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:

http://toons.today.iwon.com/client/iwn/db/2006/11/20/

cee,
You're a goddamn pussy. How is my use of the latest Iraqi polls "self-serving" or "cynical"? I asked you as much yesterday, and YOU skulked away into your verbose fit of defensivly sarcastic nay-saying. These polls destroy the currenty prevailing war-rationale that we are "helping our allies" by remaining in this quagmire, and you have no response but double-edged irony.

Why, again, aren't you over there helping defend our way of life?

Karris56:

Your long atempted rebuttal of my post left out the most important question of all.

Karris56, You said: "I am afraid, not 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".

Once again, I ask you to elaborate: WHO is going to do all these dastardly things in our country? HOW are they going to get over here in such great numbers?

You people who talk like this remind me of people so afraid of a bee sting that they would cause a fatal wreck just to get away from the bee while driving! The "bee sting" could be compared to one or two terrorist attacks, but the "fatal wreck" of our country could only be caused by an irrational reaction from within by ourselves.

Karrik56, wake up. These people simply do not have the power, numbers, or the resources to wreak the kind of havok you are invisioning in our own country.

Yes Karrik56, the kind of fears that you have ARE very real for the people of Israel. They live right there beside these radical countries and pandimonium could break out at any time (as it did a few months ago)

The other thing you failed to elaborate on is just how is the situation in Iraq doing or has done anything calm your very irrational fears?

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.

Posted by: cee at November 23, 2006 11:36 AM

Because the soldiers fighting it volunteered. Many felt the fear of being drafted during Vietnam. If there was a draft today we would have a whitehouse under seige. You know it, and so do I. Another reason is the media is not showing the American public the visuals of this war. You see nothing of it. We see no coffins. We see no battles. The war is nothing more than a foreign war to most Americans. Far removed and safe from the line of fire people like you consider themselves soldiers.Vietnam was a televised event every evening on the news. The fear of seeming unpatriotic stops the media from showing the reality of this war. Out of sight, out of mind.
Another day and another record set with civilian deaths.

cee said...

"Why don't we see liberal peace activists doing such noble things to stop the killing?"

Have you ever noticed how completely effeminate the american male liberal is? It isn't because of any political ideology that they don't carry out the tactics of their mommys and daddys, cee. It's because the American Castrati, to a "man," has become so weak and pussified, it's a wonder they don't just put on dresses and get it over with.

They're sissies. Period.

And yes, while they certainly seem to reproduce in great numbers (there is NO accounting for taste), it will be MORE than amusing to watch their offspring progress through life, having their milk money jacked over, and over, and over again.

How these perpetual victims continue to find armpit-laden, patchouli-reeking, self-serving poon is beyond me. Must be a hormone that only the absence of testosterone can produce.

Must be a hormone that only the absence of testosterone can produce.

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 12:29 PM

You forgot your prescriptions huh. I won't think it amusing, because I am not an ignorant a--hole to watch the offspring of your mindset if they have their way come home from wars without their legs or parts of their brains. Maybe if a son gets his balls blown off he'll be man enough for you. To think that some mother right now is spending thanksgiving crying over a dead son that met your approval for testosterone levels is sad. You are sad if all you think a man is, is someone who seeks the approval of a heartless bitch.

Will Bush be carrying the fake turkey to the troops this year like he did three years ago when he was pretending we already won?

The poll you used, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, was very contradictory and I discussed this specifically...you never defended them. I also pointed out the flaw that the poll did not ask the opinions of other religious minorities. I also pointed out that The Kurds as a majority still fear ill-advised withdraw but you so easily overlooked them. You, like Olbermann, use these silly polls only to your advantage, overlooking the basic flaw, MORALLY, of using such things to make your cowardly decisions.

I have easily shown how, in essense, narcisistic your anti-war position is, Loin....you really don't care about the deaths of ANYONE except yourself. If you were really concerned about humanity, you and your ilk, like codas, would be out there right now protesting this immoral war and trying to stop any more people from joining the killing....including poor delusional chickenhawks, like me.

Either put-up as a true pacifist or SHUT-UP and crawl back into the hypocritical world you 21st century pseudoliberals have made for yourselves.

codas so brilliantly demonstrates my point...

Big Gay Al is weeping in shame right now at codas' inability to come to terms with himself.

Sorry, sweetie. You're a thorough pussy and just can seem to accept it.

I should say today that I am very thnkful to Bush for getting rid of Rumsfield. Now if he would do the same to Cheney he might be onto something.

To HollywoodNeocon:

Debating someone with your mentality is kind of like trying to argue with a four year old!

Cee, arn't you the one who asked why we arn't protesting in the streets, as in Vietnam? The answer is simple...it's called the draft that was in place then and is not in place now. Case closed. And don't accuse me of being worried about the draft myself....I served during the Vietnam war.

My only true regret is that codas and his little band of social workers (read: perpetuallly victimized pillow-biters) lack the courage of their convictions. For instance, were it not for the anonymity of the internet, these thoroughly repugnant little trolls would still be wiling away their days playing pong and sipping lattes at the local coffee shop in an attempt to score with some independant-minded broad just to show that the masturbatory fantasies of Adrian Zmed were nothing more than natural bi-curiosity.

At least then we'd be able to keep on the leash their domineering mommy raised them with.

It's an ugly world, codas. Best to accept who you are if ya wanna live, thrive and survive!

Oh, and for mike and miss groin of grief...

Go sniff a bus seat. If commenting on my posts is all you have to do this fine American Thanksgiving day, then perhaps you might wana go see if Dominos delivers today - you're blood sugar seems awfully low.

Or at least go find a bathhouse. I'm sure someone there likes you. :)

As for me, I'm gleefully watching my wife bake the shit out of a 25-pounder, taunting effeminate moonbats, and cheering on our troops as they extract blood for oil!

mike falsely claims...

"..I served during the Vietnam war."

A bigger load of horseshit I have never read.

If, as mikey claims, he served, then perhaps he might be cajoled into revealing what unit he served with.

I'd be more than happy to apologize.

I'd be more than happy to apologize.

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 01:02 PM

You could never apoligize enough for being an ignorant cunt who probably likes a lot of testosterone up your skanky ass to make you feel something other than miserable and bitchy.

As for me, I'm gleefully watching my wife bake the shit out of a 25-pounder, taunting effeminate moonbats, and cheering on our troops as they extract blood for oil!

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 12:58 PM

Go climb back under the slimey rock you crawled out of. You do nothing but talk shit because you are so full of it, it has to come out somewhere besides your paper ass.

"As for me, I'm gleefully watching my wife bake the shit out of a 25-pounder, taunting effeminate moonbats, and cheering on our troops as they extract blood for oil!

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 12:58 PM

Go climb back under the slimey rock you crawled out of. You do nothing but talk shit because you are so full of it, it has to come out somewhere besides your paper ass.

Posted by: codas at November 23, 2006 01:16 PM"

"Paper ass"? Uhhh... So Codas do you think your laissez' faire sentiment of, "we have to get it from some where" bides well with our nation of SUV driving, all-hat-and-no-cattle over sized pick-up truck driving, over fed, under educated, adipose people, gives this nation the right to go and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq so we can dictate oil prices on the world market?

One thing is for sure, your f---ed up world view of America being entitled to take what ever it wants is the exact reason Osama Bin Laden has been able to recruit millions to want nothing more than to slit our throats.

You are about as bad as it gets for being white trash with no education. A low life that thinks what ever Limbaugh says is golden.

No way for scum like you to be thankful for anything, you think what ever a bully can take is his.

You're an a--hole and it shows in your words, "You do nothing but talk shit because you are so full of it,". Exactly right. You are full of it. Full of talk with nothing to back it up but your sentiments.

You are not just an embarrassment to our country, you're a liability.

This is sooooo damned funny!

Limp-wristed pussy libs taking offense at little-ole me???

I'm soooo flattered!

Ya know? If it wasn't for the fact that I'd have to lose my self-esteem, I'd have become one of you flaming morons AGES ago! :)

Laughing my ass off as I exploit native americans and the idiotarians!!!!

My only true regret is that codas and his little band of social workers (read: perpetuallly victimized pillow-biters) lack the courage of their convictions. For instance, were it not for the anonymity of the internet, these thoroughly repugnant little trolls would still be wiling away their days playing pong and sipping lattes at the local coffee shop in an attempt to score with some independant-minded broad just to show that the masturbatory fantasies of Adrian Zmed were nothing more than natural bi-curiosity.

At least then we'd be able to keep on the leash their domineering mommy raised them with.

It's an ugly world, codas. Best to accept who you are if ya wanna live, thrive and survive!

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 12:54 PM

Oh, and for mike and miss groin of grief...

Go sniff a bus seat. If commenting on my posts is all you have to do this fine American Thanksgiving day, then perhaps you might wana go see if Dominos delivers today - you're blood sugar seems awfully low.

Or at least go find a bathhouse. I'm sure someone there likes you. :)

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 12:56 PM

As for me, I'm gleefully watching my wife bake the shit out of a 25-pounder, taunting effeminate moonbats, and cheering on our troops as they extract blood for oil!

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 12:58 PM

mike falsely claims...

"..I served during the Vietnam war."

A bigger load of horseshit I have never read.

If, as mikey claims, he served, then perhaps he might be cajoled into revealing what unit he served with.

I'd be more than happy to apologize.

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 01:02 PM

I'd be more than happy to apologize.

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 01:02 PM

You could never apoligize enough for being an ignorant cunt who probably likes a lot of testosterone up your skanky ass to make you feel something other than miserable and bitchy.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 23, 2006 01:10 PM

As for me, I'm gleefully watching my wife bake the shit out of a 25-pounder, taunting effeminate moonbats, and cheering on our troops as they extract blood for oil!

Posted by: HollywoodNeoCon at November 23, 2006 12:58 PM

Go climb back under the slimey rock you crawled out of. You do nothing but talk shit because you are so full of it, it has to come out somewhere besides your paper ass.

Posted by: codas at November 23, 2006 01:16 PM

By the way "coward watch," if you happen to be ANYWHERE NEAR Los Angeles, I'd be more than happy to show you around.

I know a couple of places where we could sit down, seriously talk about the issues you seem so woefully ignorant of, then laugh as your pathetic little worldview is shoved right back down the sewage pipe it spewed from.

Your a complete and utter tool. You know it, I know it, and the entire world knows it. But the next time you wish to discuss how my opinions lead to the slitting of throats, might I recommend you cease donating your time and effort to the furtherance of a religion that specializes in taking advantage of the pansy-assed citzenry that apprently adores being victimized.

Now go get your f---ing shine box, little boy.

As for mikey and his bullshit claims of having served in Vietnam, I note that the lying little troll has yet to respond.

As for codas, you proved your worthlessness long ago. Your comments are sheer deceit and demonstrate little more than a stubborn love of intellectual dishonesty.

Here's hoping next Thanksgiving finds you in an orange jumsuit, begging your islamic, pork-eating, child-buggering captors for just one more shot at a life-saving blow job.

Get a clue. You're terrorist bait, only nobody's ever bothered to tell you.

You're welcome.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm busy watching football, eating turkey, and stealing from the downtrodden proletariat.

Hollywood Neonutjob.. are you the same guy who was busted for sending letters to Letterman, Olbermann, Stewart etc. Mommy has not called you in for thanksgiving dinner yet... Better be careful mommy may be looking to solve some of her problems... yes the turkey always taste that way. Eat up.

In the immortal words of Capt. Kirk...

"I laugh at the superior intellect."

LOL...bill, you're an ignorant slut.

Sorry I can;'t be of more help, but I'm realy not all that interested. Doucebag, :)

Love,

Eric in Hollywood

Hollywoodneocon wrote: "Have you ever noticed how completely effeminate the american male liberal is?" He also referred to codas as a "pillowbiter" and made a lot of other homophobic slams at the lefty voctors on this argument forum.

This is choice satire, Hollywood. I'll throw out some names here: Jeff Gannon; Mark Foley; Ken Melman; Preacher Haggart;... And not only are there these confirmed self-hating conservative fags taking the lead in their oxymoronic movement, but there are literally dozens of solid conservative and neocon leaders who really, really ought to have married and settled down by now: Karl Rove; Denny Hastert; Doug Feith; Andy Card; Josh Bolton; Grover Norquist;... These guys share not only the characteristic of sucking random cock in musty closets; they also each and every one have avoided miitery service, despite advocating its most dangerous form for hundreds of thousands of their fellow ciizens. There've even been allegations that W himself has indulged in the realization of creepy gay bondage fantasies under the direction of a Los Vegas Dominatrix (who ran for the Nevada governorship last summer). We all know he's jacked-off in a casket surrounded by fellow skull-and bonesmen.

Other than John Kerry, who has by implication also masturbated in a coffin in a Yale basement, what "liberals" can you name with similar lists of homo credentials? Face it -the very best conservatives become so in order to make their dead fathers proud of their wispy, fudgepacking sons.

...and miss groin of grief continues to entertain us all with her visions of an America sans intelligence.

Get your shit together, sweetie. You're a thoroughly repugnant little shit who seems to enjoy nothing more than a jolly little romp through the well-worn pastures of complete ignorance.

You've become obsolete, as has your pathetic little attempt at anything resembling a valid opinion.

Yet another tool heard from, no?

What's the matter, babies? Can't keep up?

LOL...gotta love that liberal dependence upon the thesaurus.

Hollywood,

Patience, patience, sweetheart. I go to take a shit and your world starts to unravel....get a grip.

What is it you want me to respond to? Your issue-challenged personal insults? I don't give a f--- what you drowning-rat neocons think - but I would be interested in discussing what you know....a little light work to digest the turkey over.

Mike,I understand your position like many others and it is a valid one.Let me try to answer a few of your questions. "Once again, I ask you to elaborate: WHO is going to do all these dastardly things in our country? HOW are they going to get over here in such great numbers? " "Karrik56, wake up. These people simply do not have the power, numbers, or the resources to wreak the kind of havok you are invisioning in our own country." "The other thing you failed to elaborate on is just how is the situation in Iraq doing or has done anything calm your very irrational fears? " Ok. As to the who, I think you would agree that not only El Queda but many other groups would like to see americans die. I have seen video of chilren being taught that america is evil and to give their life to kill us is the ultimate reward on this earth.As for getting over here in great numbers.I did not say that.Here's where I think you and many others have it wrong.There are already many Muslims here that the government is watching.Hell, Hezbollah has people here. Is it paranoid to think that maybe they might have some virus in their possesion that can kill many people?And the borders are still not secured so many terrorists can still come.Who knows what kind of a biological weapon they may yet discover?You can disagree but tell me if you think any of that is impossible? As to your second point I agree they dont have the power,numbers etc,but can still cause havoc.Look these people planned for years for 911.I am just thinking off the top of my head and am not seriously thinking how to kill people in large numbers.I have no fear of some large force coming here to defeat us.I dont think anyone here thinks we can be defeated in a war with anyone but thats not why I fear these people.Even in Viet Nam we would never have lost and there was no fear of anyone coming here to attack or kill americans.That's where fighting these people is different.They know they cant defeat us but unlike the Viet Nam war just us leaving is not good enough for them.How many terrorists do you think would gladly give their life to see every american dead?I know they cant but you know thousands would have no problem if genocide were possible to inflict on us.Tell me I am wrong.I am not afraid of attacks as much as I despise terrorism.I thought years ago the world should unite to squelch it, wherever.But it has just grown and will keep growing.Every day when I see some terrorist attack on anyone in the world not just americans it sickens me.I believe you and many others think we are wrong but I also beleive many others are just afraid.When reasonable Muslims are asked why they dont condemn these acts they say they do yet,there are no mass protests.But when the pope makes a comment they are all out on the streets.Or when a cartoon is in a danish paper they are'nt just protesting, they want the heads of these people.How come most of the media here did not show these cartoons.Oh yeah, offensive to Muslims but anything demeaning jews and chrisians is o.k.There was one college paper that showed them and all these guys were scared to death.Why?It's America, as you say what "dastardly' thing can they do? For your third point,I am not afraid for me.I really do believe if we were not there there would be attacks here.And I also believe someone should make a stand somewhere against these people.I think one reason we have not been attacked is because if there was one, people in the U.S. would be more willing to have us fight over there.They know we are wavering and getting us out is the first thing they want. It seems your point is hey, we dont have to be afraid of them coming here and killing millions or taking our country so lets get out and save our troops lives now and say to them o.k.bring what you got we can handle anything you got.I agree we have no great fear but just a few isolated attacks killing a couple hundred americans is unacceptable.And I feel they will just keep doing it all over the world until someone takes a stand.

Oh my GAWD...

I just LOVE how miss groin of grief thinks she can taunt me into submission!!!! ROFLMAO

Wait a sec, dear. My sides hurt.

But in the interest of fairness, sweetcheeks, you might be well advised to consider that before you attempt to take me on, remember that by liberals, by their very nature, in incapable of anything resembling an intelligent thought. Like the lemmings, you are only capapble of repeating that which you've been taught to think by your "Dear Leaders," and as such, aren't really all that able to stop yourselves from leaping gleefully off the ledge.

Conduct yourselves accordingly, then.

"Cee, arn't you the one who asked why we arn't protesting in the streets, as in Vietnam? The answer is simple...it's called the draft that was in place then and is not in place now. Case closed. And don't accuse me of being worried about the draft myself....I served during the Vietnam war."

Mike, tis suect interestsme greatly. I've been involved in sign-waving protests at least once a week in my home town since the war began, an te demography of my associates in htis activity is very interesting.

Its a college town, but in all that time we have had perhaps three college students join us, and never for more than one appearance. Apart from my sons I have consistently been the youngest participant in our demonstrations, and I'm 44. You are right about the draft - the rich kids at this university (you can't go to college these days without substantial family wealth) have no reason to bend their beer-soaked brains to consider any of the personal, moral or political ramifications of America's thoughtless belligerence - because they are careflly insullated from these realities.
The rightwing war party fears a draft for this very reason - their gravy-train war machine would screec to a halt.

Karris56,

Have you considered the recent report issued by all of our intelligence agencies that clearly states that our operations in Iraq have increased the status of Al Qeada in the Islamic world, and has been largely responsible for the numbers of this group increasing from 20,000 in 2003 to over 50,000 today?

Yes there are dangerous and angry elements in the societies of the middle east and elsewhere, but Mike's point I think was that they do not pose the dire existential threat that was conjurred to sell this war to the American people. You, indeed, seem to understand this, but you still advocate military solutions that are, in fact, suited only for the most dire of national emergencies. The Al Qeada terrorists had no relevant presence in Iraq prior to our invasion - this is not in dispute by anyone serious - but they do now. Additionaly we have made serious enemies out of the Iraqi people (over 60% advocate violence against our troops/ 92% want us to leave ther country).

It may be viscerally satisfying to know that your country's military is killing someone somewhere who can be construed as an enemy - or at least being similar in some characteristic to our enemies. But this is not the behavior of a rational society that intends on being around for very long. Its a self-defeating policy of dogmatic international bullys, and has always in history led to disaster.

We need to pay attention to the security strategies that would actually defends against the piecemeal attacks you fear - like thoroughly checking shiping contaners at our ports or giving some scrutiny to freight carried on passenger planes. Destabilzing regions and maing enemies of entire populations is not a legtimate avenue to world peace.

Its OUR fault....we make more terrorists?!?!
We INCREASED Al Qeada's status in the Islamic Island?!?!

That is such silly liberal rhetoric!

Hollywoodneocon: It called Thanksgiving, you idiot, some of us had to hit the road for a while. I really didn't antipate you or anyone else calling me a liar because it's not that damned important in the first place, but I DID serve in the USAF during the vietnam war as a radio relay technician, and I made this point ONLY to show that I am not personally worried by a potential draft.

No, I was never in serious danger. I never saw the hell the grunts patroling the jungle saw, but I did serve during the Vietnam war, just as I said I did. I mentioned it only to point out that I was no longer a young, naive fool like you seem to be, who believes everything they are spoon fed by their Neocon heros in Washington, most of who hardly even know what a military uniform looks like.

You did succeed in making me respond to your one of your inane insult and profanity filled rants.... that say virtually nothing, and that probably is a mistake, because just like I said earlier, trying to debate with you is a lot like trying to argue with a four year old.

Anon above:

Yes, we have in fact increased Al Quada's status in the Islamic world!

Yes, it's a simple point of fact. Why don't you make an intelligent case to the contrary instead of hiding behind a "it's liberal rhetoric" post.

If you have a valid reason for believing what you believe, other than what you have been spoon fed, you should be willing to share it with us!

Mikey, you're still a congenital liar. The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge your unit only confirms that.

As for having increased al-Qaeda's presence, you're spot-on. Liberals have long held that America's arrogance fostered terrorism, so retarded observations such as yours confirm that as well. You're team-killing dangerous f---tards, so accept it and go from there.

As for miss groin of grief, your post is so pathetically weak-minded, I'm reminded of Jaba The Hutt's personal assistant - so amenable to the Jedi Mind Trick that I have to wonder how you're able to actually take a leak without having to be told how to do so.

Again, the moonbats demonstrate over and over again how best to kill a society - FROM WITHIN.

Neocon:

Just go F**k yourself! Its been 36 damned years and no, I don't remember the exact name and number of the 3 different Air Base Communications squadrons I was asigned to. Unit assignment was never a particular source of pride in the Air Force, as it seems to be in the Army.

I am not a liar, nor do I ever assume other people are lying to me, unless they give me a valid reason to believe otherwise. I don't have to proof one damned thing to a moron like you, nor will I bother to answer any more of your profanity and hate filled posts.

You still haven't made a point!

Mike and Sir Loin of Beef:

It's clear you're not getting through to anyone here. You arguments have all been solid, backed by fact. I've read every single here and no one opposing your arguments has yet to respond intelligently.

Let these people hate Olbermann and "liberals" all they want. Let them have their giggles. But don't allow them to fine tune their "haha what liberal rhetoric lol" comebacks on you.

To them, we're just brainwashed liberals who just can't see through all the liberal propaganda, incapable of understanding how apparently this war in Iraq is THE single greatest thing any empire has ever done for the world.

Mike and Sir Loin of Beef:

It's clear you're not getting through to anyone here. You arguments have all been solid, backed by fact. I've read every single here and no one opposing your arguments has yet to respond intelligently.

Let these people hate Olbermann and "liberals" all they want. Let them have their giggles. But don't allow them to fine tune their "haha what liberal rhetoric lol" comebacks on you.

To them, we're just brainwashed liberals who just can't see through all the liberal propaganda, incapable of understanding how apparently this war in Iraq is THE single greatest thing any empire has ever done for the world.

Nick, yes you are absolutely right. None of you retarded moonbats have a single clue as to how desperately the Religion of Piss wishes you would al just go and die.

However, as far as the solidity of your arguments is concerned, that's nothing but complete horseshit.

Liberalism equals death. Period. And as soon as you f---ing retards realize that, perhaps we'll all be in a better position to, I don't know, maybe SAVE this freaking country. I mean, I know you hate having been born here and all, but only true pussies would wish they were born in France.

mikey (aka the liar), nick, anon, all of you girls...

Do us all a favor, will ya? Put on the dresses, go blow a terrorist, and quit wasting my oxygen, mmm'kay?

That's the problem with socail workers, ya know? They never seem to know when to shut the f--- up and let grown people solve their own problems.

Nick;

How right you are. You and I are here because we really do want to debate facts and informed opinions with those of Americans on the other side. We really are making an effort to understand how the other side thinks. Sometimes it works, and other times you get morons like this 'hollywoodneocon' who seems to think the point of a political blog is to cuss and call others names and labels. ANYTHING to avoid actually debating a point! It kind of kills the whole point of the blog, doesn't it.

Best to just try another time when there is actually someone on here with a brain who actually does want to debate facts instead of talking like a grade school dropout.

The following was sent to me by a friend- excuse the format- I am not internet savvy. I am not sure of when this occurred but obviously before Pope John Paul II's death.

Allah or Jesus?

By: Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance.
During the training session there was a presentation
by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic,
Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of
their belief systems.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam
had to say.

The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of
Islam, complete with a video. After the presentations,
time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the
Imam and asked:

"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"
There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"
I responded,
"So, let me make sure I have this straight. All
followers of Allah have been commanded to kill
everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
He sheepishly replied, "Yes"
I then stated,
"Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Billy Graham ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!" The Imam was speechless. I continued,
"I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me."
"Let me ask you a question?
Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and he wants you to be with me?"
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.
Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the Diversification' training seminars were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.
This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, is
a well known leader in prison ministry

I know not everyone is Fox News fan but it was quite interesting to watch the segment "Obsession" - I can't remember the exact title. Someone may have referenced it already. It was not Fox reporting but a presentation of an independent company's work. The point is, jihad has been declared. That is what we face. The reason for the lack of protestation in the MUslim world for beheadings, (when the Pope made his famous comment, ...) is that we are considered infidels by many. We have been long before March 2003. 9/11 shows that. The administration believed Saddam to be a dangerous leader as shown by his willingness to use WMD's. Pres. Bush states that the war in Iraq is part of the larger war on terror. (There are valid points to both sides about the need for a pre-emptive strike.) Again, I point out to Mike that going into Iraq was practically unanimous. Making excuses for their vote is pointless. If the war had been better planned and the early mistakes weren't made and we were on our way out at this point, not one of them would be back-peddling now.

If the people of this country feel that a
president should have military experience in order to qualify for the job, the Constitution can be amended. Was there ever a movement for this? Others have pointed out past war-time presidents who didn't serve.

hey mikey...

nice try to civility, but when your a craven liar, it just doesn't carry any weight, ya know?

But having said that, you self-involved bullshit artist you, claiming to want to debate is perhaps the biggest lie of all, isn't it, sweetie? You never debated anything in your sad, sorry, deceit-filled life, did you? Nope. Only sought to stifle the words of those who had the unmitigated audacity to disagree with you.

You f---ing hypocrite. Don't you DARE to come here and claim the moral high ground. You idiotarians have been pissing and moaning the same meme and seeking to destroy conservatives since September 12, 2001. Go crawl back into your hole, Dexter, and leave the world to those of us who know what the stakes are.

What arrogance, indeed.

sharm:

Thank you for the very intelligent and thought provoking post, even though I don't completely agree with some of your conclusions. The blog was really going downhill this evening prior to your post.

And by the way, you sorry=assed excuse for an American...

I am NEVER going away. Any time you or your fellow Castrati post a single WORD, I wil; be here to smack your hypocritical and self-serving asses down.

You'd be better off finding a new place to shit, wouldn't you say?

See ya tomorrow, you gutless twits.

Sir Loin of Beef ,I will agree El Queda has increased but did you think they would just disband? I think they would have increased anyway.Not as much or as fast but increase and keep increasing.And if we leave they will get more bold and sell the line that we are cowards and can be beat.They will still hate us and say we have to be destroyed because we can always come back or attack elsewhere.Tell me I am wrong.And I can understand you want to leave to stop our losses there.But then what?If I read you right you want to hunker down and secure our country.Well that's fine for the present but what about 10 years from now? I beleive terrorism will grow and they will keep pecking away all over the world.What do you think happens in Iraq? Whatever, it wont be good for us. Also what new weapons will technology bring? Sooner or later we will have to get involved, probably helping Israel.And I dont believe anyone will help or try to stop them. You know it's up to us.Hey there will always be unrest in the middle east.The only difference is time.We never had to worry about being attacked, but now after 911 and new technology every day, time will ki ll us eventually.Just tell me what you think will happen if we get out and wait?I think I know your plan for the present which gets us out of a bad situation but tell me what you think will happen a couple years after and 10 years from that.

Still waiting to hear mikey's unit, by the way.

The gutless liar never DID have the intelligence to at keast make up a unit, did he>

You sir, are an insult to those who now serve. Sweet dreams, liar.

Still waiting to hear mikey's unit, by the way.

The gutless liar never DID have the intelligence to at least make up a unit, did he?

You sir, are an insult to those who now serve. Sweet dreams, liar.

Neocon: Yea you f**king moron, I thought of making up a unit and was well aware you would have never known the difference if I had, but that would have been a lie, and i'm not a liar!

You'd think you would have at least tried to upgrade the quality of your pathetic posts, but why would we expect a moron to act like anything other than a moron?

Mike,

After reading my comment, I omitted a point I wanted to make. Saddam hated us for what we did in Gulf 1. The terrorists know how to direct that kind of hate. Saddam was looking out for himself. Who could appease him better, radical Islamists or us?

Mike,I have no problem with your opinions.I just disagree with them.And a civil debate is healthy.Name calling is not making a point and your right about that.But sharm made a great point that is basically behind my feelings, and that is, these people want to kill us.The difference now than from years ago is they had no way to do anything to us but every day they get closer to being able to. O.K.just tell me what you think will happen if we leave Iraq.We will be safe for now but what do you think happens in the future? What the terrorists will do and what becomes of Iraq?

mikey, I served with a 15E unit over 20 years ago, and not only can I still remember my unit, I can still remember the name of my battalion commander.

For you to cliam that you can remember anything of your "former unit," only serves to confirm that you are a stinking liar!

Admit it, you are a deceitful liberal piece of scum.

And for the record...

2nd Platoon
"A" Battery
1/41 Field Artillery
56th FA Brigade
Hardt Kaserne, W. Germany

My older brother's unit IN VIETNAM:

3rd Platoon
2/4 Infantry
FB "Viper"
Saigon

Now get your shit together and admit the truth.

Sharm:

Yes, there was a majority favoring the invasion, but there were also many of us who watched the invasion with dread because we feared we were making a huge mistake. And you are also right in saying that if it had been successfull, nothing much would have been said by the opposition. People like me would have just breathed a sigh of relief at us having just dodged a bullit.

As things stand, I can't help but believe the Iraq war has made things infinitely worse for us and, more grimly, potentially far worse for Israel. If I were in Israel today, I would definitely fear the apocalypse. We may well have to go to war in the near future just to defend their very existance.

I don't believe that most Muslems in the world believes in this Jihad, although they do seem somewhat reluctant as a group to speak out against it.

Neocon:

You f**king moron, I never said I didn't remember "anything" about my units! I said I didn't remember the unit numbers, I also said why. I don't know a single Air Force veteran who remembers unit numbers because this wasn't considered important in the Air Force. Me, my brother, my dad, & my brother in law were all in the AF at the same time between 1969 and 1973. My dad and my brother in law made a career out of it. I didn't.

I was lucky enough to be sent to Thailand, Germany, California, & Mississippi instead of Vietnam, although the base I spent a year in Thailand at - Tahkli - was one of the major tactical bombing bases of the North during the Vietnam war. My dad spent two tours in Vietnam and so did my brother in law. Both my brother and I missed Vietnam itself by the luck of the draw. If you will remember....If you will go back and look at my earlier posts you will see that I said: "I served during the Vietnam war", which is 100% true.

In fact, you moron, I spent 6 months in Northern Germany as part of a team installing Armed Forces Television for you poor Army grunts in 1972. Our team working out of Ramstein AFB all the way to the border at Hoenfels.

If you would try debating facts and current events instead of branding people you don't even know as "liars" f---tards, twits, etc.,etc. etc., you might actually get something out of the exchange.

Think about it Mike. Why is there silence in the Muslim world when a horrific event occurs to Americans (or any Westerner) yet there is dancing in the streets on other occasions? I don't want to label any person. I have Muslims in my neighborhood. I see moderates appear on news/talk shows. If we had not already been attacked, I would agree with unnecessary fear. Look how much death, destruction and chaos occurred merely with 19 people backed with funding and support.
I'm not sure if it was you or not who had not seen statistics on veterans' vote. I did read that a large majority of active servicemen voted for Bush. That tells me something. If the vote were today, I don't know. I watch shows where parents of fallen soldiers are interviewed and some are angry at the war, some are not. I have to disagree with a comment I believe you made about the soldiers in combat now being young and inexperienced. It's true that as you get older, you may change your point of view but one month of a tour (maybe less) seems to me would make you grow up in a hurry and give you a strong perspective either way, especially when you made the choice to serve.

Sharm:

In my worldview, as you get older, you don't become smarter, but you often become wiser. I was in the military during some of the Vietnam years and I strongly supported the war at the time, as my parents had taught me to do.

I don't remember a time since then in which we were completely carefree. As a 11 year old military dependant in Spain during the Cuban Missile crises, we did daily drills hiding under desks (as if that would have done any good). I remember believing that there was at least a 50/50 shot of nuclear holocaust. We came close several other times duting the cold war.

Probably the most carefree times were the 90's, but even then if you looked closely enough, there were dangers. The so called Jihad against the US actually had it'a beginnings in the early 90's and they actually did attack us in 1993, they just didn't succeed with their goal of bringing the towers down at that time. What if they had succeeded then?

My point is that there never has been, nor will there ever be a time without danger. I fear many tend to overate the danger to the point of overeaction. I think overeaction is usually more dangerous than undereaction, as I believe Iraq proves.

I sometimes switch from O'reilly to Olberman--just to hear his left wing rants--and I am amazed at his eliteism and his smug attitude---and his face shows clearly that he has not been laid for a couple of years.

I sometimes switch from O'reilly to Olberman--just to hear his left wing rants--and I am amazed at his eliteism and his smug attitude---and his face shows clearly that he has not been laid for a couple of years.

I am younger than you but I do remember air raid drills, crawling under the desk but had no idea why. I now don't go through life afraid because I have a belief system that supports me. Nonetheless, 9/11 was a very scary day, especially when the Pentagon was attacked. At that point no one knew when the attacks were going to stop. I started staying home almost 7 years ago and I follow the news quite a bit. I can tell you that the whole face of news changed that day. I used to think Olbermann was funny but he really has gone off the deep end. Isn't he also creating fear by stating that we have lost habeas corpus; all of his special comments reek of instilling fear. I believe that what we are seeing now was inevitable. Israel alsways has to look over its shoulder. As you said, jihad was declared years ago but it directly affected our country on that date. Soon the Dems will take over and it doesn't look like any answers are forthcoming. Pelosi will have to spend time reigning in Rangel who is supporting something that at this point, will not happen (the draft). He actually scared the poor of his own district instead of making them feel that they would receive some kind of justice (people on the street were interviewed and not one had a positive comment).

I actually agree with KO on the Habeas Corpus issue. I was talking about this before he was. I firmly believe that NO ONE can destroy us from the outside, but we can literally destoy ourselves from within. They never needed to fool with current law, the Constitution, or the Geneva Convention regarding "enemy combatants". It seemed wierd that they were so willing to give MORE power to a president who had missused the power he already had so badly. The impact of this will out last Bush.

I believe KO is 100% correct that the law now gives the president the right to arrest anyone. We are now operating strictly on faith that the president is not a roque, and therefore would not do anything like that. I believe that is dangerous. Once again, this law will outlast Bush.

I think Rangel was just trying to make a point with his "bring back the draft" campaigne.

Speaking of the draft, and I'm not in favor of one, but how do the "Stay the course" and the "increase the troop level" people think they can do either without something like a draft? Does anyone disgree that the military has been literally stretched to the limit? The current redeployment time to the war zone is down to seven months (it is supposed to be 21). How can we continue to ask these young folks to keep doing this?

I was against the invasion for practical reasons, not idealogical ones. I saw how the military become demoralized during the Vietnam years and feared it might happen again. I think it is happening again.

KO never blames the terrorists....America is the root of all evil in the krazy ones eyes.
Terrorists love the liberals also! The left fights for the rights of our ENEMY!
Our Enemy has no rules....anything goes in the world of Jihad.

HollywoodNeoCon is not worth responding to. Let this mutant talk. The other idiot here who ranted and raved until they banned them was similar in their political beliefs and general ignorance. I lowered myself to this retards level once and I will not do it again. Let an a--hole be an a--hole. I hope everyone else here had a happy thanksgiving. I know we have our differences but I am thankful for this site and for living in America. Send a good thought to the people that lived in this country before we did before you close your eyes tonight.

No Anon, you've got it wrong. Bush's method of fighting the terrorists is bass ackwards! He is using the WRONG tactics, and has been ever since the invasion of Iraq. His tactics have played right into the hands of the extremists.

THAT is what KO is against! People like you are so blinded by loyalty that you can't see this.

Sharm,

While I don't currently have any Muslim freinds with whom I ineract, I have in the past had coworkers and fellow students of that faith faith. I've worked with them and eaten dinner at their houses. None of them seemed particularly bloodthirsty of hate-filled in regard to me or American society in general - in fact I found these peole to be generaly pleasant company.

The danger I see in your perspective is a common one in world history - that you are conflating inter-regional/inter-class economic strife and bitterness with religious or ethnic character. The people who desired this war for their own ends (Osama bin Laden, Dick Cheney,...) are happy as can be that you subscribe to this interpretation, as it facilitates their leading through fear and identifies The Enemy to their followers in two-dimentional terms that preclude critical analysis.

A global race-war is not the answer to anything except for the question: "under what conditions could the powerful few mentally enslave the greater part of the world's population?".

"Nonetheless, 9/11 was a very scary day, especially when the Pentagon was attacked. At that point no one knew when the attacks were going to stop."

Do you remember the Oklahoma City bombing? That was scary too. It didn't get any less scary when the initial attribution of the crime to "the Arabs" was dispelled by the realization that it was the act of a right-wing government-hating conspiracy of our fellow Americans. We didn't bomb or invade western New York state, where McVeigh was raised. We didn't engage in the profiling and persecution of all Gulf War vets with feelings of age and bterness stemming from their service in the war zone.

No; we limbered up our law enforcement agencies; identified and captured the guilty parties; and we dstributed justice in such a way that no new enemies of our society were created. That's exactly what should have happened after 9/11. The problem was, from the Bush administration's point of view, nobody could have made insanely huge profits off of that proven strategy.

Okey dokey, HollywoodNeocon..."Liberalism equals death. Period."

Liberalism equals death? Period?

You gonna go ahead and put that in a bargraph? Maybe you could put in in one of those fancy plastic folders with a nice coversheet? Hm?

-----------

As for Sharm, thank you thank you thank you for being kind and courteous. Your debate with Mike has been what this conversation needed. Thanks.

As for your viewing Olberman's Special Comments on Habeus Corpus as possibly instilling fear, I can definitely see how someone could get that impression, but I don't think that is the intent at all. Olbermann feels very strongly about the Habeus Corpus issue and, as with all his SCs, he goes all out to get his point across.

And as for terrorism:

Yes. Terrorists are bad. Very bad. And despite what some of you may think, us anti-war guys and gals don't support terrorists and we don't hate America. We love it. If we hated America, we would have bolted long ago. We "liberals" love this effing country. We mourn every single soul that comes back from Iraq only to be buried. I'm tired of being labeled as 'un-patriotic' or 'traitorous' because I dare question the decisions of my government. Somehow protesting the War in Iraq is equated with being pro-terrorist, when the war itself is a distraction on the real war on terror. I'm 25. It's devastating to know that kids I played TV TAG with are dying. Simply devastating.

The sad fact is...it's been five years since 9/11 and Bin Laden is still out there, while the number of American deaths in Iraq is closing in on the number of Americans lost on 9/11. Are there links between 9/11 and Saddam? Nope. None at all. And c'mon...when some of you flaunt Saddam's toppling as a victory, please remember the forces that brought Saddam to the big show.

By the way,

Hope everybody had a great Thanksgiving. Hope you all follow through with a great weekend as well.

Take care and goodnight!

"As for your viewing Olberman's Special Comments on Habeus Corpus as possibly instilling fear..."

You're right, Nick. There's a huge difference between the blunt civic fear promoted by our president's comic-book admonitions ("They hate our Freedom"; "The killers lurk") and the clear, ordered indictments presented by Olbermann as his "Special Comments". It seems to me that its not fear he's shooting for; but informed alarm and due dilligence.

olbermann is a propaganda mouthpiece for Iran/Hizballah/Al-Qaeda. He didn't discuss the hundreds of thousands mourning Piere Gemayel in Lebanon, becuase he doesn't understand why people are mad. He supports Hizballah and wants an Islamic state in Lebanon.

olbermann is a propaganda mouthpiece for Iran/Hizballah/Al-Qaeda.

Posted by: Red Wolf at November 24, 2006 02:19 AM

What are you a mouthpiece for?

OK, Red Wolf; I'll bite. Why does Olberman want an Islamic stateinb Lebanon? What is his motivation?

"Ponder how corrupt and misleading their coordinated pre-election claim was: All the increased violence in Iraq was just about the midterm election, not a sign of a spiraling civil war. It was just The Terrorists who hate Bush, because he is so tough with them, trying to help the Democrats. Nothing was really that bad in Iraq. Once the elections are over, it will all subside, because it's only about that.

The only thing worse than government leaders lying to their citizens so blatantly about a war is lying in order to benefit themselves politically for cheap electoral gain, so that's exactly what Bush officials and Bush followers do"

Glenn Greenwald

Yes, I think that say's it about right.

right, codas. Yesterday was reported to have been the worst single day of violence in Iraq since the insurgency began. Its all a climbing curve of escalating chaos - because that's what it was designed as.

Rant and rave all you want, wingers, but KO and John Murtha won the elections for Democrats. Their willingness to stand up to W. exposed him for the playground bully he is. And the first time someone smacks down the bully, the bully is exposed (don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain).

And now W. is just wandering around not knowing what the hell went wrong and what the hell to do about it.

And I'm sure you were happy when reading about Shia and Sunnis killing slaughtering each other because it's good for KO's zombies and bad for Bush. And I'm sure you'll be the first one on this board to perversely gloat the next time another terrorist attack hits this country or one of our allies. People like Beef and LetItBe make me sick.

"but KO and John Murtha won the elections for Democrats."
Posted by: LetItBe at November 24, 2006 02:06 PM

KO can't even win his time slot and Murtha was SMACKED down by his own party just the other day.....

Redstate's argument:

- he's sure that we liberals are happy when Iraqis kill Iraqis;

- he's sure we want America to be hit again by terrorists;

- we make him sick.

Why do these embittered knuckle-draggers even bother to post? They don't have a grip on a single fact to dispute our barrage of reality, but they persist in arguing.

@Bushie the Bomb

You have to be kidding! Either that or you're 10 years old............how pathetic!

Redstate's argument so far:

- he thinks that me and the other lefties at this site enjoy the internecine violence going on in Iraq.

- he thinks we want America to be attacked again by terrorist

- we make him sick.

Why can't these knuckle-draggers get a grip on even one single fact when the try to dispute our searing doses of reality? Why do they even bother to post?

Beef,
"OK, Red Wolf; I'll bite. Why does Olberman want an Islamic stateinb Lebanon? What is his motivation?"

Olbermann wants Hizballah to control Lebanon because they're anti-American. He thinks that if the Islamic Fascists take over the Middle East it, they leave us alone. Ther's a Leftist-Islamic alliance and Olbermann is it's sopkesmen.

Olbermann never criticizes President Mahoud Ahmadinejad. In fact he's spoken admirable about him. He openly cheerleads the death of American troops. He love bad news.

olby is a friend to the terrorist.
KO fights for their right to KILL Americans.
I smell anchor job at Arab network.
Thats our Krazy tan man!

"Olbermann wants Hizballah to control Lebanon because they're anti-American. He thinks that if the Islamic Fascists take over the Middle East it, they leave us alone. Ther's a Leftist-Islamic alliance and Olbermann is it's sopkesmen."

Wolfie,

Thanks. That was interesting. Do you have any evidence supporting this analysis? Any letters or Emails between Olbermann and Hezbollah leaders? Something as clearly incriminating as the Downing Street memo was for the Bush administration? If not; then what is the genesis of this conclusion on your part?

RedWolf: "He openly cheerleads the death of American troops."

Wow! That's quite an allegation! Olbermann would truly be a bastard if this is true. DO you have any specific examples of this sort of behavior.

KO NEVER blames the terrorist.....only America.

Only Republicans are corrupt in the krazy ones crossed eyes...when we know there is just as much corruption on the left as there is on the right.

Katrina= Bush bashing...Never a peep from krazy Keith about the corrupt democrat Katrina factor like Blanco,Nagin and money in the freezer William Jefferson!

"Only Republicans are corrupt in the krazy ones crossed eyes...when we know there is just as much corruption on the left as there is on the right."

Too true Anonymous, but where's your criticism of Bill O'Reilly then?

Sincerely,
Josh

when we know there is just as much corruption on the left as there is on the right.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 24, 2006 07:48 PM

No we don't know. There is no comparison to the corruption on the right.

Careful new anonymous. Even if the right is more corrupt than the left, it is only a matter of timing. The left will be the corrupted later, and if not later then much later. And, if not then, then the world has probably ended.

Besides, it's a useless argument to have on republiblogs like this. They wouldn't believe you even if you could prove it. It is much easier and more useful to point out their hypocrasy!

Sincerely,
Josh

when we know there is just as much corruption on the left as there is on the right.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 24, 2006 07:48 PM

No we don't know. There is no comparison to the corruption on the right.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 24, 2006 11:07 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You my friend are a kool-aid drinker...the left is as corrupt as the right...but with the MSM reporting from the left you don't get to hear the balance of corruption.

If a republican had $50,000 stuffed in the freezer we'd hear about it EVERY night on the Krazy One's show....rrrrrrrright!

If underlings of a republican senator were caught criminally trying to obtain the financial information of a democrat running for office we'd hear about it every night from Krazy Keith...rrrrrright!!!

You my friend are a kool-aid drinker...the left is as corrupt as the right...but with the MSM reporting from the left you don't get to hear the balance of corruption.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 24, 2006 11:23 PM

The right has attempted to legalize torture, search without a warrant, justify attacking a country wrongfuly by saying well, we are there now... They had the responsibilty of securing the country whose leaders they overthrew and failed to provide that security. They have been proven wrong time and time again about their failed foreign policy and now they expect to be looked at as the great protectors, which is a sign of being delusional. They have corrupted and used Christianity as a voting block. They have paid off journalists to pitch their policies. etc etc etc......

WEAK rhetoric from the left is all you can spew.

What will you liberals do when the terrorist level an American city??!!?? Cry and blame Bush instead of the terrorists.
They've been coming for 20 years and all they left can do is blame Americans!

What will you liberals do when the terrorist level an American city??!!?? Cry and blame Bush instead of the terrorists.
They've been coming for 20 years and all they left can do is blame Americans!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 25, 2006 02:07 AM

Who are the terrorists? Where are they? Are there hundreds of them? Or are there millions? Do they live amongst us now? Are they only Muslims? Is there some kind of radar we can use to detect them or infrared glasses we can see them with? Are they born terrorists or is it a choice? What country has the most of them? What do they want? What do I have to do as an American to not be considered "with the terrorists"? What is terrorism? What is a terrorist? Why doesn't the same idea of a society that respects and adheres to law and order and punishes those caught breaking those laws no longer sufficient to fight terrorism? Is there a terrorist ressistant spray I could purchase at some place and use on my family and friends? Is there a missle defense system in the works that would prevent an attack? Has more terrorists died this year than been born or converted to terrorism?

Anon said What will you Liberals do when the terrorist level an American city".

Uh...lets turn that question around: What will you NEOCONS do when the terrorist level an American city?

He also said We "cry and blame Bush instead of the terrorists"

That was a really stupid statement! Of course we blame the terrorists for the 911 attacks, as well as other attacks they were responsible for. We blame Bush for attacking a country that had nothing to do with those attacks and also for conducting a botched occupation. Yes, Anon, we DO expect competent leaders. I guess you are perfectly satisfied with an incompetent president?

Anon also spewed: "WEAK rhetoric from the left is all you can spew:

OK Anon, I guess it must "WEAK rhetoric" simply because you say it is? Where is your reasoned, intelligent arguments to the contrary using factual information?

Anon said What will you Liberals do when the terrorist level an American city".

Uh...lets turn that question around: What will you NEOCONS do when the terrorist level an American city?
Posted by: Mike at November 25, 2006 05:35 AM

Do you have to even ask Mike? You know that they will blame liberals. The thought that what they have supported actually makes a terrorist attack more likely is not a thought that can live in their head for long. The fact that hundreds die everyday because of what they supported is not enough to give them pause. The very people who created the situation we are in are to be looked at as the wise and brave decision makers in this war by them. The ones that stood against them and have been proven right are guilty of treason in their eyes. The only response you ever get from them is "Well, what's your plan?". How about starting with disregarding anything that these so called patriots in the war on terror say. Defining who and what are terrorists and what is there weaknesses instead of playing right into their strengths.

Dam you evil Bush....We could have stemmed the tide of terror with bake sales and hand holding.
Dear mister Islamic terrorist please don't kill us...thank you....remember you promised not to kill us...lol.

How could 911 have been prevented???
If we would have actually retaliated with force back in the 90's when they were blowing up American interests with ease all over the world.

Dam you evil Bush....We could have stemmed the tide of terror with bake sales and hand holding.
Dear mister Islamic terrorist please don't kill us...thank you....remember you promised not to kill us...lol.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 25, 2006 07:56 AM

As usual. Sarcasm...is the...standard response.

"How could 911 have been prevented?
If we would have actually retaliated with force back in the 90s when they were blowing uo American interests with ease all over the world."
Posted by one of the anons @07:59AM:

OK....would that "retaliation" back in the 90s have included an invasion of Iraq, who wasn't behind any of those incidents either?

Actually, I haven't heard anyone within our borders call Bush "evil", just incredibly incompetent and divisive.

Cmon you Bush defenders....you seem to take so much offense at anyone questioning what he has done and how he did it!

SO DEFEND him! If you think we are all so wrong, you should be able to articulate a reasonable defense of his actions, rather than just attack "liberals" with more name calling and sarcasm!

A LONG list of demo-flip-floppers supported the war in Iraq in the beginning

A LONG list of demo-flip-floppers supported the war in Iraq in the beginning

Posted by: Anonymous at November 25, 2006 12:07 PM

Your correct. They were wrong to do so. A good portion of that long list now say so openly. If flip flopping is admiting a mistake, we should have more of them. If someone has been brainwashed to believe it is a sign of strength to never admit a mistake or never try a different approach than they are too thick skulled to trust with any major decisions.

I can only offer a partial defense of the Dems that supported the war. They were WEAK in a time of great patriotic fever. Non of them should be elected Predsident in my opinion.

However, the vote to "go to war" was not seen as a blank check to invade by many of them. They believed that it would only be done as a last resort and that voting to allow war would strengthen our bargaining hand.

Finally, there was also a LONG list of Dems who voted against allowing force, and There was only a very SHORT lists of Republicnas who did so.

Nail in the coffin to you commienuts, I mean demonuts. Oberlimpy gets his ass kicked in his beloved 25-54 demo, even tvnewserquack couldn't skew the number's for limpy, by none other than cancer survivor Laura. Now getting beat by a woman, much less an ex-girlfriend, must have Limpy under crazy Larry's seat of honor glad someone still believes he's a real man, never mind those ratings and that evil cancer survivor ex-girlfriend. Where is the feminist outrage of Limpy and his hatred of a breast cancer survivor?

Does anyone here speak babbygook? Maybe they could translet the post directly above this one?

Does anyone here speak babbygook? Maybe they could translet the post directly above this one?

Posted by: Phil at November 25, 2006 01:34 PM

I thought I would try to translate it, then I looked at it again. No ideas.

I know it's tough fore coomienuts, I mean demonuts to understand a simply written post. Limpy get's ass kicked in rating's on Monday to a cancer surviving ex-girlfriend standing in for O'rielly whom he can't beat in his beloved 25-54 demo. Is that simple enough? Babbycock? Is that the sound Limpy made under crazy Larry's chair during the break? Must be A-MESS insider.

I know it's tough for coomienuts, I mean demonuts to understand a simply written post. Limpy get's ass kicked in rating's on Monday to a cancer surviving ex-girlfriend standing in for O'rielly whom he can't beat in his beloved 25-54 demo. Is that simple enough? Babbycock? Is that the sound Limpy made under crazy Larry's chair during the break? Must be A-MESS insider.

I know it's tough for coomienuts, I mean demonuts to understand a simply written post. Limpy get's ass kicked in rating's on Monday to a cancer surviving ex-girlfriend standing in for O'rielly whom he can't beat in his beloved 25-54 demo. Is that simple enough? Babbycock? Is that the sound Limpy made under crazy Larry's chair during the break? Must be A-MESS insider.

Posted by: destroyeroflyingdemonuts at November 25, 2006 01:40 PM

Buh ba dub buh duh bu doo dah do dah day. dibbie bah doo doo da duh doo da bub bah da.

Okay Philly and coda, I know an IQ is not something your party requires so I'll break out the demonut dictionary for the ignorant so you can understand. You know your job is gone when an ex-girlfriend that you degrade on tv whips your ass in the ratings. Is that simple enoungh for you simpleton commie, I mean, demonut lover's?

Buh ba dub buh duh bu doo dah do dah day. dibbie bah doo doo da duh doo da bub bah da.

Posted by: codas at November 25, 2006 01:44 PM

Guess you have proven my point Codas. That demonut dictionary of stupidity isn't very thick. Just have to put a demonut on a keyboard or tv and the stupidity flows beyond control.

"SO DEFEND him! If you think we are all so wrong, you should be able to articulate a reasonable defense of his actions, rather than just attack "liberals" with more name calling and sarcasm!"

It's easy to defend the reason for going into Iraq; the execution of the occupation is something else. The idea of establishing a functional democracy in a country with three distinct "tribes" while desposing a despotic killer and confirmed threat to the region and our security (be it economical or military) was one that I would think every liberal would be in favour. I understand that you think Bush lied about WMD, but if that is the case then so did Hillary, Bill, Kerry, and a whole host of other dems, including those on the intelligence committees. So stop saying he lied. It makes you look shrill and stupid. If you want to say that he didn't understand the secular tension or that he listened to the wrong intelligence that is fine.

What you guys consistantly don't get is that 9/11 changed the way we will view our nations security forever. No longer can we assume that state's will act rationally in their own best interest or that Middle East governments can effectively control their populations. In fact they are more apt to plead ignorance when the next terrorist attack occurs in the hopes of avoiding a nuclear bomb on their ass. It can be argued that the numerous violations of the UN security council created a legal excuse to invade.

What we didn't realize is that it appears that these people don't want freedom like we do. That whole region has raised generations of people to believe that the afterlife is much better than their current lives and that strife and struggle is their ticket to said afterlife. Frankly, I don't know how any self respecting secularist would not be for this war or better yet for its massive escalation until the warring factions are completely destroyed.

I will grant you that this military action has increased hatred of the US, but this hatred would get to this level at some point anyway. Letting it fester is not an option. So why not pick a fight, and make people choose sides. Democracy or tyranny. Secularism or theocracy. Freedom or oppression. Too bad these people value a stupid book more than value reason or freedom.

Answer me this libs.

What is a bigger threat to the US, fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Christianity?

Do you think that these suicide bombers are brave?

liberals are very wordy

Crash:

Answer to question 1: Fundmentalist Islam is far more dangerous than fundmentalist Christianity.

Answer to Question 2: No the suicide bombers arn't paricularly brave (mainly because they apparently really do believe they are going to the promised land and they often have nothing to lose).

WHATS YOUR POINT??

Crash (again):

Thanks for an EXCELLENT post! The best one I have read on this blog from the right regarding the war.

As for me, I don't really know for certain if he actually "lied" or not, but he did get awful close to the line and I have been guilty of saying that myself.

Crash (once more time):

You said "why not pick a fight and make people choose sides"?

Because it was never in OUR best interest to do so.

My point with those questions was to find out what kind of person with whom I am dealing. Personally, I am an atheist, but I am not an anti-theist. So many on the left loathe people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson so much that they are unwilling to realize a greater danger from a much more destructive cult, that being fundamentalist Islam. It is this apathy with regard to a much more destructive force growing outside our boundaries, that so often leads people on the right to label people on the left "appeasers" or "Hate America Crowd".

Crash:

I agree with you, it is all about religion which makes us and our beliefs difference.

I have friend persuading me to become Christain, I tell them I will if there is only one God, one religion.

Crash:

I come from a very fundmentalist family and I was raised as a Methodist, although I am now an agnostic.

I too dislike the famous fundmentalists you mentioned but only because of their clear lack of tolerance for those who don't believe like they do.

As far as two other good points you raised in your excellent post above: (1) - "911 changed the way we view our nation's security" - I never believed it should have changed it militarily as much as you did. In fact I remember Bush's words "you are either with us or against us" as giving me chills, as well as his calling 3 particular nations as an "axis of evil", when there were so many nations contributing to the problem.

Bush never has semed to have any use for 'nuance' in his dealings with the world, or with the opposition party. And that has unfortunately bred resentment in both arenas.

I personally fear a leader who gets all of his information from just a few controlled sources, which means he often apparently does not hear information and opinion that the rest of us do.

It appears he has now come to understand the words 'compromise' and 'caution' better than ever before, but I hope it is not too late.

Go take a look at the "offical" Countdown message board: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=482

It's thread after thread of 9/11 conspiracy theories and posters who are 1000% convinced that Nancy Pelosi will be the next president of the US after she kicks out Bush/Cheney.

My God, no wonder these people adore KO so much: they all apparently are receiving the same transmissions from their leaders on Mars.

To Keith's a Fraud:

Don't delude yourself, very few KO backers are 911 conspiracy theory nuts, even if there are some extremists posting on that particular message board. Just look at all the right wing extremists who regularly post on THIS one who don't know how to do anything but name call and hurl insults at those who they disagree with.

This may surprise you, but I know several 911 conspircay theorists who happen to be evangelicals and also consider themselves staunch Conservatives.

This may surprise you, but I know several 911 conspircay theorists who happen to be evangelicals and also consider themselves staunch Conservatives

Posted by: mike at November 25, 2006 07:02 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Sure you do Mike.
Anonymous,unnamed,unidentified sources always work in the land of liberal OZ.
You loony lefty's wear us on the right out.
How many times can we type all the answers you request.
Why not pay attention and stop requesting the same answers over and over.

Hey anon:

Why is it you loony right wing guys can't answer a post you don't like without calling someone a liar or hurling an insult? It must have something to do with the disorderly method in which your brain processes information! I never assume anybody is a liar unless they have given me good reason to do so, so it always surprises me when someone calls me a liar because it would never cross my mind to lie in an anonymous blog in the first place.

Unfortuantely, these "unnamed sources" happen to be very close relatives of mine whom I have debated many times. NO, you idiot, I'm not going to put my brother and my sister's names out on the internet, but they ARE very devout evangegicals (7th Day adventist & Southern Baptist), they ARE 911 conspiracy theory believer, and yes....they DO consider themselves to be conservatives as well.

You cannot have reasonable debate when the other side responds by calling you a liar. What are you trying to accomplish with that? It then becomes nothing more than a pissing match between grad schoolers.

Whether you like it or not, 911 conspiracy believers are not just left wingers!

It most certainly seems to be the opinion of the posters on THAT KO fan board because all but one of the visible threads earlier this evening were about 9/11 conspiracy theories while Page 2 on the board featured prominent "They're going to impeach Bush/Cheney" threads. Two of the most frequent posters on that board repeatedly post links and numerous threads about the 9/11 conspiracy theories. If you need any proof at how loony the left is, look no further than the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd.

And Mike? I don't care about your relatives or their opinions. Hell, I don't care about YOUR opinions. Why would I care about your family's?

Keith's:

OK ***hole, so why don't you keep your own damned opinions to yourself as well? Or are you only interested in those that conform neatly to your own world view? What makes YOU assume anyone cares about your's either.

I made a point, and I backed it up with facts. Its NOT JUST THE LOONY LEFT who believe in 911 conspiracy theories, regardless of YOU choose to believe.

Keith's not a fraud, but YOU sure as hell are!

KO's audience is the kos-maniac's...what do you expect.
Funny how Keith fan mike rails on liars and name calling when that is exactly what Keith is all about these days....

By the way, they SHOULD impeach Bush & Cheney, but it's not going to happen, niehter is there going to be any serious attempt, unless something we don't already know comes out.

The Dems are not the bloodthirsty rats most of the republicans showed themselves to be during the Clinton impeachment.

Psssssst Clinton LIED!!! Thats a fact!

Psssst....and bush also lied, AND then started a quagmire based on that false information that has now killed nearly 3000 young americans and seriously wounded another 20,000. God knows how many Iraqis have died?

I realize you may one of those not calling this a "lie", but it is definitely open to reasonable debate.

YOU may think Clinton's lie is a worse offense, but I sure don't.

So citing unnamed relatives is proof of something in your book? LOL. Sorry but your opinions disgused as facts don't mean much to me. Nor do KO's. I guess that's what the two of you have in common, you think that if you say something, and you believe it, then the rest of us should too. It's when either of you are confronted with reality that you become enraged. But it's oh so amusing to watch you both meltdown.

And it is just as amusing to watch someone like you challenge factual information as lies when you have no way to dissprove them - or - a valid reason to challenge the messenger. You just ASSUME it is a lie just because you don't happen to like the information.
'
Yes, Mr. Fraud, I think you SHOULD believe what someone tells you unless you have VALID reason to believe they are in fact, a liar. If the situation had been reversed, I would have given YOU that benefit of the doubt - I wouldn't have called you a liar just because I didn't like your facts.

The FACTS remain - some, if not many 911 conspiracy believers ARE Right wing Conservative Christians!

Dissprove it with your own set of facts without calling me a liar, you fraud.

Mike
Any bad words for the Islamic murders?
Do you want us to intervene in Darfur?
Is any war ok with you or should we have a bake sale and hold hands with people that have pledged to kill US non believers....they have been coming to get us long before Bush.

By the way, I've never seen a Keith "meltdown", even though I keep seeing references to it on this blog. You see what you want to see.

Anon: Thanks for the reasonable questions(except for the "bake sale" sarcasm).

(1) - "Any bad words for the Islamic murders"? Of course, what do you want me to call them....murderers, misguided, brainwashed, evil? Yes, I will call them ALL of those things, but I don't have any way of doing that so they actually hear me, nor would they give a damn what I call them.

(2) - "Do you want us to intervene in Darfur? How about a mixed answer? IF, we had not squandered so many of our resources in Iraq, I would, as a HUMANITARIAN mission, not an occupation. As things stand, we simply don't have the resources.

(3) - "Wars I agree with": Yes, Afghanistan was a noble undertaking. The first Gulf War was needed. There are others.

(4) - Lots of enemies have been "coming to get us before Bush". Iraq didn't come to get us, and you don't start a war over every slight.

It's when either of you are confronted with reality that you become enraged. But it's oh so amusing to watch you both meltdown.
Posted by: Keith's a Fraud, his fans are Krazy at November 25, 2006 08:34 PM

You wouldn't know reality if it doo dooed on your head.

What was the lie that Bush told? Please be specific. You freakin nutbags.

What was the lie that Bush told? Please be specific. You freakin nutbags.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 26, 2006 08:19 AM

How about "We don't torture".

You freakin nutbags.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 26, 2006 08:19 AM

You believe in a man who has called himself the "decider" and has led us into a war that has lasted longer than world war II and can barely speak in complete sentences and you have the nerve to call someone a "freaking nutbag".

"What was the lie that Bush told? Please be specific. You freakin nutbags"

How about the famous 16 words in his January 28, 2003 SOTU speech? LIe, Lie, Lie.

How about the famous "if your talking about wiretap; there's a court order"? Lie Lie Lie.

More recently; how about his promising to keep Rummy on for the remainder of his presidency, just a week before shitcanning him? Lie Lie Lie.

I could go on, but you would not listen. By now, any Bush supporters are demented bilge rats dedicated to going down with the ship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112401104.html

More interestingly; I wonder how you drowning rats are going to deal with the cowardly defeatist terrorist-lover that wrote the article I linked above.

Which president lied? QUOTE--WHEN I LEFT OFFICE IRAQ HAD UNREPORTED AND UNACCOUNTED FOR WMD--Wm Clinton ex president of the USA

Which president lied? QUOTE--WHEN I LEFT OFFICE IRAQ HAD UNREPORTED AND UNACCOUNTED FOR WMD--Wm Clinton ex president of the USA

Which president lied? QUOTE--WHEN I LEFT OFFICE IRAQ HAD UNREPORTED AND UNACCOUNTED FOR WMD--Wm Clinton ex president of the USA

Posted by: RICHWEB at November 26, 2006 12:37 PM

Clinton is not the one who brought the military into Iraq.

A terrible, bald-faced lie: "you can't go to college these days without substantial family wealth". Maybe you've forgotten about federally financed financial aid? Maybe you don't care. Of course, if they don’t agree with you they must be beer-soaked plutocrats, right?

Is self-interest as a reason to get into a war any less noble than self-interest as a reason to not get into a war?

If there is any such thing as a just, necessary, defensive or righteous war, would my avoiding it because I fear death, or the death of my children, be considered noble or base?

Can wars be considered just or unjust apart from any consideration of whether they help or harm my self-interest?

College is possible:

http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=CIP1

AIR FORCE RESERVE GRANDMOTHER, 59, DEPLOYED TO AFGHANISTAN

-- White House Reminds: "We Have Plenty of Troops For Plenty of Wars" --

WASHINGTON -- Jo Danner, a nurse, Medical Center executive, mother of seven, grandmother of eleven, and Air Force Reserve major, is going on her first tour of duty to a war zone, shipping out after Christmas to Afghanistan -- at the age of 59.
Said White House spokesman Tony Snow, "It's a great time to be silver."

How much time does Olberman have on MSNBC?--i predict he will not last the year---any takers?

Love is all around, lets all around the world to play