Now if we could just put the real turkey on the White House lawn into life on the farm. Hey Ann Cu--ler has a long neck and she certrainly has a gobbler. Where is that ax ?

What the hell is Olby talking about? I think he needs to check into the Ha-Ha House - comparing a volunteer Army to the Irish eating their own children? I don't even think he can spit out his own hyperbole anymore - he had a difficult time uttering that gem.

"Everyone of us is a combat coward" -Lawrence O'Donnell

I know you speak for yourself, Larry. But don't presume to speak for other pundits who have seen combat, such as Col. Ollie North for one.

Olby and Larry probably can get a group rate at the Ha-Ha House.

Ollie North.. you mean the man who was defended by the ACLU and still belongs in prison ? North is a pile of crap and we should put him where crap belongs.

Ollie North....the criminal! Do you people actually respect this man?

By the way, speaking of scumbags, a copy of "If I did it" is now up on eBay with a current bid of $100,000.

Has Olby bid on it yet? He likes bidding on eBay while he's on the air.

Eyesight problems are a major side effect of the use of viagra, cialis, etc. I think that causes all the on-air stumbles he makes. He must pop the stuff like candy.

Maybe he's wearing a patch or has a drip. He stumbles on his copy a lot.

Is he looking grandad-like tonight, or is it me?

Lawrence O'donnell is correct. He is clearly not faking his anger. We need more like him pointing out how cowardly it is of those armchair warriers among us who say it is Ok for young Americans to be sent to "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here".

The point is not what anybody thinks of Ollie North, it is the falsity of O'D's comments.

He said none of the pundits commenting on the war have been in combat. North is a decorated combat veteran and frequently comments on the war on TV, as does decorated combat veteran Wesley Clark (If you prefer an example from your side) I'm sure there are many more.

Olby allows his guests to spew falsehoods. He does nothing to correct the factual record if doing so interferes with his agenda.

This is the TMZ show tonight. Levin must have given Olby a "donation."

Bob:

The "fact" that there may be a few exceptions is kind of beside the point. The vast majority have not. I think you are splitting hairs at the expense of the point being made.

TMZ again. Plugola.

"He said none of the pundits commenting on the war have been in combat."

Examples #2 and 3 of dozens: O'Reilly has Colonels Hunt and McInerney on all the time commenting on Iraq. Both served in Vietnam.

When OD says "none", that means zero. Not a few, not some, not a handful.

None.

I can't think of a better way to be respected as a news organization or a journalist than to have TMZ.com as your primary source of information. NBC News must be so proud of Olby. He's a real news hound. A regular Edward R. Moron.

Ohboy:

You too are guilty of splitting hairs at the expense of the larger point. Anybody want to debate the real issue here?

I agree with O'Donnell.

The only people who can serve as president are those who have served in the military.

We can never know if a future president will have to send troops into combat. So, in order to ensure that the president has the moral standing to send troops into harm's way, they must have served in the military.

Oh, it's an Oddball recap from June! Retroactive Oddball. Way to go with pulling this entire broadcast out of your fat butt, Olby. This is a new low even for you. He's probably bolting for the elevator now.

Good! That means that Hillary is out.

She might as well come out.

Well, the Live bug was down before he introduced Joe, so what do you bet that he did lumber for the elevator at 30 Rock before the show was over?

I know, you're saying, but the throw said "Live." Joe was live. Doesn't mean Olby was. Conspiracy theory...

The only people who can serve as president are those who have served in the military.

That also means that FDR and Lincoln couldn't be president either. Neither served in the military.

Lincoln served in a militia - not the formal army and FDR stayed out of WWI (he contracted polio in the 1920s when he was in his thirties).

Jefferson, Madison, Adams. A number of others.

You too are guilty of splitting hairs at the expense of the larger point. Anybody want to debate the real issue here?

Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 08:53 PM

What issue would that be? Whatever you say it is?

O'D's point was that all pundits are cowards. I disagree and think he should speak for himself.

MY point is that Olby, to advance the point he is trying to make, will himself use or allow guests on his show to use:
lies, falsehoods, factual errors, exaggeration, rumor, hyperbole, etc etc.

A misspoken fact here, an exception to the general rule their may seem like "splitting hairs", but it is the constant stream of falsehood and distortion that has eroded whatever credibility may have once existed in Olbyland.

Hillary drove Bill out(of the house).

Bill, I understand.

Really, do we as a nation want only people who have served in the military deciding on whether we should send troops into combat?

My guess is that the overwhelming number of veterans - active and retired - supported going into Iraq. Correct? Anyone disagree?

Just because they served doesn't automatically mean they're the best judge on whether to take military action.

George Lincoln Rockwell anyone?

How about only military veterans can host Countdown?

Bob:

Just where do you get "credibility in your news, or more to the point - commentary? ? I believe I can find all kinds of "credibilty gaps" in those sources as well.

Anon:

I can't agre or disagree about whether or not an "overwhelming number" of veterans supported the invasion, since I never saw a poll limited to those parameters. However, evidence does seem to suggest that veterans in general were more likely to have opposed the war thna the general public. I can also say with certainly that having come from a family of veterans myself, it was 3 - 1 against in my family.

No, being a veteran doesn't necessarily make you the "best" judge of whether or not we should go to war, but on the average, it does make you a better judge.

You don't want people up there with a romantic view of war or the military making these kind of decisions. You need people who fully understand the horrors that will inevidebly be unleashed and that there is nothing romantic about it.

Mike:
"However, evidence does seem to suggest that veterans in general were more likely to have opposed the war thna the general public. "

Sorry, I think the evidence was the opposite. Why did the overwhelming number of veterans support Bush both time?

There also seems to be pretty strong evidence that the soliders now in Iraq don't want to pull before the country has been "made secure."

Now, what "made secure" means can be debated.

Everthing I've ever read about the views of American veterans is that they tend to be more hawkish in foreign policy than the population at large.

I believe I can find all kinds of "credibilty gaps" in those sources as well.

Posted by: Mike at November 22, 2006 09:27 PM

I agree with you Mike. Common ground. You or I could find "credibilty gaps" in a lot of "those sources".

But let's not let that distract us from the mission at hand here at Olbywatch, which is documenting and exposing the bias, corruption and deception personified in Keith Olbermann. I stand by what I said in my earlier post, which is "the issue" for me:

"Olby allows his guests to spew falsehoods. He does nothing to correct the factual record if doing so interferes with his agenda".

Anon:

Well I guess we disagree about that. I just don't know where you got the information that "an overwhelming number of veterans supported Bush both time".

I've also tried to get an understanding of what the soldiers in Iraq believe as a whole, and I can't. However, I can say that they are mostly very young and inexperienced in life.

When I was in the military during the Vietnam war, I strongly believed in the cause at that time, but I was wrong!

"I believe I can find all kinds of "credibilty gaps" in those sources as well."

"Your honor, ladies and gentleman of the jury, my client is indeed a crook. But, c'mon, there are other crooks out there too!"

Anon: Good point, lets clean them all up!

OK, Johnny, heres your challenge: How about starting a Beck watch, Mathews watch, O'Reilly watch, Dobbs watch, Cooper watch, Hannity watch, etc., etc,

Mike,

There are already lots of Fox News Watches. I know this because somebody said so to me on this very blog.

Is he looking grandad-like tonight, or is it me?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 22, 2006 08:36 PM

He looks like a grand-daddy tonight, it is his suit, and his tie does not match with it.

But some of those journalists you've name Mike aren't as obviously biased as Olby is. Anderson Cooper seems very fair. Lou Dobbs, even though he has his whole immigrant issue presents opinions from both sides of the political spectrum. Olby does not.

Brandon:

I agree with you. If we do not know which party a journalist belongs to by watching him/her every night, I think that journalist is very professional and successful.

This site wouldn't exist if Olby gave even the slightest hint of objectivity to his newscast. But he does not have contradictory viewpoints for a reason. He simply doesn't want to tell the other side to any story that hurts conservatives or Republicans.

That pushes what he does into the "spin" category. If Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Nancy Grace, etc... change their format and do the same, certainly sites will pop up on the internet to expose such half truths. But there is no demand for them right now.

Mike, your challenge seems better suited for yourself being that Robert Cox already has a successful political pundit watch site. If that's what you want, go do it. Don't leave it to others to do what you want. That is so liberal.

No Rob, thats not liberal at all because I don't want to waste my valuable time attacking a TV show host I don't like or respect. I just won't watch the show. I am having a hard time what motivates you guys who only want to discuss Olbermann and his bias, and that was my point.

Oh yeah, now go ahead and tell me - "I don't have to come here", but neither do you, and that is what fascinates me.

The interesting thing is that you huys are not objective either. If you were, you would occasionally talk about some of the positive things KO does...yes, there are some, and you know it! Instead it seems you guys are looking for every little negative slight in which to pounce on. It makes no sense.

When he does something positive, we'll comment on it. We're still waiting.

WTF does O'Donnell know about warfare or the United States military?

I think our President is the greatest man alive today. He is so smart and cool. His daughters are HOT!! I think the war is the best idea EVER! He's fighting them OVER THERE so we don't get attacked OVER HERE!! What part of that do you whiny, pussy, cowardly liberals not get?

Grow some balls democrats. Its about time you all stood up and appreciate what this great man is doing for us all. History will remember him as like the best President ever, and one of the best Christians too.

Bushie:

Think about what you're saying! Having other folks "fighting them over there" so you don't have to get attacked over here is cowardly as hell. Sounds like YOU need to grow some balls.

If you really think Bush is the "greatest man alive today", then....you're just a moron!

Mike,

In World War II FDR had our boys "fighting them over there" in Japan and Germany so they wouldn't attack us here. It worked. FDR wasn't a coward.

Mike,

There was lots of talk about Keith when he gave those schools away to "Mister" Clinton on air, during a taped interview.

It fascinates me that you are so fascinated by everyone else coming here to rag on Keith Olbermann. There is no objectivity here. Its an INTERNET BLOG. But, you are stunned by this occurrence as if you stumbled into the CBS newsroom.

We get it. You want to look down your nose upon any one who disagrees with your liberal dogma.

"What could motivate anyone to do this?" Look inward first.

Rico:

SO, thats where you guys got that idiotic slogan from! In no way does WWII work as an analogy for what is going on in Iraq...except in the zealous imaginations of some right wingers.

The proper analogy is Vietnam. Even the smarter conservatives are admitting that now.

Mike,

Vietnam is the only war you liberals want to learn from. Must be because we lost and you want to lose this war, too.

A liberal is a person who wants every war we are in to be another Vietnam so that we can lose.

You're right Rico. What I really want to do is debate real issues and exchange real ideas about current events, not debate the bias of an insignificant TV pundit.

I've noticed a few like to do that, but most don't. I guess we just might be on the wrong blog.

I just find it hard to comprehend how you think you can maintain a daily discussion board limited to the antics of one pundit? Doesn't that make him bigger than he is? Don't all the arguments become circular or, to put it more crudely....a pissing match?

I am too young to know this but I am hoping someone can help me here.

Suppose Iraq fits an analogy to Vietnam as argued here. And one can argue that Vietnam can be compared to Korea. But Korea was a success. Ask the South Koreans NOT being starved by Kim Jong Il. If the premise for going into Korea was right, wasn't the premise for war in Vietnam just as correct, even if it didn't succeed.

I did not live in this era and have never really learned the geopolitics of this era. Are my presumptions true?

Rico:

No, a Liberal is a person open to change and new ideas. A conservative is cautious by nature and tends to resist radical change. These are the classic definitions of both. Both have their merits. What many are calling "Liberal" and "Conservative" today have nothing to do with their true definitions.

War and....including this stupid war in Iraq have NOTHING to do with either philosophy! A faux "Conservative" started it, so that somehow changed the definition in the eyes of many.

Rob:

The Korean War was before my time, but my dad fought there. I believe it was only a partial success - it ended in a negotiated compromise, and that is why we have Kim Jong II today.

In Korea AND Vietnam, we were fighting China and Russia as much as we were fighting the North. They both had an endless supply line and going too far risked WWIII and possibly a nuclear holocaust. They were both about stopping the "dominoe theory", not winning freedom for the people of those particular countries.

The truth is that we have never actually "won" a war like that.

In Iraq, I don't even know what "win" means, do you? We set the bar ridiculously high ourselves when we defined "win" as creating a successfull democracy. How do you forcefully democratize a population that doesn't want to be democracized, especially by gunpoint? That is not a military problem in my eyes.

Vietnam was just a battle in the cold war,(or theater to use the WWII analogy), just like Iraq is one front in the GWOT. We won the cold war.

The lesson of Vietnam is you can lose a battle, (through mismanagement or loss of will or whatever)and still win the war. It doesn't mean your cause is not worth fighting for.

Just found this site tonight and thought I'd join in on the fun.

When there was talk of Gen. Wesley Clark running for President in 2004, many people thought he would be a good choice because as someone who had seen combat, he would expend every option before putting American lives in harm's way, something many have said President Bush did not do. A fair assessment, I think. But I think to say only people who have seen combat should be able to serve as Commander in Chief is just a little silly; we can have (and have had) great Presidents who did not serve the military.

Regardless, many of you ARE splitting hairs when it comes to O' Donnell's comments -- and then Mike's comments about splitting hairs on O' Donnells comments! Well...maybe not splitting hairs, but rather deliberately failing to mention what he may have been trying to say.

Having read a only couple of the most recent Countdown analyses and the FAQ, it's painfully obvious that the writers here are very selective as to their criticisms of the show.

Let me just provide an example. At the bottom of this article, the author lists news stories Olbermann did not talk about tonight:

+ "his much-hyped 'war crimes' charges against Rummy are 'unlikely to proceed'" -- reading the article, it's clear that this is an article of an opinion of someone knowledgeable on this subject, but is IS NOT by any means any judgement on the actual charges.

+ 39 members of the Taliban were not arrested. 39 SUSPECTED Taliban were arrested. Beleive it or not, there's a difference. Note it.

And there's a few more as far as the actual show analysis was concerned, but I'm sure I don't need to correct every piece of spin in this article to get mugged.

Nick

Bob:

What is the "cause" in Iraq - or - the better question might be; what was the cause before we invaded them?

You guys keep giving doomsday scenarios about what will happen if we leave, but the truth is you don't have a clue about what is going to happen. They are all just guesses.

Most of the people behind the invasion and the disasterous stategy of the war are now the ones giving these scary predictions. They haven't been right yet! Why would we believe they are right now?

"I believe it was only a partial success - it ended in a negotiated compromise, and that is why we have Kim Jong II today."

Kim Jong Il would be far more dangerous if he had the resources of the south. That was my point. Kim Jong Il is the epitome of what communism always evolves to at some point; absolute brutal dictatorship. We went to Korea to fight communism because past leaders recognized the idealized evil of it. It really wasn't about land. It's significance had more to do with its symbolicness (is that a word?) in its resistance to a percieved, and real, threat. Vietnam, at least to me, always seemed like another Korea but the symbol wasn't the same -- maybe because of a more independant media that told the horrors of war in a new way.

Bob:

What is the "cause" in Iraq
-Mike

Mike-
Iraq is a key front in the Global War on Terror. When GW stood in the rubble and told foreign states not to harbour or support terrorists, he backed that up with a threat.

Post 9/11 Iraq must have felt threat to be a hollow one because they continued to pay suicide bombers' families in Israel, continued to conspire with Dr Khan for nuke technology, continued to harbor notorious terrorists like Abu Nidal and a '93 WTC bomber and continued to operate terror training camps like the one at Salman Pak.

To allow Iraq to flaunt with impunity the fair warning GW gave all nations that day, would be to expose the United States as an impotent paper tiger and to invite further catastrophe.

We had plenty of legitimate reasons to hold the Iraqi Gov't to account, though the best reason for being there is to kill terrorists. If people want to kill Americans I say have the people we pay to protect us set up a killing field in the desert then tell the "death to America" crowd, "bring it". You scoff at the idea of "fight them there so you don't have to fight them here", but would you really rather have this fight in lower Manhattan?

The Democrat's campaigned their way to power on "Bush had no plan". I guess we'll see now if they really have a plan of their own.

O Donnell's exact words on the "combat cowards."

"All of us political pundits in make up on chat shows are unanimous in one characteristic, Keith. And that is we are 'combat cowards.' Not one of us has ever been in combat. Every one of us avoided service in the war of our generation. Every one of us avoided service in the war of our generation. Every one of us who comes on these shows to talk about this -- and to those who come on these shows now -- and want to say 'we want to leave, but we might not win' -- I have to say to them: why aren't you in Iraq? And it you're too old, why weren't you in Vietnam? Why aren't you in the war that came your way? Why is this something we can delegate to other people to be in wars that we know we're gonna lose and we know we're gonna lose lives while we're watching ourselves lose?"

He is not speaking of Ollie North. Ollie North is not a combat coward. Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity are ‘combat cowards,’ having never served in the military and yet are steadfast in their stories that war is the only option. Lawrence O Donnell was speaking of those who have not served in the military, yet still support this unwinnable war -- those who still support this war, despite the fact that there are no WMDs, despite the fact that American kids are in the crossfire of a looming civil war.

He's saying: if you still support this war, you should be fighting. O’Donnell does not support this war. Olbermann does not support this war. On this board, Mike (hi Mike) does not support this war. I do not support this war. And we want people to stop dying. Why are we lefty loons just because we want people to stop dying? Why are we stupid liberals when we want to keep our fellow Americans from dying?

No Bob:

We have NOW exposed ourselves as a "paper tiger" by doing precisely what the terrorists wanted us to do and fall into their trap. This "trap" was partially fueled by Muslem outrage about us attacking a country without sufficient cause. Saddam was an ENEMY of Al Queda, and we took him out of the picture for them.

Iraq and Saddam was nothing a but a nuisance to us. Nothing he had done to us rose to the level of war. The only terrorists training camp in Iraq was in the North, which, thanks to us, he had no real control over. His paying the Palestinean bomber's families hardly justified an invasion. What you didn't mention is what he, or Iraq, had to do with Al Queda or 911?

No Bob, we looked utterly stupid and impotent to the entire world BECAUSE we invaded the wrong enemy, and now we really do look like a paper tiger to Iran. In the beginning, I think they really did think it was going to be so easy that all would be forgiven, and the false justifications would all be forgotten. For our sake, I wish it HAD turned out the way they invisioned.

Why are we lefty loons just because we want people to stop dying? Why are we stupid liberals when we want to keep our fellow Americans from dying?

Posted by: Nick at November 23, 2006 01:03 AM

Because some people have to see it that way. It is easier for them to discredit the messenger than it is to answer the challenge of justifying their position. A position that fails in the light of reality. They need someone to blame and point the finger at when the walls of illusion come tumbling down.

My paraphrase of O'D's rant- "Shut up if you haven't served".

This idea that ones right to speak on the most pressing issue of the day is subject to ones status as a veteran is disturbing. Many never received "the call to service" largely through accident of birth, for example Olbermann was 14 when Kissinger signed the ceasefire, and 31 when Kuwait was invaded. Many chose not to serve through deeply held pacifist beliefs or opposed other wars at other times for other legitimate reasons. To argue these people should be excluded from the current life or death debate is illiberal, to say the least. It's also a distraction from the real debate.

I understand Olby is opposed to the war, I just wish he would call himself something other than "journalist" or "news-anchor" if he's going to push his leftist agenda so blatantly.

Why are we lefty loons just because we want people to stop dying? Why are we stupid liberals when we want to keep our fellow Americans from dying?

Posted by: Nick at November 23, 2006 01:03 AM

I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I don't question your motives. Peace is a laudable goal. I want people to stop dying, I don't call you stupid.

I'm uncomfortable in the knowledge that many good, moral patriotic people in this country don't fully grasp the enormity of the threat facing us. It will be very peaceful in America when everyone is either muslim or dead. This is what the religion of peace offers, and it is worth fighting to avoid.

Bob:

You are right about one thing: Your "enormity of the threat" argument probably does define the difference between us. Your side sees the threat facing us as a category 5 huricane while my side sees it as merely a tropical storm.

Try as you might, you just haven't convinced us that these ragtag fanatical Islamic Fascists are capable of destroying our civilization. Yes, they are capable of doing some terrible things now and then, but coming to our shores and destoying us....no way. We can take anything they can throw at us, but we will only destory ourselves from within by fear or division.

If you want to advance this argument better, you might try detailing just how you think the Islamists are actually capable of destoying us.

The battle between Islamic extremism and the western world has been going on for centuries. This is just another flare up using different tactics.

Have a happy Thanksgiving everyone!

To further eleborate on the post above, I'd like to add the following:

The worst single thing the extremists could probably do to us is smuggle in a nuclear device and set it off in a major city. In my opinion, we haven't been doing nearly enough to prevent a scenario like that. Our incoming container inspection rate has only risen to about 10%, the last I heard, and the southern border is still wide open.

The second worst thing they could do might be to disrupt our oil supply, but that would happen at their own peril of loosing their own funding. In addition, we have ourselves partially to blame for allowing ourselves to become so vunerable. We've had over thirty years to address this problem....instead we've chosen to flood our roads with SUVs.

The third worst thing might be to attack a nuclear plant, poisen a water or food supply, or something along that line. After that, we might be down to the occasional attack on a shopping Mall, subway, etc.

All of that is very disturbing, but I cannot see what our invasion of Iraq has done, or is doing to lesson or eliminate any of those risks.

So finally, somebody please tell me where these great hordes of Suicidal Islamic Extremists out to kill us are coming from, or how they are going to get here?

That, in a nutshell, is why many of us just do not accept the premise that Islamic Extremism is the threat to our very existance that you think it is.

1."Think about what you're saying! Having other folks "fighting them over there" so you don't have to get attacked over here is cowardly as hell. Sounds like YOU need to grow some balls."
My feeling is this.I am not afraid for me but for the countless number of children,elderly people,and other non-military people that would be blown-up,beheaded,and tortured.Everyone in this country would be at risk even if they could not defend themselves.And even if they were willing and able most do not have the training.At least those "other folks over there' know what their doing.I also do not want to see my 83 year old father and two, 6 and 7 year old neices get blown up at a Wal-mart.And you know those people could care less who they kill. 2."Lawrence O'donnell is correct. He is clearly not faking his anger. We need more like him pointing out how cowardly it is of those armchair warriers among us who say it is Ok for young Americans to be sent to "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here".
He is not correct.This guy is your typical lib loon.He is using the lib stance of use a victim to make your point in reverse. Anotherwords you cant give your opinion on the war unless you were or are in one.PLEASE.First of all this is free speech which the libs supposedly love so well.If we all thought like this nobody could voice an opinion on anything but their own experiences.Hell ,I could'nt say a word about a football player short arming a pass because I never played the game.Or see a fire on t.v. and say the firemen should go in and save the people in there because I am not a fireman.Or how about I feel that the jury for O.j.was wrong.O'donnell would be all over me for not ever being a juror. 3."I agree with O'Donnell.

The only people who can serve as president are those who have served in the military.

We can never know if a future president will have to send troops into combat. So, in order to ensure that the president has the moral standing to send troops into harm's way, they must have served in the military."
This is just ridiculous.I am not sure but I think this quote I came accross "it is that the military command structure was so designed as to make the "Commander-In-Chief," i.e., the President and his advisors, civilians. Civilians ultimately control the military in this country. That was intentional, to prevent the rise to power of a "warlord," through the military turning on the elected government" is true.Take Patton.I thought he was a great general.I respect and love what he did for our country.A great man.But I cant say I would have wanted him as president.There was a great scene in a movie with George C. Scott I dont remember exactly but he tells someone at a celebration of U.S. and russian forces after defeating Germany that he wants to take his men and go after Russia.I was 13 at the time and felt like John Wayne thinking yeah go get em general.Now I dont know if that was true but you get an idea of what could happen if a war hero with a fighting mentality were to become president. I missed Viet Nam by a couple of years.I did join the navy at 17.My father had to sign so I could get in.I dont know if that qualifies me to an opinion going by O'donnell's logic but here it is.First I dont think the opinions I refuted are from lib loons but people who dont like the war or how it's run.I respect your opinion and dont care if you served or not.I never cared one way or the other about politics but since this war I really dislike the far left.We were attacked on 911 and I believe if they could they would keep doing so.I think George Bush is a good man.The left makes fun of his religous beliefs and then calls him a warmonger who cares little about the lives he sends to battle.But I feel he cares deeply and does not do so lightly because of those beliefs. So which is it?If you believe he is true to his religion you can not possibly beleive he would send people to die for his ego,a vendetta,oil,or whatever shallow excuse it is.And the same for those that call him a liar for this war.I am sick of lefty's spouting all kind of lies about why Bush took us to war to get america to see it their way.We even have idiots claiming 911 was a government conspiracy.I'm sick of it.Look the facts are people want to kill us.Bush beleived Saddam had weapons,was dangerous, and had to be removed.He wants to be on the offensive instead of waiting to be hit again. Now you can argue it was a bad move or the plan was flawed.You can argue we can't keep doing the same thing.FiNe.But first get off the lying.It's done and no opinions of why you "think" he lied is going to change anything.Second just leaving is not an answer.Yes we would stop losing troops there but then what?And for how long?And dont think this is like Viet Nam.Where we can just leave a mess where many people will die but we will be safe.35 years ago we did'nt have to worry about anyone coming after us.Today and every day new weapons are made.Who knows what they have or will have?We will not only have to protect ourselves here but all over the world any american happens to be.What I am asking for is honesty in this debate.I like many others feel there is a great threat that wants to see us destroyed.Some think the threat is overblown.That if we were nice there would not be a problem.That 911 was just a one time thing.They are either dumb or not honest and either way that's dangerous.Hell,nobody wants to see our soldiers getting killed.I want people to be honest about that also.Dont claim the president or people that are'nt veterans are careless about our troops.That's more crap.These far left loons will say anything to make their case.That's not honest.O'donnell has no idea what's in a person's heart or what they think.Yet he makes the assumption because he is afraid that others are too.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING! to all (yes even the liberals)

Mike,

kudos on the measured rebuttal to Bob. This widespread concept that we face an existential threat in the form of zealous bands of Islamic ninjas is a national embarrassment. The British burned the White House in 1812, for crying out loud, sending Pres. Madison on the lam - and we seem to have persisted beyond that point. The British themselves had their capital savagely bombarded with German regularity throughout WWII, and they seem to have maintained their national integrity.

The Bush message is one of fear and helpless weakness - that our system of government and social fabric is so shoddy that one car bomb at a midwestern petting zoo will bring the curtain down for good. I will no longer dispute the potential this viewpoint has of being accurrate - I have seen my fellow Americans throw away too many of our treasured institutions and so much of our liberty in response to Bush/Cheney's ghost stories that I no longer believe unequivocally in the resiliancy of our culture. It looks like Benjamin Franklin's stark warning has finally come into play:

"...and believe farther that this (the US constitutional government) is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

However, we still have the potential to be courageous and honorable; its not too late. We need some civic awareness, some calls to altruism - and less regard for bourgeois oppulence and measuring our worth through our levels of comfort and wealth.

Your comment regarding the influence our enemies may have over our oil supply is well taken, but I propose that we turn the tables on them and make this geopolitical fact a beneficial force for our country. We should enthusiatically take the challenge to devcentralize and democratize our power supplies - develope local and residential programs combining solar, wind, water, geothermal, etc. into a national resource that would be good for everyone except for oil company CEO's and the terrorists.

But we have to shout down the decietful, cowardly corporate slaves in our midst first - and there are a lot of them!

Will KO be the one man brave enough to ask the question Is George Bush involved in Satanic activity? Others who have broached the subject have come up missing, will Keith do it?

J$ posted....

"The deranged one spewed blue blog talking points about 'combat cowards', which is the newly-minted version of the old 'chickenhawk' argument--a finer piece of demented demagoguery you will never find."

Exactly right...It is illogical demagoguery. I argued with Sir Loin of Beef (Milquetoast) about this yesterday and he skulked away (and he didn't even defend his use of the latest pool of the Iraqi people)....

If Olbermann, O'Donnell, codas, Mike, anyone is opposed to the continuation of hostilities by AMERICANS in Iraq, based on moral grounds, how can they encourage any American (pundit or not), to continue something immoral? They are having their cake and eating it too.....

Based on the left's moral paradigm, they should be telling everyone NOT to go to Iraq and kill. Like I said to Sir Loin of Milquetoast yesterday, anti-war libs should be chaining themselves to Military Transports on the runway in order to prevent the deployment of materials and personnel. The protesters in the Vietnam era did as much. Jane Fonda was consistent in meeting with the North Vietnamese. People smeared and spit on the evil men who served in Vietnam....that immoral and wrong war. Why don't we see liberal peace activists doing such noble things to stop the killing? Is it only tactical because they know the reaction a normal person would have to it?

People like Olbermann and O'Donnell don't have moral outrage when it is TRULY applicable to their own cowardly actions, and the others (supporters of force) can go and shoot Iraqis and not be held accountable for the immorality of their actions. Demagogues I say!

It should have been: poll, (not pool).

BTW....Where are all the huge anti-war protests if this current conflict is like Vietnam, and there is such stong and widespread opposition by the American People? Can Olbermann or his apologists answer that very simple question?

I know I can, easily.

The ever hypocritical DOONESBURY has a very applicable and humorous example regarding O'Donnell's and Olbermann's shallow moral outrage: