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 5, 2006
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - DECEMBER 5, 2006

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • GATES CONFIRMATION HEARINGS: Maj. Gen Paul Eaton, U.S. Army (ret.), Richard Wolffe, Newsweek chief White House correspondent and MSNBC analyst
    • PRES. GEORGE H.W. BUSH'S RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SONS: James Moore, author of "Bush's Brain"
    • POLAR MOON CAMP: Derrick Pitts, Franklin Institute chief astronomer

    Olby barked the opening spiel in his best proselytizer voice: the fallout over the Gates nomination, Bush on Jeb, 2008 polling, Katrina fraud, and living on the moon. Is that anywhere near OlbyPlanet?

    IDIOT

    Krazy Keith started the spin with Gates saying "we're not winning" in Iraq, as if it were stop-the-presses news, though Gen Peter Pace has said something so similar as to be functionally equivalent. After a clip from Gates saying the fatal words, there were soundbites from committee members: Levin (D), Bayh (D), Clinton (D), and...no Republicans. Wow, what a shocker. And KO didn't run Gates's later comments that we're not losing either, though he did a quick fast-talk-patter recitation. That's when The Wolffe Man entered to talk about how scripted Gates was.

    The promos for tonight's Hour of Spin said Monkeymann was going to examine Gates's background, i.e. supposed involvement in Iran-Contra. He was visibly annoyed that the Dems didn't go into all that and said so, but Wolffie didn't want to go there and just talked about the Dems wanting to "play nice". Judge Keith ruled that Rummy's memo is "self-serving" and great thanksed The Wolffe Man.

    Then Krazy Keith turned to Eaton, who pronounced Gates "a great change", obviously since he had been one of the handful of generals who had been agitating for years to that end. KO brought up the Rummy memo (again!) and his guest was happy to pile-on with approved OlbySpin. (That's why it was Eaton in the Seat of Honor instead of somebody else. More on that shortly.) Some not-very-illuminating chatter about the Baker commission and this uninformative, tedious parley was mercifully brought to an end with the ritual great thanks.

    The #4 story brought the kind of propaganda that can only be generated by a discredited sports guy in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Because Bush 41 was reduced to tears talking about his son Jeb, but wasn't when talking about George W, that means he doesn't really like George! No, we're not making this up. You don't see the same level of emotion when he speaks of 43, said Sigmund Olbermann. We couldn't possibly imagine "analysis" this imbecilic anywhere except on The Hour of Spin. To put a stamp of approval on Keith's fevered fantasies, Moore took the stage.

    Oh it's so "interesting", especially since 43 is now "calling on" James A Baker III to solve the Iraq mess, and he was Daddy's guy. Um, did President Bush select Baker to co-chair this commission? Did he even appoint the members? Does Moore know what he's talking about? Sigmund wouldn't let go of his armchair psychoanalysis of 41/43, Moore was happy to go along, and when they got into how 41 secretly feels "the wrong son" was elected President, we know it was such vacuous malarkey that it's not worth our valuable server space to waste any more bytes on it. Moore was great thanksed.

    [UPDATE: Our clear-thinking Olbermann Watch reader cee has in fact identified the genesis of this preposterous drivel: Olby lifted the idea from Daily Kos. Edward R Olbermann's practice of filching material from the bluest of the blue blogs continues apace.]

    After an ad for The Nation promoting its "liberal bias" (they sure know what niche audience the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann truckles to), an O'Reilly-attacking oddball segment, and more commercials, we got taped reruns from the network mothership on the missing Mr Kim and FEMA fraud. Plus Madonna, Guy Ritchie, celebrity Presidential polling, and some bragging about how he's closing in O'Reilly in the "key demo" ratings --using, of course, the phony, doctored numbers that nobody else uses (except TVN) because they artificially inflate his audience. (The genuine numbers, as always, are linked below). #1: a lunar base on NASA.

    In the Media Matters Minute, Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann said neither Webb nor Bush looked that good in their recent exchange, but naturally it was "Mister" Bush who got the "worst person" nomination. Throw in a Republican Congressman and the streak of not naming Democrats or liberals continues to extend.

    OLBY

    Muted mongrels: This was Olby's last chance, and he blew it: no correction or apology for his ludicrous smear of Bill O'Reilly. And then there's the case of Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post, who was a regular Countdown guest, at least twice a month in the runup to the elections. Then he appeared on November 2--what happened during that show's Olby/Ricks exchange is the stuff of legend. Mr Ricks hasn't been back since. Finally, we would be most remiss if we didn't point out that KO still 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 up a bit to #354 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" is #14. At Barnes & Noble the OlbyTome is a disappointing #1,428, while O'Reilly's book has risen to #17. And Mr Bill's literary triumph is still #3 on the New York Times Best Sellers list. Monday is the strongest night for viewership and that propelled Olby to a second place in total viewers--though again The Factor bested Countdown by more than three to one. Despite the touting of nonstandard figures rejected by everyone not on OlbyPlanet, the truth is that The Hour of Spin barely escaped third place in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 1 [LOW]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (68) | | View blog reactions

    68 Comments

    So James Moore tells Olby he knows why 41 cries about Jeb Bush? Amazing.

    I lose more respect for NBC News each and every day that they keep Olby the Clown and his band of circus freaks on the air.

    This whole analysis and snickering over Bush 41 breaking down in tears over Jeb Bush's loss in a '94 election is making me sick. Speculating that Bush 41 broke down because he believes "the wrong son" became President is journalism or even round-table discussion at its lowest.

    Defend Olbermann if you like, but this is as disrespectful as it gets. I hope J$ sums it up with the usual wit and insight better than I just did.

    Pathetic, Mister Olbermann, sir.

    George Sr. now knows that Jeb will never have the chance to be president, now if we could just sterilize the Bush daughters.

    I'd rather someone neuter Olbermann.

    We hear he's not very functional in that department, so that might not be necessary.

    Olby's trying to spin the ratings again. This guy cannot get more pathetic. Your bosses probably don't like you very much right now, Olby. That will affect your contract negotiations more than spinning lies out of your perpetually losing ratings. Donahue had better ratings than you and look what happened to him. Maybe he pissed off someone who had a bigger office.

    Donahue was fired because he was right about this war. Hell Marlo Thomas for Sec. of state !! Donahue stood up against power, that is why he was shitcanned.

    But Olby said he was not fired because he was against the war. What's the real story, O'Lielly? Or did your god lie, as usual?

    Well, KO is braver than he is smart. Sort of like the president.

    I remember Keith. He Graduated from Cornell University in 1979 with a bachelor of science degree in communications arts. Too bad he was caught screwing a monkey in the science lab. He may have been able to complete his degree in Animal Behavior.

    Susan A. Henry Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences said he was a brilliant student, but had his mind up his ass. He was too set on one thing, and couldn't see the big picture. Sort of Attenton Deficit she said. Too bad. Well, he settled for some TV show where he is a comedian of sorts. Still screws animals, though. What a waste.

    I remember Keith. He Graduated from Cornell University in 1979 with a bachelor of science degree in communications arts. Too bad he was caught screwing a monkey in the science lab. He may have been able to complete his degree in Animal Behavior.

    Susan A. Henry Ronald P. Lynch Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences said he was a brilliant student, but had his mind up his ass. He was too set on one thing, and couldn't see the big picture. Sort of Attenton Deficit she said. Too bad. Well, he settled for some TV show where he is a comedian of sorts. Still screws animals, though. What a waste.

    Nice summary Johnny D... Citizen Keith was extra deplorable tonight.

    L.F.

    Gates was approved by The Armed Services Commitee 24-0 with some Senators (Kennedy and Levin, I think) having voted against him for CIA Director because of Iran-Contra previously. What does the looney left on Olby Planet have to say about this revolting development?

    Olbermann must have had to throw out some witty copy with that surprise development.

    BTW I was at DailyKos at 2:00 PM this afternoon and read the psycho-babble about Bush 41, W and Jeb.....and then lo/behold...Olbermann expresses the same opinion!

    There is some sick Cain/Abel...East of Eden thing going on in the liberal mind in how they read The Bushes. Keith Olbermann and his comrades need to take their thorazine!

    Looks like a pretty lame episode of COUNTDOWN tonight.

    We couldn't possibly imagine "analysis" this imbecilic anywhere except on The Hour of Spin....

    Well J$, believe it or not, something simliar was put forth by one of those nutroots at kos at 1:39 PM today...

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/5/162142/447

    Not only MEDIA MATTERS, but now kos, Olbermann? Oh my!

    Dems and Chafeee shitcanned Bolton. How sad....
    This guy was anyone but Rumsfeld today hence the vote...Tells you how cooky these democrats are.

    If Media Matters and Daily Kos didn't exist, Olbermann would have no material whatsoever for his show.

    Funny, I seem to remember Bolton being originally appointed in a sneaky "recess" appointment because he couldn't be comfirmed by an overwhelming REPUBLICAN Senate.

    So now it's just Chafee and the Dems? Interesting perspective!

    Go ahead and rewrite history...dems were blocking it through various procedures... Bolton had balls,,,something Olbyloon and his followers don't have.

    any chance this asshat ko might end up at cnn with his latest hit piece on abrams? i hear zahn is on thin ice. keep up the great work J$. oh yeah ko and all his sheep can go to hell.

    Crazy Keith is obsessed with ratings...you think the average viewer cares about the 25-54 demographic and that Keith beat Bill in the final quarter-hour? What a certifiable nut.

    Mike,

    Here is what you said yesterday.
    -------------
    I guess there are a few universal truths about war, just not the ones you were attempting to "lead" me to. (1) - War is always hell. (2) The only predictable thing about war is that it is unpredictable, (3) - People WILL die and attocities WILL occurr, & (4) - There are always at least two sides, and both firmly believe they are the "good" guys.

    ALL of the above reasons are each in themselves good reasons why invading Iraq was just about the stupidist thing our country has ever done.
    -------------

    If the above are "universal truths" about war, and they are good reasons why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, then why are they also not reasons why the US should never have gone into any war ever? You didn't mention the War of 1812, or World War II. Why not? Those are wars, too. If those truths weren't reason to keep us out of any other wars then they aren't reason to keep us out of this war. You need to think things through a little better. It's like all of your answers are just throw away lines.

    Of course, I know that your stated reasons are never the real reasons anyway.

    > Well J$, believe it or not, something simliar was put forth by one of those nutroots at kos at 1:39 PM today...

    So noted. Thanks, cee!

    Rico:

    Trying to debate you is a riot!

    Do I need to repeat every bogus reason given for going into Iraq that all turned out to be false? You've heard them all so why should I have to repeat them?

    Are you really so dense that you think each war in our history can be lumped into one pile with a universal logic stating we should either have fought them all, or none of them?

    No, I don't really believe you are that stupid, but you made the suggestion for some reason? If you really believe that Iraq is not a unique enough situation that it's own merits can't be considered without bringing up other wars, then we have no common ground in which to try to discuss anything.

    Iraq was a powderkeg with it's lid being held on by the brutal dictator we chose to take out. He did it using the very brutality our society disdains. Just like in the old brutal Communist states...it worked! Meanwhile, AL Queda disliked him and hated us. We hated both.

    But wait....Saddam held the lid in place on Iraq, and at the same time, we were effectively keeping Saddam in a box with our no fly and sanctions policies. Not an ideal situation, but it worked. Sometimes the best solution is not the ideal one.

    We chose to blow the lid off that box when we removed the lid (Saddam). We created the front Al Queda had dreamed of in which they could oppose us in their own neighborhood. I believe we actually answered Al Queda's prayers when we invaded Iraq. It gave them a recruiting tool they could never have created on their own as well as giving them a forum in which they could try to convince many fence sitting Muslems that we are in fact their enemy. None of this was good for us.

    Now the powerkeg is blowing apart and we now seem powerless to stop it. You say you want to 'win', but what do you mean? Who are we going to 'defeat' when everybody is fighting everybody else, and the one thing they all have in common is that they all hate us mutually?

    Bush & Co. succeeded in convincing a clear majority that this invasion was necessary, but even then, there was a very solid minority that was skeptical. I was very much among the minority and I spoke out against it at the time, just like Pat Buchanon and a number of other practical people. How I wish I had been wrong.

    Whether we go to war or not is a decision that always has to be made with OUR best interests in mind. I thought we learned from Vietnam that war, especially in a strange land with a strange culture must be an absolute last resort.

    Iraq was not only an ill advised and unnecessary war, it was a counterproductive war that went against our very own interests.

    If this administration had showed the guts to market this invasion on it's own merits, and not WMD, and the other lies, I believe the American people would have never allowed it to happen. Spare me the "everybody believed they had WMD" farce of an arguement. That simply was not true. There were too many Americans who saw through the scare tactics.

    I watched those tanks rolling into Iraq with a sense of dread I had rarely felt in my lifetime. I feared we had made a huge mistake, but I sincerely hoped I was wrong, and I really wish I had been wrong.

    But hey, who am I....just another nobody!

    Mike,

    Whenever I point out the illogic in what you are saying you move on to something else. You never stop and stand anyplace. There is no place for you to stand, because you are not for anything, just against.

    You moved on to Iraq. Fine. The problem is Bush has screwed it up. I liked his start. But he started screwing it up, as far as I am concerned, the day he landed on that aircraft carrier. That's right. I'm the only person on the Right who cringed when he did so. That event wasn't the cause of the other stuff, but maybe it is a metaphor or something. Bush's screw-up in Iraq is that he has not had the moral or intellectual courage to tell the American people what it will take to produce the desired result in Iraq, if a stable democracy is even possible there. I wasn't the one who told him to try the democracy deal there. He should have wrapped things up in Iraq, by hook or by crook, three years ago. If he had we wouldn't even be here talking about this.

    But back to you. I know that you do not want war to work. You want it to fail. That's because you already have your real enemy, and it is Republicans, Christians, and Conservatives. The War on Terror is just a sideshow for you. And that "sense of dread" you say you had? I won't be able to sleep tonight. I will be laughing so hard over that one. That reminds me of the sour pusses on the faces of Aaron Brown and Wesley Clark on CNN as the Iraq war started. You would have thought they were watching the panzers rolling through Poland. You are all such silly people! But Bush is screwing up big time..............

    Actually, I disagree that many Americans believed that going into Iraq was a mistake, initially. If you believe polls at all, most AMericans believed that there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam. Now, people don't believe that. Bush's poll numbers were good then. The MSM didn't attack the war initially and faulted themselves later for that.

    Bush did not create terrorists. You cannot blame the evil that men commit on one man. Isn't that why the capture/death of Osama would not end things? It didn't end with Zarqawi. Do you really think it would be good for the morale of our country and the troops for Bush to say, this was a big mistake. I never should have done this. I listen to Pat Buchanon often. He is right when he says that if the Dems really want to get the troops out, defund the war. It won't happen. I have only heard Dennis Kucinich take that position. I am not taking that position, by the way.

    Saddam is crazy. Taking him out was a good thing. I heard someone make the point that when we hear about the number of men killed by suicide bombers as they wait in line to become policemen, we have to acknowledge something: men are there to join the police. Yes, Saddam had a lid on things. He also continued to defy the U.N. Why didn't he just do what he should have: show that he destroyed the weapons. He knew the consequences
    When he saw how his country was bombed, he was walking around the streets arrogantly at first. Do you remember Baghdad Bob claiming that the Americans were not going to take Baghdad when a split screen showed the tanks rolling in? (a very humorous event in a humorless situation) Saddam could have made a choice even then. The U.S. isn't going to execute him: his people will.

    Another point, I read on another site that there are only 9 embedded reporters in all of Iraq. You may think Ollie North is a criminal but he is over in Anbar Province (Ramadi) again today bringing the story. There is a guy who is friends with the Jawa Report who is going over and promises to give us the story. I am really anxious to hear what he has to say.

    One last thing. Our enemy is ruthless. 9/11 shows that. I watched a beheading video of an American and it forever impacted me. Reading about it and watching it are two different experiences. I don't walk around in terror but I realized the kind of hatred that exists. I also saw what they did to the two captured soldiers.If you want to make the argument that the U.S. should take the high road and treat terrorists under the Geneva Conventions and give them habeas corpus rights, fine. Don;t say that it will help our troops, as Olbermann spouts. A captured U.S. soldier, marine, airman by a terrorist is a dead one, no matter what happens at Gitmo.

    Mike,

    I wanted to make this point a couple of weeks ago and got distracted by family matters. I don't have the text to the law but this is from an e-mail by Areln SPector addressing the habeas corpus issue. From what I read here, the loss of habeas corpus does not affect U.S. citizens.


    In the June 2006 Supreme Court decision Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , the Court held that military commissions used in prosecuting enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay must be authorized by Congress and must obey the legal obligations of the Geneva Conventions� Common Article III and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The decision explicitly urged Congress to legislate a solution by properly establishing military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants. <>
    Following the Hamdan decision, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee worked with President Bush to craft legislation to establish military tribunals. I generally supported the legislation dra fted by these Senators and the a dministration, however, I had serious reservations about a provision in the bill which eliminated detainees� right to habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is the right of those in custody to challenge their detainment in court. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I held a hearing on September 25, 2006 to specifically address habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. During the Senate�s consideration of the legislation, I offered an amendment which would have guaranteed habeas corpus for detainees. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a narrow 48-51 vote. <>

    Rico:

    Do not attempt to phychoanalize me! You are not even close. You say I 'hate' Christians and conservatives? Get real, I come from a family of VERY Eveangelical Christians, although I personally have to admit to having strayed a bit.

    Christianity has nothing to do with this war, the idea, or the execution.

    As for being against everything Republican?....I WAS a Republican until Bush strayed away from everything he claimed he was in the 2000 campaigne.

    Aaron Brown and Wesley Clark were right. They were true American Patriots watching their beloved country screw up big time and there was not a damned thing they could do about it. Yes Rico, I know how they felt!

    And look what Aaron Brown got for being right....fired! I have had no respect for CNN since they canned him!

    I find it a tad funny there are refences to 'crazy keith' yet theres a picture of ORRLY on this site ahahaha

    Sharm:

    If you go back and read my post you will see that I agreed with you that most Americans were originally in favor of going into Iraq. I also stated that a significant MINORITY also opposed it. The point I was making is that the American people were intentioanlly SOLD on being in favor of the war. If they had been given all the facts as to what we REALLY knew, I don't believe they
    would have been in favor of the invasion.

    You say taking out Saddam was a "good thing". It's hard to disagree when that point is made without regard to the consequences. But what about the consequences? How many American lives were worth taking him out? Was creating a more unstable Middle East too high a price to pay? How about 20,000 seriously wounded veterans, who will rightfully have to be cared for by the taxpayers for the rest of their lives? Was it worth increasing the power and influence of a very radical Iran? How about the crushing debt this invasion has cost us, and your children for decades to come.

    Sharm, the real question to me was; How much was 'getting' Saddam really worth to us?

    I have no problem with people thinking i'm wrong, I don't even have a problem with people hating me, I'm kinda used to it, but if you hate me for what I think and believe, you should know what I think and believe, and not just make stuff up.

    I mean hell, olby dedicated almost 2 full minutes to making Texas Rangers jokes about bush the now. BTW, does olby know that bush the elder is a war veteran, as in real war, as in shot down, landing in hostile territory, and then paddling his own ass to a friendly ship offshort kind of real war veteran?

    So bush the elder is a puss, cuz he hates his eldest, bush the junior is a retard because he listens to the advice of his fathers cabinet, but neither of them are given the absolute moral authority of service that comes with having been service, though in a rear echelon way like bush the junior, or as a verifiable, there is film to prove it heroic individual like bush the elder, but kerry is always a "noted vietnam war hero" who never gets judged?

    and while olby will intro kerry with a 45 minute recollection of how brave and heroic, and what a great serviceman he was, olby just basicaly says that bush the senior might as well purr and whine like a cowardly kitty, though bush the elder pretty much outdid every presidential candidate other than McCain, in the last 30 years. (okay Bob Dole, but he was a lamb, not a candidate.)

    I watched that segment and it was hard to watch the elder Bush break down like that, but if anything, I respect him more than ever. He's no wimp!

    I think the real question being asked with the cable news coverage was whether or not Bush Sr. might actually be closer to Jeb than George Jr.?

    Some people who read this blog think I am a lib, but I have always had great respect for George 41, while I don't believe George Jr. has ever proven himself qualified to even run a corner hardware store.

    Mike, everybody who knows the family has always said that Jeb was the one that was supposed to be president.

    DEMOCRATS CONTINUE CHANGING COURSE

    -- New House Intel Chairman to Push For More Troops

    WASHINGTON - Ignoring their pre-election promises to their leftist base, liberal Democrats, once known as doves, turned hawkish Tuesday. The future House Intelligence Chairman, Silvestre Reyes, an early opponent of the Iraq war who voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country, announced his support of increasing troop levels in Iraq by more than 10,000. Representative Reyes' anti-war record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel. However, this new position seems contrary to the calls from liberal progressives for immediate withdrawal.
    John Murtha, still grumpy after his bid for Majority Leader failed, had a terse reaction, "I don't give a damn about what the leadership decides. I still think redeployment to Okinowa is a workable idea. You haven't heard the last of this!"

    Mike, everybody who knows the family has always said that Jeb was the one that was supposed to be president.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 6, 2006 06:59 AM


    Is Jeb more qualified than Bush for he is the governor of Florida? In 2000, I remember the Republicans wanted George Jr to be the President.

    Is Maureen Dowd posting here under a nom de plume?

    I have a nice title for all of the silly, pseudopsychological interest in the Bush family dynamic....(It could even be made into a nice mini-series in the future!)....

    East of Eden, West of Crawford

    Give me a break. The Bush Hatred Derangement Syndrome sufferers must be having it worse with the upcoming holiday season. You know how it is.....old dysfunctional family get-togethers, memories or arguments at the table, someone coming-out of the closet over egg nog, not getting that certain gift from Santa....Oy.

    It is interesting how all of the analysis of the Bush brothers/father relationship is coming from the left. I guess they need a deeper, human heart explaination for how and why.

    Despite the left's need, I would like to discuss something a little more interesting and cogent.

    Mike,

    So it's OK for Olby and his minion to pyschoanalyze 41, but not OK for someone here to psychoanalyze you?

    hmmmm....why is that?

    By the way people, 41 was George H. W. Bush, 43 is George W. Bush...there is no Jr Sr here

    From the Iraq Study Group Report

    "There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect American interests. Many Americans are dissatisfied, not just with the situation in Iraq but with the state of our political debate regarding Iraq. Our political leaders must build a bipartisan approach to bring a responsible conclusion to what is now a lengthy and costly war. Our country deserves a debate that prizes substance over rhetoric, and a policy that is adequately funded and sustainable. The president and Congress must work together. Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support."

    Yeah, we'll see just how bipartisan the far left of the Democratic Party will be in the months to come. The goal of the left is to see Bush destroyed....This makes it impossible for bipartisanship since the destruction of Iraq would be part of the scheme of the left to continue to score political points. I am not very optimistic.

    Let's see...why don't I try the psychoanalyzing bit on Olby:

    Hmmmmm...Olby constantly attacks Bill O'Reilly in the form of a one sided feud (O'Reilly does not mention Olby at all).

    Olby also constantly measures himself up to O'Reilly via ratings (overall, key demo, & the massaged numbers that advertisers reject-advertsing being the reason for ratings in the first place). Olby is always found wanting...his numbers range from less to waaayyy less.

    Therefore, from these items, we can tell that Olby has some MAJOR INADEQUACY ISSUES vis a vis Bill O'Reilly. So, Olby KNOWS that Bill is better than he is, and thus, Olby must continually try to tear him down in any way possible to give any credence to his own little life in his own mind).

    Analysis of why Olbermann gave Clinton a check before the interview. He is a kiss ass that dearly wants somebody to like him. Probably paid kids in grade school not to beat him up. Probably buys rounds of drinks at the bar to get people to notice him. He is pissed that O'Reilly pays him little to no attention.

    Well Kurt, let's just say as much as I am skeptical of conspiricy theories (from UFO's to Opus Dei) I am doubtful of the theories people put out about an individual's subconcious motivations. The family influence is a factor, as is a person's personal history, etc. However, to make conclusions about personal motives and attitudes is subjective, so then speculative. I have read many an historical account trying to explain events from a psychological analysis and found them just as easily explained from a different frame of reference. Lincoln, for example, has been dissected by hundreds of people using his letters and public statements as well as primary sources like friends and family members. There is still NO concensus on what the man personally believed. I spent days arguing with the secularists on this site about Jefferson and the other founding fathers....both points of view equally defended.

    Perhaps we can conclude that Bush 41 simply loves his children and is expressing his dismay on how millions of our fellow citizens villify and demean them. Perhaps he wishes W would resign so that Dick Cheney will take over and fix everything. I have no idea.

    It's the same crazy spew every night
    Maybe one guest could lean to the right?
    But Keith can't debate
    So he'll masturbate
    With guests that won't put up a fight

    Yeah, we'll see just how bipartisan the far left of the Democratic Party will be in the months to come. The goal of the left is to see Bush destroyed....This makes it impossible for bipartisanship since the destruction of Iraq would be part of the scheme of the left to continue to score political points. I am not very optimistic.

    Posted by: cee at December 6, 2006 09:29 AM

    I wonder how many of the things the study group says are things the "left" have already said and been labeled as terrorist lovers. cee, since you just come out and say that the destrustion of Iraq is a scheme of the left, I know that you are not mentaly able to be non-partisan. Clearly people with your attitude have made things worse.

    The goal of the left is to see Bush destroyed....
    Posted by: cee at December 6, 2006 09:29 AM

    Bush has destroyed himself by making the worst foriegn policy decision the USA ever made.

    codas, The left has been saying we are losing in Iraq and we should withdraw immedietely since 2003. They were never ready to support President Bush simply because he is W. The war has been used as a political issue by the far left to attain power and now those beholden to that minority are now endorcing increasing troop levels and staying for a long time.

    The difference between the radical left and The Study Group is intent.....The left says things to instill fear and cause loss of support....ultimately to lose in Iraq. The Study Group wants an honorable conclusion, whoever is President.

    It is my opinion that the radical left in this country has made things worse, emboldening the terrorists and making the US fight with one hand tied behind the back. Moderate Democrats (like Joe Lieberman - who was almost ousted from the Senate by his own party!) are ready to be bipartisan and I welcome it.....

    Do you, codas?

    It is my opinion that the radical left in this country has made things worse, emboldening the terrorists and making the US fight with one hand tied behind the back. Moderate Democrats (like Joe Lieberman - who was almost ousted from the Senate by his own party!) are ready to be bipartisan and I welcome it.....

    Do you, codas?

    Posted by: cee at December 6, 2006 12:07 PM

    How has the left emboldening the terrorists and made the US fight with one hand tied behind the back. When did Bush do what the left wanted him to? They are losing over there because of Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush. Did Kerry or Dean decide troop levels? Didn't Bush say he was "staying the course"? Did the democrats map that course? Who said immediate withdrawl in 2003? You say you welcome bipartisanship. Start proving it.

    Kissel says:

    "I know what I say to be substantially true, but I would not expect anyone else to take it as true just because I said it."

    If you want your alleged "facts" to be taken seriously about what Bush 41 and Barbara think about thier respective sons, why don't you supply some information about yourself and what credentials you have that gives you such access into their feelings about their sons. Give us times, dates, places where such thoughts were expressed by Bush 41 and Barbara about how they consider W to an "embarrassment" to use your word. Also, give us some names of people who can corrorborate your ridiculous fantasies. You know, some evidence that supports what you say .

    "In the end, it would be a mistake to overlook this message [that George W. Bush is a failure, overbred twit, etc.] simply because you dislike the delivery system; i.e. Mr. Olbermann."

    "Mr. Olbermann's" message is not overlooked, Kissel I can assure you. It is called out for the one sided cheerleading for the far left fringe that it is, which is why I am sure you like it.

    "But it is possible to reach the same conclusions I have objectively. Dubya is simply a child of privilege, one of exceedingly low ambition, vision and intelligence."

    Yes, I am sure that it is possible to reach these conclusions objectively-- if your idea of objectivity is a regular diet of The Nation, Mother Jones, NYT, Washington Post, Air America and the political science department at Berkley. Try some variety Kissel. I recommend Rebel in Chief by Fred Barnes.

    Your failure to back up what you say gives me all the information I need to judge the credibility of your observations about the Bush family.

    codas,

    The left has been applying anti-war pressure since the president's state of the union address identifying the axis of evil....This pressure has saped the support for effective warfare and injected politics into the waging of war. Troop levels should have been higher and more force should have been applied after Saddam was overthrown, but the political influence of the anti-war radical left was already protesting and the US has had to be very careful about what kind of force can be used.

    What would you and the liberals done if more troops had been sent into Iraq in 2004-2005? You would have cried bloody murder. Political influences won the day, unfortunetely.

    You have said in other posts that attacking Iraq was wrong anyway, so how does that in anyway help victory there. Anyone who has this as their mantra contributes nothing to the solution. Now the Democrats are finally talking about increasing troop levels...I agree with them but you say nothing against it....why codas? Because for you, this is a political issue....blame Bush, failure, defeat. It should not be a political issue and total victory should be pursued and supported.

    "Because for you, this is a political issue....blame Bush, failure, defeat. It should not be a political issue and total victory should be pursued and supported."

    Total victory? Unless you've got a couple of Army brigades under your bed, cee, total victory is IMPOSSIBLE. The Iraq Study Group stated as much - a purely military operation will not lead to success.

    At this point, the best options (from a series of horrible options) are either to "Balkanize" the region (which would piss the Turks off something fierce) or put hard and fast requirements on the Iraqis to get their act together. Anything else is either logistically difficult or practically useless.

    In response to my post Kissel says:

    "My goal is not to convince or even persuade you or anyone else of anything. If it were, I am certain I would be terribly frustrated."

    Trying to convince me or persuade me wouldn't be frustrating at all if you had evidence to back up what you say. You don't, thus it is frustrating for you.

    From Special Comment 11/20/06....

    "Your war machine of 2006 has this nonsense about Iraq as 'the central front in the war on terror.'

    "The fourth pivotal lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: If the same idiots who told Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to stay there for the sake of 'peace With honor' are now telling you to stay in Iraq, they’re probably just as wrong now, as they were then..."


    ###
    Will Keith Olbermann have such strong words for the "idiots" of the ISG tonight?

    Why are the liberals not attacking this report?
    Why are the liberals not condemning the new Democratic leadership for endorcing increased troop levels in Iraq?

    Will Keith be a man and have a Special Comment for his beloved Dems falling into line with the administration?

    He ended his Special Comment on 11/20/06 with...

    "Finally, in Vietnam, we learned the lesson. We stopped endlessly squandering lives and treasure and the focus of a nation on an impossible and irrelevant dream, but you are still doing exactly that, tonight, in Iraq.

    "And these lessons from Vietnam, Mr. Bush, these priceless, transparent lessons, writ large as if across the very sky, are still a mystery to you.

    "'We’ll succeed unless we quit.'

    "No, sir.

    "We will succeed against terrorism, for our country’s needs, toward binding up the nation’s wounds when you quit, quit the monumental lie that is our presence in Iraq.

    "And in the interim, Mr. Bush, an American kid will be killed there, probably tonight or tomorrow.

    "And here, sir, endeth the lesson."

    I guess the ISG and the new Democrat Congress did not learn Olbermann's lesson.

    And here endeth the post.

    cee said:

    "Why are the liberals not condemning the new Democratic leadership for endorcing increased troop levels in Iraq?"

    ONE Democrat (Rep. Sylvestre Reyes) has endorsed troop increases. And later in the same article he says that we still need to get out:

    “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest … We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.” - Rep. Reyes

    “While the report has regenerated a few good ideas, it doesn’t adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority – defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. We can’t continue to just look at Iraq in isolation. Unless we set a serious timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a regrettable example of ‘official Washington’ missing the point.” - Statement of Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)

    "Only a political settlement by the Iraqis can end the violence in Iraq, and the military force that we have there cannot do that for the Iraqis," - Incoming Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI)

    "The most significant thing of the report is it has moved the debate in a fundamental way from not 'if' but 'when' and 'how' we move our forces in Iraq," - Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.)

    Bottom Line - the statement of one House Representative (no matter the prominence) is not indicative of ALL DEMOCRAT THINKING.

    And thus endeth the rebuttal.

    Because for you, this is a political issue....blame Bush, failure, defeat. It should not be a political issue and total victory should be pursued and supported.

    Who should we blame? This is Bush's war...pure and simple..and it has been a failure.

    I see Cee is still pushing for victory.She still hasn't a clue about what is happening in Iraq. Well, Mary Poppins should finally come to the reality there can be no victory in Iraq.The bipartisan Baker Report has made it clear that Bush has been lying about the Iraq war being a success."Grave and deteriorating" is how the report began and that was the most optimistic part of the report.
    Reality is such an enigma to the right wing cabal.

    Cee,

    Your post is a bunch of nonsense. 79% of Americans approved of the Iraq invasion just prior to the war.

    "The left has been applying anti-war pressure since the president's state of the union address identifying the axis of evil...."

    So has the right. That is the sane right who realizes breaking the world into simply good evil camps fails to capture the complexity of much of the world.

    "This pressure has saped the support for effective warfare and injected politics into the waging of war. Troop levels should have been higher and more force should have been applied after Saddam was overthrown, but the political influence of the anti-war radical left was already protesting and the US has had to be very careful about what kind of force can be used."

    Right. The 21% of the population that actually opposed the war was able to put tremendous pressure on Bush with his all time high Approval ratings and Republican control of the Excutive, legislative, and judicial branch That makes sense. it wasn't that Donald Rumsfield wanted a leaner meaner Armed services and overruled others at the pentagon who wanted to use massive millitary force. That makes sense.

    "What would you and the liberals done if more troops had been sent into Iraq in 2004-2005? You would have cried bloody murder. Political influences won the day, unfortunetely."


    Well if that were true, which is it is not. You would need to blame the administration stupid enough to start a war without enough popular support to get the job dojne right. Since the president had plenty of support blame Don Rumsfield who refused to listen to Colin Powell and blame the president for backing him.

    "You have said in other posts that attacking Iraq was wrong anyway, so how does that in anyway help victory there."

    Doesn't hurt it near as much as launching and ill advised war when none of your army speaks Arabic, without enough troops to enforce security, without the support of the majority of your allies, without any plan for what to do after the iraqi army is defeated, without cojnsidering how regional players like iran might influence the situation. Completly ignoring the sectarian strains in Iraqi society and thinking in dreamland how our troops would be greeted with flowers and cookies. This war was lost for lots of reasons, presusure from the left who controled no branch of goverment was not one of them.


    "Anyone who has this as their mantra contributes nothing to the solution. Now the Democrats are finally talking about increasing troop levels..."

    The majorty I see are talking about phased withdrawls.

    "Because for you, this is a political issue....blame Bush, failure, defeat. It should not be a political issue and total victory should be pursued and supported."

    No the best option should be supported. Victory as defined by the Bush adminstration when the war began is no longer possible. That is almost univerisally understood by anyone who is not in dream land.. The best thing to do now is figure away to untangle ourselves from the mess without causing a blood bath or causing further instability in the region.

    Those radical liberals like James Baker and E. Meese concluded that the "Bush policy in Iraq is not working."
    My question is this.Will Cee and the right wing cabal continue to blindly follow the worst president in our lifetime, or have some integrity and admit they've been wrong about Iraq ?

    "Those radical liberals like James Baker and E. Meese concluded that the "Bush policy in Iraq is not working."
    My question is this.Will Cee and the right wing cabal continue to blindly follow the worst president in our lifetime, or have some integrity and admit they've been wrong about Iraq ?"

    My guess is that they will continue to back the administration. I think a lot of these people so strongly identify with the current president that an atack on him, is in a way, an attack on themselves. Most will turn to right wing bloggers or talking heads who will offer up rationals for the defeat, blaming the left. Since these are people they trust many will buy there version of events.

    I mean most of the people on this site continue to back the president which according to the polls mean that they fall into about 30% of the country. That is a pretty entrenched group that is not likely to switch positions because of a silly non-partisan study group let by a commie traitor like Baker.

    You guys from the left are deluded and lie when it suits you.

    Michael Moore: "Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it." 11/29/06


    Dennis Kucinich: "There are many reasons why the war will not go away as an issue. The Democratic base will make sure of it. In the 2008 elections, no one will ask "Where are the Democrats?!" They will be in the streets early in 2007 if we are still in Iraq. They will be at the polling places in the 2008 primary elections if we are still in Iraq. They will be there with a powerful reminded that when they demanded that we get out of Iraq in 2006, they meant it. This is why any further appropriations for Iraq, that does not explicitly fund bringing home the troops, must be defeated. The time to start this determination of a course of action is now. There is only one way to end the war in Iraq and that is to cut off funds. Our troops and the Iraqi people cannot afford to wait." 12/5/06

    Two standard bearers of the 21% far left fringe that expects something totally different than what the ISG suggested.

    Those from the left that post here and defend another immediate withdrawal supporter... Olbermann.... seem to only like to read certain parts of the report. I read much of the report and a substantial COMBAT troop presence is recommended through 2007. The current Iraqi government should be supported while given strict goals to meet. No immediate withdrawal is suggested like the left wants and you guys just white wash it.

    The ISG report has no time line like Feingold demanded. Bush can continue his policy to train the Iraq army and pursue a political solution to the sectarian violence....but immediate withdrawal like the anti-war liberals want is not likely.

    So my question is...Who is really in a minority?

    I have been consistent that the US should fight in Iraq until either the currently elected Iraqi government can take care of the security of the nation or there is no Iraqi government. Eveyone that comes here to berate Bush says..."Immediate withdrawal...stop the killing...bring the troops home now." I would say that my attitude towards Iraq is consistent with the ISG and with many of the new Democratic leadership in the Congress while the Moore and Sheehan types like KO live in the 21% jt mentioned, and are being marginalized.

    Do not try to change history and say immediate withdrawal was not the mantra of the Democratic base....Just go over to kos and see their reaction to the ISG...remember what the lefty pop icon Moore said on 11/29/06:

    "The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans....But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken."

    So Bob, as you say, "This is Bush's war...pure and simple..and it has been a failure." may make you feel better but like it or not it is America's war and I want us to be successful and the ISG says it is difficult....BUT POSSIBLE. The left just wants to give up.

    Hey do you guys support what Tom Hayden is suggesting?

    "The peace movement should not trust peacemaking to the powerful [referring to the ISG]. We should continue opposing this war as unjust and unwinnable until the last of our troops come home. We attribute the present ISG re-appraisal to the great mandate for peace created by American voters on November 7, and we vow to build barricades of voter resistance in every primary state against pro-war presidential candidates beginning this year.

    "Immediately, we call upon Democrats to heed the mandate for peace more than the recommendations of the ISG; hold oversight hearings on war profiteering and America's role in the fostering of deadly militias in Iraq; and vote against funding the war without a timetable or workable plan for withdrawal.

    "We intend to step up our local efforts against military recruiting to prevent the Pentagon from manipulating our youth into dying for a mistake. We intend to expand our coalition by emphasizing the disastrous budget results for education and health care from wasting $9 billion per month in Iraq. We intend to fight for democracy against domestic spying conducted against our movement. We will continue to oppose wars for oil.

    "Surely and steadily, we will build people power against the pillars of the policy until the war effort collapses."


    ##
    Again....another representative of the Democratic base calling a mandate for IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL.

    So, a guy who moves further out of the Liberal mainstream, a failed fringe Presidential candidate and a former STATE SENATOR are the "voices" of the Democratic base?

    Forgive me while I go bust a gut laughing. I'm more inclined to believe the SENATORS and REPRESENTATIVES AS A WHOLE than these people who have NO SAY in the direction of the party.

    Please, cee. Stop. You're just digging a deeper hole.

    "these people who have NO SAY in the direction of the party."

    I either laugh at your naivete, or cringe at your hypocrisy!

    Ok Anon, deny where you come from and what was said prior to the election.....I am standing on firm ground, not in a hole...The BASE of the D's, (comprised of radical, liberal progressives who insist they got the Dems their majorities) are going to want to be listened to and obeyed.

    Even your great new guy in Virginia, Webb, told the President to his face he wants the troops home...when will that be Anon? According to the liberals it is in the next 1 to 3 months!

    Are they delusional? I say they are...and they think the killing must stop now and America must retreat. The ISG does not agree with you or them.

    REPRESENTATIVE Kucinich is not alone in believing he can morally cut the funding for the troops to apply pressure...do you disagree with him?

    Those who are against this war want it both ways...they want it as a political issue but do not want to admit they are for total defeat with premature withdrawal prior to a giving the democratically elected government in Iraq a chance to confront the sectarian strife. Desertion of the Iraqis has been the real potential result of the left's rhetoric since day 1, but you have always tried to sugar-coat it.

    Oh, and Anon, this wonderful liberal Senator has some more demands of your party....

    Russ Feingold said,

    "The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq."

    All right...the idiot wants anti-war nuts planning a war...I feel so safe with leaders like him in power!

    "Even your great new guy in Virginia, Webb, told the President to his face he wants the troops home...when will that be Anon? According to the liberals it is in the next 1 to 3 months!"

    Then they're nuts. Even an IMMEDIATE withdrawal would take 6 months (to ensure that our troops are safely withdrawn).

    Don't feed me that bullshit, cee. Any "liberal" who says that has rocks for brains because they're asking for something that is 100% IMPOSSIBLE!

    "All right...the idiot wants anti-war nuts planning a war...I feel so safe with leaders like him in power!"

    No, what SENATOR Feingold (and use SENATOR since you all are so big on respecting titles) says is that we shouldn't have the same "good old boys" every time we need a panel. There were NO retired high-level military officers, NO experts on the Middle East and NO counter-terror experts on the Iraq Study Group.

    The ISG DID get things right, but that's because even a blind man could see how badly the situation has been cocked up. But Senator Feingold is right in saying that it still suffers from "tunnel-vision".

    Cee. Two people in the country with a certain viewpoint do not constitue proof of anything. I know Right wingers who say we should nuke the middle east and steal their oil, (See Leonard peikoff). I take it you don't hold that viewpoint.

    "Those from the left that post here and defend another immediate withdrawal supporter... Olbermann.... seem to only like to read certain parts of the report. I read much of the report and a substantial COMBAT troop presence is recommended through 2007."

    I think most of us would be satisfied if you guys would just admit this war was a colossal error. I actually liked much of the study group. I felt like the neocon influence is waning and the adults are finally standing up. It's probably too little to late. But at least we have people like baker and hamilton who are commited to dealing with reality instead of fantasing about turning the middle east into a beacon of democracy. I'm not for just quitting and going home now. I feel like we have a responsability to try to fix this very shitty quagmire, the far right swaggered us into for the sake of the iraqi people, who do not deserve a full scale civil war.

    "The current Iraqi government should be supported while given strict goals to meet. No immediate withdrawal is suggested like the left wants and you guys just white wash it."

    No but withdrawls are called for in fifteen months. know what that is? That is a timetable. Something the Bush adminstration has said no to repeatedly.

    "The ISG report has no time line like Feingold demanded. Bush can continue his policy to train the Iraq army and pursue a political solution to the sectarian violence....but immediate withdrawal like the anti-war liberals want is not likely."

    Nor is indefinetly staying the course as the far right wants. This is a political compromise between centrist in both parties.

    "So my question is...Who is really 'in a minority?'"

    I would say the neocons who have watched every single one of the predicitons turn out to be incorrect are now in the minority. Say what you will about the fringe left but unlike the fringe right they were correct in their predicitons regarding this war.

    "I have been consistent that the US should fight in Iraq until either the currently elected Iraqi government can take care of the security of the nation or there is no Iraqi government. Eveyone that comes here to berate Bush says...'Immediate withdrawal...stop the killing...bring the troops home now.'"

    Well, I have no idea what posts you have read my posts have said, "Colossal Blunder...Stupid War....incompetant adminstration" I think one and only more chance is all we should give. This war is getting expensively well beyond the nostradomdus like predictions from the right,of 50 billion dollars. Not to mention the cost in Iraqi and U.S. lives.


    "I would say that my attitude towards Iraq is consistent with the ISG and with many of the new Democratic leadership in the Congress while the Moore and Sheehan types like KO live in the 21% jt mentioned, and are being marginalized."

    Well, not really. I'm not sure i agree with that crowd in what they see as the best way to proceed but the fact is they were right about this war. It was a blunder. They said it. no one listend, they were right. I personally think we should make a last try to deal with the blunder because in my opinion it is better for the country if we follow the study group's suggestions.

    "Do not try to change history and say immediate withdrawal was not the mantra of the Democratic base....Just go over to kos and see their reaction to the ISG...remember what the lefty pop icon Moore said on 11/29/06:"

    Some do want immediete withdrawl. Ultimately they may be right about that as they were the war. But many many in the democratic party are for phased withdrawls over time. you act like there is a consensus which is just another attempt to over simplify the issue.

    "So Bob, as you say, "This is Bush's war...pure and simple..and it has been a failure." may make you feel better but like it or not it is America's war and I want us to be successful and the ISG says it is difficult....BUT POSSIBLE. The left just wants to give up."

    Well. I agree this is America's war but it was Bush's mistake (and many on the left are pissed because they have been yelling "ICEBERG!" for three or four years and the far right still sank the titantic.)

    I think we should try a last time to fix this thing, and that starts with facing reality and admitting that we are losing there and drastic things have got to happen. my hope is that Bush is less worried about his legacy and more worried about doing what is best for America.

    I am also frankly, worried that the democrats smell blood and know that the fact they were right could end up in their getting the whitehouse. I hope they do what is best for the country instead of playing politics. I have some hope for the first time in a long time this might happen due to the prestige of the study group.


    Lots more of having cake and eating it too....You two are repeating yourselves.

    The ISG looks into 2008 for continued intervention which is TOTALLY anathema to the likes of Murtha, Feingold, Kucinich, Gore, Kerry, nevermind the moonbats that I mentioned from kos and HuffPo. You see, I read what people post and say and take them at their word. And when I read, "Troops home now," I guess I hear troops home at least by early 2007. Also, if you read the ISG report, financial support continues through 2008, again going against what the base of the Democratic base has been yelling about.

    The arrogance of the Monday Morning Quarterbacks makes the possibility of bipartisanship impossible. Example: SENATOR Feingold stated, "The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism...." 20/20 hindsight does not make anyone, liberal or conservative, an expert. It sounds to me like SENATOR Feingold sees the ISG conclusions as falwed because people like himself were not consulted. How can one sit down with someone who, carte blanche, says you have NO judgement, and honestly broker any policy. If SENATOR Feingold really feels Bush as NO judgement, then he should be calling for his impeachment and removal from office.

    "Success has many fathers.....failure is always an orphan." Well, this is coming to be true with the Iraq War, and as a result, I see a more timid US foreign policy in the future. I only hope the world reality in the future allows the US to be timid.

    Oh my....I'm psychic....case in point:

    IRAQ STUDY GROUP'S POLICY NO DIFFERENT THAN THE CURRENT POLICY

    BY JOHN MURTHA!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/iraq-study-groups-policy_b_35774.html

    Put that bipartisan ISG report in the circular file, gents. Thank you.

    More liberal wailing....

    From Representative Kucinich:

    "I think there's going to be a concern around the country that this [approving further funding for the war in Iraq] does represent a bait-and-switch. I'm hopeful that this position will be reconsidered and that the Democrats will not vote to keep the war going. But at this point, if the Democrats go forward and support a supplemental which by some accounts is now rising to $160 billion, they'll be providing enough money to keep the war going through the end of George Bush's term.

    "Now, this is a serious moment. I believe the public is largely unaware that this is happening, and I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war."

    Read more about what the base is talking about at (where else!):

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joshua-scheer/dennis-kucinichs-showdow_b_35792.html

    Wow that's a good non-response.

    Hey Cee! Here are republicans on the report!

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Hamilton and Baker he did not believe the panel's proposal to withdraw combat troops would work.

    Right Wing blogosphere:

    Hugh Hewitt sounds disgusted:

    "The report combines an almost limitless condescension towards the 'Iraqi sovereign government,' even going so far as to lay out a timetable for its exact legislative program for the next six months, with a cavalier indifference to the Syrian death squads operating in Lebanon, and the certain nature of the Iranian regime --still, on this very day, hosting the anti-Holocaust conference. It is a wonder, this bit of appeasement virtuosity."

    Conservative National Review views the panel as being in outer space:

    "Welcome to the non-reality-based world of bipartisan commissions. Even commissions flying under the banner of realism, such as the James Baker/Lee Hamilton--led ISG, inhabit that world. The ISG doesn't recommend any plausible way of making Syria and Iran behave the way they 'should.' Instead, it advocates talks that will magically convince the Iranians and Syrians to stop pursuing their interests in Iraq . . . The ISG report is an analytic embarrassment."