Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

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

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

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

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

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

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    December 1, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - DECEMBER 1, 2006

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

    Host: Keith Olberman

    Topics/Guests:

    • BUSH AND IRAQ: Richard Wolffe, Newsweek
    • AIRPORT SCREENING: Jonathan Turley
    • THE POISONING MYSTERIES: Jack Rice

    NOTE: SEE UPDATE BELOW

    Herr Olbermann bellowed the opening spiel: bring the troops home, Iraq worse than VietNam, secret government numbers, the spy poisoning case, and a monthful of oddball. How will we be able to contain our excitement?

    IDIOT

    "What will 'Mister' Bush' do in Iraq?' led of The Hour of Spin. The Wolffe Man said the Baker Commission's predicted recommendations are "wishful thinking" and "fuzzy". Monkeyman invoked Rule #1 to suggest that if Bush doesn't hug the Commission's report to his bosom and embrace, he hands the Democrats "an unbreakable club". Wolffie helpfully advised Dems to go after investigations to get a bigger, stronger club.

    Olby then swerved into "domestic spying" and "the clutches of the Bush administration". What's he talking about? Homeland Security keep records of various factors to assign risk ratings to airline travelers. Oh, the horrors! KO also took a shot at the new X-ray devices that can see right down to the skin. Hey, a good opportunity for another episode of Olby and The Perfessor!

    Herr Olbermann described the machine as "indecent" and "intrusive". The Perfessor wailed that strangers would be looking at an accurate image of people under their clothes, and this was an "unreasonable" search.

    OK gang, here is another lesson in OlbySpin. What did the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann (and his sidekick) not tell us this time? Among other things, this machine would only be use for secondary (higher level) searches, so only a fraction of passengers would be involved. But the key salient point that was deliberately omitted is crucial, because it makes nonsense out of the Perfessor's claim of an "unreasonable" search. It's voluntary! Nobody has to go through it if they don't want to. It is a alternative to the pat-down, and anyone who doesn't like the machine can choose to have the long-standing pat-down instead. Now why do you suppose they didn't tell you that?

    The Perfessor didn't like the risk ratings either. It's "easy to abuse". (So is letting policemen carry guns. Let's do away with that, too.) It's all aimed at the Islamic Faith, sez Turley. Or, to be more precise, his words were: "That's my guess." This is what passes for responsible journalism on OlbyPlanet. He's also worried about companies having to store emails--it's a "chilling effect" on privacy because everything you write will be preserved. Is he really this naive, or does he just play that on TV? First, it's a business, and not your personal home emails. And second, any email you write can be stored, distributed, or published by the person you send it to. No email is ever "private". There is always someone else who sees it, and can do anything they want with it. Even Krazy Keith noted that emails can get published on the internet. And boy howdy, does he know about that. For his services to propaganda and scaremongering, The Perfessor was great thanksed.

    The #4 story dealt with the poisoning mysteries, with Rice offering expertise. Fat Ass managed to work Florida, 2000 into his "reportage" of the fistfights that broke out among Mexican politicos. Sheesh, let it go already. Then scam emails, handed off to Lisa Myers for some rerun video from NBC. Weather led off the #2 story (more tape--and yes, Keith thanked the machine). Then Lindsay Lohan, giving "Man on Fan" Olbermann a chance to brag about being at a GQ event. Page Six printed a report about Lohan's behavior, which Rev Olbermann insisted was all just "made up", even though others there (like Will Ferrell) apparently think otherwise. We're just lucky that KO didn't bring up Lohan's mom, also present at the event, who is, according to KO, an old "bag". Stonehenge lore, K-Fed, Danny DeVito, George Clooney, and a retrospective of November oddball continued the lofty intellectual subject matter that is so admired by his intelligent, well-educated audience.

    In the Media Matters Minute, Monkeyman once again filled all the required slots. He attacked Mitt Romney ("right-wing" Republican), Mort Kondracke (Fox), and the winner? You don't even have to ask. Relying on the Soros site for his "research", Olbermoronn called Mr O a "liar", for never having said something he claims to have said. We wouldn't be surprised if Mr Bill did in fact say it, just not on one particular day. But no point in spoiling O'Reilly Attack #138. [SEE UPDATE BELOW]

    OLBY

    Quiescent canines: Since Olby hands out "worst person" nominations when his name is misspelled, we deliberately did that throughout yesterday's recap. Sadly, we were not given the award, but we'll keep trying until our goal is achieved. As to more significant matters... The Pope's trip? Still not news. The Secretary of State in the Middle East? Still not news. Hezbollah out to topple a government? No time for that; we need more Lindsay Lohan coverage! The discredited sports guy spiked James Webb talking about punching George Bush in the face, and the Dems rejecting one of the key 9/11 commission proposals that they claimed they would implement. And still KO refuses to tell his viewers how Jack Abramoff has pointed the finger of corruption at none other than Sen Harry Reid.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name is #403 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" has risen to #12. At Barnes & Noble the OlbyTome sunk to #1,667, while O'Reilly's book is still #17. And nine weeks since it hit the stores, Mr Bill's literary triumph is still #3 on the New York Times Best Sellers list. The Speshul Komment hype for Thursday night--relentless advertising, email to blue blogs, etc--helped a little, though viewership was lower than the night previous. Countdown just barely made third place, and narrowly eked out a #2 finish in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 1 [LOW]

    UPDATE: We thought there was something fishy about Herr Olbermann's "You're a liar!" attack on Mr Bill. We were right.


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (114) | | View blog reactions
    user-pic

    114 Comments

    I can only tolerate KO in small doses but lately he's become even more repugnant. What's up with Keith listing Bill O'Reilly 4 of 5 days this week in the WPITW segment? Why wasn't Michael Richards or Danny Devito named as miscreant of the day?

    I think Olby has a crush on La Lohan. Step aside, Katy. I think he's smitten with a younger woman.

    Well, KO has a generally correct point (ugh, I'm agreeing with the "news anchor" of the "news program" Countdown) about some of the comments by O'Reilly when the latter says the media wants us to lose the war in Iraq. O'Reilly is really reckless with this accusation and uses it far too broadly.

    But did you see Olbermann's near hysterical comments and behavior when he named O'Reilly the WPITW? Weird.

    I think even the most devoted KO fan has to admit that this obsession is a bit strange. No?

    Krazy Keith has a man crush on King Bill!
    I expect the tan man to do a special comment all about Bill O.
    Krazy Keith is playing to his far left audience....everything they disagree with is a conspiracy and always personally attack the right

    Her own mother today admitted she's attending AA but her publicist was quick to add that Lindsey was still drinking. I think it was just a way for Olby to try and portray the Post as liars because he's got a grudge agaisnt them for printing the story about his anthrax-freakout and his impotency difficulties.

    And to get a date with Lindsay.

    What an Olbermoron. It eats him up that O'Reilly buries his show every single night. He can't give up his Bill O fetish. How pathetic.

    His latest honey is 22. Lohan is only 20. He's getting younger and younger isn't he? Let's hope though that Lohan doesn't find out about the kind of names he's called her mother in the past or the only way he's going to see the pink is the paparazzi shots the next time she forgets to wear her undies.

    I can't fault Mr. Olbermann for repeatedly finding Orally WPITW. Orally is a shameless panderer to everything base in all of us. Last night's Word was despicable. I suppose every generation has to have a McCarthy. And, besides, since the hideous Ms. Coulter has more-or-less, thankfully, disappeared from the face of the Earth, what other choice is there?

    As often as I enjoy Mr. Olbermann and find what he has to say valuable and cutting edge, tonight's show was a bit lame.

    Just like Olbermann shamelessly panders to his leftist base. The difference between them exactly? Not much from what I've seen. Oh yeah, O'Reilly is far, far, far more successful, thus Olbermann's bitterness.

    "I can't fault Mr. Olbermann for repeatedly finding Orally WPITW."

    Well, in a spirit of bipartisanship I'll agree that O'Reilly goes way, way overboard with his accusations that critics of the Bush Administration wish us to lose in Iraq. That's a smear and cheap shot and is only true about a small handful of people.

    But while it would be "nice" if O'Reilly was more measured and circumspect, it would also be enjoyable if Mr. Olbermann was a little more judicious and reasonable with his fascist and Nazi charges.

    There is no - NONE - comparison between any actions of this Administration and the horrific and appalling abuses committed by the Third Reich.

    None.

    If Mr. Olbermann wishes for a higher level of discourse from Mr. O'Reilly, perhaps he could show us how it's done?

    Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

    Anyone who’s spent any time reading right wing blogs already understood this to be true:

    Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

    Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

    But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation.

    “Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

    The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on.

    The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors.

    “Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says.

    posted by Tom Tomorrow at 8:47 AM | link

    Was Olby invited to this shindig? Or, did he swipe somebody's press pass? Or maybe they needed extra help cause they were a little short in the waiter dept. Nothing wrong with pickin' up a little spare change.

    Defending Lohan? Well since he could be looking for a new job soon maybe Olby's trying his hand at being a good p.r. flack or is that HACK? Well you've got to admit one thing Olby is good at. Being a stooge for the D.N.C.

    Look maybe Keith and Lindsey are good friends. Hey ya never know, with the bizzare behavior lately of Mr. Olbermann, Maybe they ran into each other at one of those 5 hour detox centers in Manhattan. Bottoms up!

    I pretty much skip over O'Not Original but I had to say something tonight. "Tom Tomorrow"? Who is he going to quote next, Flash Gordon or Captain Spaceballs?

    Bottom line is: Olbermann is going nowhere but on the way down. Think about it: He's lost his edge in terms of citing something new (everyone expects over-the-top, so therefore it's no longer over-the-top), so Olbermann is left with nothing but moving to the left even more, which will alienate his already-liberal base to the point of no return.

    Bye-bye, Keith. Have fun doing Calgary-Montreal NHL highlights again on ESPN2!

    There is no - NONE - comparison between any actions of this Administration and the horrific and appalling abuses committed by the Third Reich.

    None.

    If Mr. Olbermann wishes for a higher level of discourse from Mr. O'Reilly, perhaps he could show us how it's done?

    Posted by: Ohboy at December 1, 2006 10:46 PM

    While I agree that the horrific and appalling abuses committed by the Third Reich is not the Bush administration, there are similarities in some small sense. Lets be honest. Your with us or your with the terrorists was not an invitation to a rational debate. It was an invitation to calling people treasonus who don't agree with you. If you are a supporter of this administration than you have no idea how it feels to be opposed to them. It is only recently that people like Olbermann have been able to really speak their peace about Bush. No, He is not Hitler by any stretch. He is setting the table for a Hitler lite in the future. This is America. We are supposed to set an example of freedom and courage and a respect for human dignity. We DON'T torture. We DON'T search without a warrant. We DON'T imprison people without a trial. If we do, we are not who we claim to be any longer. We might not be Nazis, but a Nazi would feel at home here unless we wake up.

    Bye-bye, Keith. Have fun doing Calgary-Montreal NHL highlights again on ESPN2!

    Posted by: RedState at December 2, 2006 02:31 AM

    You only wish.

    "Lets be honest. Your with us or your with the terrorists was not an invitation to a rational debate."
    Posted by: codas

    Yes, lets be honest. That remark was directed at the nation states of the world as a warning to not harbor or support terrorists. It was/is not directed at the Presidents political adversaries. For you, Olby or any one one else to pretend that remark was intended to stifle political speech here at home is itself dishonest.

    "It is only recently that people like Olbermann have been able to really speak their peace about Bush."
    Posted by: codas

    And what has stopped Olby, you or anybody else from "speaking their piece" about President Bush until now? Has he been jailing journalists? Censoring Countdown? It's your side that shuts down reasoned debate as demonstrated at Michigan and Columbia U recently.

    Yes, lets be honest. That remark was directed at the nation states of the world as a warning to not harbor or support terrorists. It was/is not directed at the Presidents political adversaries. For you, Olby or any one one else to pretend that remark was intended to stifle political speech here at home is itself dishonest.

    Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2006 02:58 AM

    I think your wrong.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/ret.bush.coalition/index.html

    "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

    Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

    Posted by: Anonymous at December 2, 2006 03:11 AM


    Are you trying to tell me that the mentality of "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." didn't find it's way to the political world in this country. Cheney saying he thought an attack more likely if Kerry got ellected was not that mentality? More statements than I should take up this space with from all the right wing commentators? Please. No, dissenters are not put in camps, I'll give you that. There just called haters of America first. Or how about saying the terrorists are happy the democrats won. That is identifying democrats with the enemy of our country because they are not "with us". That is an intelectual assault on my right as an American to disagree with the elected officials on foreign policy. Thanfully most of the country now agrees with US.

    "I think your wrong. " posted by

    codas, ok, it's called a 'contraction'. "You are" is contracted down to " you're". When you are hoping to perceived as intelligent, it helps to get basic grammar correct.

    I see O'lie is still dumbing down the room.

    "Are you trying to tell me that the mentality of "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." didn't find it's way to the political world in this country"

    It didn't "find it's way" it was introduced by Olby and his hysterical ilk in the make-it-up media, a big lie, vitriolic poison poured into the well of public discourse on a daily basis for five years.


    "Cheney saying he thought an attack more likely if Kerry got elected was not that mentality?"

    That's what he thought. Why should he say anything different. I think the policies Kerry proposed would have made us more vulnerable. Apparently America agrees with me and Dick, or J 'effin K would be President now. This "mentality" you speak of is self-imposed, hammered into your head by Olby and his blue blog brethren.

    "No, dissenters are not put in camps, I'll give you that."

    Thanks

    "Or how about saying the terrorists are happy the democrats won."

    They are. Do I have to post links to the quotes?

    "That is identifying democrats with the enemy of our country because they are not "with us". That is an intelectual assault on my right as an American to disagree with the elected officials on foreign policy."

    Buncha lefttard horse hockey. That's Kos, HuffPost and Countdown hyperbole designed to distract from the debate. Nobody is "assaulting" anybody's "right to disagree", quoting terrorist's who are happy with last months election result is merely allowing them to speak for themselves. That's not me calling you a terrorist.

    "Thanfully most of the country now agrees with US"

    That's debatable. Control of the Senate came down to a haircut and macaca. You guys got a lot of seats in the House, but if you look closely at the total votes cast in all races, it was only a scant couple of percentage points difference. Remember too the Dems recruited a lot of social conservatives to take those red state seats, and those guys won't be anxious to push too radical an agenda.

    Number of times BillO has been part of the WPITW trio since Olby declared he was OVER Billo and had grown up:

    All but 1 (6 out of 7)

    Get some help Keith

    Codas:
    "Your with us or your with the terrorists was not an invitation to a rational debate. "

    As others have noted, Bush was talking about NATIONS that supported or gave aid to terrorists or terror groups. He wasn't talking about people who supported or opposed his policies.

    I'll agree (again) that too much of the approach by the Bush White House politically (the Rove strategy) was too divisive. But the charge that Bush said you're either with me or you're with the terrorists is a false one.

    Anyway, using divisive and ugly campaign tactics is hardly fascist. It's gone on in elections in this country for a long time (ever ready what Truman called the Republicans when he ran?).

    Fascists butchered opponents. They killed them. Horrifically. They didn't simply call them names.

    Look, Howard Dean said "All Republicans are evil." One would be crazy to say that's what the fascists did.

    Here's what I don't understand. Why can't the Olbyloons put together the dots and figure out that Keith's word is worth absolutely nothing. He's promised, both in print (GQ interview) and on-air (ESPNRadio) to "let Bill-O" go. And he hasn't. If he can't tell the truth about the most simplest of things, what else is he lying about? And if he can't keep his word, what good is his word? What does that say about the man? All they can do is bitch and moan and piss and groan about what O'Reilly and Fox do, as if that somehow exempts Keith. It doesn't. And no amount of spinning by either them or him is going to change the fact that he's a Fraud. Or that his fans are extremely guillable and willing to be duped. They deserve one another but the American airwaves deserve better than someone pretending to be Edward R. Murrow.

    "He's promised, both in print (GQ interview) and on-air (ESPNRadio) to "let Bill-O" go. And he hasn't."

    Yeah, I heard him tell Dan Patrick that a couple of times on the radio.

    It' a pretty bizarre obsession. I originally thought it was simply a ratings ploy; to appeal to an anti-O'Reilly audience and also to gin up some controversy. Create buzz, et cetera.

    But at this point, even Olbermann's fans have to sit up and say to themselves, "Restraining order?"

    It is comical to observe the fools on this website who defend Orange Boy's refusal to bring guests on Meltdown who have viewpoints that differ from his own.

    They believe that Olbermann's one sided cheerleading for the left fringe is preferable to a show that gives both sides a chance to weigh in.

    It is interesting to note that all other shows in this genre EXCEPT Meltdown allow opposing views.
    For sure, shows like O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, and Tucker Carlson where there are two-sided discussions that last only for several minutes rarely allow for the complete exploration of an issue. But, the value in having a representative speaking for each side is that each can act as a "check" on the other if a misrepresentation is made.

    In the format favored by Orange Boy, he is free to misrepresent "facts". The "no dissenters allowed" policy encourages sloppy research (or no research at all except pulling stories off the blue blogs). Olby knows he will never be challenged so he does not have to make any effort to get it right.

    Shows with debate formats are certainly no substitute for turning to other resources to get a complete overview of the day's news, but these shows are a hell of a lot more intesting and informative than Orange Boy's nightly circle jerk with all his sycophant guests. Orange Boy is a nothing but a coward who will never face challenges to his far left politics. In fact he has explicitly stated that the debate format makes him "queasy". I think Orange Boy's own words speak for themselves.

    I can't see how someone can watch this guy beat a dead horse every night. He stays about a day behind every news channel and rambles on about items that have already moved on or changed direction. Bill O'Reilly and Olberman both come off as ego manics. Bill O'Reilly at least attacks both sides every now and then. Someone needs to step up and go beyond the left and right wing talk and look at how both these sides have their hands in the cookie jar while they are smoke screening us with the political pundits spreading their BS.

    I can't see how someone can watch this guy beat a dead horse every night. He stays about a day behind every news channel and rambles on about items that have already moved on or changed direction. Bill O'Reilly and Olberman both come off as ego manics. Bill O'Reilly at least attacks both sides every now and then. Someone needs to step up and go beyond the left and right wing talk and look at how both these sides have their hands in the cookie jar while they are smoke screening us with the political pundits spreading their BS.

    Keith needs help. He is a brilliant writer, his ego gets into his way. His ego one day will destroy him. He is well-known for a long time, the most difficult to work with and for, not letting things go easy. He needs help, he probably has stopped seeing his therapist.

    Keith Olbermann is great for America. Bless his soul.

    It's nice to see that Olbermann strikes a nerve in much the same way doing what the loud right has been doing on radio and the "We decide...We report" network of the White House...FOX for 6 years. I can sympathize. It must be an incredible burden on the shoulders of the right to have all "truth" all the time. And must be even more frustrating to the right to see that millions of real Americans finally found their collective voices and spoke on the first Tuesday in November rejecting the right's version of the "truth". I believe the tide has turned back towards sanity and away from the politics of manipulation through fear.

    A couple of comments if I may.
    ohboy says he (or she) sees no similarities between the current administration and Hitler.
    I disagree.
    Hitler atrocities did not include murder, his followers did the killings. Hitlers crimes were that he lied for his own personal gain.
    (WMD's Halliburton....)
    You say it's the liar that commits the greater sin, I say it's the believer.
    Countdown is a news program that reports news with network commentators, not a talk show.
    (you can tell by the number of ummm's and ahhh's on the Factor as opposed to the concise vocabulary on Countdown.) So I suppose that would be why you don't see many opposing viewpoints.
    Bill O'Reilly, I'm sure, has plenty of airtime to answer to any of the special comments or accusations on his show. That is when he is through with the dreadful scurge that is Danny DeVito and his hideous actions on the View.

    I pull up his videos on YouTube and mark them "hate speech" after I give them the lowest rating. Gives one a warm feeling. Try it, it's fun.

    Leo, grow the f--- up.

    I pull up his videos on YouTube and mark them "hate speech" after I give them the lowest rating. Gives one a warm feeling. Try it, it's fun.

    Leo:
    "Hitler atrocities did not include murder, his followers did the killings."

    I know I shouldn't try this but: Who's doing the killings for Bush?

    Who are the followers of Bush that are acting like Hitler's followers?

    I eagerly await your answer.

    650,000 Iraqi's didn't kill themselves

    Leo:
    "650,000 Iraqi's didn't kill themselves"

    It's now 650,000?

    All killed by Bush's followers on his orders?

    Bush ordered his followers to kill all those people?


    Of course not. But imagine for an instant your an Iraqi who happens to love your country and feels Saddam, while being a sort of nutcase, does keep the peace. Now your family is shattered, your country is in ruins and your future is in control of a foriegn government and the only people comming out ahead in this is Halliburton stockholders.
    You might then see some parrallels.

    Hey David, I've never grown the f--- up.
    Is it like growing the pot?

    "Countdown is a news program that reports news with network commentators, not a talk show.
    (you can tell by the number of ummm's and ahhh's on the Factor as opposed to the concise vocabulary on Countdown.) So I suppose that would be why you don't see many opposing viewpoints."

    If Meltdown really is a "news program that reports news with network commentors" as you (and the MSNBC website) claim, then we wouldn't be talking about whether or not Orange Boy should permit other voices to come on the show and challenge his viewpoints, because "news" does not have a viewpoint-- it is about simply about bringing the facts to the viewer-- who, what when, where, how, and why. Olbermann's "reporting" has nothing to do with bringing the news to viewers. It has everything to do with preaching an agenda and stifling any viewpoint that might expose the flaws of such ideology. The thing that makes Orange Boy so repugnant is his pretense that his is a news show and not a political propaganda organ.

    650,000 Iraqi's didn't kill themselves

    Posted by: Leo at December 2, 2006 03:04

    neither did the 5+ million unborn babies that you demonuts have murdered since roe v. wade...so your point leo the lefty loin, the lefty codas, or bill "I'm al o'franken can't come up with an original name or come UP with anything" o'lielly, is your point?

    Propaganda, according to Merriam-Webster Hank, is the spreading of ideas or information to damage a cause. If the ideas and information come from the cause it damages, is that still propaganda?
    If Newt says we should hinder the freedom of speech to protect freedom and someone reports it is that propaganda?

    Leo,
    About the 650,000 figure. I can't believe reasonable people are still throwing that number around like it has any basis in reality. I assume you got it from the recently-published Johns Hopkins study (their actual figure was 655,000).

    For anyone who takes this figure seriously I would ask you to do a little math. Up until last month the highest monthly death toll in Iraq was 3,000. This was in June of this year. However, in October the figure was 3,700, and this became the new high. (These are UN figures).

    The war has lasted 45 months. If the Johns Hopkins study was accurate it would mean that the average monthly death rate was over 14,000.

    I hope you see the contradiction. Either the UN numbers are way too low or the Johns Hopkins estimate is wildly exaggerated. I vote for the latter option.

    I'm sure that someone will respond with the insight that whatever the number there have been way too many deaths. I agree wholeheartedly. My purpose is not to trivialize the tragic deaths of civilians. I just want to point out that that figure, which I see thrown around all the time, is absolute nonsense.

    Propaganda, according to Merriam-Webster Hank, is the spreading of ideas or information to damage a cause. If the ideas and information come from the cause it damages, is that still propaganda?
    If Newt says we should hinder the freedom of speech to protect freedom and someone reports it is that propaganda?

    "Up until last month the highest monthly death toll in Iraq was 3,000. This was in June of this year. However, in October the figure was 3,700, and this became the new high. (These are UN figures)."

    Those are REPORTED casualties. There are numerous stories of civilian casualties that go unreported because the families fear retaliation or further. In fact, the Iraq Body Count group states clearly that its own numbers are wildly low because "many if not most civilian deaths will go unreported."

    Neither the U.S. nor the British military forces in country track civilian deaths. Because of this, we must rely on estimates. The Johns Hopkins study used RELIABLE and PROVEN scientific methods that have been consistently used in places like Rwanda and the Balkans. The method has been praised by members of the scientific community for its accuracy and duplicability of results.

    "Either the UN numbers are way too low or the Johns Hopkins estimate is wildly exaggerated. I vote for the latter option."

    And I vote for the former because the UN has stated that they know their numbers are underestimates.

    exactly how do you terroist loving oldermanlovers define death's? Are you leftnuts counting those innocent's killed by those that you want and pray will kill American's? And, for all you dumbass demonut's, this country ix not a DEMOCRACY. IT'S A REPUBLIC! Learn some history and read the Constitution you freakin' nonutman lover's. Democratic countries are Cuba and North Korea. Demonut+Commie= DNC

    "And, for all you dumbass demonut's, this country ix not a DEMOCRACY. IT'S A REPUBLIC!"

    No shit, Sherlock. Any other blindingly obvious insights you would like to share?

    We're a Constitutional Republic that practices Representative Democracy - that's the name used in textbooks.

    "Democratic countries are Cuba and North Korea."

    Note - Just because a country *calls* itself the "Democratic Republic of..." or "Republic of..." doesn't make it a democracy. Cuba is recognized as a "Socialist State", while North Korea is a "Communist state".

    To anonomous who responded to my post at 5:32. Sorry for getting back to you so late but I was out. You've drawn a distinction between reported and unreported deaths, which explains the discrepency between the UN and Johns Hopkins figures. Given that the ratio is four or five to one this would mean that at least eighty percent of deaths in Iraq have gone unreported. Think about it, the vast majority of deaths occur in urban areas, and they appear to happen in groups. If a car bomb kills five people is this really a thing that can be kept from the authorities? Where are the bodies?

    The methodology used in the Johns Hopkins study involved "cluster points". Each point represents a cluster of persons in a given neighborhood who are asked about family members who have died. The greater the number of cluster points used the more accurate the survey. A 2004 survey conducted by the United Nations Development Program used 2,200 cluster points. Do you know how many were used in the Johns Hopkins study? Forty seven.

    Dude, I'm not asking you to accept W's 30,000 figure. I agree that this is preposterous. But
    655,000? Come on.

    Andrew Sullivan had this to say today.

    "It's over, guys. Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did. You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams."

    Leo,

    A better definition of "propaganda" from wikipedia(which addresses the meaning I was trying to convey in my description of Orange Boy's "reporting" style):

    "Propaganda is a certain type of message presentation directly aimed at manipulating the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information."

    If Orange Boy doesn't bother to impartially provide information by giving the other side a chance to weigh in on the relative merits and demerits of Newt's idea, how such an idea would be implemented and whether Newt has any rebuttal to the objections voiced by KO and his merry band of ass kissers, then, yes, Orange Boy is a propagandist. I don't agree with much that Chris Matthews says, but I would not call him a "propagandist" because he does (not always, but frequently) attempt to practice impartiality by bringing guests on his show who will challenge him and and his viewpoints. Orange Boy, the "queasy" coward would never do such a thing and that is why he has neither earned nor deserves any respect at all. Orange Boy would immediately gain my respect if he would go mano a mano with Newt, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt or another conservative of similar stature. But that will never happen and Meltdown will continue to be mired in mediocrity and the ratings wilderness.

    Newt, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt or another conservative of similar stature....

    Posted by: hank at December 3, 2006 12:55 AM

    I think moe larry and curly would be better than the three you named. Snap out of it already.

    Keith Olbermann and the other apologists for miltant islam love to dump on those doing the hard work to navigate the complicated mine-field that is the present day Middle East. Never do I see the likes of these leftist cowards mention the actions of the enemy....only critiques of the evil neocons and incompetent Bush administration...ok, that is the nature of debate...But the lack of analysis on the part of those who claim they have the moral highground remains a dangerous entity in this country.

    For instance.....Yesterday, Iranian President Ahmadinejad stated,

    "As everybody knows, the Zionist regime was created to establish dominion of arrogant states over the region and to enable the enemy to penetrate the heart Muslim land."

    Who was Mahmoud meeting with when he made these statements? Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh...who stated,

    "[The Israeli regime was inherently a] threat, [and was] on the verge of disappearing. The Iranian nation's brilliant stand in the rightful battles of the Palestinians encourages them and signifies their deep understanding of Islamic principles. The Intifada (uprising) of the Palestinian nation will continue until the cause of the Palestinians is materialized and Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) is liberated."

    Ahmadinejad went on to say,

    "Today scores of Western politicians are in doubt as to the future of this illegitimate regime and its existence has come under question.

    "There is no doubt the Palestinian nation and Muslims as a whole will emerge victorious. The continued commission of crimes by the Zionist regime will speed up the collapse of this fictitious regime."

    So, the man Israel is trying to come to peaceful terms with supports the dissolution of them as a nation....The Palestinian militants are not only blindly supported by the left in the US (including a 'brilliant' former US President known for his foreign policy acumen), but a huge system of militant islamic radicals who allow terrorist tactics....And all I ever hear from the left is how EVIL George Bush acts.

    Liberals like Olbermann never have a Special Comment just for Mahmoud....Liberals like Sir Loin of Milquetoast dismiss the motives of militant islam as a created bogeyman of the US right....even being as naive as to say that all of this violence and death is because of Dependency Theory. Loin even says,

    "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." November 29, 2006 08:00 PM

    Yes, I agree that the Iranian President is thoughtful....very mindful of his goal....and always pursuing his ideology with his support of..

    The Palestinian terrorists in Gaza and The West Bank

    The Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon

    The Shite insurgency in Iraq...

    bringing him closer to his goal.

    Where is the thoughtful Special Comment about the enemy's behavior?

    Where is the thoughtful Special Comment about the enemy's behavior?

    Posted by: cee rightwing bot at December 3, 2006 07:07 AM

    Maybe some people don't consider themselves as experts on foreign policy like you and others here cee. Maybe concern for our leadership is of more concern to Keith and why he concentrates on the Bush administrations failures and delusions. It may suprise to know that there are people who because of the way that Iraq has turned out have NO CONFIDENCE in Bush or his supporters sollutions to Iran or the Palestine or any other mideast situation.

    Keith and his inane and insane followers want the military to fail in Iraq. They hate George W Bush so much that they want anything he does to be a gross failure, even if it means the cost of many American lives. Notice they spend all their times crying over how many dead Iraqis there have been, not how many dead Americans there have been in this war. What's their priority? the enemy. Tells you everything you need to know about them if you ask me. They want us to lose, they want us to be defeated and they don't care how many Americans die in the process just so they can say, "We were right, Bush was wrong."

    "If Newt says we should hinder freedom of speech to protect freedom"
    Sorry Hank, I just don't see another side of that argument. I read the entire speech and that is what he said.
    Can you see the absurdity in that or do you just like typing profanity?

    Leo,

    With Orange Boy there is NEVER another side to any issue that he advocates. It is simply Olby preaching his own viewpoint with no input from anyone with a different view. This is terrible, irresponsible journalism from cowardly Keith who professes to have no political viewpoint while actively cheering on the left fringe of the political spectrum-- thus his abysmal ratings.

    Clearly one of us isn't getting it.
    If my housepainter shows up to paint my house white with black paint should I listen to his side?

    If I tune into a "news show" for news and the "journalist" reports only those things that bolster his own bias, should I listen to him?

    Nice try Leo, but spare me your 7th grade Michael Moore logic.

    Liberal traitor in CIA says to the NYT "Hey wanna hear about a secret plan by our military to attack an insurgent stronghold in Fallujah?"

    NYT: Sure

    Traitor: Well this is going to happen tomorrow and this is how we are going to do it.......

    NYT: Oh good. I will be able to get this printed in tomorrow's paper.

    Reading the report online the insurgents are able to cause an incredible amount of casualties to our military and are able to declare a military victory that spreads around the Middle East like wildfire, further bolstering their belief that they can eliminate the infidels.

    Freedom of the press is awesome all the time. I thought it was conservatives that didn't know what the word nuance meant.

    Keith and his inane and insane followers want the military to fail in Iraq. They hate George W Bush so much that they want anything he does to be a gross failure, even if it means the cost of many American lives

    Posted by: Keith's a Fraud at December 3, 2006 11:40 AM

    That is a delusional statement and it is that kind of thinking that got moderates and centrists to vote for democrats in the last election. I can turn that whole statement around and say that you support Bush even if it costs American lives and depletes are military and our budget until we are like a third world nation. YOU are the ones who can't see the trees for the forest. Bush was WRONG. The war he didn't plan for is a DISASTER. It is time to let go of your partisan bullshit and wake the hell up.

    That is my point, Crash. (perfect handle by the way)
    He didn't "report only those things that bolster his own bias", He reported what the guy said and let his idiodic remarks speak for themselves.

    For the record? I'm a reformed liberal. I finally woke up and realized that my party was full of nuts just like you Codas and your little f----buddy O'Lielly. The posts here haven't spent any time mourning the death of American soldiers in Iraq but have been all about the number of dead civillians in Iraq. what other conclusion is there to draw except the fact that you care more about their dead than you do about your own countrymen? I suspect your outrage at my earlier post is because it was dead on target and you know it but would never, ever admit it. I was against the war from the very beginning and haven't changed my mind about that. I don't agree with Bush on any number of issues, of which, this is most certainly one. But I do care very deeply for our troops and that's more than you and your ilk do when you post all these whiny posts about those poor dead Iraqis. how about the poor dead American military? How about spending a little bit of your time and sympathy on them? And my original argument remains unchanged, Bush isn't always wrong and the Democrats aren't always right. And there are those in both parties who can't admit that and never will and that's why this country is in such a mess. But I will NOT join you and the far-leftist brigrade types in cheering against our American soldiers and for our enemies which is exactly what YOU are doing.

    And who is there leading the cheers? Your buddy Olbermann--Olbermann the Fraud.

    I finally woke up...
    I suspect your outrage...
    I was against...
    I don't agree...
    I do care...
    my original argument...
    I will NOT...
    I love this blog, you guys are funny.

    http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2006&itemno=644

    Communication professor examines media bias in president's speeches By Jean ElliottNew book by professor Jim A. Kuypers New book by professor Jim A. Kuypers BLACKSBURG, VA., November 30, 2006 -- Jim A. Kuypers, assistant professor ofcommunication in the College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences at VirginiaTech, reveals a disturbing world of media bias in his new book Bush's War:Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006). Convincingly and without resorting to partisan politics, Kuypers stronglyillustrates in eight chapters "how the press failed America in its coverageon the War on Terror." In each comparison, Kuypers "detected massive bias onthe part of the press." In fact, Kuypers calls the mainstream news media an"anti-democratic institution" in the conclusion. "What has essentially happened since 9/11 has been that Bush has repeatedthe same themes, and framed those themes the same whenever discussing theWar on Terror," said Kuypers, who specializes in political communication andrhetoric. "Immediately following 9/11, the mainstream news media(represented by CBS, ABC, NBC, USA Today, New York Times, and WashingtonPost) did echo Bush, but within eight weeks it began to intentionally ignorecertain information the president was sharing, and instead reframed thepresident's themes or intentionally introduced new material to shift thefocus." This goes beyond reporting alternate points of view. "In short," Kupyersexplained, "if someone were relying only on the mainstream media forinformation, they would have no idea what the president actually said. Itwas as if the press were reporting on a different speech." The book is essentially a "comparative framing analysis." Overall, Kuypersexamined themes about 9-11 and the War on Terror that the President used,and compared them to the themes that the press used when reporting on whatthe president said. "Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously,act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a givensituation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner," notesKuypers. At the heart of each chapter are these questions: What did President Bushtalk about, and how did he want us to think about it? What did themainstream news media talk about following president Bush's speeches, andhow did they want us to think about it? According to Arkansas State University's Dennis W. White, a retiredlieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, "This is a time of maximum danger forour country-a time of crisis. The American people historically turn to thePresident during these times for explanation, for comfort, and forexhortation to purpose. Yet, the President does not speak directly to thepeople. His speech is mediated; he speaks through the media, members of themedia comment on presidential speech, and others comment on the comment. JimKuypers is the best in the business at explaining presidential crisiscommunication and its relationship to the media." "This is a skilled and thoughtful work of scholarship, well worth a carefulreading," said Stephen D. Cooper of Marshall University. "Kuypers's book isprovocative in the best sense of the word: It can stimulate fresh thinkingabout presidential rhetoric and press reporting of it-which Kuypers showscan be two very different things." Kuypers, of Christiansburg, Va., received his Ph.D from Louisiana StateUniversity and both his bachelor's degree and master's degree from FloridaState. He joined Virginia Tech's Department of Communication last year afterhaving taught political communication for tens years at Dartmouth

    "....NO CONFIDENCE in Bush or his supporters sollutions to Iran or the Palestine or any other mideast situation."

    All fine and dandy, codas.....However, the reality is that there are leaders of nations who have particular goals and it does not take a foreign policy expert to read their own words about said goals.

    In reality, your response is a nonresponse to my interpretation of the statements of two ELECTED leaders of large groups of people in The Middle East....You go right back to a blame game and hand wringing rhetoric instead of simply confronting my point.

    Was The Palestinian/Israeli problem any better 10 years ago? 15 years ago? 20 years ago?

    Was Iranian Islamic militarism and support of terrorism a recent development? Was Ahmadinejad elected because of George Bush's actions?

    Why did Osama Bin Laden support and coordinate the 9/11 operation?

    These questions all have pretty objective answers, even quotes from the individuals most invlolved, that seem pretty incontravertable.

    But again.....never mind these issues.....Bushie and the republicans screwed up and we have no confidence in them....The current problems are 100% their fault, no one else is contributing to the violence or even egging it on...There is nothing anyone can do.

    Give me a break.

    Oh look, someone learned how to use the "cut/paste" feature on their PC. How cute.

    And bias in the media? I'm shocked! but it's why this blog exists: to expose the bias of Keith Olbermann, which is ample, noted, and happens on each and every single show and seems to be tilting more pro-terrorist with each and every passing day.

    You can call him a hero all you like, I call him a lair, a fraud, a hypocrite, and a partisan hack.

    "They hate George W Bush so much that they want anything he does to be a gross failure, even if it means the cost of many American lives."

    Dude, you need to come in. I think the cold has warped your brain or something...
    I love how people like you assume that we must hate the troops because we hate the war. They are NOT the same thing. The troops went because that is their JOB - I cannot blame them for doing their job. I CAN blame the President for sending them to do a job without adequate support and then half-assing it.

    "Notice they spend all their times crying over how many dead Iraqis there have been, not how many dead Americans there have been in this war. What's their priority? the enemy."

    1) I didn't realize that "the enemy" included women, children and the elderly. Why don't you just come out and say you consider ALL MUSLIMS "the enemy". At least then you're being honest about your position.

    2) Only someone who's been living under a rock for the last three years doesn't know the American casualty numbers. They're on the news every night. People DON'T know the civilian casualties, and it's important to keep that in mind.

    Name me one war in which civilians haven't been killed. Name me one war in which innocent women, children, and the elderly haven't been killed. It's all part of war or did you have no real grasp of what war entailed before now? Again, your concern seems to be way too much on the enemy and not enough for the American troops. Oh, but I forgot. You hear about how many American soldiers died "all the time on the news" so you don't have to care do you? And you don't.

    And you haven't in any way, shape, or form answered my accusation that you want this war to be a failure so it will somehow vindicate your view of George W. Bush. In your warped liberal brain, the bigger the defeat of our troops, the more Bush will have failed and the happier you'll be, which is probably why you remain, anonymous.

    "In your warped liberal brain, the bigger the defeat of our troops, the more Bush will have failed and the happier you'll be, which is probably why you remain, anonymous."

    And you remain a bigoted brain-dead a--hole, so I guess that makes us even.

    You can't honestly stand there and tell me that EVERY Iraqi civilian killed should be considered "the enemy". That is the most delusional position I have ever heard.

    No, your posts exhibit the dead brain. Please tell me how the hell you fight a urban war, in the middle of city centers and don't end up with collateral damage? It can't be done.

    Furthermore, the majority of civilian killing is BY civilians, Iraqi vs. Iraqi, i.e., tribal, sectarian warfare. But that's all George W's fault too isn't it?

    Please, come to the table with half-a brain or don't bother to show up at all there "Anonymous". No damn wonder you won't sign your name to your posts with that kind of pathetic "argument".

    "Furthermore, the majority of civilian killing is BY civilians, Iraqi vs. Iraqi, i.e., tribal, sectarian warfare. But that's all George W's fault too isn't it?"

    Yes it is. It was HIS CHOICE to fight this fight. It was HIS STAFF that assumed that it would be easy and that the Iraqis would welcome us.

    Saddam was a horrible and brutal dictator but, like Tito in Yugoslavia, he kept the lid on long-simmering ethnic tensions. When WE removed him from power, the resulting vacuum allowed the Shi'ite and Sunni factions to pick up arms and kill each other while we're stuck in the middle playing traffic cop.

    Please, come to the table with half-a brain or don't bother to show up at all there "Anonymous". No damn wonder you won't sign your name to your posts with that kind of pathetic "argument".

    Posted by: Keith's a Fraud at December 3, 2006 08:56 PM

    And you think the name "Keith's a Fraud" isn't the same as being annoymous? You think you have half a brain? You don't agree but you support? Your a reformed liberal? You are a bunch of bullshit if you ask me when you accuse me and others of wanting America to lose a war. A war you said you were against. IF YOU had half a brain you would know that WE didn't need the Iraq disaster to prove that Bush was a failure. He has been one long before that. Iraq is just another example of what happens when people with no brains get power. Your supporting him is testimony to a lack of any clue or care for our countries real values, or our troops.

    Was The Palestinian/Israeli problem any better 10 years ago? 15 years ago? 20 years ago?

    Was Iranian Islamic militarism and support of terrorism a recent development? Was Ahmadinejad elected because of George Bush's actions?

    Why did Osama Bin Laden support and coordinate the 9/11 operation?


    Posted by: cee rightwing bot at December 3, 2006 03:48 PM

    It might work in your mind to ask these questions and answer them with all these things happened or would have happened without the present administration so therefore what they are doing is something and something is making it better. Or to say I am only playing the blame game when I point to mistakes.
    At least I can try to view the middle east in reality not in a strickly what's good for America must be good for them light. Face it. The President of Iran is not going to be "our boy". Israel has to deal with him. We do not need to alienate the younger population of Iran and unite them in a cause against us. Iraq may make you feel safer, but it has made the whole situation worse. No. I will never trust the people who screwed everything up or the ones that still support them to have any reasonible answers to the middle east. More blood. More money. More hatred. That is all that has come from the last 5 years.

    Ha...I just found out the details of BillO's WPITW for Friday (didn't actually watch KO that night)

    KO called him a liar because BO said that he called for martial law the day the brought down the statue of Saddam. While this is true, please note that BillO actually did call for martial law a mere two days later (April 11th vs April 9th)

    Considering BillO made his claim off the cuff 3 1/2 years after the actual occurrence, the fact that he was off by two days seems hardly worth the histrionics Olby went into. Olby is so concerned with the correctness of others and yet so nonchalant about his own lack of it, it just makes you wonder about his little obsession.

    But luckily for our sakes, Olby is over BillO (he said as much) as is evidenced by this recent run of mentioning him every night but one since he got "over him."

    Ok codas, the questions don't matter....except in your judgement of the world situation, you ignore the fundamental conflict between militant Muslims and Jews. A leader of a powerful country seeks the destruction of another nation and all the left has to complain about is how America is behaving.

    Iraq is worse because of the fundmanetal conflict, and ignoring it does not change the reality.

    The common thread between radical Shiite and Sunni Muslims as well as Arabs and Persians is their hatred of Jews and Christians. Please tell me next that their hatred is justified and I'll just shut-up.

    If their hatred is NOT justified, then your lack of honesty about who has the evil intentions and who does not....who is the aggressor and who is the defender.....or who wants peace and who wants conflict....is also not justified.

    You see, my worldview is that choosing to hate is never justifiable so this is very easy for me. However, for someone who embraces a worldview that sees people's behavior as, not a result of their own WILLFUL choice between declared right and wrong, but because of their circumstances/treatment/other's influence, you have to take a position that results in inaction.

    Who's the one that is truly "brainwashed," codas?

    So the Iraqi's all decided to start killing each other because of George W. Bush? That's quite the whopper you're telling there, but the sad thing is that you obviously believe it. Those of us who have a better grasp on history know that Iraq has always been an uneasy coalition of various tribal groups who have always bickered with one another. Warring between the tribes went on when Saddam was still in power, in fact, you can credit him in part for leading to that hostile environment between the tribes when he made the decision to gas his own people. You may remember the war crimes trial. That would be one of the war crimes. My stating the facts, my understanding them, something you obviously don't, in no way indicats my support or non-support of George W. Bush. It's just the way that it is. Your spinning that you "support the troops" is betrayed by your constant posts here moaning, bitching, groaning, and mourning the Iraqi dead without any mention of the American military dead. I made a trip to the liberal blogs/websites this morning. This is what I saw: "Congratuations President Chavez!" (support of a dictator, nice); "Bush is a psychopath!", and my personal favorite, seen at at least three different websites, let's do something about giving those Islamic terrorists their "rights". When you show more compassion and more concern for the people perpetuating the violence and who are out to kill us than you do the people who are trying to protect us, when you prop up dictators like Chavez and Castro, you have told me all I need to know about what's really important to you, and it is NOT the U.S. Military.

    You see, my worldview is that choosing to hate is never justifiable so this is very easy for me. However, for someone who embraces a worldview that sees people's behavior as, not a result of their own WILLFUL choice between declared right and wrong, but because of their circumstances/treatment/other's influence, you have to take a position that results in inaction.

    Who's the one that is truly "brainwashed," codas?


    Posted by: cee at December 4, 2006 09:03 AM

    Lets start over cee. Do you believe that Jews have been influenced by there treatment from Arabs and Muslims as well as anti-semites, and that that treatment has been partly responsible for their circumstance in the world? If you do, then you are a hypocrite. Who declared what is right and wrong? You? The Bible? Hate is never justifiable you say. When you kill a man, do you do it because you love him? That sounds like Mansons world view. My problem cee is that you say things that make me think that you believe that you can't grasp the fact that while there may be unjusifiable hatred, there are also issues that Shiite and Sunni Muslims as well as Arabs and Persians may have with Israel and us that have to be dealt with. You are not that thick as to think they just hate because they hate. They fell out of the womb hating. Oh yes, the original sin thing again. If this is a religious war for you just say so. Slaughter the infidel. If you say that is what they are doing that doesn't justify what you want us to do. You spinn around and around like a top cee. You don't believe in hate, but you are not a pacifist, but you must make a willful choice between right and wrong, but it's weak to not be decisive in killing the enemy, but Christ died for us, but original sin makes us killers so it's okay to not be perfect because trying to do right on your own is wrong because Jesus did it all, so it's wrong to not want to kill his enemies for him, and romper stomper bomper boo, osama sees me, and osama sees you, so if we have to nuke em, glory to God.

    Those of us who have a better grasp on history know that Iraq has always been an uneasy coalition of various tribal groups who have always bickered with one another. Warring between the tribes went on when Saddam was still in power, in fact, you can credit him in part for leading to that hostile environment between the tribes when he made the decision to gas his own people.
    Posted by: Keith's a Fraud at December 4, 2006 09:15 AM

    So you all, who have such a grasp of history, knowing about warring tribes and all decided in your great wisdom to bring democracy to a bunch of sworn enemies. As I have said, I will never trust you and your warped leaders to make a rationale decision again. Please stay out of foreign policy and stick to Terri Shiavo issues and abortion and homophopia. The world will be safer.

    Oh come on Codas. You can do better than that can't you? I have stated I didn't support this war from the start. I knew it would be a mistake for that very reason. My non-support of the war hasn't changed and I'm hardly shocked that it's turned out this way. But I support the troops and have and continue to support them first and foremost and I'm sorry that you want me to care more about an Iraqi civilian death than a US Military death I just can't do it. I can't even pretend that I care about both equally because I simply don't. My fellow countrymen and women are far more improtant to me which is why I never wanted us to go to war in the first place. But now that we're there, I'm not going to cheer for the other side just because I disagreed with the war to begin with.

    As I said, I took a quick trip to the liberal message board/websites this morning and I was quickly reminded of why I no longer read them. Look at the number of posts devoted to the Iraqi divilian dead and the posts championing the rights of terrorists compared to how many posts are devoted to mourning the deaths of American Military. You and I both know that the former far outweighs the later.

    And the pitiful excuse that was offered here in this very thread was because the media reports the military deaths, but that they don't report on the Civilian deaths of the Iraqis. Bullshit. Turn on the tv. What do you hear? 20 killed in roadside bomb. 30 killed in bomb explosion at market. Those are civilian deaths being reported on. To say that they aren't being reported on and that therefore you need to shed light on it is bullshit and you know it.

    And how the hell do you know where I stand on Shiavo or abortion or homophobia? I've already stated I'm a Democrat. Again, all you can make are sweeping generalizations and fall-back on old reliable insults and accusations all you want but it doesn't make my positions on these issues what you want them to be. I'm capable of criticizing my own party and journalists who present only one side of an issue, like Olbermann and sorry if that clashes with your mindset of "Democrats are perfect and never make a mistake and Republicans are always wrong on everything."

    And would you care to explain why it is that it's okay to embrace dictators like Chavez and Castro? Is it becuase they are outspoken in their dislike of Bush? So let me get this straight, as a liberal, I'm supposed to support dictators in other countries because they share our dislike of George W. Bush and his policies? You wanna know why I have problems with the stupidity within my own party? Look no farther than that. The world isn't as simple as the black or white version you'd like it to be, and pretending otherwise reveals a deep-seated ignorance that is truly staggering in its depth. But thanks for illustrating it here for all to see.

    Keith is going to ask his one of his guests tonight if the election of Chavez is bad for Bush. The guest will say yes.

    "The discredited sports guy spiked James Webb talking about punching George Bush in the face"

    Yeah, because Bush got his snippy attitude when Webb didn't answer the question EXACTLY the way the President wanted. And you left out that Webb, even when coldly ending the conversation, used the respectful "Mr. President" title.

    And Webb had a pretty good reason to be a little upset - a week before this "incident", three members of his son's unit were killed when they came under fire. So I'll forgive him to copping a bit of an attitude.

    What I can't stand is people like George Will OMITTING the President's comment of "I didn't ask you that." in order to make Webb look like a boor. The President was rude to Webb first, and Webb didn't cotton to it.

    So let me get this straight, as a liberal, I'm supposed to support dictators in other countries because they share our dislike of George W. Bush and his policies? You wanna know why I have problems with the stupidity within my own party? Look no farther than that. The world isn't as simple as the black or white version you'd like it to be, and pretending otherwise reveals a deep-seated ignorance that is truly staggering in its depth. But thanks for illustrating it here for all to see.

    Posted by: Keith's a Fraud at December 4, 2006 10:48 AM


    So let me get this straight, as a reformed liberal, I'm supposed to support dictators in other countries "like China, Pakistan, SaudiArabia" because they share our love of George W. Bush and his policies? The world isn't as simple as the black or white version you'd like it to be, and pretending otherwise reveals a deep-seated ignorance that is truly staggering in its depth. But thanks for illustrating it here for all to see.

    No where on this board will you ever find me saying that and you know it. You also know that I'm 100% right, and haven't tried to refute it in any way whatsoever that if you go to Democratic Underground or Daily Kos you'll see widespread messages of support for the likes of Chavez and Castro. Your world-view is this: if they hate George W: I'm all for them. But no where will you find me saying that everyone who supports Bush is wonderful no matter how you try to desperately spin this. The fact is you can't because the truth is the truth and it's the truth that is pissing you off right now isn't it?

    "You also know that I'm 100% right, and haven't tried to refute it in any way whatsoever that if you go to Democratic Underground or Daily Kos you'll see widespread messages of support for the likes of Chavez and Castro."

    And if I go to RedState and Little Green Footballs, I'll find messages saying we should nuke Iran, execute people for "treason" and (my personal favorite) advocate the Department of Homeland Security should have even *broader* powers.

    Should I assume that these fruit loops represent "conservatives" just as you adovcate that the ones you cite reprsent all "liberals"?

    "The President was rude to Webb first, and Webb didn't cotton to it."

    Nope. Webb tried to rebuff the President's courtesy when the President asked how his boy was doing. The President's actions were very appropriate in the face of Webb's rude behavior. The President could have been much more "snippy" than simply reminding Webb that he was not answering the question that the President asked of him. The President's response meant no more than that he wanted to talk to Webb about his boy and not about issues that were on Webb's agenda.

    Webb is the one talking about wanting to punch out the President and your criticizing the President in this interaction? Typical Olbyloon logic.

    I wouldn't know. I don't read conservative blogs/websites. And I'm not a conservative. Your point exaclty was? Oh, that's right, you don't have one. You just want to get off the original subject which is your continue support of terrorists and your continued sympathy for those who perpetuate violence against the American troops and for those dictators like Castro and Chavez who hate Bush.

    "Nope. Webb tried to rebuff the President's courtesy when the President asked how his boy was doing."

    Yes because walking up to someone who's son is IN COMBAT and saying "How's your boy?" in that typical Bush style is SO courteous...

    "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Now tell me, hank the wise, how is that disrespectful? Webb told the truth, and because it wasn't what Bush wanted to hear, the President got snippy.

    And it wasn't like Webb provoked the conversation. He did everything he could, short of not attending the event, to avoid the President. It was Bush that sought Webb out, so yes he should have known better.

    "You just want to get off the original subject which is your continue support of terrorists and your continued sympathy for those who perpetuate violence against the American troops and for those dictators like Castro and Chavez who hate Bush."

    Congratulations, you get a nice cup of SHUT THE f--- UP!

    I am no terrorist supporter - and if I could knock your f---IN' LIGHTS OUT for even IMPLYING that, I would. And I love how worrying about WOMEN and CHILDREN getting blown up because WE f---ED UP is now "supporting terrorism". I guess that means Amnesty International and the Red Cross are also terrorist supporters.

    The fact is you can't because the truth is the truth and it's the truth that is pissing you off right now isn't it?

    Posted by: keith's a Fraud at December 4, 2006 01:02 PM

    The fact is the truth is the truth and the truth is I am not pissed off at all. My world view is not based on hatred of Bush. It is based on hatred for stupid decisions that lead to needless death and destruction. You are very partisan and it is you who refuse to see the situation as it is. You can't see past your dislike of liberals. YOU MUST BE AGAINST THEM even if it means supporting a war you don't believe in and sending soldiers to DIE in a war you said you were against. That is a very contrary way to be. I am glad I am not as conflicted about the world as you are.

    My My, someone certainly did get upset now didn't they? And why would that be exactly? I was a little too close to the truth for your comfort wasn't I? Really, I don't have to do anything, just let you post and hang yourselves with your own stupidity.

    Congratulations, you get a nice cup of SHUT THE f--- UP!

    Posted by: Anonymous at December 4, 2006 02:16 PM

    Logic and empathy are very alien to some people on the right anonymous. It is a biological thing I believe. It's missing in them. Or it's a peer pressure thing. They are the kind of people who will get us all killed if they have the power to do it.

    My My, someone certainly did get upset now didn't they? And why would that be exactly? I was a little too close to the truth for your comfort wasn't I? Really, I don't have to do anything, just let you post and hang yourselves with your own stupidity.

    Posted by: Keiths a Fraud at December 4, 2006 02:54 PM

    You are really a delusional human. I laugh at what you say. And then I feel sad for you. Your idea of truth is the biggest bunch of bullshit I ever heard. Only rivaled by a couple of others here who think just like you do.


    CHIMP-IN-CHIEF IRRITATES IRAQI PRIME MINISTER

    -- Polls Show Bush Has Same Effect On Most Americans, Majority of World Leaders --

    WASHINGTON -- Whether stuffing his face with dinner rolls through monosyllabic utterances to Tony Blair, or surprising German Chancellor Angela Merkel by grabbing her shoulders, man-child President George W. Bush has managed to annoy yet another world leader. During their press conference Friday, when asked if there was tension between them, Bush gave the Iraqi Prime Minister a big hug, put his cheek right next to Maliki's and said, "See how close we are?" The President also awkwardly broached the sore subject of a leaked White House memo drafted by Stephen Hadley which embarrassed the Iraqi Prime Minister by going out of his way to introduce the two men, saying, "Mr. Prime Minister, do you know Steve Hadley?" Later, Bush unexpectedly asked Maliki if he wanted to take a few extra questions from reporters, to which the Prime Minister glared at the President and blurted, "We said six questions, now this is the seventh -- this is the eighth -- eight questions."



    No, what you want me to do is to agree with you 100% of the time, and follow, without question the liberal-party dogma which I refuse to do. I refuse to be brain-washed by any party, be it the Dems or the GOP. I can agree with some aspects of both sides and you can't do that because you have mainlined the kool-aid. So have many of the Republicans. What I'm saying is that this either my way or the highway bullshit is wrong, that there are perfectly valid points on both sides of the political aisle and until we start embracing our commanalities and working to bridge our differences nothing will get accomplished. But what you obviously want, dear Codas, is someone who will mimic you, and mimic your party-line even when it's dead-wrong. And I'm not going to do that for you or for the Dems or the GOP. I'll state my beliefs and if that, in your warped, tiny little mind that apparently can only embrace one approach (the Dems are always right! the Repubs are always wrong!) then that's your problem, except that it is people like you and your counter-parts on the right who are tearing this country apart without any hope of it ever being put whole again.

    "Yes because walking up to someone who's son is IN COMBAT and saying "How's your boy?" in that typical Bush style is SO courteous..."

    Your post makes no sense. Knowing that his son is in a dangerous place, the President conveyed a message to Webb that he cares about his son's welfare. Well, heaven forbid that the President would do something REALLY ungracious and inhospitable like say, offer Webb something to drink or to take his coat. If Bush had done that, then Webb might have actually punched him out, rather than just think about it.

    "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Now tell me, hank the wise, how is that disrespectful? Webb told the truth, and because it wasn't what Bush wanted to hear, the President got snippy."

    I've already explained why the President saying "That's not what I asked you" isn't snippy.

    Here's what the President could have said if he wanted to be snippy:

    "Jim, we are here at a welcome reception. I am here to greet people and have casual conversation and you try to sandbag me by instigating a debate about Iraq. You seem to think that getting in the President's face in a setting totally inappropriate for discussion of such an issue is something to which you are entitled just because you managed to barely pull out your Senate race against someone who ran one of the worst campaigns in history. Now, if you want to get a hold of yourself and have a cordial social conversation, fine. If not, then you know where the door is."


    And it wasn't like Webb provoked the conversation. He did everything he could, short of not attending the event, to avoid the President. It was Bush that sought Webb out, so yes he should have known better

    If Webb doesn't have the maturity to respect the office even if you don't care for the person occupying it, then maybe he should have stayed away. This event after all was a WELCOME RECEPTION-- that means people socialize and strike up conversations. Your blaming the President for having a conversation with someone at a welcome reception is absurd.

    The previous message was posted by hank.

    hank,

    I'll fall back on the words of Eleanor Clift:

    "A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way—'That’s not what I asked you'—trying to force the conversation back to Webb’s son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint."

    Amd in Sen.-elect's own words: "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."

    And as for this:
    "If Webb doesn't have the maturity to respect the office even if you don't care for the person occupying it, then maybe he should have stayed away."

    This from people who spent the entire eight years of the Clinton Administration calling him nasty names and refusing to call him "Mr. President". But now that Bush is there, it's all about "respecting the office".

    Double standard much?

    Logic and empathy are very alien to some people on the right anonymous. It is a biological thing I believe. It's missing in them. Or it's a peer pressure thing. They are the kind of people who will get us all killed if they have the power to do it.

    Posted by: codas at December 4, 2006 02:57 PM
    -----------

    Codas-

    I think you have been here long enough to realize that there are more than enough people here from the left of which the same EXACT thing can be said.

    What I'm saying is that this either my way or the highway bullshit is wrong, that there are perfectly valid points on both sides of the political aisle and until we start embracing our commanalities and working to bridge our differences nothing will get accomplished.
    Posted by: Keiths a Fraud at December 4, 2006 03:15 PM

    Well who can argue with that.

    "I'll fall back on the words of Eleanor Clift"

    Are you trying to help your cause or hurt it? Eleanor Clift?

    "A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington"

    Then why did he show up at the welcome reception?

    "Webb was rightly insulted . . ."

    How so? Because President Bush refused to go along with Web's attempt to sandbag him and redirected the conversation back to a social topic while at a welcome recption? Clift writes that it was Bush who "forced the conversation back to Webb's son" as if it was Webb's perogative to change the original topic from a simple caring query about the welfare of Webb's son to instigating a debate about Iraq. Of course, in order to support Webb's misplaced sophomoric showing out, Clift (and Anonymous) completely ignore the fact that Webb chose to sandbag the President in a completely inappropriate milieu, a welcome reception.

    And of course completely ignored is how the story came to light-- Webb bragging to a reporter how he told off the President and how he wanted to punch him out. Yeah, that Webb guy's a real class act Anonymous.

    And Eleanor Clift's writing is so brilliant and persuasive. Well of course, Bush is out of line for showing that he cares about Webb's son. Why? Well, because there are rumors that the Bush twins are partying in Argentina!! What?

    Finally anonymous, you know nothing of my opinions about the conduct of other politicians who have publicly disrespected the office of the President, so you are in no position to accuse me of a double standard.

    Do you care to actually address some of my previous arguments or are you going to cut and paste another liberal idiot columnist?

    You call it sandbagging. I call it saying what hundreds of thousands of people who have a family member in Iraq would have said. (And why is it sandbagging when Democrats do it, but "asking tough questions" when Republicans do it?)

    What would you rather he done? Be an ass-kisser like all the "rubber stamp Republicans"? That's not how Webb was elected.

    And I think that a former Secretary of the Navy knows how to behave, or have you conveniently "forgot" that Webb's not a neophyte when it comes to Washington?

    As for the rest, you also seem to have forgotten the long and well-documented history of Bush's inability to take ANY level of criticism from ANYONE.

    And I refuse to believe that using the phrase "How's your boy?" is respectful of Webb. I can think of a DOZEN ways that question could have been better phrased, but Bush used his typical frat-boy attitude (the same attitude that called a Times reporter a "major-league a--hole" and pissed off Europe with his boorish behavior at a summit earlier this year).


    MIDEAST ALLIES GIVE BUSH ENVOYS EARFUL

    -- Regional Leaders Wary of Further U.S. "Help" --

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush and his chief advisors recently fanned out across the troubled Middle East to help restore strained relationships with traditional allies. But instead of creating stronger ties, the President and his senior envoys were surprised to find U.S. regional allies in a near state of panic, and visits once designed to show the American team in charge ended instead with diplomatic embarrassment and U.S. leaders being rebuked by their Arab counterparts. Not only did Mideast leaders express soaring concern over the worsening chaos ignited by the failed U.S. invasion of Iraq, but regional allies now fear that further involvement to fix the troubled region will only serve to make matters worse -- because of the Bush administration's simplistic misunderstanding of regional complexities, coupled with a consistently incompetent implementation of U.S. policy.


    "And why is it sandbagging when Democrats do it, but "asking tough questions" when Republicans do it?)"

    Why do you keep asking me questions I have already answered? I told you before that this was a WELCOME RECEPTION. If Webb wants to get in Bush's face about this, he can do it in the proper setting. This was out of line and Bush gave him a rather gentle reminder about his manners


    "And I think that a former Secretary of the Navy knows how to behave, or have you conveniently "forgot" that Webb's not a neophyte when it comes to Washington?"

    That doesn't impress me. Robert Byrd has been in Washington since the last Ice Age, but that doesn't mean he knows how to act either? (or have you forgotten his recent use of the "n" word during a televised interview?)

    "As for the rest, you also seem to have forgotten the long and well-documented history of Bush's inability to take ANY level of criticism from ANYONE."

    You mean to say he doesn't agree with your criticism.


    You know what hank? Forget it. You obviously think Webb is a rude, pompous ass and Bush is a charming and caring man.

    But then again, how is this any different than ANY OTHER TIME when someone has done something to disagree with "The Decider"?

    I'd rather eat fifty pounds of ground glass than believe that Bush gives a shit about anything other than himself and his legacy.

    Like Olby cares about anything other than himself and his journalistic legacy? Here's a clue: he doesn't. He'll say or do anything that he thinks will get him press and he'll insult co-workers in the process if that's what it takes. Just ask Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Rita Cosby, and Dan Abrams.

    And sort of like the Democratic party leadership all voted for Iraq but now can't apologize for that mistake?

    "And sort of like the Democratic party leadership all voted for Iraq but now can't apologize for that mistake?"

    I call bullshit.

    Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi voted against it.
    Incoming Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin voted against it.
    Incoming House Majority Whip James Clyburn voted against it.
    Incoming House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes voted against it.
    Incoming Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin voted against it.

    Parting shot to hank:

    "Not only did Bush know about it, he was specifically briefed on the incident before meeting with Webb, and was cautioned to be extra sensitive in speaking with Webb about his son." - Rep. James Moran (D-VA), regarding whether President Bush was aware that Sen.-elect James Webb's son had come under fire in Iraq.

    Anonymous writes:

    "Parting shot to hank:
    "Not only did Bush know about it, he was specifically briefed on the incident before meeting with Webb, and was cautioned to be extra sensitive in speaking with Webb about his son." - Rep. James Moran (D-VA), regarding whether President Bush was aware that Sen.-elect James Webb's son had come under fire in Iraq."

    Rep. James Moron is a notorious left wing fringe Bush hater, so any spin he would bring to this story in a dishonest attempt to undercut the President is no surprise. However, I actually do agree with this story in one respect (and one respect only): The President was aware of the close call that Webb's son had in Iraq, but there is no credible source who says the President was warned not to mention anything to Webb about his son. I think the fact that the President knew about the close call before the welcome reception, and then inquired about how Sen.- elect Webb's boy was doing is evidence that the President asked the question out of genuine concern, not as a pro forma question. That was when Webb saw fit to turn an informal social occasion as an opportunity to play provocateur and to get in Bush's face and Bush rightly responded by redirecting the conversation back to a subject appropriate for the occasion.

    This guy is a idiot, a liberal lap dog a waste of space.