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."

Anon,

You may like to try to explain and rationalize Hamas' and Hezbollah's terrorism by blaming Israel, but the bottom line is that Israel does not participate in terrorist activity. They declare their intentions, wear uniforms and conduct themselves under the understood rules of engagement. The islamic militants you so quickly defend use their grandmothers, children, women and others to kill and maime thousands....usually civilians. No uniforms, no declared intentions. They fire rockets randomly at civilian targets as well.

So Anon, it is obvious who's side you are on....you are on the islamic militants' side since, (always like the left), you have nothing negative to say about Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Queda, but are always ready to critique the USA and Israel.

To Anonymous 1:47 pm:

Like so many other foaming at the mouth Bush haters, you simply have nothing to say when facts are presented to you regarding the utter lack of journalistic integrity that characterizes the Meltdown program hosted by Orange Boy (see my post above at 1:11 pm). Instead the response we get yet is another cut and paste job from some idiotic Bush hating web site.

I have seen this time after time on this web site. Every time the conversation turns to the antics of Orange Boy, his partisan cheerleading, his fear of having his partisan viewpoints challenged, his threats to his critics, his lies about his ratings, his promotion of loony bin fantasies such as the "stolen" Ohio vote in 2004 or Rove about to be indicted in the Plame affair, nobody who supposedly supports Orange boy can offer a cogent reason that a sensible clear thinker should overlook these fundamental flaws or why they should be excused.

Face it, Orange Boy has terrible ratings compared to his competition for a reason-- people who are interested in the issues of the day quickly recogize that Olbermann is a shrill, angry, humorless propagandist who will tolerate no dissent from his own perceived wisdom.

Cut and Run, the Only Brave Thing to Do ...a letter from Michael Moore

Friends,

Yesterday marked the day that we had been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Gandhis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
__________________

Hey O'lie....I asked for a response to the mouth-piece of the left yesterday? Where were you?

Ah, just two weeks since the election and the chickens are coming home to roost. Hey Dems.....are you listening?....Michael Moore has his order ready for you to execute.....

from http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=202

So liberals, do you agree? If we are not out of Iraq, defeated and demoralized in 6 months as Moore wants, this becomes a "Bush/Democratic Party War?"

To repeat the words from the idol of the left in our great country.....

"We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans."

THEM'S FIGHT'N WORDS!

Tough isn't it?

Hello?

BUSH ADMINISTRATION REPAIRS AGE OLD RIFT BETWEEN IRAN AND IRAQ

-- Once Bitter Enemies Will Now Work Together Toward Shared Regional Goals --

TEHRAN, Iran -- Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, welcomed the Iraqi president on Tuesday and said that Iran was ready to help restore security in Iraq if Baghdad wished -- echoing comments made a day earlier by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was against this backdrop that Washington has been facing growing calls to enter a dialogue with Iran and Syria to help end the violence in Iraq, but the White House issued a brief statement in response, saying, "Let our enemies open dialogues with one another to talk and plan -- we're not really into the talking thing."

Kurtis it aint that simple... do you live in a vacuum?

So am I to assume Mr. Moore's opinion on Iraq is a minority opinion? The democrats who stated ending the war in Iraq was the most important issue will now say that the killing will continue? Why the change? I thought Bush was 100% wrong on Iraq, he lied us into the war and we have to get out....that's what I thought the left believed....Am I wrong?

Someone please end my confusion!

So The United States is still going to try to confront militant islam in Iraq, against Michael Moore's demands....

FROM AP

"The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of the 160,000-member multinational force in Iraq.

"The council acted quickly in response to a request from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who said a top government priority is to assume full responsibility for security and stability in the country but it needs more time.

"The resolution, drafted by the United States, extends the mandate of the multinational force for one year starting on Dec. 31 and authorizes a review at the request of the Iraqi government or by June 15."

Is this going to be called Bush/Democratic Party/United Nations Security Council War, now?

You Americans here are such fools. You kill 100,000 civilians and endanger the rest of the world with your arrogance, and yet you still don\'t get it. Your voters rejected your war. It is a dismal failure. Your government is already planning how to withdraw. You\'ve already lost and you still don\'t get it. You killed a million Vietnamese and 50,000 Americans and you learned nothing. The world doesn\'t want your kind of policing. The democracy America is known for is not what\'s going on in Iraq and the middle east. You are so blind to what is happening in the rest of the world. Of course everyone still wants to come to America, because it is the most free nation. But your foreign policies are criminal. You torture just like your enemies now. Sure, no one wants terrorism, and it is an awful, hateful thing. But you are only making it worse by being so pigheaded and foolhardy. You can\'t bomb all the terrorists. It won\'t work. Just like it\'s not working now. You\'re just making more terrorists. Do you think you can overcome their resolve with more of your own? What resolve? You send the poor off to fight your wars while your rich get richer. But the terrorist resolve is much greater than yours. Just like the Viet Cong. Did you read about the Palestinian grandmother who was 64 and had 41 grandchildren who became a suicide bomber? Are you so foolish to think she deosn\'t love her grandchildren, or know how precious life is? Of course she knew. You have no hope of defeating that kind of resolve. Not with all your bombs and lies and military overkill. It\'s happening right now in Iraq. It\'s going down the toilet right now as we speak, and still you don\'t get it.

"I thought Bush was 100% wrong on Iraq, he lied us into the war and we have to get out....that's what I thought the left believed....Am I wrong?"

Partially, yes. What you would call the "fringe" advocates immediate withdrawal (which is logistically impossible), but the more practical position is "do something other than the same thing we've been doing for three years" because IT'S NOT WORKING!

We can't stay - even the brass at the Pentagon says we're within 6 weeks of having a "broken" military, and staying would require more troops that we don't have.

We can't go, at least not immediately. Best case is a "safe" withdrawal phase of 4-6 months.

If we can't stay and we can't go, what does that leave?

This is one of those "no good solution" problems - every option is bad, so you choose the option that is least bad.

cee sez: "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"

Iraq: prior to our occupation and intentional civic sabotage Iraq had NEVER experienced a single suicide bombing; electricity and potable water were never at the current abject lows; violent death rates have been multiples of those prior to our invasion for every single month since we invaded. So to answer your question in regard to Iraq I'd have to say: because we invaded and refuse to leave. These conditions certainly have nothing to do with any organized "Islamofascist" movement, as foreign fundamentalist fighters in Iraq have never comprised more than a single-digit fraction of the insurgency.

In regard to Lebanon, the most significant acts of terrorism in that country over the past several decades have been the direct handiwork of the Israelis. Where was yor hand-wringing over the fragile Lebanese democracy when Israel was bombarding the Lebanese infrastructure and terrorizing/uproting its populace ostensibly over two political kidnappings? So in answer to your question in this regard I'd have to say: because Israel wants a weak, unstable neighbor to its north.

As for Israel, the answer involves Israel's belligerent behavior toward its neighbor Lebanon; and its barbaric and undemocratic treatment of the Arab populaton within its borders since 1948.

No, all of your case-studies cited above are explained through Dependency Theory, and have no direct correlation to any mythical "Clash of Civilizations".

---------

"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?"

We funded and supported the dictator from which we "liberated" the Iraqis; we created the civil war as expertly as any heartless civic provocatuer could hope; and by doing so we created the conditions by which aspiring theocrats have gained access to legitimate power in Iraq. Can you not see how annoying it is to be hectored about "civil rights" by the same childish neocons who have demolished any hope of a stable, free civil society in Iraq anytime in the forseable future? Your unmittigated gall knows no bounds.

"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."

"NOW"? What do you mean "NOW"? Why put such temporal emphasis on your fascist party's self-serving, retroactive spin? Do you think that such logical/historical contortions impress any of us?

9/11 and Iraq? 9/11 and Lebanon? You're deluded.

...oh, and cee,

Have your enlisted in our military yet? The other week you stated numerous times that you were ready to, and that you only awaited my prior enlistment to do so. I informed you that I had no intention to do so on moral, political, and common-sense grounds - apart from being two years too old.

Have you fulfilled your obligation to your convitions anyway? Or do you truly consider yourself such a slave to my will?

Sir Loin of Milquetoast is not only anti-American but is also showing his anti-Semitism....

"Where was yor[sic] hand-wringing over the fragile Lebanese democracy when Israel was bombarding the Lebanese infrastructure and terrorizing/uproting[sic] its populace ostensibly over two political kidnappings? So in answer to your question in this regard I'd have to say: because Israel wants a weak, unstable neighbor to its north.

Allow me to educate you about the truth....In the July 2006 war, Hezbollah began terrorist strikes against Israel when they fired Katyusha rockets and mortars at Israeli military positions and border villages to divert attention from another Hezbollah unit that crossed the border and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev) and killed three. Israel attempted to rescue the abducted soldiers and five more were killed during the rescue mission. Israel responded with massive airstrikes and artillery fire on Lebanese civilian infrastructure, which Israel said Hezbollah was using, an air and naval blockade, and a ground invasion of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah in turn launched rockets into northern Israel and engaged the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in guerrilla warfare from hardened positions.

Hezbollah used the Lebanese people as shields, hiding rocket launchers in civilian homes and neighborhoods.

Hezbollah is destroying the possibility of Lebanese democracy, Loin, not Israel.

And who is Hezbollah.....Militant Islamists who, like all of them....Al Qaeda and others included, want Israel destroyed, The United States influence in the world diminished and a panislamic Middle East....You are a fool for supporting them, Loin.

Yes, the same radical brand of Islam is behind the hatred of the 9/11 attacks, the continued Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the Iraqi sectarian violence and the possible Lebanese civil war.....You are just too simple to understand, Loin.

And you are a fool, cee for believing that anything but FULL-THROATED SUPPORT of Israel is automatically supportive of Hezbollah. I think they're both in the wrong at various points in time, but unilateral support of Israel REGARDLESS of their tactics is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Talk about simple...

And, Loin, in regard to your 05:47 PM, I shot you down so easily based on your cowardice and hypocrisy that I will just refer you back to that thread:

COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - NOVEMBER 20, 2006

You skulked away like the coward you are.....

Sir Loin of Milquetoast, Duke of Dastard, Marquess de Shirk, Viscount Invertebrate, Count Craven, Prince of Mollycoddle.

So has the, "explcitly dedicated anti-war activist" done anything tangable to stop the killing lately?

Facts are facts, anon....Israel withdrew from Lebanon years ago and patiently waited for the demilitarization of the border PROMISED by the UN.....Hezbollah got stronger and then attacked first.

Land for peace has been tried year after year, and yet the muslim militants still use suicide bombers in cilvilian areas of Israel and the occupied territories. Even as Israel withdrawals again from Gaza, they are under attack by rockets.....as they retreat!

I am no fool for supporting a democracy (Israel)that engages in honorable war, in uniforms, trying to avoid civilians and giving warning with notices to the population. I am no foll for not blindly supporting terrorists who kill women and children, take hostages, and commit other guerilla tactics to advance their hateful ideology.

cee

You did it again! You assume that I "blindly support terrorists" when I said I DID NOT!

In the U.S. foreign policy sphere Israel is ALWAYS RIGHT and whoever is opposing Israel is ALWAYS WRONG. You CANNOT conduct a working foreign policy by unilaterally supporting one side REGARDLESS of the actions they take against the others.

You are still a fool, and a hack. Come at me again, and I'll bust you like a pinata.

Johnny Dollar

Did you see Slippery Shuster eat his own inky discharge? See here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15590613/

It is why I rooted for Ohio State to beat Michigan. If Slippery gobbled down all his other lies and failed projections he would die from ink poisoning.

Anon,

Where did I say you were blindly supporting terrorists? I accused Loin of supporting the islamic militants, but hey, I know Loin pretty well.....he's ready to see Israel wiped off the map.

My quote should have read, "I am not a fool for not blindly supporting terrorists who kill women and children, take hostages, and commit other guerilla tactics to advance their hateful ideology."

Now if you support the militant islamists then that's your problem and I would think you're wrong. Israel has tried to make peace with their Arab neighbors for decades and radical islamists fight it every step of the way. The left in this country never comes to Israel's defence....recent posts on Huffpo confimed my opinion of liberals. Even Jimmy Carter's recent book claims Israel is acting like aparthied South Africa....give me a break.

Apologists who try to rationize terrorism do nothing to solve the problems we all face inthe Middle East.

"Israel has tried to make peace with their Arab neighbors for decades and radical islamists fight it every step of the way."

I suggest you go read up on the Suez Crisis, the Six-Day War and the 1978 Israeli invasion of Lebanon before you come in and say that Israel has tried to "make peace".

I reiterate - a foriegn policy that assumes that Israel is ALWAYS RIGHT and Israel's opponents are ALWAYS WRONG is bad policy. I agree that supporting Israel when it is attacked by terrorists is right, but that has not always been the case.

Recent anti-Semetic comments on a liberal blog can be read after Dershowitz's column:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-world-according-to-ji_b_34702.html

When attacked, Israel makes war... when the war is over, Israel is willing (and in cases where the other party is willing) has made peace.

So ANY criticism of Israel is "anti-Semetic"?

That's the view I get from the way you phrased it, cee.

Anon,

From even before 1948, The Jews was willing to have The Palestinians receive a homeland...

The 1938 Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution with Israel receiving a mere sliver of its ancient homeland and the Palestinians receiving the bulk of the land. The Jews accepted and the Palestinians rejected this proposal, because Arab leaders cared more about there being no Jewish state on Muslim holy land than about having a Palestinian state of their own.

Based on this history and every Arab country vowing Israel would not exist, Israel had to survive, and did so despite ruthless attacks.

Anon, you make 2 points attacking Israel from over 25 years ago, ignoring decades of deadly hostility from the Arab countries surrounding. Yeah, you're not biased. Give me a more recent example, Anon, especially since Taba, in 2000, where Israel was the agressor and shuned advances for peaceful settlements.

Cee... you see there is no solution to this war... Smart people understood BEFORE WE STARTED IT !!

There is always a solution, always hope, always a way....To give up on finding the solution is to accept failure, O'lie.

Cee,,, always a way... I guess 350 bazillion dollars is not enough, and I guess 2800 dead and thousands dead is not enough... When does this end ? And How ?

For me, when the Iraqi government, elected by the Iraqi people, is able to enforce the rule of law in their country. My position may be the minority position currently, but right is right....you make a commitment to someone, you try your best to meet it.

If the Iraqi government falls or asks us to leave....fine....I will accept a reality...but until then, The United States should do everything possible to help the struggling Iraqi government succeed.

O'lielly,

Admit it: you never wanted the mission in Iraq to succeed.

cee

You did it again! You assume that I "blindly support terrorists" when I said I DID NOT!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 06:43 PM

He does it all the time. Like a cult member, he only sees the point of veiw that he has been indoctranated in. Everything else is of Satan.

cee sez: "And, Loin, in regard to your 05:47 PM, I shot you down so easily based on your cowardice and hypocrisy that I will just refer you back to that thread:

COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - NOVEMBER 20, 2006

You skulked away like the coward you are..... "

...cee crows proudly through the locked keyhole of his silken boudoir!

Perhaps I should be complimented that he feels driven to keep such close track of my postings here, but I'm starting to feel a little queazy instead. I'd like to think that this obscession on cee's part reflects his implicit gratitude for the redemptive thrashings I administer lavishly upon him; but I fear instead that he's developed a very Republican homoerotic/sado-masochistic crush on me.

Cee, go fight in your war - it'll make a man out of you.

"There is always a solution, always hope, always a way....To give up on finding the solution is to accept failure, O'lie."

Who gave up on finding a solution? The Neocon Fascists, that's who. The Bush administration changed NOTHING in their prosecution of this occupation for over two years - insisting vacuously on "staying the (abysmally failed) course" and saying little else. This chaotic innaction reflects either insanity, or criminal negligence.

Now the Democrats are debating at least three different courses of action ranging from full withdrawal in the near future, to staged redeployment of our forces to other countries in the region.

)))end of last post(((((

Such debate is emblematic of "finding the solution"; "staying the course" in such a context is utter failure.

"Now the Democrats are debating at least three different courses of action ranging from full withdrawal in the near future, to staged redeployment of our forces to other countries in the region."

Ah, at last a war critic lays bare the alternative to finishing the job in Iraq:

1)'full withdrawal' and 2) 'staged redeployment' of our forces to other countries in the region" (Redeployment to where? Okinawa, as suggested by your man Murtha ? I guess Okinawa is in the "region" in the same sense that Earth and Jupiter are close to each other by being in the same solar system)."

Whatever label you want to put on it or however you want to dress it up-- withdrwal, redeployment, whatever, it amounts to the same thing-- leaving. The catastrophic consequences of this action are well known to anyone who has a clue about the goals of the IslamoFascists (if you don't know what I'm talking about read The Looming Tower and find out). Or maybe we should just try talking to the Islamic leaders who have pledged death and destruction to the West. Maybe if we offered them a spot of tea, a massage and a warm bubble bath, maybe that would soothe their hostility towards us and we could all just hold hands and sing "All we are saying, is give peace a cha-ance!!!" Now there's a plan I think even Cindy Sheehan could love-- how 'bout it Dems?

Whatever label you want to put on it or however you want to dress it up-- withdrwal, redeployment, whatever, it amounts to the same thing-- leaving. The catastrophic consequences of this action are well known to anyone who has a clue about the goals of the IslamoFascists

Maybe if we offered them a spot of tea, a massage and a warm bubble bath, maybe that would soothe their hostility towards us and we could all just hold hands and sing "All we are saying, is give peace a cha-ance!!!"

Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2006 11:47 PM

So because we are facing the catastrophic consequences of being there when we shouldn't have went there in the first place we must stay and wait until they just hold hands and say give peace a chance to each other and decide for us when we can go? Should I trust the people that were so smart as to get us in the situation we are in now in Iraq to be the ones to decide when to leave? What is happening in the world right now that we are blinded to because all our attention is on Iraq? What kind of consequences are waiting? Who will take the initiative of ending this nightmare for out military? The fact that we have not been attacked at home does not make me believe that we are a stronger nation than we were before we went to Iraq. Will our staying in Iraq mean that their will be no more Islamic leaders pledgeing death and destruction for the west?

Sir Loin of Milquetoast:

Once again you turn the debate into a debased, self-aggrandizing event....so typical of your narcissistic personality disorder....BTW my last post yesterday was just before I was leaving work....I came home to my wonderful wife, had a quick bite to eat and went to sleep....Your pathetic, hate-filled, anti-Semetic, unintelligent and worthless drivel did not cross my mind until I came to see if anyone from your side had anything cogent to add.....I was once again vindicated.

Liberals have nothing to offer the world currently. Moore is an example....withdraw over the next month, period, (at least he's being decisive). Codas is wringing his hands repeating we should never have gone in to remove Saddam (a lot of good that does), and Sir Loin of Milquetoast (the self described "explcitly dedicated anti-war activist") is mentally masturbating making no sense at all....Loin occasionally displays his hatred for Jews and America, but that's about it.

The next two years will be interesting to say the least if these libs represent the advertised brain trust we can all expect to benefit from after January. Continue playing, children.

cee,

If I am being merely "self-aggrandizing" and "narcissistic", then why is it that you are explicitly waiting for ME to enlist in this war that I stridently oppose before you put your own powdered ass on the line to help relieve our unravelling military; to reconcile your own behavior with your stated convictions; and to do your part in finding these "solutions you insist are "always there".

Is it, as you've insinuated in the past, that you feel that you already are doing your part in the war effort by staying comfortably at home and arguing with me and Codas? I thought we were merely "naive children" - rhetorical sparing with us could not be all that important. In any case, you could take a laptop with you to Iraq and still stay in this pointless little game at Olbermannwatch - you might even find that such a morally consistant and altruistic step would give you the credibility to win an argument on occasion.

If you wait for this hippy peacenik to enlist you will miss your chance to gain glory in the global race war that you adore so fervently from afar....yet you call me the coward?

...and as for your allegations of antisemitism - nobody buys that bullshit anymore. This slander has long been the default mode that neocons slip into everytime they are challenged on their treasonous affinity for a paticular foreign government, and it's wearing thin.

I have Jewish relatives that I love dearly - and they too loath the fascist theocracy/ethnocracy that dominates Israel.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_re_eu/bush

Here is Bush's big push to find new "solutions": train Iraqi police and military! Wow - why didn't we think of that one earlier? Now we're really on the right track!

We've been hearing this one snce the late summer of 2003 - yet it wasn't until April of this year that, with great media fanfare, the very first Iraqi soldier was graduated - all alone - from special forces training. Maybe since then we've matriculated three or four more - who knows?

This issue more than any other fact surounding the war shows that the neocons have no intention of "winning" in Iraq. Jay Garner could have had batallion upon batallion trained by 2004 had he been allowed to pursue his fast-track to Iraqi sovereignty, but he was shit-canned in 2003 in favor of protracted and profitable chaos.

The neocons want unending war because they can't maintain domestic power without it; their corporate backers want it to contuinue for the money the rake in.

"Said Bush, "The United States will not withdraw from Iraq until our presence there has become completely untenable."

Finally; the man clearly articulates the US obkectives in Iraq.

"http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/112906.html

"At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source."
"
----

This is your chosen leader? chickenhawk motherf---er.

Sir Loin of Milquetoast has created his own reality, once again....

1) If I remember correctly, we left volunteering as a couple when you said you had MORAL objections to the war. I called your bluff. You obviously have only have moral objections in order to keep your sorry butt protected. IF (a big if), you were a true "explicitly dedicated anti-war activist" you would decry anyone volunteering to participate in this immoral war. Instead, you encourage people to sign-up, and show your dedication to peace by carrying a sign......wow, call Keith Olbermann to cover such bravery....

Sir Loin of Milquetoast, your sorry excuse for a peacemaker demands exposure. You do nothing to advance peace. You curse the darkness only.

At least Sheehan and her followers light the candle and put themselves out there for their beliefs. For you to critique my behavior when you sit around doing nothing substantial to stop the killing in Iraq is laughable, and pathetic.

Then you vote for democrats who are starting to show us they will NOT be doing everything possible to withdraw the troops.......In fact, Bush is ready to stand firm in Iraq while Reid and Pelosi wring their hands over POLITICAL fallout from their liberal base. Wow, what dedicated peacemakers you guys are! Ha. I laugh at your hypocrisy.

2) I would enjoy discussing Israel with you and your Jewish family members. The history is interesting. Your misconception that Israel is a theocracy is so funny, I almost tossed my coffee! You are anti-Semitic, Loin, deal with your hatred.

I see the Jewish state as a rightous beacon needing protection from militant islamists. Just like any group of people, mistakes are made, but the fundamental foundations of Judaism are peaceful while the foundations of Hamas', Hezbollah's, Syria's, Iran's, and Al Qaeda's brand of Islam are evil. Your view of Israel is bigoted, Loin.

Anon at 8:11AM was cee.....

BTW....You can't deny Webb didn't answer Bush's question, Loin.....Instead, Webb attempts to sandbag The Commander-in-Chief....Bush cut it off....good for him....especially because how Bush handled it makes you angry, with your resorting to immature profanity....

Take a deep breath Whimpy.

cee, quit projecting your falure to back your own play onto me - I have no role whatsoever in your quivvering cowadice and vicarious bloodlust.

Your logic is stilted, manichaean, and self-serving, and therefore not logic at all. I do not support Democrats who do not advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq - I actively lobby against them. And its true - I'm left with a pretty rarified roll of favorable representatives.

There is nothing contradictory in my advocating you making your actions match your rhetoric - people who do otherwise are impossible to deal with productively.

...and I really got a charge out of your casting your fellow chickenhawk's Bush's petulant rebuff of Webb as an act of stern heroism - I guess people like you have to take what you can get.

cee wrote: "If I remember correctly, we left volunteering as a couple when you said you had MORAL objections to the war."

A "couple"? Dream on, tinkerbell. What was I saying earlier about your sick infatuation with me?

Yes, Loin, your debased interpretation of sexual infatuation facinates me because, unlike you, I do not get human emotional satisfaction by typing on my keyboard. I garner such pleasure from interacting with real people in the real world.....my wife, my friends, my son, my patients.....

I simply come here in "cyberspace" to enjoy seeing your hypocritical and shamefully shallow responses to the truth.

Many of those who protested the Vietnam war did so based on humanitarian grounds. A majority were like you, however, only concerned about their own souls....personal moral conflict (small group) and tangably (they simply did not want to be drafted).....

If Sir Loin of Milquetoast wants to take it a step further then and show us all how much of a peace activist he is......

Why don't you put down your anti-Bush picket sign, pick an organization currently active in areas of strife....and we can both volunteer our time and resources to serve humanity....How about Doctors Without Borders, Loin? Are you ready to show us the manly peacemaker you are?

Come on, my request isn't sexual, Loin....don't remain deluded that any breathing entity would want to invest emotionally in someone who has such a self absorbed attitude.

Let join up to bring peace to someone.

And your enjoyment of Webb's impertinence says a lot about your character....I guess you are consistent.

My volunteer activities keep me very busy here in the stressed and increasingly psychotic United States, cee. The best thing we can do for the world is to rein in our voracious military/corporate raiders and to curb our own predatory consumption of the world's resources. In these regards I am doing what I can- quite furiously, I might add. Doctors without borders? perhaps if I were a healthcare professional).

You, however, think the belligerent and ceaseless use of the American military is essential for fixing the world's problems, yet willfully and self-righteously distance yourself from its campaigns. I do not wait for you to put your money where yor mouth is before I act on my convictions, why do you persist in making your moral integrity contingent upon my actions?

Ohe yeah - you have no moral integrity, I forgot.

"And your enjoyment of Webb's impertinence says a lot about your character....I guess you are consistent."

"Impertinence" - great word to be attached to the interaction of an elected US Senator to our court-appointed executive. Have the Republican majority added a "speak only when spoken to" clause to the Senate's procedural rules? I wouldn't be surprised.

loin-y appears to still need that hug

court-appointed executive? were you awake in late 2004?

Hah! This was a test: I knew that my sideline dig at the questionable legitimacy of Bush's administration would be latched onto by some rightie (in this case most likely cee posting incognito - he wants to hug me) as a straw man by which to avoid the real issue on which I was commenting.

Their prime rhetorical strategy: avoid the tough questions by spinning off on tangents.

Sure.....you are furiously changing the world, Loin. Your self-report of virtue is nice....but reflecting back upon your many rants, I cannot help myself in remaining somewhat cynical.

The position you hold in your self-created reality may satisfy your self-created moral sensibilities, but it is as self-serving as the positions of the corporate thugs you villify. The absolute conclusion that something is immoral requires the one who has come to such a conclusion act.

You are nibbling at the edges of your "cause," Loin, accept it. You cry foul when someone identifies your activism as so much fluff and bluster, but then you try to challenge people to act to match their rhetoric. You have achieved the heights of human hubris, Sir Loin of Milquetoast.

My moral integrity is intact simply because I never claimed moral superiority to someone willing to put their life on the line in defense of me and my family....I think what the men and women are doing in Iraq is right, moral and have never retracted my support.

You, Loin, have time and again called the actions of The United States in Iraq immoral and want the actions stopped. Well, guess who is acting.....real people with real guns...they are called soldiers, Marines, pilots, sailors, etc....They are morally inferior to you based on your self-created moral structure, Loin, and it is a shame. You just will not admit that this is the logical result of your opinion.

The liberal's cognitive dissonance regarding, "we support the troops, but not the war," is so nicely displayed in your structure that I hope people are taking notice. This is the result of looking inward for moral clarity....you are really only looking out for yourself in the end. You could not care less about the troops and their mission in all practicality.

The men and women who have volunteered to serve in Iraq did not choose to stay home and picket the war....Are they immoral, Loin?

loin-y...
paranoid much? last post was me (name didn't save for some reason), I was just reading a bunch of posts from last night and this morning and see you are off the meds again...and just decided to pick a point out of your latest rant to needle you with...I think you need to switch to decaf there stewie

Stop the sensual imagery, Milquetoast...."he wants to hug me!" I am starting to feel "ooogy."

Respect for the office transcends the holder for any American.....especially in a public gathering. Webb showed no class. If he wanted to make a point, he should say excuse me, and make his androgen driven reaction to Bush in private.

Instead of impertinence I could use...irrelevance, inappropriateness....you choose, Loin.

"Instead of impertinence I could use...irrelevance, inappropriateness....you choose, Loin."

let's see...

Impertinence - this word would suggest that the Senator has no right to elaborate on subjects brought up by the president - even in regard to his own son serving in the military at the whim of our callow executive. No, not apropriate in a free constitutional democracy.

Inappropriateness - only if you are one who doesn't want the plight of service families to be aired in public.

Irrelevance - this one would seem to be your favorite. The plight of service families is irelevant to the right; rendered magically so by their plastering ribbon magnets on their cars and piously speaking empty accolades in regard to the honor and service of our troops. ...but let a mother or father of a soldier start asking why their children are being so callously and endlessly exploited by their leaders and you lash out with charges of "impertinence" etc.

"Speak only when spoken to, peon, and then only within prescribed boundaries!"

loin-y is diz-zy
his head is spinnin'...

"You, Loin, have time and again called the actions of The United States in Iraq immoral and want the actions stopped. Well, guess who is acting.....real people with real guns...they are called soldiers, Marines, pilots, sailors, etc...."

This is choice! cee lays out the recipe for the right-wing war-monger's favorite scapegoat - our troops. The concept of command responsibiity (as well as personal responsbility) are so alien to this cult that they don't even know when they are exposing their most devious cards.

Most legitimate ethicists recognize the fact that soldiers in a regimented martial millieu must be protected by their chain of command, who opperate "en loco parentis" ("in place of the parents") in regard to their troops. This is due to the near total subjugation of the citizen's personal will when acting in the roll of soldier. Like children, their ability to defend themselves in the political sphere is severely and explicitly curtailed in order to maintain discipline, and only the commanders and the US electorate can act to see that their rights are protected.

The pseudo-parental roll can be taken seriously - as was the case for General Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln, each of whom sufered extreme angst in regard to the physical and mental suffering of the young peole they ordered into battle - or it can be flippantly disregarded, as in the case of George W. Bush who jokes about his lies that took us to war ("Whoops! no WMD under here!") and who imperiously reprimands the parents of soldiers (Cindy Sheehan, James Webb) who exercise their consitutional rights to question his policies.

Bush has gone further: in blaming our troops on the ground for the caligulesque policies of brutal excess at Abu Ghraib ("a few bad apples"), or for "failing to secure" Iraqi ammo depots they were specifically ordered to ignore, he mocks his responsiblity to the troops you pretend to support.

...but thank you for providing me yet again with a pristine example of neocon hypocrisy.

I see the Jewish state as a rightous beacon needing protection from militant islamists. Just like any group of people, mistakes are made, but the fundamental foundations of Judaism are peaceful while the foundations of Hamas', Hezbollah's, Syria's, Iran's, and Al Qaeda's brand of Islam are evil. Your view of Israel is bigoted, Loin.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2006 08:11 AM

Anon at 8:11AM was cee.....

There it is. Will you admit that it is Israels safety and well being that concerns you more than this countries. You see them as a rightous beacon and excuse them by saying mistakes are made. What kind of "mistakes"? Why don't you move to Israel and join the fight for this righteous beacon? You say that "Many of those who protested the Vietnam war did so based on humanitarian grounds. A majority were like you, however, only concerned about their own souls...." Is it not your soul and your Biblical world view that causes you to believe that Israel is a beacon for righteousness? And when I hear the term anti-semetic coming from a born again Christian who believes that ultimately all Jews will burn forever in torment in hell it makes me laugh. I don't view Jews as firewood. I respect them for who they are, not who I want them to be someday, or for what the bible says they are.

Ah, no, Milquetoast.....

"Irrelevance," because Webb's response was not relevant to the assumed concern over his son Bush was expressing in his question.

"Inappropriateness," because as a guest of The President of The United States, the Senator-Elect should defer to the office holder, his host, and not take advantage of a situation that normally elicits decorum and respect.

Mr. Webb should have simply refused the inviation if Bush pisses him so much he couldn't control himself and act honorably as the Senator from Virginia.

It is called class, Loin....something Mr. Webb needs in order to play well with others in Washington DC.

Thank you for catching that comment about Israel drected at me, codas - I tend to ignore the annonymous posts.

And you are right - the neocons want us to feel actual allegience to Israel; to sacrifice our treasure, lives, security, and integrity in its interest. When people of this leaning occupy powerful policy-maing positions in our government, can outright treason be far behind?

Nice set of ad hoc procedural protocols, cee. Too bad they're only created out of whole-cloth by you at your keyboard. What a load of crap.

c'mon everyone...hug loin-y

he's having a hard time with the responses to his posts...he spins and spins and spins and spins and spins--

"Too bad they're only created out of whole-cloth by you at your keyboard. What a load of crap."

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at November 29, 2006 11:19 AM

Hello pot
it's kettle

BUSH BUBBLE NO-NO: SENATOR COMMITS TRUTH-TO-DESPOT WAR CRIME

-- Cheney Pressures CIA For Phony Intel to Invade Jim Webb --

WASHINGTON -- Senior White House advisers are reacting with shock and outrage today that a United States Senator and decorated U.S. Marine veteran would have the impertinence to speak the truth to power in a private conversation with President George W. Bush. Multiple charges of illegality and incompetence have been leveled at the Bush administration, including the falsification of intelligence to justify a failed and costly war of choice in Iraq. Bush's White House has also been charged repeatedly by human rights groups who have filed lawsuits in Germany accusing the outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of allegedly acquiescing in prisoner torture.

"but the fundamental foundations of Judaism are peaceful while the foundations of Hamas', Hezbollah's, Syria's, Iran's, and Al Qaeda's brand of Islam are evil. Your view of Israel is bigoted, Loin."

cee (?)
Didn't God tell Joshua: "Take the city and slay all who pisseth against the wall (i.e. all male residents)"? Or maybe it was David who recieved this fatwa, I don't remember. Real peaceful, in any case.

You see one general political/ethnic grouping as "Evil"; while your shriven homies are intrinsically "peaceful" and infallible. Who's bigoted?

"Too bad they're only created out of whole-cloth by you at your keyboard. What a load of crap."

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at November 29, 2006 11:19 AM

Hello pot
it's kettle

Posted by: Connor at November 29, 2006 11:38 AM

Connor, are suggesting that I just made up the concepts of en loco parentis and Command Responsbility just this morning?

You may be in awe of me, but I'm hardly THAT bright.

"Irrelevance," because Webb's response was not relevant.
"Inappropriateness," because the Senator-Elect should defer to the office holder.
Mr. Webb should have simply refused the inviation
If Bush pisses him so much he couldn't control himself and act honorably as the Senator from Virginia.
It is called class, Loin....something Mr. Webb needs in order to play well with others in Washington DC.

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

Bullshit.
Bush approached Webb.
And Webb spoke his mind honestly.
AND with plenty of decorum and respect.
He even called the war criminal Mr. President.
And will you please get over the BS propaganda line that the left hates/objects most to Bush.
Tho Bush and his supporters are plenty loathsome,
It's the policies, stupid.

Anon; 12:34

That was beautiful! I think you've invented the political haiku.

Codas, your hatred of Evangelical Christians seems to know no bounds! You incorrectly assume I ascribe to a particular biblical exegesis based on your predjudices. Shame on you codas....I thought you were tolerant, logical and not a bigot!

And Sir Loin of Milquetoast, what a load of crap. Concientious objectors should be supported, not ignored....Where are these brave souls, Loin? Are you telling me that these brave people who have volunteered for duty may be objecting to their deployment but are simply silent and doing their duty? No, Sir Loin, they made a choice, a brave choice, to serve a noble cause in Iraq on behalf of you. You can't live with that truth and all of the latin verbage and rationalization in you grey matter won't change that. You have said you oppose the war in Iraq on MORAL grounds. That simple statement makes your 11:07 AM post moot.

Come on now Loin and codas, call the military "baby killers," like your ancestors did in the 60's and 70's.....you can't wimp out and just scream about Bush, Cheney, the neocons and the corporatists.....They have support from millions of your fellow citizens causing the death and violence in Iraq. From me to the guy flying that transport out of Dover, DE you "explicitly dedicated anti-war activist" should have sabotaged!

Your words Milquetoast....

explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist
explicitly dedicated anti-war activist

More cognitive dissonance in response....I am sure.

coda,

I don't know about your impression, but this cee guy's got nothing but his own rotten soul. "En loco Parentis", the sacred obligation of miltary commanders to protect their soldiers from their own altruistic sacrifices, is dismissed as irrelevant "latin verbage" by this piss-ant little chickenshit.

He also unloads the second barrel of the neocon's 12-guage scapegoat gun: "the soldiers are volunteers - they made their beds, and they can lie in them". I find myself really hating this cee person.

Sir Loin,

If you noticed, cee has been getting crankier everyday. I think he is coming unfreaking glued! He says I hate evengelical Christians. I tried to appeal to him as a fellow Christian and all I get is the same old republican facism. Flag before God. Israel before America. Born againers before everyone. There are some serious cult like brainwashing going on with this kind of thinking.

Yep, he's pretty twitchy. I hope his brain hurts.

Yep, he's pretty twitchy. I hope his brain hurts.

Sir Loin of Milquetoast,

You still have not faced the fact that, according to you, millions of people are committing immoral acts as offical policy of your country....You said you were morally against these activities....Come on now, be the brave little activist you claim to be and fight the power!

And codas,

I am actually becoming more amused by the sheer idiocy of your point of view. You erroneously claim I interpret scripture as saying Jews will burn in hell (chapter and verse would be nice). Seems very prejudicial to me. Is this the new 21st century liberal mind for tolerance like Milquetoast's new 21st century anti-war activism?

The terms of the debate do not seem to suit you two.....too bad because Sir Loin of Milquetoast laid the predicate out last week.....too late to change now oh great moral ones!

I bow to your moral superiority. (sarcasm)

"Bullshit.
Bush approached Webb.
And Webb spoke his mind honestly.
AND with plenty of decorum and respect.
He even called the war criminal Mr. President."

Oh, OK so so as long as Webb is speaking "his mind honestly", then it's fine to let 'er rip, say whatever comes to mind to the leader of the Free World to try to get "street cred" with the Sheehan/Murtha/Pelosi crowd, decorum be damned.

What Webb was doing here is something called "showing out" which is something my 11 year old daughter sometimes does when she doesn't get her way or she wants to imagine that she is seizing control of the situation. Webb's petulant comments are neither decorous or respectful. Adding "Mr. President" to a ginned up hostile exchange doesn't turn a petulant grandstander into an honorable dissenter. Mr. Webb's actions should be well marked by President Bush and Webb should be recognized for lacking the maturity to set aside disagreements for a few moments to accept the President's wishes for his son's well being. If Webb were smart, he would recognize that only the foaming at the mouth Bush haters will applaud this bit of theatrics and that he should apologize.

explicitly dedicated anti-war activist.....remember?

I guess hank just likes his senators cut like steers. f--- the president - he's not an honest broker; he deserves no courtesy.

After all, hank, its not like Web said "Go f--- Yourself" or called Bush a "major-league a--hole".

"What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.

"What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?"

Wow, is it 1932 again?......

Sir Loin and codas....your anti-Semetic views put you in great company.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15952309/

Dr. Ahmadinejad's letter sounds like a Keith Olbermann Special Comment!

Ha.

"Webb's petulant comments are neither decorous or respectful."

nonsense.
grown men can't speak their mind in a private conversation?
and i suppose it's only respectful when you agree with the president, right?

---------

"Adding 'Mr. President' to a ginned up hostile exchange doesn't turn a petulant grandstander into an honorable dissenter."

of course it does.
and it was a private conversation that occurred two weeks ago -- no grandstanding involved.
vacuous grandstanding is for the "mission accomplished" crowd.
and you're using the phrase "ginned up" incorrectly.
the war was ginned up, someone's comments are not ginned up.

-----------

"Webb should be recognized for lacking the maturity to set aside disagreements for a few moments to accept the President's wishes for his son's well being."

nonsense.
you get one, brief moment to speak truth to power, you do it.
especially when talking to the bubble boy.
especially when it concerns a foolish, costly, counter-productive "ginned up" war launched under false pretense that most of the country is now against.

--------

"only the foaming at the mouth Bush haters will applaud this bit of theatrics and that he should apologize."

will you please get over the BS propaganda line that the left hates/objects most to Bush.
Tho Bush and his supporters are plenty loathsome,
It's the policies, stupid.

You are unglued cee. I asked you before. What happens to Jews and Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Buhdist, Indians, atheists,liberals, and any other non-born again humans? Just come out and say it yourself.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

Doesn't sound very hostile/disrespectful/grandstanding/petulant to me.

I can't say it myself codas, because only Jehovah decides what happens to each and every soul he loves, codas.....born again Christians, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Buhdist, Indians, atheists, liberals, etc....

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
Revelation 21:11-15

What were you referring to with regards to me believing Jews will be be firewood?.....it's not in my bible.

LEAKED MEMO EMBARRASSES WHITE HOUSE, POSTPONES AL-MALIKI MEETING

-- So Many Well-Deserved BushCO Enemies To Leak Memos, So Little Time --

AMMAN, Jordan -- President Bush's high-stakes summit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was put off Wednesday after public disclosure of U.S. doubts about his capacity to control sectarian warfare. Bush arrived here amid disclosure of a memo by a top White House adviser that raised doubts about al-Maliki's ability to halt escalating sectarian violence in Iraq, where U.S. involvement now exceeds the length of America's participation in World War II. Upon arriving in Jordan, Bush commented that he looks forward to visiting Prime Minister al-Malaki's country in person some day when schedules permit.

Hello? Founding members of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fan club? Codas? Sir Loin of Milquetoast? Keith?.........Any comments about the following:

"If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration's policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year."

I say, "Mahmoud..Democrat for President in '08!"

I'm hardly THAT bright.

Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at November 29, 2006 12:01 PM

----

This part I agree with...

...the rest, not so much

what makes you think I was referring to those concepts? did I say I was? hmmm...no...

I was refering to your spin on multiple other items.

Oh and as far as being in awe of you...HAHAHA

you must be off ALL your meds...paranoia...delusions of granduer...what else do you wanna display today?

still need that hug, dontcha loin-y

oops! 355pm was me

"If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America."

Hey, if the shoe fits.
But of course anything MA says is automatically wrong, right?
Even if he were to say the sky is blue.

COLIN POWELL DECLARES IRAQ "CIVIL WAR"

-- White House Declares Colin Powell "Terrorist Organization" --

DUBAI -- Graciously resisting the urge to say "I told you so", pottery-barn analogist and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday that Iraq had descended into civil war and urged world leaders to accept that "reality". White House spokesman Tony Snow responded during today's regular press corp briefing saying, "Well, as you all know, the notion of "reality" is a pretty touchy subject around here, so for various reasons I seriously doubt that former Secretary Powell's comments will penetrate our defenses enough to reach the Bubble Boy's ear -- let alone his brain."

cee, your playing a game with me. The new testament states....

"Every Spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."

cee, you know what the book says. You can dance around it all you want. Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, Buhdist, Indians, atheists, liberals, etc in the fudamentalist interpitation of scripture are of the devil. Is that your interpitation? I'm not asking Jehovah, I trust him, I am asking you.

Hey Anon.....based on Iran's support of Hezbollah terrorists and the Shite murderers in Iraq, one could also interpret MA's statement as a nicely veiled extortion attempt.......You are free to choose, Anon....I know what I think of the islamic despot.

War and peace make strange bedfellows.

Codas, your original post claimed that I was a, "born again Christian who believes that ultimately all Jews will burn forever in torment in hell."

I asked you to explain the snap conclusion you made. Your 1 John 4 reference says nothing about God's eternal judgement. The letter is discussing false teachings. My Revelation reference is clear who is judged....it is everyone...Now whether Christ (remember to me He and Jehovah are One) saves a soul is known only to Him, as pronounced through the entire scriptures...but the deeds of all are examined...including the evangelical you so quickly judge.

The basic problem, codas, is that you and I do not agree on the basic truth of original sin. If you do not recognize original sin as it is described in the ancient scriptures, the discussion of HOW Jehovah judges cannot take place. Just as Loin complained about Joshua's treatment of those poor souls in Jericho based on Loin's ignorance of original sin, you complin about the possibility that EVERYONE, myself and you included, are never good enough for a Holy God. This is the start of understanding salvation by grace only. You have dismissed this idea before, but there is always hope.

Is this right, is Olby really number 4 in ratings? He got beat out by Nancy "The Killer" Grace. Maybe he should "off" somebody to climb back up to anonymity!

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution

-- Will Outlaw Global Warming Next --

TOPEKA, KS -- In response to a Nov. 7 referendum, Kansas lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution, the highly controversial process responsible for the development and diversity of species and the continued survival of all life. "From now on, the streets, forests, plains, and rivers of Kansas will be safe from the godless practice of evolution, and species will be able to procreate without deviating from God's intended design," said Bob Bethell, a member of the state House of Representatives. "This is about protecting the integrity of all creation."

This is the start of understanding salvation by grace only. You have dismissed this idea before, but there is always hope.

Posted by: cee at November 29, 2006 05:24 PM

YOU say I have dismissed grace. I know that my next breath is grace. My problem isn't with Gods grace,and it isn't based upon becoming a born again christian. Jews who remain Jews are as worthy of grace as I am. Do you believe that? "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise" (Prov. 11:30). "Ye are the salt of the earth… Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid… Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 5:1,14,16).
Now if I or someone on this site says the following, will you call him a peacenik, or say they don't understand the dangers of Islofacism?

Romans
Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation.
17
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
18
If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
19
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
20
Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."
21
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.

You tell me cee, am I a terrorsit lover if I believe in peace? Will we all be destroyed by a dirty bomb if we believe Paul. Do you really believe in Gods grace? Or prayer? Or do you believe in a Republicans foreign policy as taught to him by some end of days preachers?

cee,

I agree completely! Amadinejad's letter and some of his other recent comments do portray him as a far more poised and thoughtful statesman than the idiot frat boy we've got in the White House.

Like I challenged you before codas, if by your own power you can be a pacifist and follow every part of that scripture to the letter, you're a better man than me.

But then, you would not need grace because you would have succeeded in being perfect.

The original sin that produces the terrorism from Mahmoud in Iran is the same original sin that causes me to stumble every day. And the power of God's grace only would change such a heart as dark as mine.

The same is true of Reverend Haggard, Danny Devito, Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, George Bush, Tom Foley, Ann Coulter, the list goes on and on.

Codas, you do not see the heart of man that way....so again we are talking on two totally different levels. When you understand the good you do is only serving yourself, then perhaps you will understand true grace.

Please show me evidence that current US foreign policy is being conducted based on an, "end of days" influence. Again, you are assuming things that are not true. I support Israel because they have a right to exist as a country and they are a democracy with peaceful intentions. I do not support Israel because of some interpretation of scripture. I oppose the attaining of power by Islamic republics like Iran because they have a history of religious oppression and terrorism. Now if I could maintain my family's safety any other way, I would. But it is becoming abundantly clear to me that militant islam is pursuing goals that endanger the lives of millions of people.

You and Sir Loin of Milquetoast do not recognize the danger....Loin even dismisses the threat and blames America for creating the enemy through the humanistic ideas of Dependency Theory.... please....if we go down that road again I see more ideologically imposed death through starvation and pogroms similar to Stalinist Russia.

The failed secular humanism social theories of the late 19th and 20th century were tried....billions died....It is fact. Ideologues like Loin (who can actually flippantly agree with a man who participated in holding American hostages, currently supports civilian targeted terrorism and anti-Semitism) would like to rely on their own virtue....I have been taught and have seen time and time again that that way fails....

Earlier in Romans, codas:

We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
ROMANS 3:9-24

The good news, codas.

Ha Ha-- What an idiot Anonymous is. Posts a story about the State of Kansas "outlawing evolution" and wonders ominously whether global warming will be next. Yikes, Anonymous why didn't you tell us sooner so we could send in the ACLU?

Oh wait, hold the phone. It turns out that this is a JOKE . . . something called SATIRE . . . i.e., it's NOT REAL

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807

What a dumbass.

Regarding the debate over Webb's comments to President Bush:

I wish the Olbyloons would get their story straight. Sir Loin of Beef (SLOB) says the President is not an honest broker and is owed no courtesy at all. Anonymous on the other hand says that Webb was not rude at all and he was simply speaking "truth to power".

At least I can give credit to SLOB for giving an honest opinion, as much as I disagree with him. The pretense by Anonymous that Webb's conduct was anything other than rude and immature is ample testamant to Anon's lack of credibility

MA a "poised and thoughtful statesman"
(re: loin-y November 29, 2006 08:00 PM)

Me-thinks the hug you really need now can only be provided by a straight jacket...this is your thought on a man who believes (nee wants) to bring about a great conflagration to bring out the 12th Imam?