear, with his talent for tearing them apart.
***********************************************
Thats BS the truth is KO wouldn't have the nerve to ask them on his show..Bush has been interviewed by "real" reporters who hate him as much as KO..so clearly his not afraid of them.

Oh by the way...Bob...10 more US soldiers killed yesterday in Iraq. You can check the news this time. Today so far 1 and counting...
*************************************
It's amazing how happy so many on the left get when soldiers get killed..isn't it? They almost seem to cheer the terrorist on by the way they act sometimes.

By the way I been thinging about what would be a good poll question...

Do you think KO will at some point flat out accuse Bush of being behide 9/11?

By Allan on October 18, 2006 11:15 PM

Oh...almost forgot...KO's book is #125 while O'Reilly's is #12. That is clearly indicative that KO must be full of s#it.

Convoluted logic, all that says is his book and life may not as interesting as O'Reilly's. That does'nt mean his TV commentaries have no substance.

By hit_escape on October 18, 2006 11:21 PM

Johnny Dollar, I think this one was special, just for you. So much for your 1005e 2 argument.

"And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant"--exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?"

So, Mister Dollar, please explain how, if you were snatched in the dead of night, declared an alien enemy combatant,(the Decider says your IDs are fake) and shipped to Gitmo, exlplain just how would you go about proving your innocence. Call your lawyer? No, you don't have that right. Wait for the ACLU to come defend you? No, american courts have no jurisdiction. Just the military tribunal chosen by Busy and Alberto can save you. Think it can't happen? Good luck.

By Yo Mamma on October 18, 2006 11:21 PM

"Do you think KO will at some point flat out a
ccuse Bush of being behide 9/11?"

What planet are you from. Of course Bush alowed this to happen. Hit demoted anyone that tried to look into Saudi students learning how to fly but not land large air craft in private pilot schools. Only an idiot would think Bush did not want his Pearl Harbor so he could invade Iraq. How much of an idiot do you have to be to not know this. Get real!

By Allan on October 18, 2006 11:22 PM

"It's amazing how happy so many on the left get when soldiers get killed..isn't it? They almost seem to cheer the terrorist on by the way they act sometimes."

This IS nothing to cheer about. Does the sudden ending of these young boys lives for no good cause not even even give you moment to pause?!... before launching into hysterical personal accusations.

Your first response to me indicates you couldn't care less.

By American Hero on October 18, 2006 11:43 PM

Who but a fool would think the war in Iraq is anything but a disaster? Who but the ignorant would think Keith Olberman was anything but a true American hero? Thank God for Keith and for MSNBC allowing him to stay on the air. With nearly all media being biased and nothing more than big brother garbage there is a glimmer of hope that our democracy is not dead. Keith is that hope.

Bush is a criminal and should be impeached sentenced to life in prison and the key thrown away. October is not yet over and it is the worst month to date for American deaths in Iraq. Think of all the families that lost sons, husbands, and fathers, because a--holes like the dick heads who run this page have empowered the republicans to carry on their criminal agendas. The chicken hawk squawks the loudest but it does them no good. In the end they are still coward pussies that don't have a clue what it means to have a loved one die for nothing.

The hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's are no less valuable than Americans who have died in Iraq. I have to point this out because the so called "Christian" republicans could give a shit about the lives of Iraqi people.

Come November we all can come back here and rub their face in it.

This page is ran by cowards!

By hit_escape on October 18, 2006 11:44 PM

Sorry for the mega post. Someone lamented that KO didn't actually cite the statutes. Apparently they couldn't look it up on their own.

From Military Commissions Act.
`(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
(Bush and Rummy get to pick the tribunal)

s.3930 SEC. 7. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.(Military Commisions Act)

(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act (see below) of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001

(NO American court can save you. ie. You're screwed.)

Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

1005(e) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

'(e) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider--

'(1) an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; or

'(2) any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention by the Department of Defense of an alien at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who--

(All fine and dandy if you are an American who has NOT been falsely designated an alien enemy combatant by The Decider. If you are Canadian, British or any other country, you're screwed)

By SteveMG on October 18, 2006 11:50 PM

"f you were snatched in the dead of night, declared an alien enemy combatant,(the Decider says your IDs are fake) "

Ah, this is where Olbermann is being dishonest.

Even if your above scenario happens, you still have access to the courts. Not all of your habeas rights are taken away.

Under the current process, detained enemy combatants (let's say an American who is being railroaded with false evidence) have a hearing before a military commission as to their status. Granted, it's not a civilian court but we've never given habeas corpus rights and access to civilian courts to alien soldiers captured overseas before this administration anyway.

Assuming this military process determines you are properly detained, the detainee then has a the right to appeal to our civilian court system. Specifically to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They've been given the authority to hear appeals such as the scenario you're creating.

So, even after the military tribunal determines that you are indeed an alien enemy combatant, you still can appeal that to a civilian court.

Most important, even if that appeal is unsuccessful, you may also seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court. The Court may or may not grant cert; but you have the right to appeal both the military tribunal and the DC Circuit court rulings.

So, Olbermann's scenario leaves out all of these check and balances that the government must abide by.

SMG

By johnny dollar on October 18, 2006 11:50 PM

> if you were snatched in the dead of night, declared an alien enemy combatant

Or, if you were kidnapped in the dead of night and shot in the head. Or, if your home was set on fire while you were in it. Or...or...or...

All these hypotheticals have one thing in common: they are against the law. But I'm not running around saying that because the FBI carries guns they have the power to shoot me in the head. Or because the DEA has the authority to burn illegal narcotics they are instead going to set fire to my house.

The passage of this law gives the government no more right to "snatch me" in the dead of night and ship me off to Gitmo than it had a year ago or a decade ago. You can think up every possible weird scenario about what could happen, but they are all AGAINST THE LAW. Get it? Against the old laws, and against this one.

If you're telling me that people do break laws, then you are arguing for no laws at all, because they all could possibly be broken. Instead of creating straw men about things that could happen with or without the new law, why not just stick to telling the truth about what the law says. Just because Olbermoronn lies about it doesn't mean all the OlbyLoons have to fall in line.

By Yo Mamma on October 18, 2006 11:53 PM

Uhh "Hit_Escape" do you really think these Limbaugh educated pussies can read this much info without running for the controls on their video games? You think they have a clue about the significance of the constitution? About what all our for fathers fought and died for? They are jell brained idiots that have zero education about the history of this nation and the significance of the constitution.

There is only one thing needed to be posted here - scathing condemnations. These pin heads are traitors to this nation. They should be on the front lines in Iraq. They are pussies that have no education and no understanding what this nation was founded on.

By SteveMG on October 18, 2006 11:55 PM

JD:
"You can think up every possible weird scenario about what could happen, but they are all AGAINST THE LAW. Get it? Against the old laws, and against this one."

But even if this loony scenario somehow happened, the person being held still can appeal this detention both to a military tribunal which is set up to review the evidence for the detention and then to the US District Court in D.C.

Now these are more limited appeals granted. One can't just continually appeal to the courts as civilians can. But there are at least two "checks" upon these crazy scenarios where the government just picks a person up and says that they're an alien enemy combatant.

Olbermann doesn't have his facts right.

SMG

By johnny dollar on October 19, 2006 12:00 AM

It doesn't matter what you say, because to the OlbyLoons logic doesn't matter.

By their thinking, because the government has the right to imprison felons, what's to stop them from grabbing you and throwing you in jail without a trial? Because they can impose a speed limit on your driving, what's to stop them from ticketing you when you're not even driving? Because they have the authority to deny habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants, what's to stop them from denying it to you?

It's the same OlbyLogic in each case. What the law says doesn't matter. It's what somebody MIGHT do. They don't care that what somebody MIGHT do is against the (new) law. They MIGHT do it anyhow. It is beyond their comprehension that if they MIGHT do it anyhow, then they MIGHT do it whether the new law is passed or not. Since the new law in no way makes such actions legal.

Yeesh, it makes my hair hurt just contemplating such vacuous, empty "thinking".

By Real Man on October 19, 2006 12:03 AM

Steve MG wrote:
"Olbermann doesn't have his facts right."

Really then why did Arlen Specter say that the law will be thrown out in court because it is unconstitutional?

Facts are something people of faith have no use for. Religion is their great excuse for being non participants in our democracy.

Steve - you are full shit and a pussy for going along with what you think is the status quo. Come November pussies like you will be calling yourself Democrats.

Think for yourself instead of coming to a page that attacks a single man. The epitome of ganging up. Clear sign of a pussy is when a man can't fight on his own he needs to be in a group to do it. Total pussy!

By SteveMG on October 19, 2006 12:03 AM

HitEscape:
You missed this point:
"Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005"

This act allows people detained to appeal their detention to a military tribunal and then to the US District Court in D.C.

So even if in your wild conspiracy somehow an American is railroaded and the government says that they are an alien or non-US citizen, they still have hearings to determine whether that is true.

Military tribunal and then US District Court.

Additionally, they can then ask the Supreme Court to grant cert on their case. That may or may not be granted but it's an additional check on the executive branch.

So, you've got 3 checks on improper executive branch actions.

This is 3 more than we've ever had on any previous administration. So we actually have given more rights to alleged alien combatants than at any time in the history of our country.

FDR didn't have to do any of this. Neither did Truman. Or Kennedy. Or Johnson. Or Nixon. Or Reagan. Or Carter. Or Clinton.

SMG

By diane on October 19, 2006 12:04 AM

I just found this website. Why is there no place on this site listing the advertisers supporting his show? It is not enough to complain to MSNBC, the advertisers need to hear feedback. If Air America can't get support from advertisers, how does this kook do it?

By Real Man on October 19, 2006 12:05 AM

Steve MG wrote:
"Olbermann doesn't have his facts right."

Really then why did Arlen Specter say that the law will be thrown out in court because it is unconstitutional?

Facts are something people of faith have no use for. Religion is their great excuse for being non participants in our democracy.

Steve - you are full shit and a pussy for going along with what you think is the status quo. Come November pussies like you will be calling yourself Democrats.

Think for yourself instead of coming to a page that attacks a single man. The epitome of ganging up. Clear sign of a pussy is when a man can't fight on his own he needs to be in a group to do it. Total pussy!

By Allan on October 19, 2006 12:08 AM

"This page is ran by cowards!"

WRONG American hero, nothing could be further from the truth.

Bob runs a very good board here, I find he's more respectful of other peoples views than most, and he gives a lot of latitude to posters.

If you want to see a real intolerant redneck moderator, go to freerepublic and see how long your post stays before it's deleted.

By Scot on October 19, 2006 12:09 AM

Maybe i'm missing something, hit-escape, but i read your post and as far as i can tell the habeas corpus matters only apply to aliens (e1,2) not american citizens. If i'm wrong, please point it out to me. No court, justice, or judge, shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien......I'm assuming they're referring to people who are not american citizens, right?

By SteveMG on October 19, 2006 12:09 AM

"Really then why did Arlen Specter say that the law will be thrown out in court because it is unconstitutional?"

Because in their ruling in Rasul, the Court ruled that aliens have habeas rights. But this was based on the reading of a federal statute and not the Constitution. There's debate on how the Court will rule re the Constitution and aliens.

Specter believes that Rasul will guide the court on this matter too. Others disagree.

I'm being charitable here because if you continue to use the obscenities and name calling while hiding behind a keyboard, I'm going to cut you off.

Try to elevate the debate. If not, get lost. Ok?

SMG

By Dito Head on October 19, 2006 12:13 AM

"FDR didn't have to do any of this. Neither did Truman. Or Kennedy. Or Johnson. Or Nixon. Or Reagan. Or Carter. Or Clinton."

SMG
---------------------------------------
Direct quote from Rush Limbaugh. Total garbage. It is one thing to break the law and expect no one to know, it completely differnt to change the law so you can do it legally. Kind of like doctor assisted suicide - always been in this nation but when doctor Kevorkian tried to do it in the open he landed in prison. Never stopped doctors from assisting in sucide. But pin heads like would not know anything about this, all you do is listen to American traitors like Limbaugh and Hannity.

By Cato Freeman on October 19, 2006 12:18 AM

johnny dollar said:

"The passage of this law gives the government no more right to "snatch me" in the dead of night and ship me off to Gitmo than it had a year ago or a decade ago."

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

Unless the Supreme Court says it does. Of course, the only way that it would ever get to the Supreme Court is if someone in the Executive Branch did snatch up a U.S. citizen AND declared that the citizen was an unlawful enemy combatant AND denied the citizen the right to habeas corpus AND the detention was challenged in the federal court system.

Not that that has ever happened.

By Scot on October 19, 2006 12:19 AM

SteveMG, would'nt the goverment have to somehow declare an american citizen an "alien" before this would even apply to them? I sure as hell don't pretend to know much about the law, but i just don't see how this even applies to american citizens.

By Real American on October 19, 2006 12:20 AM

"Try to elevate the debate. If not, get lost. Ok?

SMG"

Elevate the debate? What debate? You think the garbage you spew is debatable? It's called delusions of grandeur my friend. If you had a brain or an education you would know that Bush is the worst president in the history of this nation and the this Republican congress is the most corupt in the same. Debate what? It is like arguing while a house is on fire if fire trucks are have a use. Come November I hope you strut your coward ass here and we will see who confident you are to ask such stupid thing like elvating the debate. You are an idiot a pussy and a supporter of criminal anti American values. You know all the lilly white southerns who went to church through 100 years of segregation were as niave as you about their signicance. You are a paper thin traitor to your nation and all the men who have died deffending our constitution and our nation - you're a disgarce!

By codas on October 19, 2006 12:25 AM

Elevate the debate? What debate? You think the garbage you spew is debatable? It's called delusions of grandeur my friend.
Posted by: Real American at October 19, 2006 12:20 AM

I tried that angle here. It doesn't work. The debate has been DECIDED by the DECIDER. And that's that.

By Yo Mamma on October 19, 2006 12:28 AM

"Of course, the only way that it would ever get to the Supreme Court is if someone in the Executive Branch did snatch up a U.S. citizen"

What are you a law professor? This does not have to happen for the law to be challenged as unconstitutional. You speak so matter of fact yet you are full of it!

By hit_escape on October 19, 2006 12:28 AM

"Yo Mamma", I want to believe. I don't write these for the wingnuts. I write them for the curious who haven't who might be exploring this for the first time.

Okay, forget the "dead of night scenario". Say you're a brown skinned person filming a George Allen speech and he calls you a name, and accuses of you of trying to harm him. You forgot your wallet. Security whisks you away. Your name sounds like something on the no-fly list, like "Robert Johnson", for example (who happens to be an alien). Next thing you know, you're in Gitmo. Please explain how you prove your innocence and get yourself out of Gitmo, based on the provisions in 1005e. Remember, Senator Allen said "Welcome to America" like you hadn't lived here all your life and you are brown skinned so you MUST be from another country.

Also remember," no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'."

Since the the US and it's agents are untouchable, they won't have much incentive to expose their mistake and help you by giving you a phone call. Best you can hope for is to wait until after the 2008 election. Have a nice day! :)

By Cato Freeman on October 19, 2006 12:37 AM

Yo Mamma:

"What are you a law professor? This does not have to happen for the law to be challenged as unconstitutional. You speak so matter of fact yet you are full of it!"

Well, okay, not the ONLY way. You are correct. I am not a law professor. Of course, neither are many of the legislators who got this law passed.

By Yo Mamma on October 19, 2006 12:39 AM

Also remember," no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'."

Hit_Escape you are in the wrong Blog (if you want to call this one). The people who come here that support the criminals in Congress and the White House do not read anything that defers from the standard Limbaugh garbage. A page dedicated to attacking one man that speaks out, is by nature a page ran by pussies and supported by pussies. Fighting for what is right is long lost - Bush is a loser and the war in Iraq was lost before it began. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq men women and children have died for fucking nothing. You think these pin heads are capable of understanding this human loss all done with their support? You are talking to pussies who don't have a clue what it means to stand alone and fight. These are the same animals that gang up as in lynching for hundreds of years by "Christians" in the south. This is a zoo of sub-human culture of the Klan air head Limbaugh ditto heads whose fathers and grandfathers before them never had an education. Pure trailer park trash!

Boy I feel better!

By Scot on October 19, 2006 12:44 AM

so what you're saying, hit-escape, is that the goverment will take you into custody by claiming you're someone that you're not, right? It seems to me that a drivers licencse would clear that up pretty quickly.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 12:45 AM

Well, okay, not the ONLY way. You are correct. I am not a law professor. Of course, neither are many of the legislators who got this law passed.

I think Arlen Specter has always been a reluctant Republican and he is very knowledgable of law. He voted for the bill then said latter that it will be thrown out in the courts. I don't have to be a college professor to quote a republican senator who is not a criminal like the rest. Bush is arrogant and this will play out to demonstrate that but do you think the pin heads that still support him will have this register in their tiny brains? Not on your life. If Rush Limbaugh doesn't cover it they know nothing about it.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 12:50 AM

"so what you're saying, hit-escape, is that the goverment will take you into custody by claiming you're someone that you're not, right? It seems to me that a drivers licencse would clear that up pretty quickly."

Only a pin head has no clue what "legal precedent"

The NRA for years ran on "give them an inch and they will take a mile" mentality. That was before they dissapeared into their bedrooms with internet porn.

All you dumb asses have clue what legal precedent means and continue to look like idiots by quoting Limbaugh and Hannity type garbage. Go back to school before you ever vote. You are a disgrace to our democracy!

By Cato Freeman on October 19, 2006 12:59 AM

"I think Arlen Specter has always been a reluctant Republican and he is very knowledgable of law. He voted for the bill then said latter that it will be thrown out in the courts. I don't have to be a college professor to quote a republican senator who is not a criminal like the rest. Bush is arrogant and this will play out to demonstrate that but do you think the pin heads that still support him will have this register in their tiny brains? Not on your life. If Rush Limbaugh doesn't cover it they know nothing about it."

Agreed, on all points.

In addition, the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision gives me hope that the MCA will, in fact, be applied as it is written. That decision is the only one that I am aware of where Justices Scalia and Thomas were on opposite sides. That shows me that Scalia really is a constitutional scholar while Thomas is either a partisan hack or an authoritarian nutcase (in my opinion).

By Scot on October 19, 2006 1:02 AM

What legal precedent is there for taking an american citizen into custody and declaring him an alien?

By hit_escape on October 19, 2006 1:08 AM

"so what you're saying, hit-escape, is that the goverment will take you into custody by claiming you're someone that you're not, right? It seems to me that a drivers licencse would clear that up pretty quickly.

Posted by: Scot at October 19, 2006 12:44 AM"

In my example, you had no driver's license. You were, however, guilty of being a brown person, who's name sounded like someone on the no-fly list. Even with the drivers license, in this case, you may be deemed an alien anyway. You're brown and your name sounds like a terrorist's name, like, say Cat Stevens. Now you're in Gitmo. You have no right to independent council and your case will not be reviewed outside the tribunal system. Since Bush and Rummy get to pick the tribunal, I wish you the best of luck when the Abu Ghraib tribunals show up to work on your case.

By Scot on October 19, 2006 1:10 AM

Everyone seems to have forgotten that this is all based on claims by olbermann that this bill applies to american citizens. From what i can tell it does'nt, and no, i'm not an expert on the law, but it clearly says that it applies to aliens, not american citizens. If i'm wrong, please point where i'm mistaken.

By codas on October 19, 2006 1:11 AM

The NRA for years ran on "give them an inch and they will take a mile" mentality.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 19, 2006 12:50 AM

So so true. We used to hear about the bill of rights all the time. "When you peel my dead hands...." Now when they feel unsafe, when it's their man in the house, they couldn't care less about any law or right they would need to junk to feel safer. There is a word for that kind of person.

By bigred on October 19, 2006 1:14 AM

So let me get this straight...

Osama bin Laden can kill 3,000 people in the U.S., but if we ever arrested him, he would get a nicer cell than the cave he's living in now, full medical care, a prayer rug and Quran each day, 3 square meals, the right to an attorney, the right to appeal his status as an enemy combatant to a D.C circuit court and the U.S. Supreme Court, and then, finally, a military trial with legal representation probably paid for with our tax dollars.

And Olbermoron bellows for 15 minutes about how Bush has taken our freedoms away. Hey dipshit, if you're not plotting to blow up innocent civilians in the name of Jihad, you won't be labeled an "enemy combatant". And if you do, you get every opportunity to prove you're not one.

Yet the blind, liberal lemmings will believe KO's b.s.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 1:16 AM

There is a word for that kind of person.

By your own reasoning... that word would have to apply to you too, would it not, Codas?

By Cato Freeman on October 19, 2006 1:17 AM

"What legal precedent is there for taking an american citizen into custody and declaring him an alien?"

Padilla v. Hanft maybe? Oh, hell, I don't know. I am not a law professor.

By codas on October 19, 2006 1:20 AM

Yet the blind, liberal lemmings will believe KO's b.s.

Posted by: bigred at October 19, 2006 01:14 AM

Do you believe the government never makes mistakes? I thought the republicins were the party that said never trust government. You don't trust them with your money but you do trust them with our freedoms I guess. Well I reserve the right to be cynical. I do not trust them. I hope that you are still so patriotic and trusting when a democrat has control. I will still be cynical.

By Scot on October 19, 2006 1:23 AM

hit_escape, how would you be deemed an alien if you have valid identification? If a goverment was corrupt enough to do that, then they certainly would'nt need a bill allowing them to do it, they would just do it. So the mere fact that this bill was passed takes away the argument that they're trying to detain american citizens secretly.

By bigred on October 19, 2006 1:23 AM

Hey Yo Momma,

I'm sure your brilliant response to this will be more name calling, because that's all your intellect will allow..

I assume you'll be voting Democrat in November?

There's only one former KKK member in the U.S. Senate or House. His name is Robert Byrd from West Virginia. He's a longstanding DEMOCRAT.

In the 60s, he filibustered on the Senate floor for 13 straight hours arguing AGAINST civil rights legislation. Yet, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY praises this guy, much like the child molester Gary Studds who died last week. He admittedly had sex with a 17 year old boy, and they praise him as a "gay rights pioneer".

That's your party.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 1:25 AM

"Do you believe the government never makes mistakes? I thought the republicins were the party that said never trust government. You don't trust them with your money but you do trust them with our freedoms I guess. Well I reserve the right to be cynical. I do not trust them. I hope that you are still so patriotic and trusting when a democrat has control. I will still be cynical."

So you trusted the govt then...unlike the NRA....but don't trust it now... unlike the NRA.... so what word describes both YOU and the NRA, Codas?

By Chip on October 19, 2006 1:25 AM

Go Keith!! Go Tigers!!

By Scot on October 19, 2006 1:26 AM

Cato, from what i understand padilla was declared an enemy combatant, but not an alien.

By codas on October 19, 2006 1:26 AM

hit_escape, how would you be deemed an alien if you have valid identification? If a goverment was corrupt enough to do that, then they certainly would'nt need a bill allowing them to do it, they would just do it. So the mere fact that this bill was passed takes away the argument that they're trying to detain american citizens secretly.

Posted by: Scot at October 19, 2006 01:23 AM

Hey Yo Momma,

I'm sure your brilliant response to this will be more name calling, because that's all your intellect will allow..

I assume you'll be voting Democrat in November?

There's only one former KKK member in the U.S. Senate or House. His name is Robert Byrd from West Virginia. He's a longstanding DEMOCRAT.

In the 60s, he filibustered on the Senate floor for 13 straight hours arguing AGAINST civil rights legislation. Yet, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY praises this guy, much like the child molester Gary Studds who died last week. He admittedly had sex with a 17 year old boy, and they praise him as a "gay rights pioneer".

That's your party.

Posted by: bigred at October 19, 2006 01:23 AM

Seems like you all are grasping for something. Deep down you don't like whats going on either. You just aren't readt to admit it.

By bigred on October 19, 2006 1:29 AM

Codas,

No, I don't place a lot of reliance or trust in the government. What do you think I am, a Democrat?

I want the government to stay out of my life. However, as a taxpayer, I do expect them to protect the country I live in and that's what this law is designed to do. Period.

George Bush is not going to start rounding up innocent U.S. citizens for no reason. It's complete propaganda and anyone who believes Olbermoron is an idiot.

By codas on October 19, 2006 1:29 AM

So you trusted the govt then...unlike the NRA....but don't trust it now... unlike the NRA.... so what word describes both YOU and the NRA, Codas?

Posted by: Cecelia at October 19, 2006 01:25 AM

I NEVER trusted the government. Not now, not then, not ever. Trust in the lord. Not any man. That's what i was taught.

By Scot on October 19, 2006 1:33 AM

No codas, olbermann said that this applies to american citizens and i've been waiting all night for someone to show how that's true and it just has'nt happened because it's bullshit.

By Cato Freeman on October 19, 2006 1:35 AM

"Cato, from what i understand padilla was declared an enemy combatant, but not an alien."

And, an unlawful one, at that.

I believe that you are correct. He was not declared an alien. Of course, he was detained for quite a while without due process, but he has since been released to civilian authorities, so that's a moot point (at least, according to the Supreme Court).

By codas on October 19, 2006 1:36 AM

want the government to stay out of my life. However, as a taxpayer, I do expect them to protect the country I live in and that's what this law is designed to do. Period.

Posted by: bigred at October 19, 2006 01:29 AM

I hear you about protecting the country. But I thought we were the home of the brave, land of the free and all that. I have to share my freedom rights along side of others. And if I want protected, I can expect others want protected to. That means even though I may not have to worry about being "rounded up" today, someone else who doesn't deserve does have to worry I think. Who is to say that an inch can't lead to a mile and then right to my front door.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 1:38 AM

I wish someone would ask Keith Olbermann where he was when over 300 raw FBI files on folks like Newt Gingrich and Hamiliton Jordan were ACTUALLY (as opposed to POSSIBLY) found to have been obtained and stored illegally in the White House during the Clinton years, and an underlying was fired over a "snafoo"....

Oh, Keith's all in a tizzy about Codas and Colbert possibly being arrested on the street for being....well... Codas...and Colbert...you know those Bushies...who try to make hay out of scaring people to death... but where was he when ....the Clinton White House was obtaining and storing over 300 FBI files on folks... or when Sandy Berger was stuffing documents in his socks after talking with Clinton on the phone right before he was to speak to the 9/11 Commission...

Olbermann certainly has what's called "selective paranoia"....

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 1:40 AM

"I NEVER trusted the government. Not now, not then, not ever. Trust in the lord. Not any man. That's what i was taught"

Oh sure, Codas....you were right there with the NRA and the Clinton critics... back in the day...

By bigred on October 19, 2006 1:45 AM

Well said Cecilia.

By codas on October 19, 2006 1:50 AM

The question is where am I now. Clinton is gone and into history. We know what happened to him, thanks to him being flawed and the republicans being self righteous. Redirection into Clinton era stuff goes on and on.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 1:51 AM

"someone else who doesn't deserve does have to worry I think. Who is to say that an inch can't lead to a mile and then right to my front door."

If you really felt that way, Codas... wouldn't you have sympathized with the NRA then....instead of criticizing them as you just did... they afterall ...are a group concerned with domestic gun ownership and speaking out about that... as opposed to speaking on terrorism....

It's intersting you'd condemn them for not speaking out about something...that is outside their scope of interest.... Instead of ole suspicious of govt You.... simply agreeeing with them...about what is their issue, namely pols being a threat to their right to bear arms...

So let's hear it, Mr. I'm Skeptical About Govt In General....let's hear you support your fellow skeptics in the NRA...

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 1:55 AM

Codas,

Where you are now...is criticising the NRA for THEN... It's completely logical to ask you where you were THEN.... And it's completely logical and commonsensical to KNOW that YOU weren't with the NRA or skeptical of govt.... Clinton critics....

So what do you all yourself?....

By codas on October 19, 2006 1:59 AM

Cecilia,

I don't own a gun. I have a whole big bunch of brother in laws and nephews who do. I will get one if I need one. In other words, I am not a big gun control nut because I do think it is a waist of time. Anyone who ever indulged in illegal drugs "ooops" knows it doesn't have to be legal to get somethong you want. Don't assume because I take one position on one thing that I fall in line for eveything else you would think.

By bemused observer on October 19, 2006 2:00 AM

great site, found it a week ago when i was trying to figure out why ko had such a hard-on for fox news. when i first watched him a couple of years ago, he was left-leaning, but at least he was sane. watching tonight's "special comment", he's either very, very anxious to see his guys win in a couple of weeks, or he's rapidly sinking into psychosis, or maybe both. anyway, keep up the good work.

By Whittle on October 19, 2006 2:04 AM

{I don't own a gun. I have a whole big bunch of brother in laws and nephews who do. I will get one if I need one. In other words, I am not a big gun control nut because I do think it is a waist(sic) of time.}

Might want to invest in a spelling and grammar book there, dude.

It's waste of time - waist is your abdomen.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 2:06 AM

Codas,

So why are you knocking the NRA?

By codas on October 19, 2006 2:09 AM

Might want to invest in a spelling and grammar book there, dude.
Posted by: Whittle at October 19, 2006 02:04 AM

I was going to say I type without thinking sometimes to explain my many spelling errors but I know that 90 percent of you would say they know i have been typing without thinking all along.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 2:11 AM

"Redirection into Clinton era stuff goes on and on. "

Codas can reference how the NRA acted before Bush was president, but then argue it's specious to reference how he reacted to Clinton "era stuff" before Bush was president....

But then that's what makes him simpleton Codas.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 2:13 AM

"I was going to say I type without thinking sometimes to explain my many spelling errors but I know that 90 percent of you would say they know i have been typing without thinking all along."

No.

99% would.

By heirplane on October 19, 2006 2:17 AM

"Of course, the only way that it would ever get to the Supreme Court is if someone in the Executive Branch did snatch up a U.S. citizen"

What are you a law professor? This does not have to happen for the law to be challenged as unconstitutional. You speak so matter of fact yet you are full of it!

Posted by: Yo Mamma at October 19, 2006 12:28 AM

Well, Yo Mamma, your statement is without foundation. One cannot get into court without standing. You must be an aggrieved party who suffered some damage. The court will not entertain a complaint if there is no party who has been deprived of some right.

By codas on October 19, 2006 2:20 AM

Codas,

So why are you knocking the NRA?

Posted by: Cecelia at October 19, 2006 02:06 AM

I'm not a big fan of them but I understand that they represent a basic right in this country. No matter what I might say, or what you think I might have said I am a big fan of freedom. I respect others rights to have a gun or worship the way they want to. I don't know if the right to privacy is a constitutional thing or bill of rights but it is a right that i respect. I said it before many times. The right to be left the hell alone unless you are messing with someone elses rights. And that's where it gets complicated doesn't it. I don't want democrats or republicans or "Super Christians" destroying what I think makes America great. Would you agree?

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 2:27 AM

Codas writes,

"I'm not a big fan of them but I understand that they represent a basic right in this country."

and

"No matter what I might say, or what you think I might have said I am a big fan of freedom. I respect others rights to have a gun or worship the way they want to."

"The right to be left the hell alone unless you are messing with someone elses rights. And that's where it gets complicated doesn't it. I don't want democrats or republicans or "Super Christians" destroying what I think makes America great. Would you agree?"

So what's your beef with the NRA, Codas, and what "word" do you have for the sort of person who is a member of the NRA?

By hit_escape on October 19, 2006 2:27 AM

hit_escape, how would you be deemed an alien if you have valid identification? If a goverment was corrupt enough to do that, then they certainly would'nt need a bill allowing them to do it, they would just do it. So the mere fact that this bill was passed takes away the argument that they're trying to detain american citizens secretly.

Posted by: Scot at October 19, 2006 01:23 AM

Great point Scot. Bush has issued over 700 "signing statements" that say he doesn't have to follow the law he just signed. You're right, Bush doesn't need a law to do this. This is just to make an appearance that he wishes to follow the law.

Once again, valid ID means nothing. American Citizen Jose Padilla was denied due process from day 1. If only they could have declared him an alien non-combatant, they could have shipped him to Gitmo and we would have all been none the wiser. Padilla would have no legal recourse becaue The Decider said he is an alien. You don't need proof, evidence or anything else, just the word of The Decider. Welcome to Hell.

By hit_escape on October 19, 2006 2:30 AM

hit_escape, how would you be deemed an alien if you have valid identification? If a goverment was corrupt enough to do that, then they certainly would'nt need a bill allowing them to do it, they would just do it. So the mere fact that this bill was passed takes away the argument that they're trying to detain american citizens secretly.

Posted by: Scot at October 19, 2006 01:23 AM

Great point Scot. Bush has issued over 700 "signing statements" that say he doesn't have to follow the law he just signed. You're right, Bush doesn't need a law to do this. This is just to make an appearance that he wishes to follow the law.

Once again, valid ID means nothing. American Citizen Jose Padilla was denied due process from day 1. If only they could have declared him an alien non-combatant, they could have shipped him to Gitmo and we would have all been none the wiser. Padilla would have no legal recourse becaue The Decider said he is an alien. You don't need proof, evidence or anything else, just the word of The Decider. Welcome to Hell.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 2:32 AM

"So why are you knocking the NRA?"

Uhh... before free porn on the internet there was a very active voice in this nation that stood against everything that Bush is doing interms trampling the constitution. The NRA has always touted the carved in stone nature of the law of the land. There premise was simple - the goverment an inch and they will take a mile. Bush has taken this way beyond a mile. The idiots that suck up Limbaugh and Hannity have no clue of this reality. In the old days the NRA was a voice of the old gaurd of what this nation was built on - guns in the hands of the public means a goverment that will never trample our rights. This has proven to be woefully wrong. Along comes unlimitted free porno and POOF they dissapear from the political scene. Perhaps you are just to young to know the commonly heard voice of the NRA every election cycle. Today the true American conservatives are in the closet and come November I think many of them will come out and take a stand for law and order and vote out of office the party of Tom Delay Carl Rove Dick Cheney and GWBush. The slime is getting thick in this nation and it we are do for a house cleaning.

More November 8th when the votes are counted.

By codas on October 19, 2006 2:34 AM

So what's your beef with the NRA, Codas, and what "word" do you have for the sort of person who is a member of the NRA?

Posted by: Cecelia at October 19, 2006 02:27 AM

I only wish that they would be as quick to defend other rights than gun ownership but I do understand that isn't really their placeis it. I have many family members and friends who are NRA members. I don't hunt, but I know that if people like to hunt then they will make sure their is a place and a beast left to hunt. Hunters don't just go out there to kill stuff, they like the woods. So do I, and I know thanks to them partly we will still have the woods. As far as owning a gun, I think about it, but I don't. Yes, I know if I need one, I will need it quick.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 2:38 AM

Along comes unlimitted free porno and POOF they dissapear from the political scene. Perhaps you are just to young to know the commonly heard voice of the NRA every election cycle.>>>

I'm old enough to know that since the NRA's issue is domestic gun ownership as opposed to terrorism and pornography, that the silliness you just typed is more full of fertilizer than the Easter Bunny.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 2:40 AM

think about it, but I don't. Yes, I know if I need one, I will need it quick."

So what "word" do you call them for not defending us on what you acknowlege isn't really their issue...Mr. Sincerity?...

By codas on October 19, 2006 2:57 AM

So what "word" do you call them for not defending us on what you acknowlege isn't really their issue...Mr. Sincerity?...

Posted by: Cecelia at October 19, 2006 02:40 AM

It is obvious what I was saying. The NRA harped on about if you give them an inch, "THE GOVERNMENT" they will take a mile. That is what is going on now. Give up search and seizure laws, right to a lawyer, even if it is for aliens today, tomorrow it could be more. Just because it makes you feel safer don't make it right. The word was hypocritical. Is that what you wanted me to say? Am I that? Sometimes yes. Can I get one of "you" to admit that? I would faint. Is that sincere enough for you? Remember, I am a sincere silly simpleton, and I can't help myself.

By nate on October 19, 2006 3:06 AM

It is amazing how the wingnuts scream if any reference to Hitler or the Nazis are used against them, but are quick to label Dems, Liberals, or and other group of any independent thinking as such. The facts are: #1 Hitler and the Nazis didn't break any laws of Germany, they changed the laws to fit as they viewed needed changed to commit such atrocities. #2 Hitler did not just show up and take over the German government and become what we all know him for. He was elected and over a few years gained enough power to do as he pleased. #3 He used German government issued propaganda to win the hearts and SOULS of the people so he could be allowed to follow though with his plans, while not knowing what was actually occuring. I could keep going, but this blog would be overtaken pages of history that no one would want to sit at a computer for hours reading. It also would do no good because the wingnuts WILL not be swayed by truth from there brainwashing, that Germany changed in ONE whole day from a descent country to the genocidal Nazi Germany that we remember. Shit, Half of them PROBABLY can't understand the large, or I mean, big words that I have used here. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!! Our democracy is on the line. I read a Conservative explaination of the Second Admendment to the Constitution and agreed fully. It said that the people had the right to form a Militia to protect against our own government, because The Foundering Fathers were very leary of governments getting out of control. Yet, the NRA as the wingnuts here completely supporting this goverment and their IF YOU DISAGREE WITH OUR POLICY, YOU ARE UNPATRIOTIC stance.
This wonderful country was founded on questioning those in charge. This country will desolve by not questioning those in charge. Just my thought.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 3:06 AM

"The word was hypocritical. Is that what you wanted me to say? Am I that? Sometimes yes. Can I get one of "you" to admit that? I would faint. Is that sincere enough for you? Remember, I am a sincere silly simpleton, and I can't help myself."

Considering that you've acknowledged that law pertaining to terrorists isn't really within the parameters of a group that advocates the right of private citizens to bear arms....and considering that you've tossed out the bon mot...that you may need your own gun since Bush is coming after you....it does make one wonder why you used the NRA as your example of hypocrisy in the first place...and when challenged renounced your own argument with every post thereafter....

"Remember, I am a sincere silly simpleton, and I can't help myself."{

Nah...you're an insincere silly simpleton AND a jackass partisan.

By Scot on October 19, 2006 3:12 AM

hit_escape, i'm aware of the signing statements, but i have'nt heard that bush used one on this bill, and the goverment can't declare padilla or any other american citizen an alien which is the point i'm trying to make, habeas corpus only applies to aliens, not american citizens in this bill. Padilla was declared an enemy combatant, which is why he was held while the courts decided how to handle his case and as cato pointed out earlier, padilla has been released to civilian authorities. What i'm trying to point out is that your examples of american citizens being taken into custody would be the acts of a corrupt goverment, not a goverment acting under authority of this bill.

By codas on October 19, 2006 3:17 AM

cecelia,

And you are not worth talking with, because you are an ignorant pig. I tried being civil with you and you do what you always do. You end the conversation by insulting me. That is what you do best. You are the kind of person that I never wanted to be. A know it all who needs to stomp on other people to feel better about themselves. You don't care about issues, you hate liberals. You hate democrats. I am sorry for you, i really am. You insult everyone don't you. Your not hypocritical, your just mean and you think that is being strong. Your sad is what you are.

By painter on October 19, 2006 3:21 AM

@ Little Feechie: Gee, I guess you missed the part about Bush signing an act that has the power to utterly nullify our rights. The fuction of government SHOULD BE TO SECURE OUR RIGHTS, not take them from us. How is it possible that an educated, intelligent, human being such as yourself, misses that point? Are you telling me that a government that takes your rights from you is YOUR government? That makes NO SENSE to me at all.

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 3:41 AM

Codas,

Nice deflection for having been called out for irrationally insulting NRA members..

I haven't stated that there is "a word" for some group who hasn't pronounced upon what I wish them to pronounce upon...and then under pressure admitted that this group is more narrowly focused.... YOU have done that.

I have NOT insulted Democrats in general...or liberals in general...but YOU... and no...you haven't tried to be civil...you've tried to back away from your own argument after being confronted about it and you're upset that I haven't let you.

You're not civil, Mr. Sincerity, you're partisan and you argue as though you are dumb as a shoe.

Your only redeeming factor is that you can't help yourself from making it clear that you know that about yourself too.

By codas on October 19, 2006 4:31 AM

You're not civil, Mr. Sincerity, you're partisan and you argue as though you are dumb as a shoe.

Posted by: Cecelia at October 19, 2006 03:41 AM

I know you are not partisan are you. And you are always so civil. Thank you so much for all your insults and trying to make me feel stupid or look bad, whatever it is you feel the need to do to someone who has an opinion about something that is not the same as yours. It's been real fun talking with you and I learn a lot. I learned you are a pro at this game and I will leave you to yourself from now on. This is a waste of time if I end up becoming as hateful as you are.

By Scott on October 19, 2006 5:23 AM

Have you ever heard of anyone being detained and not being finger printed? Proof of identity is vital to this law. How else would we know who we have? God, al-Zaqawri was id'd through DNA testing. You don't think we would try to positively ID those we have captured?

Now, KO and his minions think that under this law, the evil Bush is going to send out his secret police to pick up dissenters, call citizens aliens, through them in Gitmo and lose them?

This whole train of thought would be humorous if the radical left weren't actually serious about it.

By SixStringBassPlayer on October 19, 2006 6:54 AM

Ole DoucheBag got his "talking points" from another mental midget,,,,Jonathan Turley.
Between the two of them they couldn't figure out how to turn a doorknob.
As stated elsewhere, DoucheBag sounded like an old man shoutng at cars as they passed by....while America laughed at him.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 6:59 AM

Keith Olbermann contradicted himself within 10 seconds.....Allow me to demonstrate......

First he says,

"We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens "unlawful enemy combatants" and ship them somewhere--anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an "unlawful enemy combatant" and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president."

OK...fine Mr. Olbermann but you forgot the restrictions placed on AMERICAN CITIZENS by the great President Lincoln.....but we'll forgive you for that mistake.

He then, a VERY short time later, says,

"The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out."

Eternal means never ending. How can this be if on previous occasions in our history, you sited the other fine executives who acted to protect the lives of their fellow countrymen in the same manner as the current fine executive? Olbermann does not even remain consistent in his reckless use of history to argue over a nonexistent danger to the country's citizens.

You guys on the left have got to get someone a bit more rational and thoughtful to be your spokesperson....Olbermann is silly.....and getting sillier.

(Sorry if this was mentioned at all in the previous posts, I did not have the chance to read it all this morning)

By cee on October 19, 2006 7:00 AM

Anon at 6:59 was cee

By rj on October 19, 2006 8:07 AM

Wow. Never been an Olbermann fan but this special comment was right on. No wonder the neo-cons hate him, Bill O'Reilly is afraid of him, and most here try to poke holes in his statements and arguments. I hope Mr. Olbermann can keep it up. That "Special Comment" had my wife and I cheering.

By cee on October 19, 2006 8:19 AM

Not an endorsement of the tribunal law, an editorial in The New York Times at least is honest regarding the application of the new law:

"The law does not apply to American citizens, but it does apply to other legal United States residents."

Mmmmm.....will Keith Olbermann continue to be even loonier left of even the NYT? With factually WRONG speculation like,

"And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an "unlawful enemy combatant"--exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?"

....I DON'T THINK SO!

Hey everybody....look out for those agents behind those telephone poles and in the bushes waiting to pounce indiscriminately! You all know how the FBI and your local police have nothing better to do than take a random person into custody and torture them.

My goodness, paranoia is a sad state of mind!

By anonymous on October 19, 2006 8:29 AM

During the break of the last night game, I changed the channel to watch his special comment for a little while, I got yelled at whey I changed the channel and then when I tuned in I saw someone yelling at the President, it was probably 20 seconds, I was back to the game. Why was he so angry? Did he forget to take his meds or forget where his therapist is? He teased Katie Curic losing viewers every night and he bragged that he could do a better job than her on the radio show. I was wondering how he can, so angry and unstable, sit in Brian Williams' chair as an anchorman of the Nightly News. He needs to grow up and learn how to be a professional journalist. I am not old enough to watch Edward Murrow on TV, I definitely won't think he will be so angry and yell at the President. Keith, calm down, you are delivering a message to your viewers, to the public, and let them decide.

By John on October 19, 2006 9:09 AM

Re: On Keith's snarkiness towards Couric and others in the TV news business who, politically, would certainly not be considered allies of the Bush Administration -- Keith was on with Dan Patrick on Wednesday talking about the Steve Lyons case and with noticable irritation, tossed off the claim that the only reason Lyons won an Emmy Award in 2000 for his work on the World Series pre- and post-game anaylsis was because Keith was there to hold his hand and lead him through everything like a seeing eye dog.

Leaving aside the merits of the Emmy voters picking Lyons, how much professional jealousy do you have to have to claim credit for a six-year-old Emmy on a studio anaylsis show? An attitude like that goes a long way towards explaining why Olbermann would be so irrationally spiteful towards others in the TV business, as well as in the political world, and the need to claim credit and bask in the glory of fans -- no matter how limited this may make your appeal to the public at large -- goes a long way towards explaining Keith's glut of "special comments" over the past two months. He's lionized by the Kos/DU/MoveOn types, as evidenced by some of the replies on this board.

They treat him like women in the 1960s acted treated Tom Jones at his concerts, throwing the equivalent of digital panties on the stage at Olbermann, who eats up the adulation. But he doesn't seem to realize that, in terms of any futher advancement in the NBC News division, it's made him radioactive, even if someday he does manage to pass Paul Zahn and become a second place ratings juggnaut to O'Reilly. Networks other than his bete noir of Fox News have gone out of their way to hire aides to Democratic politicians like George Stephanopoulos or liberal writers for straight (non-commentary) TV news jobs, but none of them have ever thrown around the invective Keith has as of late. He may be the poster boy of the internet left, but his words will keep him from ever being anything more than "Countdown" host, or at best NBC's answer to Jack Cafferty. And given Keith's ego, it's hard to see him thinking "Countdown" is going to be his highest rung in life as a newsman.

By cee on October 19, 2006 9:12 AM

Kissel.....

Now Bush is "cowering".....

Two posts from now his behavior will be characterized as too aggressive and brash.....

Which one is it people?

George Bush is even out there speaking to real journalists and taking the tough questions....Williams, Stephanopolous.....Lastly, it is not a coward who takes a stand on principle and does everything within his legal power to fulfill his oath of office

By John on October 19, 2006 9:21 AM

And this could be ominous news for Keith and his fans: NBC to cut 700 jobs, $750 million from budget:

***

NEW YORK (AP) - NBC Universal plans to cut $750 million in operating expenses by the end of 2007 by eliminating employees, cutting back on scripted shows, and slashing its news budget, according to a report Thursday in The Wall Street Journal.

***

"Scripted Shows" could mean "Deal or No Deal" or "NBC Nightly News" I suppose, but I kind of doubt it, and there's no question MSNBC hasn't exactly been a cash cow for GE over the past decade.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 9:50 AM

Keith Olbermann offends you. Wonderful. You need offended. More Keith. The voice of reason is never popular amongst a pack of blood thirsty fear mongering people. The clock is ticking on W's rule. Halafuckingluya.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 9:57 AM

"The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense."

Wonder how much classified material olby wanted the recently convicted lawyer for terorists Lynn Stewart to have. Maybe give her access to everything, because the government could be hiding something.

By KfK on October 19, 2006 10:34 AM

"rj" wrote: "That "Special Comment" had my wife and I cheering."

Yes, your fictitious wife was cheering. We all know you are an operative, pal. Operatives always post forced one-liners claiming Olby was stellar and beloved by all, kind of the way Stalin always had admirers in the street ready to opine about the great leader.

How about you stop the SPAM and Move On.

By KfK on October 19, 2006 11:06 AM

Good News (as mentioned above by another commenter):

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_X101902AU.xml.html

"Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC Universal's television group, said he'll focus on cheaper programming. Zucker told the newspaper that scripted shows cost too much given the lack of advertiser interest. NBC's cost-saving plan involves laying off people from the company's 11 news divisions, including on-air talent."

Let's see . . . Microsoft stops pumping money into the massive failure known as MSLSD. Danny Abrams is hired for a few pennies and decides that taped programming is the future. Now "scripted shows" that don't get advertisers (read as "don't get ratings") are on the chopping block.

Cue Olbermann: "Oh, i am slain!"

By John on October 19, 2006 11:14 AM

Can somebody PLEASE find a picture of Olbermann in his leather jacket with the sleeves rolled up to the elbows when ESPN2 debuted? PLEASE! It was just so hip...just like ESPN2!?!?

I am begging! His is one of the biggest clowns I have ever seen on television.

By Sully on October 19, 2006 11:58 AM

I had to work late last night and missed the fun. Did I get this right? 24 hours after the Boortz/Cleland foul up (has he corrected this yet?), KO slammed ABC for a graphic giving Cory Lidle's date of death as 3006. This stuff is absolutely friggin priceless.

By cee on October 19, 2006 12:08 PM

Back to that Special Comment thingy.....

Ann Coulter, on this occasion, says it right by me:

"After President Bush signed a law this week providing for military tribunals for terrorists being held at Guantanamo and prohibiting their torture, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." (Note to Democrats: It's still too soon to use "stain" as a metaphor for a White House brouhaha.)

Democrats stood outside the White House shouting "Torture is a crime!" and "Bush is the terrorist!" Yep, these are the people who claim they're going to keep us all safe, America. Everybody good with that?

Gen. George Washington tried Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Nuremberg trials were a form of military tribunal.

But Democrats think military tribunals aren't good enough for the terrorists plotting to kill Americans today. Liberals are going to make the terrorists love us!"

You are right Coultergeist! Why can't Keith Olbermann debate Ms. Coulter about this issue....it would be so much fun.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 12:19 PM

Sully said:

"24 hours after the Boortz/Cleland foul up (has he corrected this yet?)"

Yes he did, at the beginning of the WPITW segment.

From the MSNBC transcript:

OLBERMANN: Baseball theme tonight, the Bronze to WABC, channel seven in New York City. Look, we all make mistakes with graphics. We showed a photo of Max Cleland when we meant to show that radio lunatic, Neal Boortz last night. I mean, that‘s so improbable it‘s almost funny.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 12:30 PM

If KO's ratings are terrible and nobody in their right mind watches this show, then why do you care what he says and why have a blog devoted to it? I think you have too much time on your hands.

By Robert Cox on October 19, 2006 12:36 PM

I've updated the post with some Olbverse Reax to the special comment.

By James on October 19, 2006 12:41 PM

"Do you think KO will at some point flat out a
ccuse Bush of being behide 9/11?"

Hell no, in fact the night that the NORAD reports came out, he publicly denounced the conspiracy theroist. I remember he said something along the lines of "I think this shows that there was no grand conspiracy, only a lot of confusion"

By James on October 19, 2006 12:42 PM

"Do you think KO will at some point flat out a
ccuse Bush of being behide 9/11?"

Hell no, in fact the night that the NORAD reports came out, he publicly denounced the conspiracy theroist. I remember he said something along the lines of "I think this shows that there was no grand conspiracy, only a lot of confusion"

By The Consul on October 19, 2006 12:43 PM

countdown's ratings are going up. Each time KO goes further out on the ledge, he gets another bump. The cycles of his commentaries on the internet are increasing exponentially.
Something is happening. It isn't just a "liberal media" aberration.
The calculus for Bush is now working against him. That the relationship the enemies and mistakes he has made are now overwhelming.
Not being a mand of great depth, he failed to perceive the consequences in which he is now mired...excuse me, WE ARE ALL mired.
Had a voice such as KO's been heard earlier and and loudly, when we most needed it, in the run up to March 19, 2003, then perhaps things might not be as dire as they have become.
Today Bush admitted it is reasonable now to connect, by association, Iraq with Viet Nam. James Baker III is having to come on board and try to straighten him out. The people who have had the most influence on W (Kristol, Feith, Wolfy, Perle etc) are all people his father referred to as "The Crazies" when he was pres.
NOBODY would argue that GHWB is not smarter than GWB.
It will take more than a generation to dig out of the crater this administration has left in foreign policy, the defecit, the environment and the very functionality of our nation as a democracy.
The retrospect will always include the reflection that W was not only the worst president we've ever had, but the single worst "event" in American History.

By mlong on October 19, 2006 12:44 PM

we all make mistakes with graphics
***********************************
Unless it's FOX putting a D next to Foley's name..then it's some sinister attempt to confuse viewers..but KO did it twice...you would think someone would have gotten the right pic after that..

On Neal Boortz radio show today..he said he's thinking about sending him a picture of himself to KO so they won't mess up again.

By The Consul on October 19, 2006 12:44 PM

countdown's ratings are going up. Each time KO goes further out on the ledge, he gets another bump. The cycles of his commentaries on the internet are increasing exponentially.
Something is happening. It isn't just a "liberal media" aberration.
The calculus for Bush is now working against him. That the relationship the enemies and mistakes he has made are now overwhelming.
Not being a mand of great depth, he failed to perceive the consequences in which he is now mired...excuse me, WE ARE ALL mired.
Had a voice such as KO's been heard earlier and and loudly, when we most needed it, in the run up to March 19, 2003, then perhaps things might not be as dire as they have become.
Today Bush admitted it is reasonable now to connect, by association, Iraq with Viet Nam. James Baker III is having to come on board and try to straighten him out. The people who have had the most influence on W (Kristol, Feith, Wolfy, Perle etc) are all people his father referred to as "The Crazies" when he was pres.
NOBODY would argue that GHWB is not smarter than GWB.
It will take more than a generation to dig out of the crater this administration has left in foreign policy, the defecit, the environment and the very functionality of our nation as a democracy.
The retrospect will always include the reflection that W was not only the worst president we've ever had, but the single worst "event" in American History.

By SteveMG on October 19, 2006 1:17 PM

What Olbermann left out (again):

EVERY enemy combatant is given a hearing before a tribunal as to whether his detention is lawful or not.

EVERY enemy combatant can appeal a decision by the tribunal that says his detention was lawful. This appeal goes before the US District Court in D.C.

EVERY enemy combatant can appeal the District Court's ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may or may not grant cert and hear the appeal; but the enemy combatant has the right to submit one.

Before this administration, NO enemy combatant or soldier had the above ability to appeal his detention or imprisonment.

In no war that the US has ever fought before this one did enemy combatants have the rights that the Bush Administration and Congress have given them.

For the first time in our history, the US government is giving enemy combatants the right to appeal their detention before a military and civilian court.

And Olbermann characterizes this as a insult to our Constitution and country? Absurd.

Mr. Olbermann included none of this in his nonsensical and factually-challenged diatribe.

SMG

By Boog on October 19, 2006 1:46 PM

Is Keith related to or a descendent of Max Headroom?

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 1:48 PM

Codas, if you're around anywhere I'd like to apologize for being so hard on you last night.

I couldn't sleep and was sort of taking that out on you. Please pardon me for being so rude.

By Deaf Dumb and Blind on October 19, 2006 1:53 PM

"And Olbermann characterizes this as a insult to our Constitution and country? Absurd."

Olbermann? You act as if he some giant figure in our culture and his opinions warrant the most examination. Get out of your parents basement bedroom and join the real world. Legal scholars across this land are voicing the same opinion. Media on the left and the right all concur KO. The idea picking one man (KO) and having him be your focus is so fucking lame. Yall remind me of a cliché of junior high punks who pick on one kid as way to bond. This so lame.

Again you ignore the meaning of "legal precedent" and want to focus on what an accused person can do under this attempt to defy constitutional law.

What part of "unconstitutional" do you not understand?

This is the whole point of Bush critics. Republicans of today try to pass themselves off as conservative and they are anything but. They have expanded government and put over spending into whole new level. But the worst they have done is trample the constitution.

When the law is over turned in the courts it will be one more example of arrogance of this regime and ignorance of it's defenders.

By Olbermantra on October 19, 2006 2:03 PM

HEY SM Gee Your SMall Minded (SMG)--I practice law and guess what your a moron:

SMG
"EVERY enemy combatant is given a hearing before a tribunal as to whether his detention is lawful or not"

OLBERMANTRA : WRONG BLATANLY BIASED (TRIBUNALS are appointed people by the accusers and certainly NOT Jury's or even judges)

SMG: "EVERY enemy combatant can appeal a decision by the tribunal that says his detention was lawful. This appeal goes before the US District Court in D.C."

OLBERMANTRA: Who appoints his lawyer for him ...does he write the appellate brief on toilet paper...is he given a cphone call out of the stockade ....what and where are the mechanics of this so called APPEAL....do you homework Moron let us all know ----

SMG: "EVERY enemy combatant can appeal the District Court's ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may or may not grant cert and hear the appeal; but the enemy combatant has the right to submit one."

OLBERMANTRA: The US Supreme Court takes over 10, 000 or more Petions for writ of certiorari and accepts 150 per year ----at the District Court Level the case is OVER ---OVER----OVERMANN---OLBERMAN

SMG: "Before this administration, NO enemy combatant or soldier had the above ability to appeal his detention or imprisonment."

OLBERMANTRA: WRONG AGAIN ---Even after statute of limitations ran out the Japanese Internment cases were plead,litigated, decided and damages paid ....

SMG:" In no war that the US has ever fought before this one did enemy combatants have the rights that the Bush Administration and Congress have given them. "

OLBERMANTRA: WRONG AGAIN---the rights the current defendant / enemy combatants have now are the right to be tortured ....

SMG: "For the first time in our history, the US government is giving enemy combatants the right to appeal their detention before a military and civilian court."

OLBERMANTRA: WRONG ...research the German Sabotuers Cases of the 1940's ...in which at least one Nazi was hanged

SMG: "And Olbermann characterizes this as a insult to our Constitution and country? Absurd. "

OLBERMANTRA: WRONG are you sleeping man .... comon boys ... get up .... stand up for your rights ....habeus corpus is the lynchpin of liberty and you jeer the detractors....Cmon SMG --show us what you got for the country ---for the people --- or listen to rush limbaugh like a moron would Kudos baby kudos ...ditto ditto ditto ---

Mr. Olbermann included none of this in his nonsensical and factually-challenged diatribe.

By Maverick on October 19, 2006 2:03 PM

I believe Keith is one of the best, most insightful news commentators on the air right now for the liberal POV. I come to your blog to find out what holes you can find in KO's commentary. Generally speaking, you do nothing more than call him names and say he is lying without supporting your statements with hard evidence.
Occasionally, you actually do provide some very good counterpoints. And that is exactly what I look for in a blog such as this. You do yourself and your readers a great disservice when you resort to name-calling and shout "liar! liar! pants on fire!".
I would love it if you would actually take KO to task by proving that his statements are "lies". If you can present the facts that prove his statements are lies, then maybe you will get reasonable rebuttals with more facts to prove to you otherwise.
One of the main problems we have today in political debates is that each side tells only half-truths or distortions (Kerry votes 10 times to raise your taxes == Kerry voted against one bill that had 10 provisions to reduce your tax). Sometimes they are just flat out lies.
It makes it impossible to make an informed decision when no one is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Unlike others here who have bashed you for ganging up on KO, I think you are at least embarking on a great service. I just believe you could do a better job by presenting the facts of your arguments and reducing the name-calling.

Good day.

By Maverick on October 19, 2006 2:04 PM

I believe Keith is one of the best, most insightful news commentators on the air right now for the liberal POV. I come to your blog to find out what holes you can find in KO's commentary. Generally speaking, you do nothing more than call him names and say he is lying without supporting your statements with hard evidence.
Occasionally, you actually do provide some very good counterpoints. And that is exactly what I look for in a blog such as this. You do yourself and your readers a great disservice when you resort to name-calling and shout "liar! liar! pants on fire!".
I would love it if you would actually take KO to task by proving that his statements are "lies". If you can present the facts that prove his statements are lies, then maybe you will get reasonable rebuttals with more facts to prove to you otherwise.
One of the main problems we have today in political debates is that each side tells only half-truths or distortions (Kerry votes 10 times to raise your taxes == Kerry voted against one bill that had 10 provisions to reduce your tax). Sometimes they are just flat out lies.
It makes it impossible to make an informed decision when no one is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Unlike others here who have bashed you for ganging up on KO, I think you are at least embarking on a great service. I just believe you could do a better job by presenting the facts of your arguments and reducing the name-calling.

Good day.

By SteveMG on October 19, 2006 2:06 PM

"Olbermann? You act..."

Sorry my friend, this site is called "Olbermann watch" and is intended to permit people to respond to Keith Olbermann's so-called "news show".

This is not Turley watch or Arlen Specter watch.

Because it's Olbermann watch, I'm responding to Olbermann's comments.

To repeat, the United States has never ever extended habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants captured overseas.

Never.

FDR didn't do it. Wilson didn't do it. Truman didn't do it.

It's never been done. In fact, before the recent court ruling (2004) in Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that aliens did not have habeas corpus rights. In Rasul, based on a federal statute, the Court ruled that they did.

But the Supreme Court has never ruled that aliens have the Constitutional right to have access to civilian courts.

Now, perhaps they will rule that aliens do have the constitutional right to have access to our courts. I can't predict the future.

Let me ask you a question: Near the end of WWII, the US had capture about 200,000 German prisoners, some of whom were just ordinary males forced to fight.

Was FDR wrong not to extend habeas corpus rights to those 200,000 Germans we had captured? Should we have had civilian trials for each and every one of those 200,000 soldiers or prisoners?

SMG

By codas on October 19, 2006 2:15 PM

Cecelia,

No problem.

By Obermantra on October 19, 2006 2:19 PM

Ahh ..you quote Keith's Information ....Wilson --FDR--Truman---you weren't even aware you had a right called habeus corpus ....bring me the body ---before the judge ----the devil is in the broad scope of the language in the statute and Keith and his Constitutional Scholar (and Turley isn't the only legal genius on this One) read the statute on it's face to include YOU --and YOU and You and SMG and Olberman and once again the Limbaugh Fan out themselves like pussy cats with a yarn ball whenever they hear a SLOGAN --SLOGANEERING ---A SLOGAN LIKE "Military Combatants Act" ---PATRIOT ACT '''''FREE TRADE ----- goodnight and goodluck

By SteveMG on October 19, 2006 2:22 PM

Olbermantra:
Did FDR give habeas corpus rights to the German and Japanese soldiers we had captured?

Answer: No.

More important, you must know that the detainees have been assigned pro bono lawyers? The US government allows each detainee access to and communication with a lawyer.

Second, every enemy detainee has the right to appeal his detention before a tribunal. Their lawyer make the appeal.

If his detention is upheld, the detainee may appeal that detention to the US District Court in D.C. Their lawyer makes the appeal.

If the detention is still upheld, they may file a cert to the Supreme Court. Their lawyer files the cert.

Like every other American, the Court may or may not grant the cert. That's the way things go.

The German saboteurs who were captured did NOT have access to civilian courts. FDR specifically ordered that they NOT have access to civilian courts in ANY WAY. He ordered that they be tried by military courts. They were NOT given habeas corpus rights.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld FDR's proclamation and by doing so implicitly agreed that the enemy combatants did NOT have habeas rights.

End of story.

SMG

By Cecelia on October 19, 2006 2:23 PM

Posted by: John at October 19, 2006 09:09 AM

You said it, Mister!

And you said it well! Thanks!

By olbermantra on October 19, 2006 2:27 PM

Lets start at the last claim ...FDR's Proclamation was upheld by the Supreme Court ---sound like access to Federal Court which is a civilian court... WRONG

Regarding the PRO BONO or FREE attorneys working for Prisoners ....show me the statute ...cite where it is in the new law ... reveal the legal mechanism ---- show us the verbiage...the language ..the implied meaning even ---cite the ACT ---where is it in the ACT

By SteveMG on October 19, 2006 2:34 PM

Olbermantra:
Every detainee in Guatananmo has a lawyer. In fact, Professor Turley represents one of the detainees.

These are volunteer lawyers from many leftwing organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and various other organizations. They are working for the detainees for free.

This fact has been repeatedly reported.

Re Qurin. The details of how the Supreme Court decided to rule on the matter are widely available. Do your own research my friend.

To repeat: Alien enemy combatants have never ever been given habeas rights and access to our civilian courts by any administration in the history of this country.

As I noted, FDR specifically proclaimed that they did not have the right to our civilian courts in his proclamation ordering the military trial of the German saboteurs. SCOTUS upheld that proclamation in Quirin.

SMG

By olbermantra on October 19, 2006 2:41 PM

Again with the SLOGANS ...enemy combatants ...US Citizens ...Democratic Liberals....all the same to you right?

The Nazi case had a lower district court history to reach the US Supreme Court ... it was part of the now dissapeared Checks and Balances ---remember that quaint old concept ?

The research lies with you SMG --- show me where in the current statute Holmes ---cite where it is in the new law ... reveal the legal mechanism ---- show us the verbiage...the language ..the implied meaning even ---cite the ACT ---where is it in the ACT ?
Or you are a shill and your ideas and claims are uniformed blustering falsehoods ---show us or shut up ----

By SteveMG on October 19, 2006 2:46 PM

Olbermantra:
Sorry my friend. I'm not using slogans (Democratic liberals? I never used that).

I'm using facts, the law, history, evidence, logic, clear thinking.

I'm sorry you can't keep up with me.

If I were you I'd go back to the law school where you got your degree and would demand a refund.

Good luck and good night. And I do mean good night.

SMG

By olbermantra on October 19, 2006 2:51 PM

Ok SMG ...i'll be your friend ... you are a gentleman ...but you are wrong and please show us how you are right

all the Best

Peace Out
O

By olbermantra on October 19, 2006 2:52 PM

Ok SMG ...i'll be your friend ... you are a gentleman ...but you are wrong and please show us how you are right

all the Best

Peace Out
O

By Gary Boldwater on October 19, 2006 3:55 PM

God, you neocons are a bunch of pathetic crybabies! Olbermann watch? What is this garbage?!

For once, a cable news personality who isn't a rabid cheerleader for the radical right (can you recall O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Hume, Sustern, etc, etc, etc) and you people start a blog trying to debunk his every move. Grow up, and get your heads out of the toilet.

On second thought, put them back in and flush, because we don't want you on our team anyway.

By Gary Boldwater on October 19, 2006 3:56 PM

God, you neocons are a bunch of pathetic crybabies! Olbermann watch? What is this garbage?!

For once, a cable news personality who isn't a rabid cheerleader for the radical right (can you recall O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Hume, Sustern, etc, etc, etc) and you people start a blog trying to debunk his every move. Grow up, and get your heads out of the toilet.

On second thought, put them back in and flush, because we don't want you on our team anyway.

By Gary Boldwater on October 19, 2006 4:02 PM

God, you neocons are a bunch of pathetic crybabies! Olbermann watch? What is this garbage?!

For once, a cable news personality who isn't a rabid cheerleader for the radical right (can you recall O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Hume, Sustern, etc, etc, etc) and you people start a blog trying to debunk his every move. Grow up, and get your heads out of the toilet.

On second thought, put them back in and flush, because we don't want you on our team anyway.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 4:44 PM

"God, you neocons are a bunch of pathetic crybabies"
SOUNDS LIKE YOU NEED A NAP
"On second thought, put them back in and flush, because we don't want you on our team anyway. "
thats ok we don;t hang out with communist traitors anyway.
get yourself a tissues and go back to kos or DU or some other liberal whine cellar.
take O'lielly with you too!

By codas on October 19, 2006 5:27 PM

thats ok we don;t hang out with communist traitors anyway.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 19, 2006 04:44 PM

Its that very attitude that makes people like me very suspicious of the whole bunch of right wing tv and radio personalities that have been dominating the airwaves for way to long now. "Communist Traitors". That is so easily said by you and those who you learned it from. Those are words that could get people killed. "Your with us, or you with the terrorists" mentallity is insanity. Your painting yourself into a corner in case you didn't know that.

By Bryan on October 19, 2006 5:57 PM

You people really aren't intelligent. I remember about 15 years ago when Republicans weren't absolutely fucking insane. Maybe one day we will return to that.

I bet you all feel so good about yourselves, calling opponents traitors and un-American. You all must be so proud of yourselves.

By Just Askin' on October 19, 2006 7:46 PM

Just for fun and games, people, look up "criminal identity theft" on your favorite search engine.

"It could never happen to me." Yes, but who are you, legally? And in all places? Are you sure?

By Brandon on October 19, 2006 8:07 PM

Do you actually have a point there JA? Because if you're trying to tell us you think that Olby should be arrested for impersonating a journalist, I agree! How can I help to swear out the warrant for crimes against journalism?

By Fatmouse on October 19, 2006 8:29 PM

"I remember about 15 years ago when Republicans weren't absolutely fucking insane."

No you don't. That was right after the Evil Ronnie Reagan was going to start a nuclear war and kill us all.

Oh, wait, you've managed to forget all about that liberal hysteria.

By Scott on October 19, 2006 8:51 PM

Wasn't BillO WPITW one night for showing a picture of Joe Blow Sr. as the editor of a newspaper, when it was his son that had taken over as editor, or publisher, or whatever?

Didn't KO make this same mistake before?

What's worse? (As KO accused BillO) "slandering" a dead man? Or slandering a disabled American veteran?

If KO was truly "speaking truth to power" wouldn't he have named himself WPITW, just as he did O'Reilly for a similar offense? Or maybe, just once, the staff at CD could fact check to make sure they got something right?

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 11:30 PM

um codas you can look it up. lyn stewart IS a communist, she is supported by the communist party of the US and she DID aid the terrorists by passing messages from the sheik santa claus to his followers- it's called aiding and abetting.
maybe the big problem is that these left wingers will not admit their socialist and terrorist affections.
and if you are not for keeping American safe and secure from terrorist attacks then what are you for? the terrorists attacking us?? there is no shades of grey here. it really is a matter of either being with us or for the terrorists.
what are your choice of options? I alays here liberals complain about framing the debate as either with us or against us yet I hear no viable alternative.

By Anonymous on October 19, 2006 11:31 PM

um codas you can look it up. lyn stewart IS a communist, she is supported by the communist party of the US and she DID aid the terrorists by passing messages from the sheik santa claus to his followers- it's called aiding and abetting.
maybe the big problem is that these left wingers will not admit their socialist and terrorist affections.
and if you are not for keeping American safe and secure from terrorist attacks then what are you for? the terrorists attacking us?? there is no shades of grey here. it really is a matter of either being with us or for the terrorists.
what are your choice of options? I always hear liberals complain about framing the debate as either with us or against us yet I hear no viable alternative.

By What Big Eyes You Have on October 20, 2006 12:52 AM

"what are your choice of options? I always hear liberals complain about framing the debate as either with us or against us yet I hear no viable alternative."

No viable alternative? Try educating yourself beyond corporate owned media and realize that America being hated by a billion Muslims is not because they woke up one day and said, "I hate America." There is a long history of Great Britton and the USA exploiting poor nations for their natural resources. What the CIA history really is in regards to over throwing leaders in 3rd world countries will not be found on CNN or Fox News. Our nation has a population of over weight couch potatoes who raise their kids with cable and video games who completely ignorant of American history beyond sanitized Texas school books.

The viable alternative is to stop listening to corporate propaganda specialists like Wolf Blitzer and Rush Limbaugh and get a fucking education about the history of your nation. You have clue about it? Does 400 years of African Slave trade and 100 years of segregation get updated in the classrooms of this nation? You think perhaps if we acknowledged our own domestic slavery we might have a chance to acknowledge it over seas? All the oil in the middle east for decades was under US and British control. When OPEC failed to tow the line the neo-cons schemed up a plan to go into Iraq and make it into a Japan or Germany and use it break OPEC by pumping oil when OPEC set prices too high.

If all you do is listen to a--holes like Hannity and Limbaugh you will continue to say ignorant shit like your quote above. Get a fucking clue you, millions of poor people have died over the decades that this nation and Great Britton have plundered been plundering them around the world. A billion Muslims have little geographic diversity to sustain themselves, their oil is all they have. More than 2 billion people in China and India soon will consume as much oil as the USA. Why do you think they were silent when Bush invaded a nation rich in oil? Because they want to see OPEC broken too.

A handful of billionaires run this planet and only uneducated dumb asses think it is about the "USA is number one". The USA was number one simply because of the first Amendment. That is no more because all - 100% of major media is owned by huge corporations, there is no more free voice in this nation unless you seek it out from beyond your couch and tv remote control. Get a fucking clue and seek out alternative media that is free of the "Christian" garbage and the corporate garbage. People like you are handing over our democracy like fucking coward sheep. Take a stand instead going along like cattle to the slaughter. As Ralph Nader said "Washington is a corporate occupied territory." The Dems as well as the Repubs are owned by big money. The fat slob evangelical leaders are the closest thing to wolves in sheep clothes as you can get. How obvious does something have to be before dumb fucking people wake up?

By nate on October 20, 2006 1:31 AM

What Big Eyes,
I agree with most of what your saying. Most of the politicians are corperate owned, but I do think a few of the Dems, and the Independents are still good. I believe about a third of Dems still want to do for the masses, but the rest just corporatist as about 98% of the Republicans are. I wish there was a viable third party that had a chance to win, but the rich have made sure that none of them can grow and develope into a real choice for our great country. I vote for the off canidates when viable (pre 2000), but in these times it is better to postpone an ideal vote, for a vote that can count. If the party rule can change in either, or both houses of congress, the few descent Dems may be able to an end to the rampant loss of our Country. Sometimes it is better to sacrifice a small thing for the overall picture.

By What Big Eyes on October 20, 2006 1:56 AM

Exactly. That is why I have always voted democratic. The lessor of 2 evils is just that. The fact that Republicans have aligned themselves with the Christians cultural brand of evengelism is all I need to know that I would never vote for the American Taliban Party. The sleaze that Southern politcs is famous for is alive and well and reborn in the Rove world of politics. There can be no sleazier person than Carl Rove except of course Tom DeLay - he is actually greasy he is so sleazy.

By nate on October 20, 2006 2:57 AM

You are one of the few intellegent people on this site. It is unbelievable how the brainwashed and ignorant believe they are correct just because they can wish Rush a Mega Dildo or two. The sad thing that they don't seem to understand is that it takes more than listening to wingnut radio and watching FUX (News?!?) to understand what it means to be a REAL AMERICAN.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 8:56 AM

nice try george soros or is it ted turner this week? blah blah blah leftard. you went on for paragraph after paragraph of liberla bulshit recycled from kos or firedoglake or olbermann yet all you did like most liberal morons who have had their little liberal brains filled with more anti_American rants' Hey dipshit you feel so sorry for all the poor fucking muslims then go live in some third world muslim shithole of a country and maybe they will take your little anti_American jihad to heart and adopt you.
don't you DARE try to lecture me what it takes to be a "REAL AMERICAN" when you have not a clue what it means.
being a real American does not mean watching olbermann and waving a flag but i am sure that lketists like you don't even have an American flag in your house do you?
you liberals that come here and spout off your little olbermann rhetoric are America hating, terrorist appeasing, TRAITORS.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 8:57 AM

nice try george soros or is it ted turner this week? blah blah blah leftard. you went on for paragraph after paragraph of liberla bulshit recycled from kos or firedoglake or olbermann yet all you did like most liberal morons who have had their little liberal brains filled with more anti_American rants' Hey dipshit you feel so sorry for all the poor fucking muslims then go live in some third world muslim shithole of a country and maybe they will take your little anti_American jihad to heart and adopt you.
don't you DARE try to lecture me what it takes to be a "REAL AMERICAN" when you have not a clue what it means.
being a real American does not mean watching olbermann and waving a flag but i am sure that leftists like you don't even have an American flag in your house do you?
you liberals that come here and spout off your little olbermann rhetoric are America hating, terrorist appeasing, TRAITORS.

By jlink on October 20, 2006 1:50 PM

Keith Olbermann is beyond a doubt, the most disgustingly vile creature I have ever had the misfortune to listen to. I would much rather have a conversation with James Carvil, Paul Begala or Arianna Huffington if I had to talk to a liberal. (Thanks Ann Coulter) Keith Olbermann is so nausiating because he stands on a soapbox on a national stage and pretends to be the voice of reason and truth. Oh Brother! Olbermoron, do us all a favor and go back to what it is you do best and that is announce high school sporting events and leave the political commentary to the professionals.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 2:01 PM

"you liberals that come here and spout off your little olbermann rhetoric are America hating, terrorist appeasing, TRAITORS."

Once again, MORON, the word traitor is a very precise word. It does not mean "everyone who disagrees with my worldview", and your use of the word continues to blur the line as to what it REALLY means.

And I would say that a REAL AMERICAN is one who challenges his country's assertions about what it is doing. You know what countries have citizens who simply parrot what the majority says? Here's a hint - they're ruled by guys named Stalin, Mao and Castro.

By Anonymous on October 20, 2006 2:29 PM

"' Hey dipshit you feel so sorry for all the poor fucking muslims then go live in some third world muslim shithole of a country and maybe they will take your little anti_American jihad to heart and adopt you."

Once again a child of the Klu Klux Klan trailer park kulture exposes his ignorance. Why would I want to live in a "shithole" country that up until recently was never allowed to evolve into a sovereign nation simply because empires like the Briton and the US manipulated it's society by keeping dictators who favor the west in power? Because you have no clue what it means to be American you continue to pretend your a man instead of the sheep that you really are. Letting others do your thinking for you is standard fair for the children of the Klan. No other part of American culture has stayed ignorant for so long as the white southern protestant "Christians" who simultaneously believed they were on their way to heaven while lynching blacks who looked at them the wrong way. This is the Kulture of cowards that never stand alone, only in packs. That is what brings them to a pussy sight like this - one man being ganged up on - Like Keith Olbermann is super human in his ability to get out a message - he is not. Nothing about Olbermann's beliefs or outrage is different from that of millions of Americans who are disgusted with the "south will rise again" mentality of the coward "Christian" base of the Bush regime. You are a pussy and a coward and your words demonstrate this. Calling 3rd world nations who live dire poverty, "shitholes" is a classic example of white trash hillbilly coward mentality. A perfect sample of a pussy coward! It's too bad that Christianity produces such vile worthless trash as you. It is because people like that America is hated so much by billions of people beyond our borders. Go back under the rock that father and grandfather crawled out from under, you are an embarasment to this nation!

By dustydog on October 20, 2006 2:37 PM

Isn't anyone concerned about the President, or any future president - maybe a Democratic president, having all the power to delare any person an Enemy Combatant, send them to jail, give them no rights to know what they are being charged with. WTF is that? Open your eyes people and quit drinking the Koolaid. Read the damn Military Commissions Act for yourselves.

Liberals read the documents and facts, conservatives watch O'Reilly.

By dustydog on October 20, 2006 2:47 PM

read it people http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109fVFYwl:e1505:

By dustydog on October 20, 2006 2:48 PM

read it people - careful there are some really big words to read...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109fVFYwl:e1505:

By The Lord Jesus Christ on October 20, 2006 2:53 PM

"' Hey dipshit you feel so sorry for all the poor fucking muslims then go live in some third world muslim shithole of a country and maybe they will take your little anti_American jihad to heart and adopt you."

And they will no we are Christians by our love!

Classic Christian commentary reflects the classic Christian intellect.

There is one big reason Muslims are screwed up today. Yes the US and Great Briton have for decades been supporting families like that found in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United-Arab-Emirates who live filthy rich lives. But why have the US and Great Briton been so able to manipulate so many people for so long? The answer is simple - religion! The more religious you are the more ignorant and naive you are, the more your politicians can hood-wink you into following like sheep to the slaughter. In this nation the Republicans tapped into the angry Dixie-crats of the south after segregation was stopped in the south. The culture of the Klan never voted Republican before that - always democratic. But because the Republican party is the party of the rich they new in a democracy they would never hold power for long unless they could tap into a large block of voters who were ignorant and manipulatable. They found them through the Jerry Farwell's of the south. Today these bungling criminals are falling all over each other in scandal. Having power and being ethical simply is not possible when your base is the cultural decedents of the Klu Klux Klan!

The party of evil really shows in their base, just look at the ignorance in the quote pasted above! This what Christians are made of when they bond with the Culture of the Klan!

By Cecelia on October 20, 2006 3:34 PM

"' Hey dipshit you feel so sorry for all the poor fucking muslims then go live in some third world muslim shithole of a country and maybe they will take your little anti_American jihad to heart and adopt you."

And they will no we are Christians by our love!

Classic Christian commentary reflects the classic Christian intellect."

Why are you assuming that the person who wrote the "hey, dipshit" post is a Christian in any way other than not being born into a Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu, etc...family?

Isn't your assumption about this person's religion and/or religious devotion, just as pejorative as what he writes about Muslims?

By The Lord Jesus Christ on October 21, 2006 12:51 AM

"Isn't your assumption about this person's religion and/or religious devotion, just as pejorative as what he writes about Muslims?"

Not at all. It is not a person that I address. It is the mentality of the Republican "base" known as evangelical Christians. You have yet to acknowledge if this is real or false, or if my perspective is accurate at all. Why play games. You think if you were in Vegas at a betting table and you had a choice to win a large amount of money on a bet. Your bet would be which? That this person was not from a white Christian background? I think not. The vast majority of the people I grew up with in Michigan were from the south. They were not born there but like Muslims who come to America the Kulture of the Klan is slow to let go of their Kulture. Why do you think so many southern states have never let go of the Confederate flag? Across the state of Michigan when I lived there you could find confederate flags on cars and homes. You see this is one of the oldest cultures in this nation. Slave trading went on for more than 400 years here - 200 years before it was free from British rule and 200 years after when you consider segregation as worse. Idiots like you are blind to that which is all around you. The fish are always last to see the water. The guy was pegged correctly on my part. I know it and so do you, so take your petty point and try again. What is your significance here? To play a game of point counter point? We are way beyond that. This nation is being driven into hell once again by the same evil that led to nearly 600,000 dead in the worst war this nation ever fought. A war between white southern protestants and those that wanted to end their enslavement of their fellow man. Your smug over looking of this smacks of another case of a fool who comes here with little knowledge of how this nation evolved and you want to sit high like you can argue what direction it should go. The significance of religion today is unmistaken in it's damage to cultures here and in the middle east. You think you can argue with me? I dare you.

By codas on October 21, 2006 10:29 AM

You think you can argue with me? I dare you.

Posted by: The Lord Jesus Christ at October 21, 2006 12:51 AM

Hey Jesus, I have been waiting for you to come here and help me for some time now. Didn't you tell me to turn the other cheek? It's hard to do in this world. Love your neighbor? I want to, but i think he wants to kill me. No, i don't mean the terrorists, I mean the true blue American flag waving commie hating guy across the street who thinks I commit treason for not thinking Bush is Christlike. Is he like you Jesus? Did you tell him to kill all those people? Is the kingdom of God coming in a mushroom cloud like those rapture people say? My mother told me to pray like you prayed, Not my will, but thy will be done. Why do these people say they trust in you while they stick guns in young peoples hand and tell them to kill the bad guys. Is it your will to steal, kill and destroy? Oh thats the others guys way. I knew that. But it seems "they" want to steal oil, kill the bad guys and destroy their religion. They also told me if I give to the poor I am an enabling them to be poorer. These people confuse. Help!

By cee on October 21, 2006 12:29 PM

codas,

Do you really believe Christ is the son of God? I ask because in one of your previous posts, you quoted from Galations 6.

Mocking Christ as you and the poster from Michigan do is beyond the pale.

BTW, the Michigan poster is so ill informed about slavery I would love to debate about it. But only if he or she refrains from the religious bigotry.

By codas on October 21, 2006 12:37 PM

Hey Jesus, please come back and tell me, do I have to renounce in this world if I am to have a hope of finding you in the next? That is the message I am getting from some. Were you kidding when you said bless those that persucute you and revile you for your name sake? Or did you mean that there would be some who would come in your name, claiming your lordship over them that would consider it an act of God to teach that kill or be killed is the way and the truth and the life, and if your not with us, your with the terrorists. Was that you that said "If you only love those that love you, what reward have you?" or was that a bleeding heart Lenin loving socialist?

By codas on October 21, 2006 12:47 PM

Do you really believe Christ is the son of God? I ask because in one of your previous posts, you quoted from Galations 6.

Mocking Christ as you and the poster from Michigan do is beyond the pale.
Posted by: cee at October 21, 2006 12:29 PM

Yes I really do believe he is. I am not mocking Jesus, I am mocking a value system that I am sold as Jesus. Christ, in my mind anyway would not condone accidently killing hundreds of thousand of people in any war. We can justify it all we want. But when we put him in the discusion we should be careful to know that he created, if we believe he is who we think he is, all of us. Yes, the muslim with a bomb and a gay spouse. A atheistic hedonistic liberal, you name them. If I claim him as my lord I have taken the responsibilty of making sure that others understand that "He" lives in the least among us. He will have us answer for how we treated them. He did not consider his safety as the most important issue in how he lived. He is our example. It is a lot harder to claim him if we have to live like he commanded us to live. Oh that I would. Love one another as I loved you. Is that not his message? Easier said than done I think.

By cee on October 21, 2006 1:07 PM

Then codas, fine, you should be claiming to be a pacifist then. You confuse me so much with saying violence is okay against this person but not this one.....then say as people, no violence can be made against the other. I would respect your position more if you were consistent.

War in God's name, "I am doing this because God told me to," was never my argument, nor has Bush ever said this. Has he and other Chirstians mentioned providence in their speeches and cited the differences between ideologies.....yes, but so has every single leader ever involved in waging war. You have to decide whether it is ever justified to be violent against another human being if you are going to make such broad claims like,

"He will have us answer for how we treated them. He did not consider his safety as the most important issue in how he lived. He is our example. It is a lot harder to claim him if we have to live like he commanded us to live. Oh that I would. Love one another as I loved you."

If this meant not resisting, with the use of violence (war) opression or the threat of opression, then your logic would MANDATE:

The African-American slaves should not have violently fought for their freedom

The Colonists should not have fought the British

The Jews should not have resisted the Nazis

Crime victims should not resist their attackers

No nation should have armed forces ready to meet an aggressive human entity (other nation, or organization)

Police men should not use violence to suppress criminal activity

Be a pacifist, codas, it is a rational result of applied Christianity....I would greatly respect your stance and hope no ill comes to you. But DO NOT be luke warm in the use of a watered down version of truth that suits your particular secular worldview. Pegs in circular holes, my friend.

By cee on October 21, 2006 1:14 PM

Still no answer from the poster from Michigan....I would really like to have a rational conversation about history and religion. I am an evangelical, born and raised in the northeast...hello?

But again, change your post name and I'll be happy to talk.

By codas on October 21, 2006 1:33 PM

Be a pacifist, codas, it is a rational result of applied Christianity....
Posted by: cee at October 21, 2006 01:07 PM

Thank you for at least seeing that it IS The result of applied Christianity. It is a age old question, and I admit that it is probably the toughest test for a Christian. What to do when confronted with violence? I think I don't have a secular world view cee. I have a world view that includes the knowledge of a creator, who I believe visited us in the person of Christ. He was led as a sheep to the slaughter as you know. To be like him is to walk that walk. I at least ackowledge that truth. I am not ready to say I would walk that walk. But I do have a problem with humans who claim Christ, and are saved, but react in a very worldly way when confronted with the world. And then they accuse others of being secularists. We live in a materialistic and self serving society and we claim him. Lets keep it a little more humble and say that we aspire to be like him instead of fooling ourselves into thinking that we are his chosen and behave like he told us to. I guess I watched to much Kung Fu when I was growing up. He fought people who were hurting others only. He didn't pick fights, and he seldom resisted someone picking on him. That is Christ like behaviour to me. As for all the examples that you give and then say that i would have it that way well maybe if the world was more Christ like than their wouldn't have been African slaves. Why do you justify a sin with a sin and then say I am secular or lukewarm. What about the Jews that were led as sheep to a slaughter? Were they saved in your way of thinking of Christ? What better example can you show me in all the warriors and generals of any war is ther of Christ. You may have an easy time sorting out your faith and how violence fits in it. I struggle with it a lot, and don't claim to have it figured out. If that makes me lukewarm in your eyes well, I will leave that to anothers judgment.

By billy on October 21, 2006 6:51 PM

Yet another “special comment” from the tan man? Yet another? Its seems that these comments are becoming if anything less special, since they now appear once or twice a week. So all the special has now been replaced by common, mundane, workman –like, and ubiquitous. In short, Olbytan has needed every ounce of thrust these now no longer special comments can give him in his failed efforts to get his disaster of a show off the launch pad. We must recall—the man whom Olbytan replaced-the frothing lefty poor old Phil Donohue had had consistently higher ratings then the most hated man at ESPN. Further Jerry Nachman had all the things Olbytan lacks-charm, wit, grace, candor, honesty, a long and storied background in journalism, and a keen intellect—Nachman .It is simply pathetic that Olbytan has sunk so low and so far into the fever swamps of the far left in his efforts to drum up any ratings. No wonder the most hated man at ESPN has had, and has been forced from a score of jobs.
Does anyone doubt the fact that Olbytan is being wound up by the far left crackpots like Can’t Move ON—or the shrill and empty headed putz who Goebbels out the Kos daily? Crazy Keith does not have the smarts to think such grand thought as Habeas corpus. Are we to understand that the orange tan man has now become an expert on the nebulous rights of terrorists? Since when did non-nation states get rights defined in the Geneva Convention? The GC clearly states that the rights pertained to persons captured on the battlefield are defined and bound only to the nation states and the nations that are signatories to the GC. Not only don’t the terrorists have rights to protection under the GC, they have no rights to Habeas Corpus, nor have they in any war this or any nation has ever fought. Funny, Olbytan never worried about the rights of the Serbs when his boy crush bj Bill Clinton was high altitude bombing Serbia back to the Stone Age? Olbytan never mentioned the words Habeas Corpus when his boy crush bj Bill Clinton incinerated innocent women and children in Waco—you recall them—actual US citizens------nor did Olbytan mention that legality when the home of tax paying American citizens was invaded in the dark of night—sans a warrant---at the point of a gun to steal away a little boy from the family his mother had given her life to reach?
“Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.”

So says Olbytard. Yet, Olbytard does his best to emulate the very leftists who were cheering on his beloved Eugene Debbs, and mock the real specter of Soviet infiltration into US society? The way the Soviets were stopped was by the efforts of Ronald W. Reagan and his forty year struggle on the evils of the USSR and communism. Make no mistake Olbytard and his fellow travelers on the left would be squarely in the Soviet camp.
We should all cheer up. Orange glow boy’s track record will play out in our favor. How many hundreds of millions did NBC lose again? How long has the spray on tan man been in the quagmire of last place place? Failure is what Olby tan knows best. Who doubt that after the election, Olbytan will be replaced with repeats of prison shows, or another round of repeats from “Deal or no deal”?

By billy on October 21, 2006 7:07 PM

Yet another ?special comment? from the tan man? Yet another? Its seems that these comments are becoming if anything less special, since they now appear once or twice a week. So all the special has now been replaced by common, mundane, workman ?like, and ubiquitous. In short, Olbytan has needed every ounce of thrust these now no longer special comments can give him in his failed efforts to get his disaster of a show off the launch pad. We must recall?the man whom Olbytan replaced-the frothing lefty poor old Phil Donohue had had consistently higher ratings then the most hated man at ESPN. Further Jerry Nachman had all the things Olbytan lacks-charm, wit, grace, candor, honesty, a long and storied background in journalism, and a keen intellect?Nachman .It is simply pathetic that Olbytan has sunk so low and so far into the fever swamps of the far left in his efforts to drum up any ratings. No wonder the most hated man at ESPN has had, and has been forced from a score of jobs.
Does anyone doubt the fact that Olbytan is being wound up by the far left crackpots like Can?t Move ON?or the shrill and empty headed putz who Goebbels out the Kos daily? Crazy Keith does not have the smarts to think such grand thought as Habeas corpus. Are we to understand that the orange tan man has now become an expert on the nebulous rights of terrorists? Since when did non-nation states get rights defined in the Geneva Convention? The GC clearly states that the rights pertained to persons captured on the battlefield are defined and bound only to the nation states and the nations that are signatories to the GC. Not only don?t the terrorists have rights to protection under the GC, they have no rights to Habeas Corpus, nor have they in any war this or any nation has ever fought. Funny, Olbytan never worried about the rights of the Serbs when his boy crush bj Bill Clinton was high altitude bombing Serbia back to the Stone Age? Olbytan never mentioned the words Habeas Corpus when his boy crush bj Bill Clinton incinerated innocent women and children in Waco?you recall them?actual US citizens------nor did Olbytan mention that legality when the home of tax paying American citizens was invaded in the dark of night?sans a warrant---at the point of a gun to steal away a little boy from the family his mother had given her life to reach?
?Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.?

So says Olbytard. Yet, Olbytard does his best to emulate the very leftists who were cheering on his beloved Eugene Debbs, and mock the real specter of Soviet infiltration into US society? The way the Soviets were stopped was by the efforts of Ronald W. Reagan and his forty year struggle on the evils of the USSR and communism. Make no mistake Olbytard and his fellow travelers on the left would be squarely in the Soviet camp.
We should all cheer up. Orange glow boy?s track record will play out in our favor. How many hundreds of millions did NBC lose again? How long has the spray on tan man been in the quagmire of last place ? Failure is what Olby tan knows best. Who doubt that after the election, Olbytan will be replaced with repeats of prison shows, or another round of repeats from ?Deal or no deal??

By Brandon on October 21, 2006 7:17 PM

Special comments aren't so special anymore when you're doing them every other night to try and boost your ever-slipping ratings.

By Cecelia on October 22, 2006 4:04 AM

"BTW, the Michigan poster is so ill informed about slavery I would love to debate about it. But only if he or she refrains from the religious bigotry."

uummmm...admirable Christian charity, cee, but this idiot is fornicating pecans...

By Janet Hawkins on October 22, 2006 3:49 PM

Hi Cecilia and Cee, it always surprises me how I wind up in the same place from such a different starting point.

Cee, you are an evangelical Christian and it is obvious to me that you have a consistent philosophy that follows from that. As an aside, I read you have a one year old son. I'm half envious. Until he reaches puberty you and Mrs. Cee have some of the best times of your life to enjoy. After puberty, Chubby Hubby required them to carry a stool so he could reach the pertinent parts with a big stick.

Cecilia, from your posts I am convinced you are a person of deep personal faith. And, as with Cee, that shows through.

I don't know how to descibe myself. In spite of a Catholic Parochial and Catholic private education K-12, I'm between a lapsed Catholic (NOT in the sense of Rosie and MoDo) and an agnostic. I have and still envy friends and family that live with a deep abiding faith. And they are of all different faiths and persuasions.

My belief system is based on the Judaic Christian ethic. My application was if I strive to do right by myself and mine and do no gratuitous harm to others all would be right with the world. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to many, that as a guiding principle its not bad but as an operating principle you run dead on into reality.

So, I wish I had what many have. But, by the very definition faith can not be willed.

Before seeing the last post by Cecilia @ 4:04 AM I had started to respond to the gross misstatement of the history of slavery and the selfserving disregard of the scope of suffering on both sides of the equation from the beginning of history to the present day.

I realized I was afflicted with a dread disease. I was FORNICATING PECANS.

Some of the people on this sites are ideological provocateurs. There can be no debate with them. They get a sick pleasure from trying to goad us into their own arrogant, contemptuous and oh so supercillious delusions.

Save your time and energy for honest men with a desire to engage the second most glorious of our rights: the right to free speech. The first most glorious, of course, is the right to property. Without that we can not partake of any of the other rights.

Well, its Sunday. Good day for a sermon.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

By Cecelia on October 22, 2006 4:09 PM

Janet,

I'm so glad you found Olbermann Watch!

BTW-- I'm pondering how many people discover OW in the way that I did.

After watching Countdown for awhile, in a "who is this jerk..." frame of mind, I googled Keith Olbermann and found this site.

I'm wondering if this is how most people encounter the site, or do they find it linked on other sites.

I'd like to hear people's stories on how they came to find what is one of the most brilliant and entertaining blogs on the web.

By Janet Hawkins on October 22, 2006 9:09 PM

Cecelia,

Mine is a long cicuitous route. Its painfully obvious that I am a dinosaur in this new, wonderful and also horrible world of the internet and blogs. So it took a lot to get me here.

Five months after my last and biggest (13 hours with surgeon induced hypothermia and 48 minutes of circulatory arrest) surgery I learned that Moussai Al Zaquiwa (sic to the tenth power) had been killed the week before. I was horrified. Absolutely ANYTHING could have happened to the world without Grammie monitoring things.

I wasn't strong enough yet to follow things in real time. so I got a little help on how to get started on the internet and treated myself to a subscription to El Rushbo. Then I branched out to links from his site and I think it went from Rush to News Busters, to BB's Accuracy in Media to Olbermann Watch.

Since Olbyloons are ALWAYS in season here, I gained confidence and jumped right in. I knew immediately that I was a lot smarter and could spell a lot better than they can. I always have loved being superior :).

Witticisms aside, this site helped to get my mind going again. And that has helped with my body.

I am progressing slowly. I just discovered online dictionaries, encyclopedias, e-mail and other wonderful things. I've also discovered paranoia and meglomania in the most virulent forms.

Thanks Olbyloons,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

By Janet Hawkins on October 22, 2006 9:11 PM

Cecelia,

Mine is a long cicuitous route. Its painfully obvious that I am a dinosaur in this new, wonderful and also horrible world of the internet and blogs. So it took a lot to get me here.

Five months after my last and biggest (13 hours with surgeon induced hypothermia and 48 minutes of circulatory arrest) surgery I learned that Moussai Al Zaquiwa (sic to the tenth power) had been killed the week before. I was horrified. Absolutely ANYTHING could have happened to the world without Grammie monitoring things.

I wasn't strong enough yet to follow things in real time. so I got a little help on how to get started on the internet and treated myself to a subscription to El Rushbo. Then I branched out to links from his site and I think it went from Rush to News Busters, to BB's Accuracy in Media to Olbermann Watch.

Since Olbyloons are ALWAYS in season here, I gained confidence and jumped right in. I knew immediately that I was a lot smarter and could spell a lot better than they can. I always have loved being superior :).

Witticisms aside, this site helped to get my mind going again. And that has helped with my body.

I am progressing slowly. I just discovered online dictionaries, encyclopedias, e-mail and other wonderful things. I've also discovered paranoia and meglomania in the most virulent forms.

Thanks Olbyloons,

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

By codas on October 22, 2006 10:42 PM

I'd like to hear people's stories on how they came to find what is one of the most brilliant and entertaining blogs on the web.

Posted by: Cecelia at October 22, 2006 04:09 PM

I found it through a link and have been coming here since. I have never posted comments to any site other than a couple here and there. I am learning from you believe it or not. We disagree, that's for sure. But you have helped me in the sense that I am learning to know what exactly my point is going to be before I write it down now so I know how to defend it later. Use brain before typing. You are helping to create a monster I hope you know. Some poor soul on your "side" one day will get it good from me thanks to you. It might even be you, so watch out.

By Janet Hawkins on October 22, 2006 11:22 PM

Codas, Codas, Codas

We have to quit meeting this way. People will begin to talk.

As you say "some poor soul on your 'side' one day will get it good from me".

The operative word here is one day, as far in the future. Until you come to grips with what you are FOR, you will always be an also ran.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

By Cecelia on October 23, 2006 12:10 AM

Janet, come on now... Your mind has been in full throttle since the day you were born.

Codas, thanks for responding. I've learned a lot here too.

OlbyWatchTweets

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

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

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

If It's Sunday, It's Meet the Obsessed

Keith Olbermann: An Infantile, Dysfunctional, Empty Vessel

Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004

213 Comments