If Keith calls Bush Mister one more time I will stand up on behalf of all good misters and kick Bush from the mister club. Bush is a warm pile of shit.. nothing more,, nothing less.

The forces of NBC in a Cronkitesque moment, attempting to define the sectarian shooting in Iraq. General E. Keith Olbermann is leading the charge.

I love how Olby believes that NBC's opinion that Iraq can now be called a civil war is akin to the word of God. That's something new for Kommie Keith. Because he has such a great track record of agreeing with his bosses (NOT).

"General E. Keith Olbermann is leading the charge."

Nope, you dope. Matt Lauer did an EXTENSIVE and DETAILED explanation of what six factors historically define a Civil War this morning on "Today", and his guest pointed out how Iraq fit all six (and has since 2004).

I heard a quote on the radio today saying that "Iraq is on the verge of civil war"!

Having not heard about the NBC decision yet, I remember thinking how silly and self - serving continuing to call it "on the verge" sounded.

And lo and behold, NBC has now made the decision to call a spade a spade. Wow, truth from media...what a novel concept!

No, the truth doesn't enslave you...it sets you free.

The LAT is the latest to come out with a glowing profile of MSNBC'c Keith Olbermann, whose ratings have been a-climbin' in recent months, contributing to and along with those of his network. Matea Gold's article hits on the Olbermann "Special Comments" excoriating the Bush administration, how his leftward tack resonated with viewers who felt unrepresented, and his gleeful attacks on Bill O'Reilly, saying that his gloves have "come off."

She notes something new, too — Olbermann, up 21% in the ratings since this time last year, is also up for contract renewal, and is in the process of negotiations with the network. The gloves seem to be somewhat off with respect to that development, as expressed in this comment:

"It is, to some degree, a perfect setup," he said of his relationship with the network. "They leave me alone, I leave them alone, and I deliver what they need, both in terms of journalism and the money end of it, the ratings."

Translation: The show is mine, the success is mine, and I can take it anywhere.

It's a far cry from the "family" rhetoric employed by MSBNC General Manager Dan Abrams earlier in Gold's piece, but Olbermann does have a point: His ratings are great, his schtick is working, and his profile is rising and rising. When he started he was a three-day substitute who parlayed lucky timing and a strong performance into a four-year contract. Now he's MSNBC's newest rising star. So he's probably earned an upgrade. But can he really go anywhere? It's a good guess that Fox isn't beating down that door (right, Irina Briganti?) and there's been no buzz about him going elsewhere (unlike, say, Anderson Cooper at 60 Minutes). The LAT article doesn't mention it but this summer's NYT profile by Bill Carter traces Olbermann's volatile work history, including sore spots recently at MSNBC (like calling co-worker Rita Cosby "dumber than a suitcase of rocks" and sending nasty emails to a fan). Then again, Olbermann was just named one of GQ's "Men of the Year" (which earned the magazine the opprobrium of a fuming O'Reilly as a result), and, well, there are those ratings (which have been eating into O'Reilly's, as Olbermann is only too happy to point out). So, the upshot for Olbermann and MSNBC seems to be, really, that they both need each other. That, of course, doesn't make for the most effective hardball negotiations — but recognized and appreciated by both sides, it can sure make for a fine feeling of family.

Disclaimer: I am an occasional commentator on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" and know MSNBC GM Dan Abrams. I do not know Keith Olbermann, who has never said that I was dumber than a suitcase of rocks. But, give it time.

The LAT is the latest to come out with a glowing profile of MSNBC'c Keith Olbermann, whose ratings have been a-climbin' in recent months, contributing to and along with those of his network. Matea Gold's article hits on the Olbermann "Special Comments" excoriating the Bush administration, how his leftward tack resonated with viewers who felt unrepresented, and his gleeful attacks on Bill O'Reilly, saying that his gloves have "come off."

She notes something new, too — Olbermann, up 21% in the ratings since this time last year, is also up for contract renewal, and is in the process of negotiations with the network. The gloves seem to be somewhat off with respect to that development, as expressed in this comment:

"It is, to some degree, a perfect setup," he said of his relationship with the network. "They leave me alone, I leave them alone, and I deliver what they need, both in terms of journalism and the money end of it, the ratings."

Translation: The show is mine, the success is mine, and I can take it anywhere.

It's a far cry from the "family" rhetoric employed by MSBNC General Manager Dan Abrams earlier in Gold's piece, but Olbermann does have a point: His ratings are great, his schtick is working, and his profile is rising and rising. When he started he was a three-day substitute who parlayed lucky timing and a strong performance into a four-year contract. Now he's MSNBC's newest rising star. So he's probably earned an upgrade. But can he really go anywhere? It's a good guess that Fox isn't beating down that door (right, Irina Briganti?) and there's been no buzz about him going elsewhere (unlike, say, Anderson Cooper at 60 Minutes). The LAT article doesn't mention it but this summer's NYT profile by Bill Carter traces Olbermann's volatile work history, including sore spots recently at MSNBC (like calling co-worker Rita Cosby "dumber than a suitcase of rocks" and sending nasty emails to a fan). Then again, Olbermann was just named one of GQ's "Men of the Year" (which earned the magazine the opprobrium of a fuming O'Reilly as a result), and, well, there are those ratings (which have been eating into O'Reilly's, as Olbermann is only too happy to point out). So, the upshot for Olbermann and MSNBC seems to be, really, that they both need each other. That, of course, doesn't make for the most effective hardball negotiations — but recognized and appreciated by both sides, it can sure make for a fine feeling of family.

Disclaimer: I am an occasional commentator on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" and know MSNBC GM Dan Abrams. I do not know Keith Olbermann, who has never said that I was dumber than a suitcase of rocks. But, give it time.

GE has many Generals in the Cronkitesque Moment....It's a team effort...Lauer, Williams, Matthews and General E. Keith Olbermann.

NBC has longed to "be the news" in this war. Just ask the idiot David Gregory.

I just asked david, and he said that is not true!

Didn't Nancy Pelosi just tell us that the situation in Iraq was not a "war" to be won or lost, merely a "problem" to be solved?

Not according to NBC...it's a civil war

"It is, to some degree, a perfect setup," he said of his relationship with the network. "They leave me alone, I leave them alone, and I deliver what they need, both in terms of journalism and the money end of it, the ratings."

Really ???
Thats quite a different tune then the one Olby usually sings about how the suits at GE try to censor him because he is so critical of Bush.....
imagine that.... Olby lying to keep his job

Call it a civil war if you want... and roll with it. The best part is how NBC did it to drum up self promotion. I watched MSNBC all day, and every 15 minutes was a segment on how bold 'they' were for taking this step on declaring it 'civil'. Spare me the self-righteousness. It was sickening to see them patting each other on the back for being so progressive. They have pundits like Matthews saying we can't win the war, so why don't they just jump the issue and spend a day trumpeting that. MSNBC isn't news, its propoganda.

oops on the spelling

despicable act by NBC...they want to BE the news. priks.

BOR as the Worser Person in the World. I see that Little Olby Paper still plays with Puff, the Magic Dragon.

MSNBC is propaganda ? Ok,, So in the four hours that they do not have some criminals locked up they have Scarborough and Carlson to go along with Ko and Matthews... hmm... let me see... on Faux ? Oh yeah the guy that Hannity picked himself to do battle with ?

Scarborough whored his conservative values for Olby's lead-in audience a long time ago.

Carlson and Scarborough are laughable conservatives. They are sell outs for the aforementioned reason.

I didn't get why O'Reilly was awarded the silver today? Just because, I suppose. Also, I heard Olby mention Laurie David (I was listening to 'Meltdown' while online) and assumed she received the gold but that of course would go against KO's pro-liberal bias. So who was the woman that was awarded top honors for WPITW?

Benson, I watch Mathews whenever I can, and I just don't recall him saying "we can't win the war".

Yes, he was VERY much against it from the beginning, and he should be lauded for that. But his focus has always been keeping responsibility focused on those who were responsible for the war and questioning whether or not it was worth the cost, in addition to keeping the focus on what our best move is now using probing interviews. It's a very good show and I am surprised the ratings don't reflect that.

Maybe I missed some shows, but I don't recall him ever using words like 'win' or 'lose'.

One thing we should all recognize is that anybody who honestly tried to stop the war from the beginning deserves respect, not scorn.

Mike:

Wake up...the Media shapes the outcome of wars.
NBC took a big step today in an attempted Cronkitesque moment.... It's Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.

I didn't get why O'Reilly was awarded the silver today? Just because, I suppose. Also, I heard Olby mention Laurie David (I was listening to 'Meltdown' while online) and assumed she received the gold but that of course would go against KO's pro-liberal bias. So who was the woman that was awarded top honors for WPITW?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2006 08:56 PM

Laurie david offered to some Association of Science Teachers 50,000 copies of the Gore eco-hysteria movie "an inconvenient truth". She declined out of comcern for which other donors might not approve. For this, she is KO's WPITW

There goes Joe Scarborough repeating the lefty propaganda. He is such a sell-out.

Carlson and Scarborough are 'laughable" consevatives because...they are questioning the war???

Excuse me, but invading Iraq was NEVER, NEVER, NEVER a consefvative idea. It was no more conservative than creating record deficits and record government spending.

You see, they both seem to understand that we do NOT have a conservative president.

Al Jazeera @ 30 Rock...The New Normal.

Now Scarborough and O'donnell are towing the Civil War line....

KO likes to attack women. I'm not surprised.

Mike,

Since we don't have a conservative president you must be happy.

Feechee:

Wow, facinating! People like you REALLY believe that "the media shapes the outcome of wars"!!!!

People like you are further out there than I thought! So it's not Bullits, bombs, winning the hearts and minds of the people, military strategy, political strategy, torture, divided loyalties, or hatred for occupiers????.....No, none of those things - it's the media!

No wonder I'm so confused!

Mike:

You never heard of propaganda shaping a war?
Al Jazeera at 30 rock....the new normal.

Rico:

He's not a conservative, but he's no liberal either. I would say he is the worst of both worlds.

Freechie: Calling a spade a spade is not propaganda!

"His ratings are great, his schtick is working, and his profile is rising and rising."

Oh, this is funny.

His ratings stink. He's up 21% from dirt nothing? He's still barely in 3rd place, and gets regularly beaten by Howie Mandel.

His schtick is laughable. He's a pseudo-intellectual who has a high school sophmore's understandng of civil liberties.

His profile is rising? Because he gets puff pieces as his pals unsuccessfully try to give him a profile?

And your conclusion is that he now can move his schtick to another operation? Well, as a wise man once wrote, "When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

He's not a conservative, but he's no liberal either. I would say he is the worst of both worlds.

Posted by: Mike at November 27, 2006 09:13 PM

You make Bush sound like a centrist.

Man, in my next life I want to come back as a media critic for a news organization.

Wow, just write whatever pops into one's head or is given to you by your source or person being interviewed. Facts? Nah. Documentation? Who needs it. Research? What's that?

Another great example of those vaunted layers of editorial fact-checking that news organizations say they use to filter out errors and bias.

Man.

Monarch you are 100% correct.Kinda makes you wonder
why his pathetic excuse for a show is still on the
air.......oh yeah its cable so you don't need to get
ratings in order for it to be "successful".

MSNBC's newest rising star.
****************************
Thats not really saying much..the top star of the lowest rated news network..yea thats something to brag about.

Anon:

Do you seem to see everything as 'left' vs 'right', and anything in between has to be a 'centrist'. I think that is a mistake.

I don't think Bush fits any of those molds, and that is the problem. That is unless you would consider a 'centrist' as combining the worst traits of liberals and conservatives. I would prefer to believe a centrist would combine the best traits of the two philosophies.

Mike,

You are sounding an awful lot like a centrist now. I thought I knew you.

"I don't think Bush fits any of those molds, and that is the problem."

You guys seem to think that if we just replace Bush that most if not all of these problems we face both domestically and internationally will go away.

Granted the incompetence on many levels of this Administration - and I do acknowledge that - many of these problems that we face have their roots in factors or actions that took place long before Bush came into power. And because their roots or causes preceded this Administration, the problems will continue once a new White House is in power.

In many ways, you guys view America the way conservatives viewed Iraq. If we just get rid of the guy at the top, most of the problems will be solved.

We removed Saddam and found that the problems were there whether he was in power or not. Once Bush has been replaced, you guys will discover something similar.

It's easier complaining on the outside, out of power. But once in command, things like quite different.

Trust me.

To buttress my above point, Fouad Ajami:

Bush's Mideast policy "issued out of a reading of the Arab-Muslim political condition and of America's vulnerability to the disorder of Arab politics. The ruling regimes in the region had displaced their troubles onto America; their stability had come at America's expense, as the scapegoating and the anti-Americanism had poisoned Arab political life. Iraq and the struggle for a decent polity in it had been America's way of trying to extirpate these Arab troubles.

We are vulnerable to the disorder in the Middle East. Realism, supporting the status quo, would no longer work.

Bush inherited this disorder. So would have Gore.

So will the next president.

Posted by: Ohboy at November 27, 2006 10:41 PM

Agreed

It's easier complaining on the outside, out of power. But once in command, things like quite different.

Trust me.

Posted by: Ohboy at November 27, 2006 10:41 PM

Yes. It's like the people who 5 years ago complained that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden. Then, after taking down the WTC and being the most wanted person in the world, not just some weird named terrorist who some people heard of, The republican administration hasn't got him either. Or how they investigated Clinton for everything under the sun and now they wouldn't dream of impeaching the president. Or how they must have thought Iraq would be a cakewalk and Bush the first was wrong to not take it. Once in command, things do look quite different. And I think the country sees these great warriors in their own mind in a new light now that they have been wrong about everything since they got power.

"Yes. It's like the people who 5 years ago complained that Clinton didn't get Bin Laden."

Aren't you doing the same thing you complain about? Can't you see?

Just a simple request: Try to think just once outside of the liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat world.

Rico: I always was a centrist. I think you must have based your opinion of me (as a liberal) based almost entirely on my anti-war stance, because that is mostly what I have talked about.

Just a simple request: Try to think just once outside of the liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat world.

Posted by: Ohboy at November 27, 2006 11:23 PM

It's convienent to say that now that the administration in power is one you support. When Clinton was president he was attacked on a daily basis and was impeached. What do you think the reaction would be right now from the right if a democratic congree impeached Bush? It's a little tougher when the shoe is on the other foot. Partisan? Were the house mangers non-partisan when they humiliated the president of the united states in fron of the whole world? Think outside the liberal VS conservative. Why if I am a liberal am I slandered as a terrorist loving socialist Godless hate America first moonbat? If the democrats were as partisan as the house managers, bush would be wearing an orange jump suit soon. I know they are not, and they will let Bush have what is left of his decidership. History will tell the tale about who was partisan in this era.

Ohboy:

I don't know any anti - Bush person who believes getting rid of him is going to solve our problems. I agree we had plenty before he arrived, and we would still have our share of challenges if he had never happened.

That said, Bush almost by himself has increased the difficulty of our challenges almost exponentially. He turned a balanced budget into record deficits and a record national debt. He created one of the biggest foreign policy fiascos in our history by invading and occupying Iraq. None of that had to happen.

It is kind of scary even today, after the Dems victory, to watch this man jet around the world as if he has suddenly turned into a diplomat. I guess it is a positive sign that he is trying new ideas but people like me have no faith that he has any competence whatsoever as a leader.

Codas,

...and remember the excoriation Clinton recieved for his intervention in Kosovo. The harsh "nation-building" derision Clinton suffered at that time at the hands of these same Bush-defenders is darkly ironic when you look at the only remaining arguments that the righties hide behind today in hopes of defraying the thousands of American dead and the hundreds of billions lost to our national treasury.

What was the American body-count from the Kosovo action? What is the price-tag to date of that conflict? What's going on amongst the Muslim and Christian sects in the Balkans today? Did the region ever devolve into anything approximating the current intensifying Iraqi bloodbath following our intervention?

In short: Clinton, for all his faults, was a successful President and commander in chief; Bush is a failure at best - a traitorous pirate at worst.

In short: Clinton, for all his faults, was a successful President and commander in chief; Bush is a failure at best - a traitorous pirate at worst.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at November 27, 2006 11:56 PM

Like I said, history will tell the tale. It will show that the people that attacked Clinton and gained power were the worst this country has to offer when it comes to being partisan. Party above country. When they got the power they craved they tore this countries credibility with the rest of the world apart. It will take a democrat to fix their mess up.

Mike,

Regarding the national debt:

We need a little bit of nuance here. You speak of Bush and the national debt as if the president is the one and only cause of it. That is like saying that the president is the one and only cause of the economy. If the economy is good the president did it. If it's bad the president did it. This is way too black and white. But both left and right seem to go by this myth.

In the 1980s when the economy was going well, and inflation was finally tamed, the left was calling it "the decade of greed". That is because the president was a republican.

In the 1990s the economy was going well, really well, but the left was not calling it "the decade of even more greed", even though sales of million dollar yachts and Gulfstream jets was at an all time high. That is because a Democrat was in the White House.

The President of the US has an affect on the economy, but not that much. All spending and taxing legislation is passed by the congress. Yes, the president can sign or veto it. The Fed controls interest rates. But the POTUS does not "cause" the economy by himself, or cause inflation or cause the deficit or national debt. He is just one of the players.

The national debt has been at a record for virtually every year there has been a national debt. Next year it will be a new record again. Just wait till we have Hillary health care. The current national debt will look like pocket change.

Late in the Clinton Admin. there was a budget surplus for one year or so. Good. I am glad it happened. But lots of people were selling their common stock at a huge profit as the stock market soared. That increased tax revenues for that period of time. Give credit to Bubba and the Newt Gingrich congress. They worked together to cut spending. But give more credit to Greenspan, and even more credit than that to the dotcomm revolution.

Regarding foreign policy:

I can't think of a time when diplomacy ever did this nation any good. Mark Twain once said something about this nation "has never won a negotiation". I agree. The only time we ever have anything good happen in foreign policy is when we win a war. I wish Bush were trying to win the one in Iraq.

Rico:

You talk as if the war in Iraq hasn't been a major factor, if not the major factor in the national deficits. You speak as if the presidents tax policy hasn't been a major factor as well. You know as well as I do that this president has never vetoed a pork or entitlement bill. Yes, it would have taken a little backbone to do all of that, but hey...we were, and still are, at war!

If we ever have "hillarycare", it won't be for many, many years, because the nation simply can't afford it.

Mike,

Democrats don't like tax cuts. But I have never once heard a Democrat say the following:

Because of tax cuts only X dollars in tax
revenues were collected for this fiscal year.
If we had not had tax cuts Y dollars
would have been collected instead.

No Democrat has ever tried to quantify that.

Yes, the war in Iraq is a huge factor in the budget deficit. Yes, Bush has not vetoed any pork bills. I still believe that the current pork is "pork lite" compared to what Hillary would do. And if you think she will wait for hillary health care until we can afford it you are very, very wrong.

I haven't looked it up, but I have heard Michael Medved state that the national debt is not a bigger percentage of the gross national product than it was 20 years ago, or 40 years ago. The numbers are big. But every decade the economy doubles in size, at least. All numbers are exploding. Rich people forty years ago could afford a mansion and a Cadillac. Nowadays they buy jets, and I mean big ones.

Let's do a test. We will clone the cosmos twice, one copy for me and one copy for you. Then, in my cosmos I am the president, and you in yours. We will see who has a bigger budget deficit after 8 years. My money is on me.

Mike,

Oops! I meant "my money is on me having a smaller deficit"!!!!

Now with their latest stunt to get out of the basement ratings hole with "the civil war". Should mslsd just start simulcasting AJ after midnight?

Lets all face the facts. Keith's show is good. The democrats, contrary to what many believed are more represenitive of this country right now than the right wing highjacking of the media would have us believe. Bush is a lame duck. May God grant a peace to Iraq that only he can give. That's it, and that's that.

I'm surprised that none of you well-informed neocons heard that even the head of the U.N. feels that Iraq is either having a civil war are unbelievably close to same.

"I can't think of a time when diplomacy ever did this nation any good. Mark Twain once said something about this nation "has never won a negotiation". I agree."

Rico,

Dig a little deeper and check out what Mark Twain had to say about war, and then get back with us.

"The only time we ever have anything good happen in foreign policy is when we win a war. I wish Bush were trying to win the one in Iraq."

The implications of this statement are chilling: to have "anything good happen in foreign policy" a war needs to be started. Do you really believe this? Do advocate then the disbandment of the State Department as a wholly pointless anachronism? Should we stop trying to make treaties on trade etc.? If things are "going badly" should we then start a war that we would hopefully win?

Rico's shallow and brutal admonition reflects precisely the neocon strategy; you can read it in the recent position papers of Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, all the Kagans, Charles Krauthammer, etc.; and you can see it in the issues pushed by the admininstration. Things "go bad" and you start a war. Iraq was invaded because things went bad on 9/11 - it didn't have jack-shit to do with 9/11, but we apparently needed a war to win in order to fix our problems. This foolish unwinnable war/occupation goes badly and the neocons start pushing for a war with Iran to fix our troubles stemming from the Iraq quagmire. The details of Iraq and its particular problems are utterly ignored in their considerations - they just figure a new war will fix it all.

Hey Neocons; if you want to experience the vicarious pathos of a declining Roman Empire, just buy the f---ing video game and sit around for the rest of your lives playing it in your underwear - quit trying to destroy our country.

I would like to inquire of the Olbermann apologists (especially the coward, Sir Loin of Milquetoast and codas the defeatist).....why are the following three nations the only ones in the middle east experiencing death and terrorism?

Iraq
Lebanon
Israel

Why do the people of these great countries have to live with either terrorism/war/death or capitulate to nondemocratic forms of government (dictatorship or imposed leadership from neighboring countries)?

Why do you self righteous liberals want to abandon millions of people to servitude either to a dictator, an imposed islamic theocracy or worse.....civil war? Are human rights a part of your equation, or is it just politics?

It is obvious to me that the 9/11 attacks are NOW connected to ALL of these countries by one basic thread......Militant islamic fundamentalism.

I would like to hear your opinion about this?

Response to Posted by: Mike at November 27, 2006 08:56 PM
"I just don't recall him saying "we can't win the war".

Matthews has consistantly framed the war as not winnable... but since the election it has been his drumbeat. Select words from the election recap. "Perhaps the American public knows this war is not winnable" "The voters are starting to realize we can't win this war." Sounds more opinion than fact for a newsman... no?

Cee,

Pakistan and Afghanistan have plenty of death. And, if we were interested in democracy, Bush wouldn't have tried to topple the democratically elected president of Venezuala.

Not even a good try for a Bush-apologist.

With such a law, would Carnegie have been able to build all those libraries?

Anon:

A basic definition of the Middle East is Egypt geographically west to Iran. The North African nations, Turkey and south asia nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan can be included (based on religious and cultural similarities to their neighbors) but usually they are not...So I reject your red herring.....just answer my fundmanetal question instead of changing the predicate....which is a typical tactic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GreaterMiddleEast2.png

Cee,

Your question doesn't mean anything because the premise is erroneous. You assume that we are setting up a democracy, when we are actually trying to simply set up a pro-American government...otherwise, we'd be pressuring nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia to clean up their acts; in fact, proof that we don't care about the people in these nations is found in the fact that we left Afghanistan with the job more than half undone. We didn't stick around to free the half of that country that was under the rule of warlords and eventually Taliban again.

My question is based on facts, anon....Just because you do not want to face the reality of militant islam is why you avoid answering the question....

Israel has tried to negotiate with the Palestinians for decades....all to no peaceful conclusion....even as they withdrawl from Gaza again, the islamic terrorists fire rockets at them. Why? Because militant islamists want Israel to go away....be destroyed. Do you agree with the islamists, anon?

Lebanon had a nice display of "people-power" a couple of years ago....Syria looked like it would be on the run out of this war torn country and all religions would be respected...Now militant islamists kill Christians, provoke war with Israel and make civil war a reality again in Lebanon. Do you side with the islamists here too?

Iraq was rid of Saddam Hussein by the US invasion. Violence erupted between Shia and Sunni....but despite this centuries old struggle, a government is formed and elections are held. Who then fanned the flames of the sectarian violence, anon? Militant islamists.....Al Queda even has been involved in killing Iraqis so that revenge would take place and the violence increased. You support allowing the manipulation of age-old hatred by outsiders to continue and abandon a government formed after two elections?

This is the reality of the world. These three areas are on the islamic militants' hit list....I guess American liberals support the militants.....screw the rest of the people.

Codas:
"It's convienent to say that now that the administration in power is one you support."

No, I was asking you to think beyond Democrat vs. Republican politics for the sake of our conversation. For the purpose of this little talk.

Sure, pee on Bush and the Republicans if it makes you feel good. Both (all) sides do it.

But, again, if one thinks that the PROBLEMS this county faces (broadly speaking) will magically disappear or be greatly mitigate simply by getting Democrats to run things, one is missing out on a whole lot of history.

Cee,

You write like an ignorant child.

Believe it or not, just because I don't take your view, doesn't mean that I support militants. That's something a third grader might try.

Israel is a tricky situation. Some Americans love them to death despite the fact that they've attacked us and spied on us. The reason that they cannot broker peace with the Palestinians is probably due to the abuse that they carry out on them whenever it is politically expedient. How were the Palestinians supposed to respond recently when they were cut off from ALL imported food, water and supplies?

Saddam Hussein was a Republican ally until it was no longer expedient. We both know this...why pretend that our goal is democracy? If our goal was to give Iraq a LASTING democracy, we'd have moved the number of troops in that our generals suggested.

Why the charade? And why haven't you responded to my point about Venezuala (and Nicaragua)? Those are democracies that we certainly tried to overthrow. You point is less than moot.

Considering that MSNBC is going into the tank next year, with all the cutbacks, an now that the Demos have taken over, there night time programs will be more boring then they are already. I see Headline News overtaking MSNBC in the ratings. Only because they offer something besides the same old pundits day after day.

Anon- Have Venezula or Nicaragua ever attacked another country since either Bush has been in power? Iraq attacked Kuwait. It has consistantly attacked US forces that protected Kuwait and the fly-zone. Afghanistan sheltered the 911 terrorists. Plus you show ignorance when your pick and choose your allies based on party affiliation. Saddam was a US ally not a Republican ally. Iraq and the US both opposed Iran at the time- You know Iran- the country that took American hostages at the time. You sweep that wide brush way too often.

benson,

Iraq did attack Kuwait, AFTER the elder Bush told them that Kuwait was "not in our sphere". During the younger and dumber Bush's reign, they hadn't attacked anyone and were completely contained. We were attacked by the Saudis on 9/11. Bush continues to kiss their behinds quite nicely.

You may be too young to remember the eighties, but there was quite an uproar about Saddam amongst the liberal human rights groups. Your remark about being against Iraq was sheer ignorance: Reagan was dealing weapons with them. That taught Iran the consequences of taking American hostages: A Republican president will reward you with weapons.

Don't be vague Anon- you forgot to mention that the arm sales were designed to secure the release of the hostages. Is that omission accidental? I doubt it. (Don't get me wrong, Iran-Contra was bullshit, but we aren't living in a vaccum.)

As for your your assertion that the Saudi's attacked us, that is absurd. The terrorism was centered in Afghanistan, with Saudi nationals intentionally... designed to give you liberals that exact talking point you used. Your too smart to fall for that B.S., aren't you?

IRAQ NOW HOTBED OF BOTH ACTIVE INSURGENCY -AND- CIVIL WAR

-- "We Didn't Think It Possible", Say Experts --

WASHINGTON -- Tempering their dismay with the hope that perhaps things couldn't get much worse, many Middle East experts now consider the situation in Iraq to be even more dire than once suspected. "The level of incompetence required to transform what was essentially a fairly stable region into the hotbed of violent chaos we now witness is actually quite staggering. And to be perfectly frank, we didn't think it possible -- nobody could be that stupid. Consequently, a number of experts have even concluded that it was intentional from the start."

If the democrats were as partisan as the house managers, bush would be wearing an orange jump suit soon. I know they are not, and they will let Bush have what is left of his decidership. History will tell the tale about who was partisan in this era.

Posted by: codas at November 27, 2006 11:40 PM

Most all things done in Washington are done only to serve a political party and to get re-elected. Democrats and Republicans are equally partisian. The Democrats have made a political calculation about impeaching Bush and have decided currently it is not a good idea. History will look back and see most members of both parties are partisian hacks.

Benson,

There was no need for an "admission". Reagan stated that he wouldn't deal with terrorists and he did...purely for political gain.

He tried to do a backroom deal to free 63 americans that had been held for months... something I hope any democrat president would also do. Ends justify the means. Would you let them rot?

right wing highjacking of the media
Posted by: codas at November 28, 2006 04:05 AM
---

because i am sure the right wing has been begging to have a network (& network-lette) call Iraq civil war

Olbermann professes that he is not political but continues cheerleading for the left fringe. He refuses to allow others who might challenge his viewpoints to come on Meltdown. Can you imagine Olbermann showing up in a venue where he might actually be challenged? I can respect someone, even the most partisan propagandist, if they are willing to defend their viewpoints when challenged, but not Olbermann.

How many of you Orange Boy supporters would have high words of praise for a cable TV host who professed that he was "not political" and then on a nightly basis hammered every liberal politician and liberal spokeperson around, pulled his stories straight from the National Review and Newsmax websites, told one his liberal critics to "kill yourself", and trotted out an exclusively ultra-conservative stable of guests who invariably parroted every opinion that the host offered? This is just a small sample of the shoddy journalism that Orange Boy serves up as well as examples that reveal his raging character disorder. Olbermann is not only the poster child for ethically challenged journalism, he is also a disgusting person irrespective of which side of the political spectrum he leads the cheers for.

Bravo Hank, its the same recipe used by Al Jazeera. KeithO and Al Jazeera give biased and misleading news, wrap it up as truth and scream Jihad on their special comments. Show some strength and debate your positions with a counterpoint.

• Laurie David’s donation rejected
Nov. 27: Tonight’s Worst Person in the World: Linda Froschauer, president of the National Science Teachers Association, who would not take money from Laurie David but gladly takes it from Exxon-Mobil and Shell.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15934446/

no...she would not accept DVD's of a politically charged mock-umentary that even supporters of the movement admit to cringe inducing moments

check out
http://newsbusters.org/node/9294

and finally...what is this? the second out of three WPITW segments since he stated on ESPN that he had grown up and gotten over Bill O, that he includes Bill O in the segment? then call him a fathead and refers to his "not so widely read newspaper column"...speaking of "not so widely read", how's the book sales going?

BUSH VOWS TO DESTABILIZE MIDDLE EAST TILL IT IS STABLE

-- U.S. Troops To Complete Mission In Iraq Till All Hope Lost --

RIGA, Latvia -- President Bush, under pressure to change direction in Iraq, said Tuesday that he will not withdraw American troops until all hope for a viable solution in the region is lost. Bush blamed the escalating bloodshed in Iraq on an al Qaeda plot to stoke cycles of sectarian revenge, and refused to debate whether the country has fallen into civil war. Said Bush, "The United States will not withdraw from Iraq until our presence there has become completely untenable."