Can't you be specific here? Sheeez. What a waste of time reading this was. And YOU spent hours and hours? Wow. You get the #1 spot for LAMENESS. I was looking for some facts here.

Wow. You couldn't even give it a rest on Christmas Day? I realize that Christmas was technically over for 12 minues at the time of the post, but come on. Don't you have anything better to do with your life on this day than obsess over Olbermann? Or even if you actually don't have anything else going on in your life, how about some of that "Peace on Earth" for one day stuff? Come on, get in the spirit of the season!

#10 - you never directly refute the ratings numbers. And I've repeatedly shown numbers directly from Nielson that show Countdown is up 2/3 from last November to this November.

#9 - johnny said, "Olbermann quit his first job at A-Mess-NBC because he didn't like covering the investigations and impeachment proceedings against Bill Jefferson Clinton."

- This is, in part, true. So, I'm not quite sure where the 'lie' is. Your writing skills are as bad as your assertions.

#8 - I'll give you this one. But, when he said 'once,' I don't think he was referring to retreaded NBC packs. But, I'll give you this one. What's a worse lie, though? WMD's or how many time's KO said they reported a rape case? I'll let the readers decide.

#7 - I seem to remember Hume saying that the day before KO's newscast. You haven't provided any transcripts, so I'm calling bullshit. Back it up with proof if you're going to claim it, buddy.

#6 - I have no idea. This is the first I've heard of it.

#5 - Geeze, you're stupid. Who do you think BO is referring to when he says "network newscasts"? NBC is a network newscast. MSNBC is a subsidary or NBC. You make the connection. And once agian, you're providing no transcript link. It's a damn good thing you're just a guy with a beef and a keyboard and not a journlist. Your ass would sued quicker than you can say 'jack robinson.'

#4 - What in the world is the Daily Howler!?!?! My God, do your own research!!! You'll forgive me if I don't believe a word that paper says any more than I believe the Weekly Standard.

#3 - Nothing you can say here takes away from the fact that Bill-O lied TWICE, saying US Soldiers committed those atrocities, when they were, in fact, the victims. You're a Nazi apologist for arguing on behalf of OReilly on this one.

#2 - What is a "Ministry of Propoganda"? Care to point out where he allegedly lied? You're awful at this, you know that, right?

#1 - You're going to try and point out someone else's alleged lie when you were the ones who were made to correct statements to the fact??? Get a life.

I really feel for you, johnny. You're life is that miserable where you have to make painfully poor analysis on Christmas to make yourself feel better about yourself. Go to school. Get a degree, then get a job doing something meaninful.

God bless you, man. You need it.

A very good post James, but you might as well give it up. these guys are hell bent on an ongoing personal smear mission that dwarfs anything Keith is guilty of.

Keith talks several hours a day and anyone who wants to waste his time 'documenting' every real or perceived gaffe can do so if they choose.

Remember, the true problem for them is the message, not the messager. It is beyond me why they can't just live and let live and view the 'newscasts' that they actually DO approve of.

Another thing we don't really know is who might actually be financing this site, or why?

The best thing any of us can do is to not rely on a commentator or a "smearer" of a commentator to get the facts straight.

This site serves a segment of the population that wishes to employ the same tactics they obsessively document: name-calling, ratings wars, etc.

"Olbyloons," as you call them, are no better. They can't wrap their heads around the notion that their beloved KO can indeed get it wrong.

Yet I remain a regular "Countdown" viewer with a brain. Yes, unbeknownst to some, it's possible to watch Olbermann's show critically and enjoy it while retaining one's ability to think clearly. It's called fact-checking, and it's not a lost art.

Any reason why you don't run an O'Reilly-Watch? Or would your biases just be too obvious?

I mean, if we're trying to champion journalistic ethics here...

Bubbajim,

Actually, I wish more people would reject that "live and let live" philosophy when it comes to the news.

It's perfectly okay to document falsehoods, but I can't expect serious analysis from this site when I have to sift through the "Herr Olbermann"s and "Krazy Keith"s.

It's not acceptable to be content with sloppy reporting--whether it comes from FNC or MSNBC.

Great post Johnny Dollar. Keep up the good work in the new year. Someone's got to hold this raving lunatic accountable for all his smears and lies. Too bad the suits at MSNBC are willing to trade their integrity and decency for a small bump in the ratings.

The initial reactions to the TOP TEN are typical of the left's inability to think they can be wrong. The arrogance of posters like James just hits you square in the face. This is all part of being a radical...."I am never wrong...You're stupid...your writing is poor and, oh, by the way....you're a Nazi apologist."

Great job, J$...the list is complete, consistent, well written, well documented and RIGHT.

When Keith Olbermann lies to fire up his base he is the worst of all possible propagandists BECAUSE HE CLAIMS HE IS A JOURNALIST...the man claims to be giving the objective truth as a non-partisian....LIAR!

To compare THE BEHAVIOR of this imbecile, Keith Olbermann, to The President is illogical. No radical leftist on this site has ever presented proof that any administration offical knowingly fabricated evidence of WMD in Iraq...no one. In fact, the conventional wisdom prior to the invasion was that Saddam Hussein was violating UN resolutions regarding WMD.

Keith Olbermann repeats the lie about the administration "lying us into war," on his show....this is why his pathetic ratings are up. The leftist lemmings love the anti-Bush propaganda and will follow those who spew it over that cliff.

Lying is wrong, and Mr. Olbermann should be held accountable for smearing people trying to do what is right for our country.

Like all leftists, Olbermann has that basic flaw that is mistaken for a strength.....PRIDE.....it is indeed hubris..like all before him it will be his downfall.

This narcissistic, arrogant and foolish individual, who has never admitted he has been wrong, represents all that is truly destroying America from within. The threat to our country is from these ego driven leftists such as Olbermann, who are incapable of compromise, rational thought and fairness.

Thank you for the belated Christmas present, J$.

Poor James- send us your photo. You could be the posterboy for Olbyloon Apologist. Nice replies- name calling and asking for proof! Follow the provided link and you get your proof. Bet you can't wait til your hero KO comes back form vacation.... you need new marching orders.

James responses dissected:
#10 - Keith's math is a lie, so you introduce different math?
RESULT: James is wrong

#9 - James questions about the job text and not the lie
RESULT: James is clueless

#8 - I'll give you this one. Enough said
RESULT: James may have hope

#7 - "Back it up with proof if you're going to claim it, buddy."
RESULT: James can't follow the links provided

#6 - I have no idea. This is the first I've heard of it.
RESULT: Ignorance is bliss in Jame's world

#5 - See #7
RESULT: James can't follow the links provided

#4 - "What in the world is the Daily Howler!?"
RESULT: The proof looks bad so attack the messenger- right James?

#3 - Jame's response has nothing to do with the Olbermann's lie. When in doubt- attack Bill OReilley to defer blame and raise the ire of Olbyloons
RESULT: Jame's head may explode soon

#2 - James can't read links again
RESULT: James in crazy?

#1 - James again tries to justify Olbermann's lies by saying other people are lying. READ THE LINK.
RESULTS: James- you can't defend KO., so you defer, whine, and name-call. Pick your battles. You look dumb coming here and trying to dissect an incriminating and well thought-out piece by Johnny Dollar.

Cee says: "This is all part of being a radical... I am never wrong....you're stupid...you're writing is poor...and by the way, you're a Nazi apologist".

Who am I to disagree! Cee! Go back and carefully read all your recent rants, and you should see that your very OWN statements fits YOU like a glove! But you won't see this, because your mind is closed up like a clam.

Cee also says: "Mr. Olbermann should be held accountable for smearing people that are trying to do what is right for our country".....PROOF that it is the message that is bothering people like you, NOT the messager, as people like you keep claiming.

Cee also rants something about "destroying America from within:....Yes, yes, yes - that's exactly what we have been trying to show....that the radical right wing is doing to America with it's continual denial of basic facts"....Yes, that's YOU, Cee!

Cee - YOU - fit the classic definition of a radical! Wake up a little and you might just see that YOU are the one calling more than 1/2 the country 'radicals'.

anon says "a well thought-out piece by Johnny Dollar"....Well, you're close....it's a well thought out character assasination by Johnny Dollar!

OK- "...a well thought out character assasination". But at least it is well-thought out and factual.

Bubba- you assume KeithO has character to assasinate. Big mistake. He's unethical and without character!

So, because I supported KO, I am a Lefty?? This is the bigest problem you Keith haters have. And it shows how shallow you are.

indycar- The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Bubbajim,

The difference is Keith Olbermann lies. I do not lie. I say my opinion and say it is my opinion....debatable, people may disagree....but my speculation on the impact of events is CLEARLY stated as conjecture.

Mr. Olbermann and many people on the left present themselves as thoughtful, objective and honest. Mr. Olbermann has shown himself not to be trustworthy or fair....as shown by the TOP TEN.

So, you may want to believe what Mr. Olbermann represents is truth and fairness....but many examples are presented on this site daily that document the opposite.

My concern is that radicals who believe they are fair and tolerant are, in reality, as intolerant and hateful as the people they condemn, including the current executive. The radical left throughout history, time after time, has had this tendency to misrepresent who they are and what they believe and I see the same trend in The United States presently.

Being a part of the problem puts you at a disadvantage in realizing this, Bubbajim.

The links worked the first 3 or 4 I tried. But after that none worked.

Any suggestions from anyone. I am especially interested since I only joined in on OW and KO 4 or 5 months ago.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Anyone know an actual KO fan site? I googled trying to find a pro-KO blog to 'view' these kooks in their natural habitat and came up empty. No wonder they come here to spew their hate.

Anon, scroll down close to the end of the right sidebar. There is a list of links titled Keith Lovers.

Enjoy.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Lady? nice try. Hard for you to believe that republicans would support KO? Whats pathetic is that someone would have such a allegiance to a party or cause as to be blinded by the facts. While a republican, I am not a blinded party hack.

To Anon 11:10:

The idea of a KO "fan site is ridiculous because we are all adults here. The idea of ANY news pundit having a "fan site" implies that his followers would have the mentality of a child, since being a 'fan' of any such TV news personality would be childish.

No, you completely misunderstand the reason Keith's supposters 'come' here. We come here to defend his message, not Keith himself. We fully understand he is a flawed human being complete with warts, just like O'Reilly and a whole host of others. Therefore, there is no such thing as a
"natural habitat" for KO supporters.

We are not "spewing hate" at all but that is the entire pretext of this site.

Bubbajim, the idea is ridiculous to the point of absurdity. However, these fan clubs do exist.

And, I have read many comments on this blog that are 'fan club' mentality.

I have yet to see a KO fan utter a straight forward criticism of or disagreement with KO. They seem to accord him respect to the point of blind adulation.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Indycar- I'll bet you a crate of birkenstocks- you are no republican. I never met a Olbermann fan who believes his lying dribble, and you certainly aren't the first. You are a fraud.

Indycar- I'll bet you a crate of birkenstocks- you are no republican. I never met a Republican who believes his lying dribble, and you certainly aren't the first. You are a fraud.

thanks for wasting my time

The Ethiopian Army is wipping The Islamo-Fascists butt in Somolia. Olbermann must be upset and will blame Bush for not restraining Ethiopia.
What do you Leftists have to say about this.

Agreed Janet..... AND I can loath Olbermann without agreeing with OReilley. Another fault of these Olbyloons is that if you don't believe KeithO's crap, you must be a Rush or O'Reilley disciple. And from that they derive a lot of their 'excuses' for KeithO. Fact is, no one on TV lies and manipulates the news more than the Orange one.

Bubbajim,
What do you have to say about the Ethiopian Army's war against the Islamo-Fascists.

I just followed one of Dollar's links aove to "Johnny Dollar's Place" (http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20060702131515/index.html).

Is that picture at the title bar Johnny? Is he a transsexual? This would be typical for a Republican popagandist these days.

That's really all I have to to add to this increasingly tiresome site today.

Indycar - if you're not a leftie as you say, please explain how you can still watch KO after his recent claims about not covering the Duke rape case/showing skepticism?

If I were part of the audience, I'd think he was implicitly stating that I was so dumb that I'd believe anything that comes out of his mouth. Everybody gets it wrong from time to time but this was over the top - there's no way KO didn't know he was a) lying at the time and b) knowing that his sycophants wouldn't call him on it.

I do agree with you, though, that when J$ uses phrases like 'pulled it out of his ass' he is trafficing in the same space that KO occupies. Fortunately J$ more than makes up for the unfair cheap shots with factual analysis. If you know how to click on a link (and apparently some commenters upstream are incapable) you can fact check J$ yourself. J$ is a partisan so he overreaches from time to time too. But I think he respects his audience enough not to lie in such an outrageous manner as KO did with the Duke rape case - a 180 degree flip of actual history (history based on J$'s episode summaries).

Then go away grissle boy

Sir Loin of Beef,
Are you upset your Islamic allies are geting their asses handed to them by Ethiopia?
I'm sure Olbermann is upset and will not discuss this.

Red Wolf- Stop- there is no Islamic/Terrorist threat.

Anon,
I know you guys haven't gotten your talking points from Daily Kos, NY Times, CNN, C.A.I.R or George Soros about this. But Ethiopia doesn't a stupid Leftwing restraining them from kicking some Terrorist butt! Ha ha hah!

I like the layout, but not a lot of real specifics in here. What's with the cutesy name-calling? If it was meant to be funny, that'd be one thing, but I don't think you were trying to be laugh-out-loud funny.

People lose credibility when they resort to the petty name crap, even if they're criticizing someone else for what they see as the same thing.

If there was a threat- why haven't we been hit in so long?

Anon,
You're just a Jihadi supporter. Go to Iran and join your buddies.

Anon, are you beung facetiuos are do you agree with KO's implication of no threat by his consistent use of 'purportrd' and 'alledged in reference to government alerts?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"But Ethiopia doesn't a stupid Leftwing restraining them from kicking some Terrorist butt!"

Defeating Somalia in a war is kinda like beating the Detroit Lions in football.

And I would like to point out that the ruling party in Ethipoia IS THE LEFT! They used to be Marxist revolutionaries - now they style themselves as "Social Democrats".

Just pushing your buttons big guy! No loons here to play with you so I posed as one of those pacifists to get you going! Merry Xmas!

Oops- spoke to soon! Ensign Expendable is an apologist,

And right back to you. O REILLY! See if you can find anything that he said that is the TRUTH! As opposed to lies. Here are a few recent lies.
1. He went after the Kansas Doctor saying he had the "files" that the doctor performed illegal abortions. NOT! Case was dismissed.

2.Love this one. He went on a tirade and said that FOX NEWS CHANNEL has nothing to do with Fox Broadcasting because of his stance on OJ. Another lie. The News Corp owns all of the subsidiaries.

3.Some favorites from past years saw notable drops in 2006, the biggest being Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is 92 percent less popular than he was in 2005, falling completely out of the top 20 this year re: his radio outcries.

4.Out of the mouth of a Marine! Biggest Outrage — Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest Offender: Bill O'Reilly.

5.Eat Shit and die! John Schneider, Cedar Rapids, Iowa: "Bill, you continue to say that liberal America wishes to see America lose the war in Iraq."

O'REILLY: I know it's hot in Iowa, sir, but you need to lay off the Kool-Aid and stay off the dishonest websites. I've never said liberal America wants the USA to lose in Iraq. Never.

And now the truth, something O'Reilly has a big problem with:

O'Reilly frequently accuses members of the "far left," media outlets, and even Democratic politicians, such as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, whom he accused on the May 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, of wanting "us to lose in Iraq." O'Reilly added: "Pelosi and her acolytes ... want there to be chaos in Afghanistan. They want this. They're rooting against their own country."

O'REILLY: "there are some Americans who actually want the USA to lose in Iraq, primarily so that President Bush will look bad. Few will admit that, but it does exist, primarily on the far left." [The O'Reilly Factor, 12/17/04]

Too many others to show you. Keith DOES not lie intentionally as Oreilly does. In fact if Keith makes an error he apologizes for it the next day. Every see Oreilly apologize for anything.

As much as it pains me to do this, OReilly has apologized - ONCE.

When they accused Murtha of saying something (I can't remember what), they blasted him. Turns out, Murtha was quoting another person... a local paper reported the words as being his, which is where the Factor picked up the story. The next day, OReilly apologized and said they should have done their own research. Gee, ya think.

Still, he's never apologized for the Malmedy lies.

You guys are fulfilling the stereotype.

I suggest using a sane conservative commentator to prove your point, O'Reilly doesn't always have to be a talking point when you defend KO.

As Benson has already said: "I can loath Olbermann without agreeing with OReilley."

Ensign Expendable,
They're Leftists who get Islamo-Fascist threat. Alos they're Nationalistic Leftists that are concern about the safety of their nation. Unlike the American Left that cares about the Opinions of Europeans as aoppose to our own interests.

"They're Leftists who get Islamo-Fascist threat."

Red Wolf, I suggest you go read some history on Ethiopia and Somalia. They have fought each other for decades - mostly over territory that is part of Ethiopia but is populated by ethnic Somalis. Since the territory was ceded nearly 60 years ago, there have been four conflicts between the two nations (assuming you can call Somalia a nation given their status since the toppling of the government in 1991).

This is not a "new" fight - it is a continuation of the border wars that have been previously fought. To tinge it with the right's "Islamo-Fascism" rhetoric is to subscribe reasons for the conflict that are not there.

well....you have now. I know, I am of the few remaining republicans who don't endorse lying. BTW, how many members of YOUR family served as a GOP US senator? Hmm?

Sweetie: i was not aware that the Duke case was a left or right issue. I will look into what you seem to be saying, that KO did a 180 on something about it. I would guess that you, KO and I make judgments as best we can based on the information we have at the time. As more info comes out, our opinions may change.

> In fact if Keith makes an error he apologizes for it the next day.

Which of the "errors" listed in this article did he apologize for the next day? Or the day after that? Or any time at all?

The first rule of a good Olbypologist should be not to defend Keith's lies by telling more lies. Just because Keith does it doesn't mean his fanatics have to as well.

"Unlike the American Left that cares about the Opinions of Europeans as oppose to our own interests."

Hmm ... you must be referring to European opinions like those that were generally correct about Iraq all along ... as opposed to the American Right's opinions about Iraq, which have been shown by events to be generally incorrect all along.

Yesterday was Keith's birthday, because he as close to god as anyone can be.

Anon,
The Europeans are pro-Islamic. They fear the Muslims and will do anything to appease them. That's why they're losing control of their cities to Muslim youths

Ensign Expendable,
The fight with Islam dates back to their victory over Roman forces ate the battle of the Yarmuk in 636 AD.
As always you defend Islamo-Fascists like a good Leftwing Dhimmi. The Islamic Courts terrorist gang threatened Ethiopia. Unlike the Left in America and Europe who want Sharia law, the Ethiopian Left understands the Islamic threat. So they're backing a secular governmant over Islamic thugs.
Why does the Left always support Islamo-Fascists?
I don't understand.

"The fight with Islam dates back to their victory over Roman forces ate the battle of the Yarmuk in 636 AD."

Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the conflict betweeen Ethiopia and Somalia - that conflict is one of territory, not one of ideology. Has been for nearly 60 years.

Just because one side is Muslim does not automatically make this fight about religion.

"Unlike the Left in America and Europe who want Sharia law, the Ethiopian Left understands the Islamic threat. So they're backing a secular governmant over Islamic thugs."

First, point to ONE AMERICAN who "supports" Sharia Law in the United States. There are none. This argument is the worst example of fear-mongering I have ever heard. NO ONE would stand for RELIGIOUS COURTS ANYWHERE in this country.

Second, Ethiopia is not backing the secular government of Somalia (which exists in name only and has no real power). They are protecting their borders, just as they have the last FOUR TIMES they engaged Somali forces and/or warlords.

Ensign:

Be warned. Debating with Red Wolf is a lot like trying to reason with a 4 year old.

"First, point to ONE AMERICAN who "supports" Sharia Law in the United States."

Ibarhim Cooper of the Council of American Islamic Relations. Keith Ellison Rep. Minesota wants Sharia law.

Islam is at war with every civilization it borders. Of course you Leftists deny this fact. That's why I wonder why does Left support Islamic Imperialism?

Dr. Lapdog ( cee):
To compare THE BEHAVIOR of this imbecile, Keith Olbermann, to The President is illogical. No radical leftist on this site has ever presented proof that any administration offical knowingly fabricated evidence of WMD in Iraq...no one.

I guess he stuck in the word KNOWINGLY like a
" free get out of jail card. " for his boys.
That's funny !
I guess the following were just all ...ahem.....mistakes !

"Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons."

George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003

"It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them."

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

There are dozens more...but you get the point.
They just misspoke !

And now we have the American casuality list from Iraq exceeding the number of people who died on 9/11.

Dr. Lapdog: Oops !

Bob said: "and now we have the American casuality list from Iraq exceedding the number of people who died on 9/11".

It's far, far worse than that Bob! 9/11 didn't produce over 20,000 seriously wounded and maimed victims, many of who will need special care for the rest of their lives.

"Ibarhim Cooper of the Council of American Islamic Relations. Keith Ellison Rep. Minesota wants Sharia law."

Ibrahim Hooper - "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

As for Ellison, there is NO EVIDENCE that he has EVER professed a desire to implement Sharia law. Therefore, either you are a lying sack of shit or a racist a--hole who is attacking an AMERICAN CITIZEN purely because of his choice of religion.

You found ONE. One out of the TWO MILLION practicing Muslims in the United States. Now you're telling me that this small number is going to radically change the foundation of a government of THREE HUNDRED MILLION? You're nuts.

"Islam is at war with every civilization it borders."

Again, this is BULLSHIT! Saudi Arabia is Mulsim, as is Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Turkey, and 45 other nations. Most of them are in a state of peace with their non-Muslim neighbors and other non-Muslim states. So this argument is bogus.

The burden of 'proof' that the right would require for them to accept that this administration lied about WMD would clearly be nothing less than what would normally be required in a US court of law. They need absolute proof the Bush and Cheney KNEW they were lying at the time.

OK fine....So why would gross incompetance be so much better than outright lies in your books?

Its one or the other....gross incompetance or lies!

Well, bubba, was Clinton, Gore, Kerry and virtually every other Dem who made many public statements for years in the exact same vein lying or simply incompetent also.

They, just like every intelligence organization including Mid East agencies said the same thing. A majority of Americans from both sides of the aisle also believed the same thing.

And Hussein encouraged this belief.

And that is a different argument from lies. I personally believe that Iraq has been a magnet for the Islamofascist maggots and have made other populations safer. Now the rub is how do we continue. That will, in my opinion, be the ultimate determiner of success or failure.

I read some recently interpreted Iraqi documents that seem to reinforce some allegations.

It is niether. To not have acted on such long term across the world beliefs coupled with Hussein's prior track record in light of 911 would have been criminal if the intelligience had been correct.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet: I strongly disagree!

To suspect something and then act on incomplete or unproven information when there WAS plenty of evidence to the contrary, including the opinions of the weapons inspection teams themselves...is incompetant! Esspecially when the consequences of being wrong were so grave.

Neither Clinton, Gore, or Kerry invaded Iraq, nor do I believe any of the three would have done so themselves if they had been president....even with exactly the same information that Bush had at the time.

There was never any compelling reason to turn our attention to Iraq after 911, and plenty of very smart people believed that at the time. If only they had listened to the right people.

The day our troops crossed the border into Iraq, I really hoped they knew what they were doing, but I remember thinking that the political consequences to this administration were going to be disasterous if they turned out to be wrong. But the 2004 election sure proved me WAY wrong on that one.

The post above was from Bubbajim.

Oh yeah...Professor Bunsen Honeydew (Bob) crawled back out from the rock he spent the holidays under.....you never addressed my Stem Cell reply, BTW.

Monday Morning Quarterbacking is fine for athletic competition that has not impact on life and death....but the foreign policy of The United States is implemented on the facts on the ground at the time....and at the time in 2003, the only people saying, "no invasion," were saying it because they felt Hussein needed yet another chance to work with the never-ending parade of weapon inspectors that, (again at the time), did NOT forcefully claim Iraq was in complience with UN resolutions. Everyone, D's and R's said Hussein was thumbing his nose at the international community. No one claimed he was WMD free and the administration was lying.

Anyone....
Please provide me one quote from a reliable source, dated before 2003, that said The Bush Administration was lying about the data they were providing during the run up to the war......

And this does not include people speaking after the invasion...saying "I said this at the time." I want dated, documentable quotes from reliable people prior to the invasion in 2003 that state Bush was fabricating the data and here's the proof......There will be NONE!

We only found out there were no WMD's because we actually occupied the country.....THEN and ONLY then did the chorus of "Bush lied" start....

How convenient.

You leftists are pathetic and cowardly. The ramifications of not backing up threats with action are huge......9/11 is the perfect example.....In Somalia, Clinton showed OBL that we would run if challenged and look what happened....the worst domestic attack from a foreign entity in US history.

Hussein played a game with not being honest about his weapon stores....invasion was right and legally sanctioned by the UN...and the threat was met....

And Mr. Hussein will pay for his crimes against humanity in 30 days.......(I like how no one from the left mentions this little fact), and he does not have the ability to support islamic terrorism in Israel, or anywhere else for that matter, as he hangs from the gallows.

Millions of people will finally get justice thanks to the bravery of the forces currently in Iraq and the leadership of President Bush.

Again, the left is on the opposite side of this victory as well.....most of them are even against using capital punishment on Saddam....nice.

"Again, the left is on the opposite side of this victory as well.....most of them are even against using capital punishment on Saddam....nice."

Oh, I think he should pay and pay dearly. The problem is that there are still far too many Saddam supporters in Iraq that will use his execution as an invitation to ratchet up the level of violence even higher.

At best, it's a shallow victory. At worst it provides greater incentive for the insurgency to target American forces and "collaborating" Iraqis.

Bubbajim makes the following inane statement...

"Neither Clinton, Gore, or Kerry invaded Iraq, nor do I believe any of the three would have done so themselves if they had been president....even with exactly the same information that Bush had at the time.

"There was never any compelling reason to turn our attention to Iraq after 911, and plenty of very smart people believed that at the time. If only they had listened to the right people."

How do you know that, oh wise liberal one?

Never? Mmm....I guess over 60% of the American people at the time did not know the definition of "compelling."

Quotes, people....Clinton, Gore, etc......

prior to 2003....."I would not invade Iraq." Come on now....give it to me!

Cee, there is one huge chasm between doing the LEADING in the run up to this war and those being led. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of that 60% who supported the move were simply accepting the wisdom of their leaders that they THOUGHT knew far more than they did at the time. If you don't understand that, then you are infinitely more stupid than your opposition is...you know, the ones you keep calling 'inane'!

So I would have to provide you with a direct quote from Gore saying "I would not invade Iraq", or you're going to believe he would have done the same stupid thing Bush did (had the popular vote prevailed).

No, had Gore prevailed in 2000, I am personally convinced that America would be in a FAR better place than it is today!

"How do I know that"? Wow, what an 'inane' question! I guess I can't 'prove' it, but I really believe only a TINY percentage of our politicians were Neocons, who would have made, and PUSHED for such a risky move at the time. The Neocons brought the issue of Iraq to the table at a time when most of us were thinking about Afghanistan and Eastern Pakistan...you know....the Bin Laden problem!

"Never? Mmm....I guess over 60% of the American people at the time did not know the definition of "compelling.""

No, they got snowed. Many of the polls in the run-up to the war show that a majority of Americans believed that Iraq had some part in 9/11 (they didn't) or that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi (none of them were). This was then converted by the spin-doctors into "Americans support the war".

As for some quotes:

"I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), 12/16/98

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint." - Former Vice-President Al Gore, 9/22/02 Speech to the Commonwealth Club of California

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs." - Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), during the debate over the AUMF, 10/2002

"In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." - Senator John Kerry, 1/23/03 Speech at Georgetown University

I meant Western Pakistan above.

Oh so still no evidence of an overt or covert conspiricy to trick people into supporting the invasion of Iraq.....

Bubbajim just assumes that Bush and Co. were so smart and competent enough to lie that millions of people supported the action but then the same Neocons became really stupid after the invasion. That is realistic?

The quotes Ensign Expendable gave me do not accuse the administration of lying about data used to support enforcing the UN resolutions.

Please try to pay attention people.....you claim Bush lied......where is your evidence????

Memos, quotes, people involved in the conspirisy now credibly coming forth to pull the curtain away on the whole operation?

Anyone?

"Americans believed that Iraq had some part in 9/11 (they didn't) or that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi (none of them were)." You, my loser friend, are dead wrong! A small ignorant group thought that. 60% of the Amercian public agreed that a despot like Sadam was far too dangerous to leave in power to pursue weapons of mass destruction. You are a history revisionist to say that Bush and co was pushing that agenda. And leftist try to push your bullshit with 20-20 hindsight. Fact is- the enviroment that the Iraq war decisions were mad in is far different than now. You choose to forget that. Actually- you choose to omit that consciously, just as Olbermann would do. And that is why you love that freak!

Bubba, GWB was the only one in the position to act in any way or not act at all. With that in mind it is a bit harder to judge what others would have done.

In spite of what has transpired I don't place much faith or credence in the UN, especially when it is in contradiction to all the world's inteligence agencies. And the UN inspectors were not sure, just uncertain.

I take great exception to this statement by you:

"The burden of 'proof' that the right would require for them to accept that this administration lied about WMD would clearly be nothing less than what would normally be required in a US court of law. They need absolute proof the Bush and Cheney KNEW they were lying at the time."

And, based on statements over many years the vast majority of Dems, including party leaders, had the same rhetoric as GWB and repub leaders. Your comments lead to the conclusion that Clinton et al were honestly mistaken while GWB et al were lying, therefore, criminals.

And my question to you was, with the almost universal belief that Hussein had what he claimed to have would refusing to act been the best course. This is rhetorical, but a valid question based on your comments.

You and I disagree on what the proper course should have been. That does not make either one of us MORALLY superior or inferior.

Time will tell. May we live long enough to know.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

cee- they throw back the same hand picked quotes that out of context make it look like Bush connected 9/11 with Iraq. There is NOT ONE quote that has him linking IRAQ to 9/11. Bush links 9/11 to Alqeda. And Bush talks of Alqeda links with Iraq. But he never made the Iraq to 9/11 statement that these whackos preach daily. Spare me.

No, you Anon are the one who is dead wrong. Polls taken even as late as the 2004 elections showed that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam and Iraq had a connection to 911.

The arguement you are making is the one that was pushed AFTER the WMD arguement proved false.

You are the revisionist....and YOU are the idiot!

Prove it link boy! Where's the poll?

waiting genius?

Found it myself
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

OK, since you Bush apologists keep bringing up that 60% who were SNOWED into believing that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, lets talk about the 40% that had their doubts, even at that time. Thats a significant number! Don't you think we at least owe that 40% some credit for being the ones who had it right?

Don't we need to at least acknowledge that the 80% of the rest of the world who had it right AT THE TIME are due some credit? You know, the rest of the world that we were literally giving the finger to at the time.

I DO!!!!!

cee: one need only look to the outing of Mrs. Plume, and the administrations reasons for outing her. Why do you pretend these facts don't exist? The Dubya administration made the evidence fit their case.

The 80% that had oil interests of their own like France and Russia? And the terrorist states like Libya and Iran? What were they right about?

"Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two." - USA Today, September 3, 2003

"47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).
44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November)." - Harris Poll, February 18, 2005

"In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago." - Christian Science Monitor, March 14, 2003

Anon (for idiot):

I don't have to 'prove' a damned thing to you or provide you with anything. I've paid close attention to this thing from the beginning and I know damned well that a majority of Americans DID believe there was a link, helped along with Cheney's continual implication that there was one, long after anyone paying attention had figured out that there wasn't.

I am curious- Do you blame Bush for the ignorance of the American people? It's shameful that 70% thought that. According to you- Bush is far too stupid to pull this coup off.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/rm/cyber/2004/binladen061704/segment1.ram

I love this site/hate Keith "lying POS" Olberman

Bubba- I found the link- its above. My bad... I move to the fact dids not say it

"do I blame Bush for the ignorance of the American people"?

The first good question you've asked! Yes, I blame Bush & Co. for taking advantage of that ignorance!

I also blame Americans for being far more interested in crap like "American Idol" and "The Apprentice" than what is happening within their own government, and the world. I wish is wasn't so!

But what can we do about that?

Ensign Expendable,
You have proved, like all Leftists to be an Islamic hack. Islam can't live at peace with it's neighbors. Let's look at the eveidence.
Serbs Vs. Albanians
Serbs vs. Bosnian Muslims
Israel vs. Muslim Arabs
Thailand vs. Muslims rebels.
Phillipines vs. Muslims rebels.
Ethnic tensions in Malaysia between Muslims and Non Muslims.
Muslims riots in France
Muslims Terrorists in UK.
Muslims wanting back Southern Spain
Russians vs. Chechens
Ethiopia vs. Somolian Islamists
Muslims threats in the Netherlands
Pakistan vs. India

The fact is Islam is an expansionists religion. It views all others as Dhimmis. In fact Islam divides the world between the Dar es Islam (House of Islam) and the Dar al Haab (The house of War). You like all Leftists in Europe and America views them as allies as oppose to careing about the preservation of your own civilization.

Red Wolf....you smart guy you....lets just nuke all them nasty Islamists!

I'll do Anon one better about polls as a weapon....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

This article goes through the widespread belief at the time that Saddam had supported Al Qaeda previously....and it also states clearly:

"In a February CNN-Time poll, 76 percent of those surveyed felt Saddam provides assistance to al Qaeda. Another poll released in February asked, "Was Saddam Hussein personally involved in the September 11 attacks?" Although it is a claim the Bush administration has never made and for which there is no evidence, 72 percent said it was either very or somewhat likely."

IT IS A CLAIM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEVER MADE.

Poll respondent's opinion or speculation on possibilities is immaterial to me simply because the policies are made by the administration. The public's support of the decision is what counts and the same time period has levels as high as 74% of Americans supporting military action in Iraq to make Saddam comply with UN resolutions.

The Valerie Plame issue again is a red herring....the time frame of Wilson writing his editorial begs scrutiny.....when did it appear? 7/6/2003....

When did we invade Iraq? 3/2003....Mr. Wilson makes great claims about what he did to say Bush was lying....but all after the invasion took place.....and Mr. Wilson has an axe to grind....

His own words:

"I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.)"

Even after The State of The Union Address, Wilson says,

"The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case."

How convenient.....

Only after WMD's were not found in an invaded Iraq do the cowards on the left scream, "You lied to us about there being WMD in Iraq, Mr. President." Still no evidence that he lied, just 20/20 hind sight which with $2.00 gets me a medium cup of coffee.

I love the whole "Bush Lied" conspiracy theory. Really I do. 10 investigations into pre-war intel on Iraq, and not a single one found that the intel was fake, pressured out of analysts, lies etc. I'm talking bi-partisan, international, and independent investigations. Oh, but he lied and fooled all the American people and Congress (half of which was Dem at the time). Uh huh. Ok. Then how come the classified NIE was released 10/2/02, and since it's classified Congressmen and Senators have to sign in to view it in a secure location, but even the WP reports that only a handful of Senators and Congressmen ever viewed it. Moreover, the heads of all the intel agencies in the US personally testified to the bi-partisan House and bi-partisan (though then dem controlled) Senate Intelligence Committees (did THEY lie too?

Give it a rest.

Bush Lied about Iraq intel:

Bush-not the sharpest knife in the drawer let alone a mastermind capable of a cabal intel coup that fools 434 members of Congress, the American people, and then is able to cover it up in 10 bi-partisan investigations.

Lied-investigated, no lie found...except on the part of Congressmen and Senators who said they were tricked or fooled by pressured, false, lied about intel...that they never even looked at.

Iraq Intel-from 1998-2002 there was not a single US human intel asset in Iraq. How good could the intel have been? It was crap. That was the common denominator and common conclusion of EVERY one of those 10 investigations.

BUSH
LIED
IS
DEAD

Now who told you he lied and why'd they tell you that?
To cover their butts?
To point blame at a political enemy for their own benefit?
To hide the shortcomings of their efforts prior to 3/03?
To perpetuate the idea that Iraq and Al Queda are not connected at all (despite UBL's own words and histories markers)?

Bush Lied was nothing but a pipedream from the same people who couldn't face the reality that the continual, habitual, sideshow war on Iraq in the 90's had consequences...like spawning Al Queda's rebirth and making UBL start killing Americans. Remember, he didn't start killing Americans in 12/92 because Bush W invaded Iraq. He did it because Bush Sr and Clinton didn't invade Iraq and get out of the Middle East.

"do I blame Bush for the ignorance of the American people"?

"The first good question you've asked! Yes, I blame Bush & Co. for taking advantage of that ignorance!

"I also blame Americans for being far more interested in crap like "American Idol" and "The Apprentice" than what is happening within their own government, and the world. I wish is wasn't so!

"But what can we do about that?"

Well, now it seems a majority are saying we should withdraw from Iraq.....with your logic these same ignorant people are now following another lie....

I could as easily say:

"I blame the Democratic Party and the liberal media for making the American people sour on our fight for freedom in Iraq."

I don't, because right and wrong is not decided by popularity, it is decided on principle and the Iraqi people's freedom from oppression is the right thing to fight for.

The numbers gave is silly and pointless.

War by poll. There's a strategy for success!

Let me see if I have this straight?

A quote made by Pelosi in 1998 is relavent to GWB. BTW, war is the last and final diplomatic response.

Gore admits UN resolutions from 1991 are sufficient, but wants further resolutions and more consensus. which ultimately were obtained.

Kerry's criteria were met. See Al Gore above. For the second part, many countries joined us and the remainder can be filed under CYMA. When you talk out of both sides of your mouth you don't run much risk of ever being wrong in all circumstances.

As for all those who believed that Hussein was DIRECTLY involved in 911. I don't know what they based their opinion on, but it was not on GWB et al. That said, terrorism is fungible. To one degree or another the same people and some countries support and advance their agenda Are any of you contending that Hussein had no links to terrorists and never offered aid to them?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9/11 Plot
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/

BUSH LIED; pt1/5 "Those NO TIES Lies"
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09252006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 2
Only 18% of Intel Still Says There Were No Ties Between al Qaeda and Hussein
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09262006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 3
Is Saddam a Liar?
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09272006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 4
There Are No Jihadis in Iraq
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09282006.htm

Those "No Ties" Lies: A Five Part Series - Part 5
The Real Ties and Truth About the Lies
http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/09292006.htm

Al Queda in Iraq claims to have lost 4000 fighters there. Multinational Forces Briefings in 11/06 put the number at 7000+ since 10/04, and when the suicide bombers and the Jihadis reportedly killed in the invasion (reported by tell all books from soldiers and embedded reporters), the number climbs to 10-15,000 Al Queda jihadis killed in Iraq since the invasion.

Seems Iraq is as relevent to the World War on Terror as Sicily was to the war against Japan.

sorry, gave = game

Here's an idea for moonbattus denialus to ponder:

How does one wage an insurgency?

I mean, do they seek to destroy their enemy in a great battle? If so then what's the plan for the 10-30,000 insurgents in Iraq-to surround the 150,000 American forces+the 400,000 ISF and Coalition forces? That'd be interesting, but not likely.

Do the insurgents (outnumbered 4:1, and infinitely outgunned) plan to wipe out the ISF, US, and Coalition forces? If so, they've done a bad job since they've killed 3000 Americans of the 1,000,000 or so who have been there since the invasion.

Do the insurgents plan to cut off supplies and starve out the US and ISF forces? If so...ain't working.

How do insurgents plan to make US generals issue the order to retreat? They don't. Instead, they aim to get the generals' bosses give the order: American politicians. How do insurgents get politicians to force that order? They get the American people to force their politicians, and they do that by constantly pushing bad PR in the news, false PR, and by keeping a long, slow, steady body count in the news. Is that working with Republicans? Is it working with Democrats? Who is it working better with, and why?

It's working better with the Dems for the same reasons the BUSH LIED crap sells: Dem leaders are willing to pander anything that will get them support from voters.

Scott says: "war by poll, there's a stragety for success"!

Dumb statement Scott! History shows us we had BETTER have near 100% public support before entering a war, and send peoples sons and daughters into harms way....especially an elective one.

Even Bush, as dumb as he was to start this war, understood the importance of public support. That's why they tried so hard to discredit wilson, even afer the fact.

Wow, over 100 to chose from? That's quite impressive for the deplorable, infamous Mr. Olbermann, but not shocking in the least. If he's breathing, and on the air, he's lying.

Bubba, I agree that you need national support, but the suggestion that decisions in the war be made per popular agreement is a bad one. You're right that there needs to be massive support for war when entering, and there was not popular support in 1/03, 2/03, or 3/03 until after the bombing started. Then it was popular.

I STRONGLY believe that popular support must be maintained, and that W isn't doing that, but looking aside from W....who is undermining popular support (support=will=capacity for success)? Seems to me it's people like Olby who perpetuate partisan lies and distort the truth to serve their own needs as well as those political leaders who undermine support (undermine support=undermine war effort) by creating false impressions in the American people (like the Bush outed Plame lie, the Bush Lied lie, the lie that AQ and Iraq are completely unrelated, the lie that inspections were working, or the lie that there never were WMD, and so forth). Those political leaders who created and fed those myths are directly responsible for reducing support and making the enemy's success over American success more likely.

Scott: I have some different questions for you.

How are YOU going to feel when 3000 more young Americans are killed and Iraq is still in chaos?

Are you going to tell their families....Well, it was worth a shot?

Do we have poll numbers regarding The Revolutionary War?.....was it right we did it none the less?

Do you know the depth of American resistance in getting involved in WWII outside American soil?...even after Pearl Harbor.....Were there polls then? Was it right to go after Nazi Germany in Europe proper or Japan in The Pacific?

Remember, "Better Red then Dead."

These people who preferred Japanese fascism were numerous and guess what......the current anti-war crowd are their progeny!

Do we have poll numbers regarding The Civil War?.....was it right it was fought none the less?

I recall learning about draft riots in the street of NYC during The Civil War.... people screamning they wouldn't go to Lincoln's war to free the ________!

Yeah, mob rule for right and wrong....if we have decided that it is what is required, the next smart despot will know exactly how to end Western Civilization as we know know it.

The left loves to claim forgone conclusions.....ok, fine, it's Vietnam all over again....desert the people who need our help, retreat and rationalize the action with historical revisionism and feel-good slogans.

Right is still right, no matter how many people think it's right.

Scott: It's not people like Olbermann who are undermining support. He couldn't even be on the air saying what he was saying if the prevailing winds weren't already blowing that way.

After over three years, people simply cannot see the cost vs benefit of continuing. Most people simply don't buy the pull out and "they'll follow us here" arguement. If they were coming across out borders in hordes, there would be no problem maintaining a near 100% resolve, for as long as it took...but they not!

Bubba, are you referring to the the same Wilson who lied to the 9/11 commission.

Is that the same Wilson married to the non covert Valerie that was outed not by Cheney, Libby and Rove. But rather by Colin Powell's protegee Armitage. The same Colin Powell (who I once had great respect for) that knew all about it and kept silent during the media frenzy that KO joined in with maniacal glee.

Lies, lies everywhere. What is this compulsion to insist that anyone who differs with you is a lying criminal?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"desert people who need out help"!

You mean desert the VAST, VAST majority of Iraqis who want us gone...yesterday?

How are we helping them?

And yet again, back with the Bush lied. You can't refute any of Olbermann's lies nor can you admit he made them. So instead you go back to your old reliables. So predictable.

Again, Bubbajim loves those polls......

Did the media responsibly poll the Iraqi population, Bubba? What was their sample, how did they conduct the research? By phone? Face-to-face? This same media the left cries is run by corporations and in the pocket of Bush & Co.

How many Kurds want us out?

How many Iraqi Christians want us out?

How many Iraqi Jews want us out?

How many Iraqi atheists want us out?

What about the people who joined the Iraqi Army and new government who will be the first executed by the violent radical Sunni Bathists who want their power back?

What about the revenge killings that will occur between Shia and Sunni....that's ok with you?

Yes, the left is so noble and compassionate, so tolerant and loving......of their own hides.

"Scott: I have some different questions for you.
How are YOU going to feel when 3000 more young Americans are killed and Iraq is still in chaos?
Are you going to tell their families....Well, it was worth a shot? "

I'll as sorrowful for those families as I do the ones who have lost family and friends there now, but yeah...I do think it's "cheaper" than the alternative. FYI, so too do the leaders of the Democratic Party now that they've been elected to power. Gov Dean said the exact same thing I just did on election night on Hardball. Reid, Pelosi, and others have have done so since. Even the bi-partisan ISG now agrees that there can be no other option other than making Iraq a secure and stable country; that the cost of just bailing out is higher than the cost of staying.

"Scott: It's not people like Olbermann who are undermining support. He couldn't even be on the air saying what he was saying if the prevailing winds weren't already blowing that way.

After over three years, people simply cannot see the cost vs benefit of continuing. Most people simply don't buy the pull out and "they'll follow us here" arguement. If they were coming across out borders in hordes, there would be no problem maintaining a near 100% resolve, for as long as it took...but they not! "

...the prevailing wind. And how did that wind start? Is it the actions of the insurgents that is destroying American will, or the faux political ravings of the Democratic Party's leadership as well as Olbys out there who continue to pretend that "just leave" is a good policy? The policy makers (of both parties) know better. So too do the majority of military leaders (in fact it's the odd man out general who says the US should just leave now).

Now, I keep pointing to those Dem leaders as liars who knew the truth and still set the prevailing winds in motion because they raved hard that the US should 'just leave', 'redeploy' etc., but once in power they switched to embracing and supporting the Bush objective-right there, on election night. That tells me they know the score, they don't like it, but they want the power more. No Dem (Cong, Sen, or Pres) wants to be in power and have to make decisions in a world where Iraq is like Lebanon was, or Afghanistan was, or Somalia is.

My absolute favorite is the Russ Feingold. He went on Obly the night the ISG report came out and raved that it fell short. He said it didn't take into account the rest of the global war on terror (it does, there's an entire section on that), or Afghanistan (it does, there's an entire section and recommendations on that), and that "there has to be a timeline, and this report doesn't include a timeline" (it does, pg 62). Feingold was just doing the same ole song and dance having clearly never read the book he was giving a book report about.

In politics the first rule is you can do something or do nothing. The second rule is that if the first fails, blame someone else.

No. Staying in Iraq is cheaper than leaving, and believe me...you're gonna see a lot more Democrats (now that they're in power) trying to sell that. In just a few weeks W will give his SOTU speech and announce changes in his National Strategy for Iraq (something opponents like Olby constantly say doesn't exist, but was on the CPA website in 03, the WH site in 04, revised in 05, and now needs updating again). The Dems will rave against it for their own political gain, but then they'll quietly each and every one (save perhaps Kookinich) say we can't leave until Iraq is secure and stable; ie the Bush objective.

Wanna have some fun? Ask Howard Dean whatever happened to that "New Direction In Iraq" plan that they campaigned about for the midterms-what's their "New Direction?"

Answer: they've got none. It was all just pandering.

"Scott: I have some different questions for you.
How are YOU going to feel when 3000 more young Americans are killed and Iraq is still in chaos?
Are you going to tell their families....Well, it was worth a shot? "

I'll as sorrowful for those families as I do the ones who have lost family and friends there now, but yeah...I do think it's "cheaper" than the alternative. FYI, so too do the leaders of the Democratic Party now that they've been elected to power. Gov Dean said the exact same thing I just did on election night on Hardball. Reid, Pelosi, and others have have done so since. Even the bi-partisan ISG now agrees that there can be no other option other than making Iraq a secure and stable country; that the cost of just bailing out is higher than the cost of staying.

"Scott: It's not people like Olbermann who are undermining support. He couldn't even be on the air saying what he was saying if the prevailing winds weren't already blowing that way.

After over three years, people simply cannot see the cost vs benefit of continuing. Most people simply don't buy the pull out and "they'll follow us here" arguement. If they were coming across out borders in hordes, there would be no problem maintaining a near 100% resolve, for as long as it took...but they not! "

...the prevailing wind. And how did that wind start? Is it the actions of the insurgents that is destroying American will, or the faux political ravings of the Democratic Party's leadership as well as Olbys out there who continue to pretend that "just leave" is a good policy? The policy makers (of both parties) know better. So too do the majority of military leaders (in fact it's the odd man out general who says the US should just leave now).

Now, I keep pointing to those Dem leaders as liars who knew the truth and still set the prevailing winds in motion because they raved hard that the US should 'just leave', 'redeploy' etc., but once in power they switched to embracing and supporting the Bush objective-right there, on election night. That tells me they know the score, they don't like it, but they want the power more. No Dem (Cong, Sen, or Pres) wants to be in power and have to make decisions in a world where Iraq is like Lebanon was, or Afghanistan was, or Somalia is.

My absolute favorite is the Russ Feingold. He went on Obly the night the ISG report came out and raved that it fell short. He said it didn't take into account the rest of the global war on terror (it does, there's an entire section on that), or Afghanistan (it does, there's an entire section and recommendations on that), and that "there has to be a timeline, and this report doesn't include a timeline" (it does, pg 62). Feingold was just doing the same ole song and dance having clearly never read the book he was giving a book report about.

In politics the first rule is you can do something or do nothing. The second rule is that if the first fails, blame someone else.

No. Staying in Iraq is cheaper than leaving, and believe me...you're gonna see a lot more Democrats (now that they're in power) trying to sell that. In just a few weeks W will give his SOTU speech and announce changes in his National Strategy for Iraq (something opponents like Olby constantly say doesn't exist, but was on the CPA website in 03, the WH site in 04, revised in 05, and now needs updating again). The Dems will rave against it for their own political gain, but then they'll quietly each and every one (save perhaps Kookinich) say we can't leave until Iraq is secure and stable; ie the Bush objective.

Wanna have some fun? Ask Howard Dean whatever happened to that "New Direction In Iraq" plan that they campaigned about for the midterms-what's their "New Direction?"

Answer: they've got none. It was all just pandering.

Olbermann will condemn Ethiopia and blame Bush for the Somolia war. Olbermann openly roots and is thrilled with every American death in Iraq. He wants an Islamists victory!

Bubba, I would have some respect for and consider the arguments from the other side a lot more if it wasn't always couched in the terms that you and others are mired in. You don't argue a different approach. You stamp your foot and proclaim on high that GWB and any who agree with him are monsters. The corrollary being, of course, that you and those you support are the saviors.

My fear is that you will prevail and leash a new holocaust on the world.

If the US and our allies pull out of Iraq, please tell me what you expect to follow. For that matter, what do you think we should do in addition to pulling out of Iraq that would be counter to all the evils you percieve today.

The ball is in your court. What should we do and what will follow from it? I believe the consequences will be horrendous. You obviously believe it will be beneficial. I would like to know what your opinion is.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet, you just told me what you believe my opinion is! Unfortunately, the ball is not in my court at all, I'm just a nobody who has an opinion.

I don't believe leaving Iraq will "unleash a new holocaust" on the world. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Unfortunately, I think we may be fooling ourselves in the notion that we are accomplishing anything positive in Iraq at the present time.

I frankly don't know whats going to happen, whether we stay, or whether we leave, but I'm not convinced that we have the control we think we do. The only thing we really have are the dire PREDICTIONS about how terrible it will be if we leave....most of these scenarios sem to be coming from the same crowd that has been wrong about everything else. Is it just that after being wrong so many times, these folks are about due to get one right?

Janet:

I guess I missed a question:

What would I do after pulling iut is not the question to me. The question to me is what are we going to do to counter real threats elsewhere if we don't? The more we stay mired in Iraq, the more we wear out our equipment, the more we keep stressed out soldiers under continued stress (they need a break!), and the more soldiers we lose to death and injury. Also we continue to increase the Nationa Debt and mortgae our children's future.

In other words, we are using up our resources and there doesn't seem to be much debate about that one.

Bubba, what do FEELINGS have to do with the best policy for a country. You seem to base your political decisions on sentiments.

If feelings were the ultimate criteria, why didn't the allies concentrate exclusively on the rail lines leading to and the death camps during WWII.

Those who volunteer to suffer the ultimate and pneultmale sacrifice are not best served by a maudlin blame game.

Honor them as heroes, not dupes. Is there anything that you won't cite to advance your argument?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

If anyone wishes to see/hear a reeeeaaaally horrible TV host check out The O'Reilly Factor tonight- Michelle Malkin is sitting in for Turkey Neck and it's nearly unwatchable.

Ya know, Bubba's made a great comment about Jihadis coming across the border in droves. That comment points out the misperception of what the threat is. It's not an invasion. It's not millions, hundreds of thousands, thousands or even hundreds of AQ coming across the border.

It's 19

See, the truth is there in plain sight.
Iraq is related to Al Queda, Bin Laden, and 911 not through some blockbuster movie plot, but by historical setting.

Lemme step off for a sec...

Ever watch old movies? I love to. I like watching ones that supposedly take place in the time they're made. Let's say, Bullitt, or Alice's Restaurant, or Dirty Harry. I like those movies because you can look in the background and see the cars people drove, the litter on the streets, the clothes of real people in the background, or hear the slang of the time. The same is kinda true of old sitcoms like All In the Family where the issues of the day were addressed-FAR too racy for today.

ok, let's move forward a bit...

1990's.
Beavis and Butthead Do America
Black Hawk Down
Armageddon
Godzilla

Beavis and Butthead is about terrorists using a WMD on America and the difficulty in getting even morons like Beavis and Butthead.

Black Hawk Down (and later its sequel Hotel Rwanda) demonstrate the impotence of US military action of the post Desert Storm/pre Iraqi Freedom days

Armageddon-watch when the first meteors hit, the cabbie screams out, "Oh my gawd! Saddam Hussein is bombin us!" Why? Because bombing Iraq was a commonplace sideshow in America, and we knew it would have consequences, but we didn't want to face them-we wouldn't face them until the meteors or whatever attacked us.

Godzilla-like Armageddon and other disaster movies...we all knew NYC was gonna get pasted, it was just a question of how and when. Why was irrelevent.

Point is that the war AGAINST Iraq was started in 90, and ended in May 03 when Saddam's regime fell. Since then (per UN1483 btw) the US has been waging a war FOR Iraq.

Why?

Not to prevent hordes from invading across our borders, but to prevent more Bin ladens from deciding to attack the US, to prevent more Al Quedas from having staging areas like Afghanistan in the 90's, and to prevent 19 well-educated, middle class guys from trying to kill 50-100,000 Americans with box cutters.

Remember, UBL didn't restart Al Queda because Bush invaded Iraq-he did it because the US was waging war on Iraqis, US had forces in Saudi to wage war on Iraqis, and US was forcing UN to blockade Iraqis.

Think of it like this...when and why was the 911 attack authorized by UBL to go from an idea kicked around the campfire in Khandahar to a plot in motion? Answer: because of Operation Desert Fox. AQ vowed to retaliate on 12/19/98, and the only plot they set in motion then was the 911 plot.

It takes a lot to look at the bigger picture, and Dems seeking power didn't need to look at the bigger pic until now. Suddenly, they're plan for "A New Direction In Iraq" and the ISG plan all have the same objective as W's. No one is realistically advocating a 'redeployment' or 'just leave' strategy.

Imagine what would happen if Olby reported that AQ admitted to losing 4000 fighters in Iraq?

Imagine what the prevailing wind would be if he talked about ISF taking over in Najaf this week?

Imagine what the prevailing wind would be if instead of just talking about 7 dead Americans today, we heard that Al Queda was thanking Dems for taking power for it will make their job easier?

These are real stories too, but we only hear the stories Olby and others want to put out because those are the stories that will get them attention. They could care less about reporting on American successes.

In contrast, we have media outlets like the Weekly Standard that puts a Silver Star recipient on its cover (photo taken minutes before he jumped on a grenade). Now they're reporting that he's been nominated for Medal of Honor. I didn't see that on MSNBC at all. How would that have effected the prevailing wind?

Instead of hearing of things that move the prevailing wind as a result of US forces success, the enemy's successes are reported, and the wind shifts accordingly.

War by poll indeed.

Good points Bubba

I wonder if anyone ever read JFK's book, Why England Slept?

Did it sleep?
Why?

Did America sleep before Pearl Harbor as well?
How? Why?

Did America sleep before 911?
How? Why?

Too many prefer to ignore threats rather than face them. In Iraq too many have been falsely lead to believe there is no threat-no hordes crossing our borders. We can just leave.

Easier to believe than face the ugly truth-that America has to stay and make a secure and stable Iraq or face the consequences.

Bubba, If you don't have any opinions, other than that you don't believe the same people who have been so wrong with dire predictions in the past, why are you so certain in so many of your posts? Why are you posting at all?

The question I posed to you is a legitimate one based on your comments.

You are against so much and yet at the same time you don't have an opinion on how implementing your beliefs would impact the world.

I can only conclude that you are not serious and will make your opinions known only after events play out.

I simply can not understand how anyone can critisise and advocate total change on the one hand and not have any opinions on what the results of that would be on the other hand.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet: Frankly, I don't even know where you got your 'feelings' question?

Scott, the problem with thinking your going to head off every potential threat BEFORE it hits you is that you'll end up spending all your time going after everything, or more likely, the WRONG threats! Like in Iraq!

We simply are not clairvoyant enough to run our foreign policy on that premise!

Bubba. this is where the question re feelings came from. I qoute you:

"How are YOU going to feel when 3000 more young Americans are killed and Iraq is still in chaos?

And that does not answer my main question to you. What do you advocate and what do you believe will be the result if your policies are put into place?

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet: It's quite simple, although you certainly seem to be trying to complicate what you think is going on in my head.

I'm 55 years old. I've been in the military. I followed world events the best I can my entire life. One truth I have come to understand is that we cannot possibly control everything that displeases us. You people seem to think we can.

I believe is a defensive foreign policy. I believe in our own self suffiencly as a way of helping to augment our own security. I think this idea of thinking we can neutralize all threats before they can materialize is bullcrap and self destructive. I believe in respecting the opinion of the rest of the world. Giving respect earns respect...in your personal life as well as in foreign relations.

If I had to name one public figure who best represents my worldview, and surprise, surprise, he is not a Liberal....it would be Pat Buchanon.

Pakastan could become our worst nightmare overnight...what are you gonna do about that? China is rapidly aquiring our debt and last I looked, they are not our friend....you think Islamo-Facism is a threat? It would be dwarfed by the prospect of a war with China! North Korea could attack the South any day....what are you gonna do about that.

Sorry, but you nor I have a freakin clue whats going to become of Iraq...whether we stay, or whether we go.

And by the way Scott, I never said the solution to Iraq was simple. The solution was simple BEFORE we occupied them, and that is what fuels much of the anger we have for Bush & Co. He screwed up BIG TIME, and boy, are we paying the price....ALL of us!

"Scott, the problem with thinking your going to head off every potential threat BEFORE it hits you is that you'll end up spending all your time going after everything, or more likely, the WRONG threats! Like in Iraq! We simply are not clairvoyant enough to run our foreign policy on that premise! "

Better to just walk away and let it happen? I think not.

Scott:

Let WHAT happen? You CANNOT predict whats going to happen!

Dr Lapdog...I don't have to address your stem cell response...b/c you're wrong.Just plain wrong. The US does not lead the world in stem cell research and I showed a study that proved it...but of course, since it was German, it's not good enough for you.
I wasn't surprised by your response.You love to muddy the facts to make your boys look good.But unfortunately, the truth is usually different.

Here's two more studies. You going to dismiss the Unversity of Michigan and the Stanford University School of Medicine too?

Like the Bush lapdog you are..I'm sure you will.

April 6, 2006

U.S. falling behind in embryonic stem cell research, study says

STANFORD, Calif.-The fear that United States researchers might lose ground to their international counterparts in human embryonic stem cell research now appears to have become a fact. A study co-authored by researchers at the University of Michigan and the Stanford University School of Medicine documents that stem cell researchers in other countries have begun to out-publish U.S. scientists.

"There is a gap between publications from U.S. and non-U.S. groups," said Jennifer McCormick, a postdoctoral fellow in the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics who recently completed her doctorate at Michigan. "With the current trajectory, if things don't change, that gap is going to continue."

Dr.( or so he says) continues to try to reinvent the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

And getting back to the Bush follies on WMD. There is no longer a debate on whether the Bush AD. cherry picked intelligence or had a pre-plan to invade Iraq. The whole world knows what happened.It's just revisionists like you and your ilk who keep trying to salvage the legacy of George Bush.It's a losing battle,even though you continue to fight it.
How touching !
Fortunately there will be investigations into all of the lies and bad policies of your boys that SHOULD have been done with the cowardly GOP Congress the past 6 years.You will run, you will object, but you won't be able to hide ...from the results.

"Sorry, but you nor I have a freakin clue whats going to become of Iraq...whether we stay, or whether we go.

And by the way Scott, I never said the solution to Iraq was simple. The solution was simple BEFORE we occupied them, and that is what fuels much of the anger we have for Bush & Co. He screwed up BIG TIME, and boy, are we paying the price....ALL of us! "

Ahhhh, back to the Bushbashspeak. Gotta love it. :)

Nope. Couldn't 'redeploy' or 'just walk away' after taking down Saddam, and Saddam had to be taken down to end the war that made UBL decide to start killing Americans, that gave rebirth to Al Queda, and that set 911 in motion. Someday that war had to end-

the only way to do that was to remove Saddam (all other means had been tried, so invasion was the last option)

After removing Saddam, gotta fix what was broke

What? Do you want to go back to the good ole days of the 1990's when 'Iraq wasn't a problem' when 'Iraq was contained' like Afghanistan was 'contained'? Nah, there are no good ole days to return to. Only good new days to work toWARDS.

And yes, we do know what would happen in Iraq. What's happening there now with only 10-30,000 insurgents would be nothing compared to total anarchy.

If you think the insurgency is predominately fueled by American presence, then Olby's misinformed you as more Iraqis want the US there than Americans want Americans there.

Ever read any of the Brookings Inst Iraq Index reports? Far more informative than Olby.

Janet:

I'm sorry, but we have all got to consider that question. These American soldier's lives are not our's (or Bush's) to play with on a hunch.

If another 3000 soldier's die for nothing in Iraq, don't try to tell my that we should not have considered that question beforehand! Don't try to tell me that it's OK, because we tried. Thats cold! Many more people are dead, many more are maimed, but here we sit telling ourselves we made the decision we thought was best at the time.

If that's your definition of making decisions based on 'sentiment', I'll take it every time. Other people's lives are not ours to play with!

Thsi is why I want the people who were right about Iraq making future decisions about our security. I don't want the same people who have already screwed up multiple times to continue to make these kind of decisions. Thats how we run business in this country....why should the Government be different?

Scott: NO, we didn't have to remove Saddam, or "finish that war", as you put it.

You are simply wrong!

Cee, might I suggest that that there is no debate possible with the ilk of Bob.

Anyone who can claim a library that catalogues international scientific papers CONDUCTED a study that he than MISREPRESENTED is not worthy of your time.

What a joke!

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Professor Honeydew....you are posting is apt for this thread.....lies, lies, more lies....

I mentioned the study you quoted from the AM on 12/23....in the following post (cut and pasted for your enjoyment).....

Professor Honeydew, I will have to start calling you Dr. Goebbels soon....your lies are now so severe as to be seen as ideologically pathological....like our good friend Keith Olbermann.

My Christmas spirit has to put on hold to respond to the baby killer...

The evil professor who likes to lie spins the numbers to fit his goal to demagogue this sensative issue that so many have genuine and personal stock in. But facts are important, and the truth about STEM Cell research is not what the radical, pro-death left uses.

A paper published in 2006...

http://stemcells.alphamedpress.org/cgi/reprint/24/10/2187.pdf

clearly shows the US is the leader in ALL stem-cell research....

The paper discusses all original human-embryonic-stem-cell-research publications from 1998 (when such cells were first derived in humans) to the end of 2005. Fully 40 percent of these publications came from one country: THE UNITED STATES. The rest were divided among 20 other nations, with the next nearest competitor (Israel) claiming only 13 percent (42) of the papers. The British came in third with just 9 percent, or 30 publications.

A very lopsided lead for America, you moron.

The leftist propaganda continues...an American researcher attempted to try to show Bush's restrictions on FEDERAL FUNDS for new ESC lines put the US behind other countries...their research proved otherwise....I'll quote from NRO...

"The last major review of embryonic-stem-cell publications, which covered the period from 1998 to 2004, was undertaken earlier this year by two American researchers, Jason Owen-Smith of the University of Michigan, and Jennifer McCormick of Stanford, and published in the April 2006 issue of Nature Biotechnology. The two clearly set out to prove the claim that Americans were falling behind, and when their data showed otherwise (like this latest study, they found a sizeable American lead) they sought frantically to spin it. Through a series of comical contortions (including comparing American scientists alone to those of the entire rest of the world combined, rather than those in individual countries) they managed to crunch their numbers to show that America’s lead is declining. If you squint just right and look sideways at the numbers, such twisted analysis just might let you hold on to the 'falling behind' narrative. And indeed, after showing a sizeable American lead, Owen-Smith and McCormick, without a hint of irony, wrote: 'The United States is falling behind in the international race to make fundamental discoveries in hES cell–related fields.'

"Unlike the more recent German study, Owen-Smith and McCormick declined to make their full data public (perhaps fearing it would be used as ammunition by supporters of the Bush policy), so it was hard to tell exactly what contortions they engaged in. But the authors of this latest study figured it out. They note that their data does not agree with the previous study’s claim that America’s lead is declining, pointing out that even if you just count papers published in 2004 or 2005 alone, Americans still published roughly 40% of all embryonic-stem-cell studies. 'These divergent findings,' the German group writes, 'are probably due to the fact that international collaborations of U.S. groups have been marked as ‘collaborative research’ by Owen-Smith and McCormick.' In other words, the previous study excluded from the American count publications on which even one researcher was from a foreign lab, and so arrived at an artificially low number.

"This latest paper — which, not surprisingly, has received essentially no press coverage — simply and decisively disproves a critical contention of opponents of the Bush policy. But it is important to be clear about exactly what that means."

I tried to link to the paper so that anyone can see for themselves that these ideologues spun the data...but the nice people at NATURE require a fee....nice freedom of information.

Oh Honeydew...you so robotically spew out the radical left's death speech. Cures for diabetes, Parkinsons Disease, ALS, MS, spinal cord injuries, at so many more will be made just as soon as they would have been with the funding vetoed by our fine President. Adult Stem cells have been so effective that investors are running to fund this private research while Embryonic Stem Cells are still wallowing in the petri-dish and results are limited in LAB RATS!

Bunsen, you lie.

Scare those poor people out there sufferring with illness...that's a good tactic....that's what got Claire McCaskell elected and we all know successful manipulation of the electorate is always used again.....

Mmmm, just like you fault Bush for regarding Iraq.....The left are the masters of lies and deception.

So, professor, what about the idea that in reality, the US has published 40% of the studies regarding Stem Cell Research?.....It doesn't seem to fit with your twisted propaganda.

Bush.....The Science President!

"Scott: NO, we didn't have to remove Saddam, or "finish that war", as you put it.
You are simply wrong!"

Mmmmm, methinks not. I read Dr Blix' Unresolved Disarmament Issues Report to see what the UN thought the threat was from Saddam, and then I read the ISG report to see what was found by Dr Kay, Dr Duelfer, and if Dr Butler's 1999 book, The Greatest Threat was viable. The pics alone in the ISG report show that he was a threat.

http://www.scottmalensek.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=248

"It was reasonable to conclude that Iraq posed an imminent threat. What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war,"
-1/28/04 Dr. David Kay testimony to Sen. Intel. Committee

"Nope. Couldn't 'redeploy' or 'just walk away' after taking down Saddam, and Saddam had to be taken down to end the war that made UBL decide to start killing Americans, that gave rebirth to Al Queda, and that set 911 in motion. Someday that war had to end-"
(Very misleading attempting to tie Iraq with UBL. A little research would have shown you that UBL wanted to go after Saddam in '90.)

"the only way to do that was to remove Saddam (all other means had been tried, so invasion was the last option)"
(Hans Blix had the rug pulled from under him on this. His investigation of Iraq's imaginary WMD was simply a dog and pony show before Bush had troops on the Iraqi border.)

"After removing Saddam, gotta fix what was broke"
(Did you ever break something that is really delicate? Something like a tea cup? Even if you put it back together with massive amounts of glue it never looks quite right. And almost certainly it is not worth the effort.)

"What's happening there now with only 10-30,000 insurgents would be nothing compared to total anarchy."
(an·ar·chy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder:

Iraq already fits all 4 of the definitions.)

To give you a crude example of how Dr.Lapdog, Old Grammie and their ilk, work, imagine a huge haystack in a barn.
Both will search night and day for the proverbial needle in that haystack. The needle represents the Democrat's misdeeds the past 6 years.( as the minority party..you know..the ones that haven't been making any of the decisions or policies)
Along comes a truck dumping 10 tons of manure on the haystack( The manure represents the Bush Administration's lies and failed policies)

The stench and tonnage will not prevent them from digging and digging thru that manure to continue to search for that needle....and invent others if they can't find it.
When asked about the obvious stench and insurmountable load , their customary response is "What manure ? "
This is why attempting to debate them in any area that involves their beloved incompetent and disgraced Republicans is an attempt in futility.

Bubbajim, what ya think of the Democrats ideas about Iraq. Looks like the Democrats have no idea what to do, all they are good for is complaining. It appears that the policy of the liberals will be "this wouldn't be a problem if Bush didn't lie". No solutions, no plan of action.

Well, you're just a hard case. A clear minority these days, thankfully. I've seen that data and I disagree. We had Saddam in a box and well contained so we might as well end this discussion, because you are simply wrong, and I don't want anyone who thinks like you making any more decisions about America's future. You and people like you are nothing but a recipe for disaster.

I'm sure one of your heroes is probably William Crystal. I love the way John Stewart chewed him up about Iraq just last week. I have to give it to Crystal though, he took it well even though he had no answers (other than "send more troops").

Tell you what, why don't you, Cee, Janet, & Crystal go help us out over there?

"Olbermann will condemn Ethiopia and blame Bush for the Somolia war. Olbermann openly roots and is thrilled with every American death in Iraq. He wants an Islamists victory!"

Last time a--hole - SHUT YOUR MOTHERf---ING SHITHOLE BEFORE I TAKE MY BOOT AND SHOVE IT SO FAR UP YOUR ASS YOU'LL TASTE SHOE LEATHER! I AM TIRED OF YOUR SHIT AND I AM TIRED OF YOU!

GO THE f--- AWAY! NOW! GO FIND A LITTLE BUNKER AND LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE!

Anon 9:21: I'm really hoping the Democrats aren't planning to just sit there and do nothing, but hell, most of them did help get us into this mess and there not much reason to have much hope, is there.

Webb looks like the real deal, but he's a freshman with no real power. I HOPE there's more like him!

Grammie has to be the biggest joke ....even more than Cee..at this site.
She has ice water running thru her deteriorating veins.
I read her response to someone mentioning the HBO special on the medics in Iraq. I did see that show and it was chilling !
The horrors our troops are dealing with is enough to make a grown man cry.
Except for Grammie.
All she could talk about was the person's writing style and his intent.
What a horrible piece of shit is this woman !
Or to use her own words," She is just a worm of a woman" !
The ramifications of the Bush Iraq War is there for all to lament.
Not for Grammie !
She'll just cavalierly pass over all of these horrors and evade the whole piece the person wrote about.Either that or forced to admit who is responsible for it all.That bit of truth serum she would never touch !
No heart ,no soul, indeed !

Bubba, I have responded to what you said. I am not trying to complicate what is in your head. I have opinions and beliefs of what the consequences of my opinions would be. That is the best I can do. I do not claim that those who have differing opinions are criminally lying.

I believe that those who campaign for a change in policy should have an idea of where they believe those changes should bring us. Change for changes' sake is not a valid argument to me. Neither is Pat Buchannan persuasive with me. He represents the pre WWII republicans. A la the repub senator who infamously said that if only he had a chance to reason with Hitler the invasion of Poland would not have happened.

This all started with your assertion that GWB et al were either liars or grossly incompetent. I don't accept your premise. There is much evidence that many have conveniently changed their minds.

And all I have requested of you is what do you anticipate from a change in policy based on your beliefs. I have not asked for your firstborn if you miss the mark in your predictions.

I DO NOT understand such strongly stated opinions with no idea of what the consequences would be other than there would be different consequences.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Very misleading attempting to tie Iraq with UBL. A little research would have shown you that UBL wanted to go after Saddam in '90." Not misleading at all-why did UBL decide to start killing Americans? Check the 911 Comm rpt or his own rants.

"Hans Blix had the rug pulled from under him on this. His investigation of Iraq's imaginary WMD was simply a dog and pony show before Bush had troops on the Iraqi border."
-The link to the pics from the ISG report that I provided earlier shows clearly that inspections were not working, and could not work, but if one reads Blix' book, Disarming Iraq, or Ritter's book, End Game, or Butler's book, The Greatest Threat you'll see that inspection cannot prove 100% compliance (all three agree). Ritter specifically says that you can't prove through inspections that there's not a bag of anthrax in a desk hidden somewhere. As the saying goes, Close only counts in hand grenades and nuclear weapons...to that add a pound of anthrax to the list.

"Did you ever break something that is really delicate? Something like a tea cup? Even if you put it back together with massive amounts of glue it never looks quite right. And almost certainly it is not worth the effort."
-LOL! Nice analogy. Read UN resolution 1483 and tell me the US and the world aren't obligated to be in Iraq.

"What's happening there now with only 10-30,000 insurgents would be nothing compared to total anarchy."
(an·ar·chy–noun
1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.
4. confusion; chaos; disorder:
Iraq already fits all 4 of the definitions.

I stand by what I said. Most of Iraq's provinces and most Iraqis are not subjected to attacks, and there is an Iraqi govt.

Keep watching Olby, and you'll keep getting the wrong information.

Bob,

If you don't agree with the basis for a war then every hardship, every casuality, every horror that is the essence of war, is a needless cost...whether you're talking about Iraq, Vietnam or fighting Germany in WWII if you're Pat Buchanan.

Both Cee and Janet have defended their reasons for backing the war in Iraq and it's utterly dishonest of you to imply that they've merely been glib when confronted with the costs of war and of this war in particular. You may not have been impressed by their arguments but they've articulated them.

Stating the obvious-- that war sucks-- can be glib but it's just as glib to engage in the sort of breast-beating hysterics over the cost when you didn't think the enterprise was worth a penny in the first place.

Frankly, that's just cheap dramatics designed more for leverage against opponents than for anything else.

You can't get more glib or opportunistic with the sufferings of others than that, pal.

"Read UN resolution 1483 and tell me the US and the world aren't obligated to be in Iraq."- Scott

I always find it truly pathetic when Wingnuts try to use the U.N. to argue their points after they completely trashed/continue to trash the U.N. after they told us "It's really not a good idea to go into Iraq".

Cecelia- I've never seen the word "glib" used more in one single post than yours. Get a thesaurus.

I ask you all to judge me. How would you have responded to the following:

""the tears on my face kept drying from the heat of my anger."

I responded thus:

"I will say this. The last time I read a line like that quoted from you above, it was as a young girl/woman in a romance novel oozing phrases like "his manhood was so firey it dried the tears that had soaked my dress"."

Tit led to tat and I eventually stated:

"I will be blunt. I considered your post either a drunken maudlin outburst or a phony put up job."

And now I am accused of of having deterioating veins. Isn't there a federal law to protect me from such biased comments!

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"Cecelia- I've never seen the word "glib" used more in one single post than yours. Get a thesaurus."

So you have the luxury of having read something that's a first tonight-- an experience that will never happen to your readers...

Anon,
"Last time a--hole - SHUT YOUR MOTHERf---ING SHITHOLE BEFORE I TAKE MY BOOT AND SHOVE IT SO FAR UP YOUR ASS YOU'LL TASTE SHOE LEATHER! I AM TIRED OF YOUR SHIT AND I AM TIRED OF YOU! "

how do you propose to that? You're just a harmless Internete Leftists who supports Jihadis!
You're harmless.

J$:

Excellent write-up. Thank you for the thorough research.

Citizen Keith was extra deplorable in 2006, but NBC News was worse propping this guy up in such a biased manner.

We have Al Jazeera at 30 Rock. We have some at NBC News actively rooting for the demise of this administration with Olby and Dan Abrams leading the charge.

I'm sure there are some fine people in the NBC rank and file who must hold their nose at the stench of Krazy Keith.

He's very deplorable and I'm sure the ghosts of Huntley, Brinkley, Chancellor and other fine journalists must be spinning in their graves.

As they say in Fargo...

"And for what? a little bit of money...a little bit of money"....

KO is the guy operating the wood chipper, destroying NBC news from the inside.

L.F.

"We have Al Jazeera at 30 Rock. We have some at NBC News actively rooting for the demise of this administration with Olby and Dan Abrams leading the charge."

Oh, like Rush Limbaugh didn't do the same thing to the Clinton Administration. How many days did he claim America was "held hostage" while Clinton was in office? How many columnists on the right hoped and prayed that Clinton would be the first President frog-marched out of the White House? How many hours of press coverage was devoted to the most trivial things just to make it seem like Clinton was a fool?

When the right actively rooted for (and worked at) collapsing the Clinton Administration, where was your righteous indignation then, sir?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

EE, I thought you supported KO as a reputable NEWSMAN. Now you defend him by saying that Rush Limbaugh, a commentator, did the same thing he does.

That is the point, you know. KO insists he is a nonpartisan newsman as opposed to the commentator Rush.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I was against the impeachment of Clinton.

There's no excuse for Olbermann. He is truly deplorable. I don't follow Limbaugh.

"EE, I thought you supported KO as a reputable NEWSMAN."

I made no such claim. A spade is a spade, and Olbermann is a commentator just like O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are commentators. The difference is in the direction of the commentary.

"Now you defend him by saying that Rush Limbaugh, a commentator, did the same thing he does."

I offered Limbaugh as an example. Cull the internets and you'll find many more examples of this type of positioning.

I'd be fine with Olbermann being the utter partisan that he is, if he'd air rebuttal or an opposing viewpoint to less than half of all the "statements and accusations" he makes.

"I'd be fine with Olbermann being the utter partisan that he is, if he'd air rebuttal or an opposing viewpoint to less than half of all the "statements and accusations" he makes.
Posted by: Cecelia at December 26, 2006 11:26 PM"

Once again a total delusionary perspective. How thick is that empty skull of yours? See if you can try one more time.

The Democrats have yet to take their seats as a majority in Congress. The Democrats have not been in power while KO has been a commentator. The only reason you call him partisan is because you hear him saying bad shit all the time about the party in power - that being the Republicans.

Reality: The party with FULL control over this nation's government for the last 6 years (especially the years we've been in Iraq) has been the Republicans. Who does the social and political commentator focus on? The ones NOT in power? You have some reason why such an illogical thing should be done?

Keith Olbermann has made some negative comments about the Democrats. That will increase as soon as the Dems have a chance to take their seats and fail to do the work that would solicit anyone's ridicule, such as his... or yours for that matter.

But because you are a faking two bit deceptive partisan hack yourself, you insist that this one man must be some how dishonest simply because most of his commentary is aimed at one party. THAT'S BECAUSE ONLY ONE PARTY HAS BEEN IN COMPLETE AND TOTAL POWER FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS!

So now go on and pretend that you can't comprehend this simple bit of reasoning. Go on with your let's-gang-up-on-one-guy nonsense. Pretend that somehow the Democrats held 50% of the power the last 6 years and therefore KO should have been equally critical of the Dems. Pretend pretend pretend.

You are a disingenuous and can't acknowledge that you have been supporting a party of white trash hillbillies who pimped Jesus for power, all to go into a sovereign nation that never attacked us and kill hundreds of thousands of their people while killing thousands of our own, and in doing so dump hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of billionaires who are getting rich off this war.

You live in denial. You and the party you support are morally bankrupt insensitive cowards who take solace in the deaths of darker people of foreign lands as though this some how makes you safer. Your safety lies only in your head and because you are a delusional coward - you will never be safe - you especially will never be safe via a foreign policy you constantly defend here that thinks nothing of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men woman and children.

Your an embarrassment to this nation and liability to democracy.

In short - you are a plain and simple coward!

If Olbermann has made negative comments about Dems, why hasn't he had ANY Republicans on his show (show, not a newscast, as you contend, CW) to tell their perspective? You're delusional, Coward, and your support of Olbermann's one-way street is a clear example of that.

Coward Watch can't make up his mind if we're a bunch of "white trash hillbillies" or diablocal billionaires. We're not the ones in denial here, it's Coward who is also, yes, delusional and obviously has some mental issues.

Hello again, all...

Just one comment from today.... & this goes out to you ensign expendible & you, red wolf...

This comment was made by ensign yesterday at like 3:00 PM...

'First, point to ONE AMERICAN who "supports" Sharia Law in the United States. There are none. This argument is the worst example of fear-mongering I have ever heard. NO ONE would stand for RELIGIOUS COURTS ANYWHERE in this country.'

I would venture to argue that Pat Robertson is in favor of religious courts similar to a sharia. I would also argue that George Bush, Yes, that niggah whom we must (however unjustly call President) would agree with a Sharia in this country...

It's just that they would say that the Christians should be running thes courts, not the Muslims...

Just a copuple of thoughts for my niggahs,

Thanx..

Michael

"Coward Watch can't make up his mind if we're a bunch of "white trash hillbillies" or diablocal billionaires. We're not the ones in denial here, it's Coward who is also, yes, delusional and obviously has some mental issues.

Posted by: Brandon at December 27, 2006 01:23 AM"

The idea that you would delusionly suggest that I labeled you as wealthy is one more indication of your inability to think strait.

My saying that you argue on behalf of politics and policies that favor the wealthy is not tantamount to calling you wealthy. Your claims are one of two things, lies or delusions. Choose one.

Nothing worse than poor white trash fighting for a political party that takes advantage of poor white trash.

Who was it that fought in the Civil War for the right of southern plantation owners to keep slavery legal? Answer: It was the poor farmers who's value as laborers was undermined by the same slavery they died for. The irony never ends. Today it is no different. The only thing that has changed is today it is the middle class as well as the working class that due to their religious ignorance and political ignorance, sell their nation, their god, and their children's future financial security, all so they can feel like they fit in some where. Some Khristian Klan to join in the hope they can be anything other than what their fathers and forefathers before them were. And that would be poor white trash that better society always looked down on. A vicious cycle that never seems to end.

Well guess what? It does not matter if you are poor trash or middle class trash, as long as you pimp your god for politics and profit, and trade your freedoms for fear mongering propaganda bullshit, then you will be as your fathers were - Traitors to your religion and your nation.

Trash is trash, and as your arguements indicate, you are just that!

I awake this fine morning to be greeted with hate speech from the liberal, Coward Watch.

"Nothing worse than poor white trash fighting for a political party that takes advantage of poor white trash......Trash is trash, and as your arguements [sic] indicate, you are just that!"

Ah yes.....dehumanizing your opponent....hey Grannie et al.....we're white trash! Do we all know what people do with trash?.....

It is discarded...thrown away...left to decay...or even burned.

Yes, a great, logical conclusion to another hate filled post. These words are very revealing of Coward Watch's soul and goal for our country!

I remember a great lesson I learned speaking with my grandfather....He had an uncle who had survived the Nazi holocaust...He told me a story about his uncle seeing the Nazi era propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew."

The film did what all hate speech does... dehumanize the opponent. It compared the Jews to rats: "Wherever rats appear they bring ruin, by destroying mankind’s goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they (the rats) spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on."

So, Coward Watch, I am trash in your humble opinion?

The radical left needs to be logically countered at every opportunity, IMHO....Cheap-shot takers like Coward Watch and The Professor (Bob) are worth engaging because (hopefully) more reasonable people will come to realize what their small minority really represents....intolerance.

On a totally unrelated subject (that was going to be my original, much briefer post)....I wonder if MSNBC will advertise on OW with their new, splashy banners as seen over at TVNewser?

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

The ironic claim of, "Everybody's talking about MSNBC," would be cool here....right Robert and J$?

Heyya people... i just thought I'd advertise my brand new blog-site... You can access it by clicking my name right below this posting!! Please, come join me!!

Thank you all, & have a great day, now,

Ronnie

Heyya people... i just thought I'd advertise my brand new blog-site... You can access it by clicking my name right below this posting!! Please, come join me!!

Thank you all, & have a great day, now,

Ronnie

Heyya people... i just thought I'd advertise my brand new blog-site... You can access it by clicking my name right below this posting!! Please, come join me!!

Thank you all, & have a great day, now,

Ronnie

"'"Read UN resolution 1483 and tell me the US and the world aren't obligated to be in Iraq.'- Scott

I always find it truly pathetic when Wingnuts try to use the U.N. to argue their points after they completely trashed/continue to trash the U.N. after they told us "It's really not a good idea to go into Iraq"."

LOL! I wonder if this oxymoron even sees the irony in his own post?

Bravo- it was nice to come here this morning and see cee, grannie, cecelia, and scott slap around the pathetic propoganda from the left all night. Bravo. The string of posts as a whole is beautiful. Why does the left even come here with their lies and attitude. They get exposed nightly. Bravo. Bravo.

Wow....I read Coward Watch's other post and found this additional silly remark:

"You are a [sic] disingenuous and can't acknowledge that you have been supporting a party of white trash hillbillies who pimped Jesus for power, all to go into a sovereign nation that never attacked us and kill hundreds of thousands of their people while killing thousands of our own, and in doing so dump hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of billionaires who are getting rich off this war."

So now The Republican Party killed the troops and the innocent civilians.....it wasn't the terrorists? The insurgents loyal to a despot or marred in sectarian revenge killings had nothing to do with the thousands killed over the last three years? George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the R's were the ones who continued to push violence, committed hideous acts of brutality and planted those IED's under cars, near children getting HERSHEY bars from the troops or near mosques.

Wow, I missed those reports in the papers!

Two words describe Coward Watch........

Terrorist Apologist.

Next Coward Watch will tell us Saddam Hussein should not be hanged because his due process rights were not respected under The United States Constitution.

BTW, when Keith Olbermann is as vitriolic and disrespectful to The Democratic Leadership as he has been to The President, I will personally post my congratulations to Coward Watch for being so smart.

why hasn't he had ANY Republicans on his show (show, not a newscast, as you contend, CW) to tell their perspective?

Most Republicans are in hiding and are embarrassed of the Congress and president.
They ran from Bush during the election and don't want to feel like total hypocrites by supporting the worst president in our nation's history.

You so smart anon.. you figured it out. you so smart

BTW, when Keith Olbermann is as vitriolic and disrespectful to The Democratic Leadership as he has been to The President,

For Cee, being disrespectful to the president means to comment accurately on what Bush has done, which would be a total anathema to the biggest Bush apologist in the western hemisphere.
How does Cee look in the mirror every morning and not laugh at himself ?

How does Cee look in the mirror every morning and not laugh at himself?

By first recalling the iditotic posts of liberals on this site who have no clue how the world really works and are only capable of seeing how events and issues affect their own selfish interests.

Spare me anon, you must only watch countdown for your news- the democratic party has made several mistakes in the past month since the election, but you would have to no idea. Keith only reports anti republican smears. Why do you bring your trash here. Its bunk and weak!

Good point Anon.....If habeus corpus rights were taken away from us by that evil Bush and The Congressional Republicans....why have The Democrats been quiet about any plans to repeal the legislation?......And then that begs the question of why Keith Olbermann, who made the claim that my habeus corpus rights were no longer respected, has yet to have a Special Comment focusing on why his friends are not acting.

I say I'm fine with Keith being a partisan (focusing on Republicans) but he should allow some rebuttal and varying viewpoints.

CowardWatch's responds with this non-sequitur: "But because you are a faking two bit deceptive partisan hack yourself, you insist that this one man must be some how dishonest simply because most of his commentary is aimed at one party. THAT'S BECAUSE ONLY ONE PARTY HAS BEEN IN COMPLETE AND TOTAL POWER FOR THE LAST 6 YEARS!"

Great bit of deductive reasoning as always, einstein. For some reason the notion has occured to you that on television news shows alternative arguments and certainly rebuttals to charges ought to be allowed no matter what party or person that they're directed towards.

CowardWatch goes on to argue that Olbermann will focus on Dems now that they have gained more power, as though being a senator or a congressman wasn't already a powerful position and worthy of scrutiny, regardless of whether your party is in the majority. Just how much Democrat politician malfeasance hasn't even rated a Worst Person In The World title on Countdown...

CowardWatch's next bit of "logic" is to then go beyond the argument that Republicans merit Olbermann's chief focus because of their former majority status, to saying that they merit it because they deserve it.

Great job as usual, CowardWatch. You certainly have a knack for making folks feel good about not being you.

And the Olbyloons have freeped the salary poll overnight. My God just how desperate are you people to whore for this sorry sack o'shit that you'll freep a poll about him? Come on, admit it. Deep down you KNOW he's an a--hole but still you continue to defend him with your life. Do you think he'd pee on you if you were on fire unless you were a hot-looking 20-year old woman? As if. Dream on you over 40 old-maids who are probably so homely you'd stop a clock and probably even more mentally ill than he is.

Cecelia, I know what KO is going to do stsrting Jan 20. He will devote 2/3 of his rants and speshul comments to the Dems and only 1/3 to the Repubs.

As a completely fair man that has to be his future plans. And I know he is fair. I've been told it by people on this site twenty times a day, day in and day out.

Maybe we start a pool based on the first lying, theiving and power hunger Dem to be skewered. I vote for William Jefferson, D LA.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

The day KeithO dies- I will fly to his where his grave is and piss on it. I respect nobody in the USA less than him! And i pray that these Olbyloons are there to try to stop me so I can piss on them too.

"I would venture to argue that Pat Robertson is in favor of religious courts similar to a sharia. I would also argue that George Bush, Yes, that niggah whom we must (however unjustly call President) would agree with a Sharia in this country...

It's just that they would say that the Christians should be running thes courts, not the Muslims...

Just a copuple of thoughts for my niggahs,

Thanx..

Michael"

You haven't ventured to argue anything, you've merely made an unfounded charge based on stupidity.

There's nothing to suggest that either Pat Robertson and Pres. Bush would favor religious tribunal courts unless you are attempting to suggest that social conservatism reflected in laws concerning school prayer, abortion, and marriage are tantamount to the Sharia.

In which case you're arguing that pre-60s America was a theocracy compariable to Iran.

Sorry Hawkins. On that day he will be drinking bottles of Dom Perignon with Pelosi at one of her many celebrations during her 4 day swearing-in party. For shame- those liberal hypocrites.

"As a completely fair man that has to be his future plans. And I know he is fair. I've been told it by people on this site twenty times a day, day in and day out."

Yes, we have been told that at least 20 times a day, Janet. Generally, we're assured of this even as these same people argue that they love Olbermann because he shares their leftist sensibilities and as these same people make the argument that KAF, who criticises Olbermann and fellow Dems for what he feels are bad moves and ideas, CAN NOT also be a Democrat as he claims to be.

BTW, I watched the Big Show with Keith Olbermann. I never saw Keith imply that Clinton was a corporate sell-out for facilatating GATT and other pro-business measures, that he was bigoted for backing the Defense of Marriage Act, or that he hated poor people because of welfare reform.

Of course the Olbyloons here too really know that Keith isn't going to do anything worse than mildly disagree with Pelosi and company and to suggest some tact he feels more important. If Olbermann were to go after the Dems with the same level of zest and paranoia that he does with Republicans, you'd see these same champions of "speaking truth to power"... drop him like a hot potato and defend the Dems by saying they merited loyality if only to keep the Republicans at bay.

How can we NOT have such respect and trust for the assurances of these arbiters of good govt and liberal principles? They have such a history of backing their ideals over politicians... (not) :D

A thought just occurred to me. Where will the extreme KO fans vent their rage and hatred once the Dems have righted all the wrongs in the world. Or at least 2/3 of them.

Poor darlings. They're going to need some help channeling it into other good works.

I can't conceive of a mission more glorious and self satisfying than bringing down the evil war criminal types like us on this site.

Well, at least they will have stories to tell their grandchildren. Who will probably be blase about the whole thing, having never lived in a world steeped in such evil.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Wonder if the check the Olbermann gave to Clinton ever made it to Africa. More likely the money went to Mrs. Clinton.

In reading the last 30 or 40 comments, it seems you haters (after all, that IS what this site is all about, isn't it) are being awful critical of Democrats who haven't even taken power yet...with just a slim majority...in one branch of government only.

You speak as if they have somehow already let us down.
Some speak as if Olbermann should already be leveling "special comments" at folks that haven't even been sworn in yet for things he normally doesn't even rant about.

How ridiculous can some of you people get?

I did read yesterday that this last session of this Republican Congress was helping itself with generous new helpings of pork! Since most of the news sort of shuts down this time of year, it's difficult to see exactly what was happening.

"Wonder if the check the Olbermann gave to Clinton ever made it to Africa. More likely the money went to Mrs. Clinton."

Very funny, Anonymous. I could ask the same thing regarding the massive waste and fraud by Halliburton and all the other corporations who benefited from "no-bid" government contracts. How much of their profit went into GOP coffers?

Ensign Expendable,
Your Islamic allies are about to be defeated. Any comments. Ethiopia did it quick and right. They attacked with full force before the Leftwing Media can turn global opinion against that country to bail their Muslim allies out.
I say let's levae Iraq and bring in Ethiopian troops. they know how to fight Muslims!
Go Ethiopia!

Look, everyone! Already someone's making it easier for Olbermann!

Bubba's upped the ante from CowardWatch's nonsense that powerful politicians rightfully qualify for Olbermann's sort of paranoid scrutiny only if they are members of the majority party, to further limiting the parameter to those pols whose party controls the most branchs of govt.

What's next? A moratorium on powerful pols whose political party name does not contain the letter "t"?... :D

Look, everyone! Already someone's making it easier for Olbermann!

Bubba's upped the ante from CowardWatch's nonsense that powerful politicians rightfully qualify for Olbermann's sort of paranoid scrutiny only if they are members of the majority party, to further limiting the parameter to those pols whose party controls the most branchs of govt.

What's next? A moratorium on powerful pols whose political party name contains the letter "t"?... :D

They are not my allies, nimrod. So stop it.

bubbajim....

Do you recall the DRAMA with which Keith Olbermann breathlessly spoke of the demise of habeus corpus? My goodness....he even had a tombstone graphic behind him as he made his Special Comment......

If I was to believe I was in such danger, according to Mr. Olbermann, the speed at which the right should be restored should be just as urgent! Oh my.....after all....TODAY, an FBI guy with Dark Ray Bans and Black Trench Coat may wisk me away to the UAE and subject me to load STARSHIP music....(especially that tune..."We Built This City on Rock & Roll!)

Hello, bubbajim.....the sarcasm about KO's very, very, very serious Special Comments has been a mainstay of this site since he started spouting off like Edward R. Moron.....

3 cameras switching angles to catch the viewer's eye

hushed silence placed juuuuust right in between witty yet ironic observations....not too long, not too short.....

the angry stare beneath the top edge of his stylish frames
(go here....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
.....to see that beauty)

The slight movements of the shoulders to emphasize strength, determination and seething masculinity

And, of course, the 1950-esque grizzled news achor paper shuffling (even though he is using a teleprompter [sic?])

Oh, my....what excitement!!!!!

Anyway, my post this morning was toungue in cheek.....as was this one (i think?!?)

Buy a clue.

oooo....what horrible spelling errors on that last post....I guess KO affects me more than I care to admit....

But again, look at that pout!.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

He must practice it in a mirror constantly!!!!

Rest in Peace, President Gerald Ford. A man who never sought the presidency, but took over at a time when our country needed a calming influence. He had said he hoped to be remember as a man who helped heal the nation. He did exactly that.

Cee,

You need to issue warnings when you link to photos of Olbermann in serious special comment mode. Hysterical laughter can cause the dreaded side-stitch.

For a delightfully ewwwwwwwwweeeeeeee---cringe-producing (as opposed to hilarity producing) snap-shot, try this link:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12192006/gossip/pagesix/keith_faces_salary_shock_pagesix_.htm

I think MSNBC might be zinging their dear no-showing Olbermann a bit, Cee.

The headline from that link:

"Year of the Special Comments

Lies, Lessons, Cowdice and More"

is a hoot!!

Well, Cecelia, Bubba has the requisite majority of power (2/3 of the 3 elective branches). But now it is called a slim majority. Of course, if memory serves me the Dems have a larger share in the House then the repubs had and are equal to the repubs in the Senate without a filibuster proof edge.

The Dems have a history of using the filibuster more than the Repubs do. We'll just have to wait and see.

Of course that shouldn't prevent KO from speaking truth to power if the Dems fail to use or don't try to use their legitimate power in the way he approves.

And, Bubba, I distinctly said that KO would change the number of stories he does on Jan. 20.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Mr Dollar, thank you for the always entertaining, often hilarious installments. I long ago decided I need not watch the thick-thighed ex sports guy. You do it for me. As for the complaints of gratuitous name calling, we regulars know you only use ad-homs that Keith himself has pulled from his flaccid quiver. This site has sky-rocketed in this past year, and the credit goes to the steady, spot-on synopsis' of yours Mr Johnny Dollar. God speed.

Every day, 365 days a year, propaganda spews forth from this administration from their many spokespersons, apologists, and from the gahunahs themselves. ALL the networks, be they Liberal or Conservative, are obligated to cover this propaganda every single day of the year. The Democratic Congress won't change this.

And you people on this hate site jus' can't stand the thought of one little ole commentator on one little ole network spewing an opposition opinion.

Pretty sad!

Bubbajim,
Olbermann is just a Leftwing propagandist. It's one thing to criticize the Government. It's another when you stay silent on what are enemies are up to. He never criticizes the Islamo-Fascists. That's my gripe with him. In fact he has praised Hizballah, Iraqi Insurgenys and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He understood the Cartoon riots. He's pro-Islam.

Red Wolf said, "he has praised Hizballah, Iraqi Insurgenys and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

- Quote and link to a transcript please. I call 'bullshit' untill you can back this one up with proof.

I'm with James. I'm calling your bluff, so let's see the cards.

James:

When there is no campaign and election, we will see the real side of a President, Gerald Ford. We get to pay a price for democracy.

"Quote and link to a transcript please."

What the hell I'm supposed to do research on something I saw him say. He spoked highly on Ahmadinejad one time. He did praise Hizballah and he said about the cartoon roits " It's totally understandable what they're doing" and he said "We should be more sensative." That I belive he said at the height of the riots.
Also he didn't condemn the Holocaust Conference. That proves his support and bias in favor of Islam.

No Mr Wolf, I've seen WAY too many of your ridiculous posts to take YOU seriously! You think everybody who is not a rabid right wing attack dog is an Islamic-Fascist 'supporter'!

You might consider changing your pen name and start over...people might take you a little more seriously for awhile....until your true colors come flowing out again!

James....but we had a campaign, and an election...twice, with Bush, and we still got stuck with an idiot....twice!

Sometimes it's hard to keep faith that Democracy actually works....but it does....in the long run.

Gerald Ford was a class act, elected or not!

"What the hell I'm supposed to do research on something I saw him say."

Yes, because you can't make a claim without backing it up. Right now, you remind me of the guys who stood on cardboard boxes and proclaimed the end of the world was coming.

Everybody knew they were cranks. Now we know you're a crank too.

And now I am accused of of having deterioating veins. Isn't there a federal law to protect me from such biased comments!

Now Grammie wants the federal government to intervene.And yet she CLAIMS to be for less government !

Flip Flop !

(and get it right, it's ice cold water in those deteriorating veins )
You missed the most important part !
That part is certainly not biased !

Things are already looking up :
In the first few weeks of the new Congress, the Democrats plan to roll back the subsidies to Big Oil and use the
resources to invest in a reserve for research in alternative energy.

You'd NEVER catch the Republicans doing that !
The GOP isn't happy unless it's giving billions in tax subsidies to the oil companies !

I hate to contribute to all this off-topic rambling, but I understand that it is impossible to defend the lies of Keith Olbermann, so the discussion naturally drifts elsewhere. Regarding Keith and the Muslim cartoon riots, here are his words straight from the transcript:

OLBERMANN: We have had very little outrage in the U.S. which is a fortunate thing, but am I right, do you think, too, that the subtexts in the protests in the Muslim world, some of them at least suggest that America is still partly or mostly to blame for what happened here?... It is ironic - the whole thing is a little ironic, isn‘t it, one of our stories last night is about how conservative commentators thought it was blasphemous that politics and criticism of the administration was brought into the funeral service for Coretta Scott King and some of the same commentators, some of the same people cannot understand what the world Muslim world is so honked off about. Isn‘t that a little - the juxtaposition is amazing, isn‘t it?

Ensign Expendable,
What about his recent silence on the Holocaust denial conference? Explain that? How about his endorsement on talking with Iran?
Doesn't that show his bias towards Islam.
Or how about when he reported about the Imans that were detained? He stayed silent as the facts came out showing they were saying anti-American statements and one of the Imans had ties to Hamas. Why is that?
As for me c alling anyone not Rightwing an Islamo-Fascists supporter. That's Hogwash, I respect Leftists like Christophere Hitchens and Peter Beinhart who are anti Islamo-Fascist.
The problem is most of the Left today is sympathetic to Hizballah, Syria, Iran, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, The Union of Islamic Courts, Sadr/Mehdi Army and Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Until you guys start coming out and condemn these Fascists instead of just hating your fellow Americans.
Then I'll start attacking Olbermann and the Left.
Till them you guys are Islamic supporters.

Every day, 365 days a year, propaganda spews forth from this administration from their many spokespersons, apologists, and from the gahunahs themselves. ALL the networks, be they Liberal or Conservative, are obligated to cover this propaganda every single day of the year. The Democratic Congress won't change this.

And you people on this hate site jus' can't stand the thought of one little ole commentator on one little ole network spewing an opposition opinion.

Pretty sad!

Posted by: Bubbajim at December 27, 2006 02:24 PM

Bubba, the only person here who is angry at the thought of broadened coverage by anyone in the media, is you.

So far the vast majority of Olbyloons here assure us that Olbermann himself has said that he's going after the Democrats if they fail to live up to what ole Olby thinks is best for the country!

We OlbyWatchers are skeptical of that claim to say the least, but you seem to be downright disgusted by it.

I'm afraid you're going to have to take up your disapproval over that alledged promise by Olberman, with Mr. Moai-head, himself, and with your fellow Olbyloons here.

Hey Lefties read Johnny Dollar's post about Olbermann support of the Cartoon roits.
He even blamed this country for the publishing of a Danish paper. Olbermann supports any enemy of the country.

I'm done talking to you Red Wolf. I refuse to have an argument with anyone who decides I'm an Islamic supporter because I don't agree with them.

Johnny: You're right, it's difficult to defend the lies or misinformation of anyone....Olbermann, yours, mine, O'Reilly's...anybody's!

No reasonable person has ever said Olbermann never lies, misunderstands, distorts, or just plain doesn't get it wrong sometimes. He is human, after all, like all of us...and you seem to have every word he has ever spoken on record, as if that were some sort of a noble pursuit! With volumes and volumes of transcript to pick through, you, me, or anyone else could find plenty of things to pick at and attack, especially if it's about someone who literally talks several hours a day!

After all, many on your side of the political spectrum hang on every word out of the mouth of a hypocritical drug abuser, just to cite one example.

You seem to think your little Olbermann obsession here has some sort of higher purpose....I disagree!

I'll go ahead and do you a favor and quit coming here because this site is nothing but a full time smear campaign, and nothing is ever admirable about smear campaigns.

Ensign Expendable,
Condem Islamo-Fascism and Olbermann's silence about it. Then you will be taken serious.

"It is ironic - the whole thing is a little ironic, isn‘t it, one of our stories last night is about how conservative commentators thought it was blasphemous that politics and criticism of the administration was brought into the funeral service for Coretta Scott King and some of the same commentators, some of the same people cannot understand what the world Muslim world is so honked off about. Isn‘t that a little - the juxtaposition is amazing, isn‘t it?"

"Honked off"!

The juxtaposition that's amazing is the one alluded to by Olbermann in linking calls of bad-taste and irregiliosity, with riots that resulted in death, destruction, and calls for jihad.

BTW, I didn't know any discussion was "off-topic" as long as it is about Olbermann.

Bye, bye Bubba....I'll miss your snarky comments about lying conservatives as well as your more compassionate side when you overlooked the lies of liberals!

Have fun on those Hate-Bush web sites!

"Condem Islamo-Fascism and Olbermann's silence about it."

I can't because "Islam" and "terrorism" are NOT synonyms. YOU refuse to see that, which is YOUR problem.

Do I condemn terrorism? Yes, absolutely I do.

But I will not condemn an entire religious culture based upon the conduct of a VERY MINUTE faction. That would be like condemning the whole of Christianity for the acts of Fred Phelps.

That's my last word on the subject.

> nothing is ever admirable about smear campaigns

Sounds like you're talking about Countdown.

Bubbajim said: ..."I'll go ahead and do you a favor and quit coming here because this site is nothing but a full time smear campaign, and nothing is ever admirable about smear campaigns."

OK Bubbajim, your lofty idea would have had value had you not digressed and taken the cheap shot at Limbaugh. Poor foolish hypocrite.

Ensign Expendable,
So you can't condemn Islamo-Fascism. They're Muslims that use Fascism to spread their religion hence the term Islamo-Fascism.
You just prove that you can't in your politically correct mind condemn those Fascists, becasue their Muslim.

"I'll go ahead and do you a favor and quit coming here because this site is nothing but a full time smear campaign, and nothing is ever admirable about smear campaigns."

Acutally, Bubba, you admire smear campaigns (such as charges made by Olbermann on national television where he explicitly states he has no proof other than his own suspicion over timing) as long as they gore the oxes you want gored.

What's more, you think it's unreasonable and akin to censorship when anyone argues that the objects of such admittedly nebulous charges should be allowed to defend themselves to their accusor, no matter who they are.

Not like smear campaigns? YOU positively adore them!

Yes....The right is always the bogeyman when it comes to religious intolerance, and it seems rather an over-reaction when the US left reacts....usually with snide derision and anger.

But have Muslim jihadists threaten death by decapitation and the US left is sooooooo quiet. Hush.....let's hear the crickets.....

Christians & Jews....want to TALK about their beliefs = BAD......Radical Islamists......want to kill people over a cartoon = INDIFFERENCE.

......Radical Islamists......want to kill people over a cartoon = INDIFFERENCE."

Not entirely so in the case of Olbermann, Cee. Read his statement again and you'll see that he's not indifferent to Muslim fanatic violence, he's intimating that the Muslims think the U.S. is partly to blame for the treatment of Islam because Bush has mismanaged our relationship with them and therefore caused their response in the first place.

Someone tell Salmon Rushdie...

Notice ever since that Johnny Dollar put that transcript of Olbermann's support of the cartoon riots, The Olbyloons don't defend him. Their hero has been exposed. he's a supporter of Islamo-Fascism

Once again, your resident idiot, Red Wolf, can't see the difference between trying to understand why the enemy does what they do and actually 'supporting' them.

Well, EE, would you want to reconsider the following inane and weaseling statement by you:

Red Wolf asked if you would:""Condem Islamo-Fascism and Olbermann's silence about it."

You responded: "I can't because "Islam" and "terrorism" are NOT synonyms."

That is an inane and weaseling statement to me. I have a mental image of you gagging not being able to spit the words out and implicate the yourself or the GREAT KO because its not that you support those murdering maggots you ONLY hate Bush so much.

And the question is NOT condemn all muslims, only those who are Islamofascists and their sympathizers and supporters. And the last two categories can include any race, creed or nationality.

If you genuinely felt that the question erroneously implied that all muslims are terrorists or only Muslims, I wonder at your failure to answer with the caveat that you condemn Islamofascists but only in the case of those who are whatever limitation or defining action you impose on your answer.

By answering in such a sophistic manner you make me wonder if you will condemn them, but maybe only when the politicians you support are in power.

So, I will rephrase the question for you in a much broader sense.

Do you condemn the Islamofascist movement, their jihadists, their sympathizers, their supporters and their apologists?

And, I do include KO as an apologist. Would he make the same comment and then ignore the story if raging crowds of Christians had been orchestrated into equivilant deadly riots around the world and intentional murder over, say, Piss Christ.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"So, I will rephrase the question for you in a much broader sense.

Do you condemn the Islamofascist movement, their jihadists, their sympathizers, their supporters and their apologists?"

Same response as before, and I resent your tone and implications.

Wonder if he'll be heaping praise on Gerald Ford tonight as he was in the early morning hours inthe Breaking News coverage on MSNBC? Or if he's gotten his orders yet from Kos/Huffington/Media Matters and will now be trashing him instead? You know KO: he likes it both ways. So which KO will show up tonight? And how will his fans take it if he does decide to praise Ford? Will it come as a shock to them he didn't think Nixon should have been impeached? Or at least that was his story at 1:30 this morning. Who knows what it will have changed to this evening.

Would you people be happy if Americans crowded into the streets and chanted "death to Islam", or "death to Iran" over and over again? Is that what it would take for you to quit saying stupid things like accusing Americans who criticize the actions of their own government of being "Islamic-Fascist supporters"? Is that what you mean when you say we "criticize Bush but don't criticize the enemy"?

I personally think we'd look pretty stupid doing that - about as stupid as it looks to us whenever they riot and chant in the streets in the Middle East against us.

Scott said it best yesterday......

"I STRONGLY believe that popular support must be maintained, and that W isn't doing that, but looking aside from W....who is undermining popular support (support=will=capacity for success)? Seems to me it's people like Olby who perpetuate partisan lies and distort the truth to serve their own needs as well as those political leaders who undermine support (undermine support=undermine war effort) by creating false impressions in the American people (like the Bush outed Plame lie, the Bush Lied lie, the lie that AQ and Iraq are completely unrelated, the lie that inspections were working, or the lie that there never were WMD, and so forth). Those political leaders who created and fed those myths are directly responsible for reducing support and making the enemy's success over American success more likely."

I will always be convinced that if The United States does not achieve the objective of a peaceful, strong, modern AND PROGRESSIVE government in Iraq, it will be PRIMARILY because of the cuts of a thousand knives since 3/2003.....From Plame/Wilson to the ISG and beyond, liberals and their lead propagandist, Keith Olbermann, have taken every opportunity to use the war as a weapon in their struggle for power, ratings, money and/or relevance. This behavior was unconscionable because it gave the enemy exactly what they needed....

loss of resolve to finish what was started.

No Woogy...I do not suggest we go out and riot in the streets....

Nor do I enjoy seeing President Bush on signs along with Hitler...or protesters suggesting Donald Rumsfeld has committed war crimes...or when a self-proclaimed Edward R. Murrow claims my President wants to hurt my family.

These activities, and many more like them, have been in the news since before the invasion and are illustrative of a radical left-wing attempt to change the very fabric of our society from within.....for the worse and for the benefit of a small group of elitists who hold on to values absolutely at odds with the vast majority of the American people.

I guess I was slow to realize this, but Olbermann has cut his vacation short to anchor tonight....according to TVNewser.

Scramble, scramble, scramble...

Johnny nice write up.It is kind of interesting that
you didn't have to correct any attacks/lies of ko on
Dems.........

I love the new dnbc ads tauting their supposed 7% increase in viewership.......i thought numbers didn't matter????

Ensign Expendable,
You haven't answer the question so I'll be more specific.
Do you condemn Hizballah?
Do you condemn Al-Qaeda?
Do you condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?
Do you condemn Syrian President Bashir Assad?
Do you condemn Hamas?
Do you condemn the Muslim Brotherhood?
Do you condemn Islamic Jihad?
Do you condem all of the above?
clean anser come on.

Oh look - Olby's on the air to cover Pres. Ford's passing.

Woogy, first things first. I love your name.

I agree with all that Cee said and said quite well. I would like to bring it further and flesh out some of it.

How do and could we have a reasonable debate about how to prevail against this latest attack on our way of life and form of government from a very deadly enemy whose goal is our ultimate death or conversion.

We have been forced into a never ending debate whether Bush et al are stupid, lying war criminals, war profiteers, religious zealots, Christonazis, murderors, despots, shredding the constitution, chickenhawks, cowards, neocons and on and on.

It has not lost the ability to amaze me. The constant malignant and pathological hatred of all things Bush and those who believe that the Battle of Iraq was the proper course.

These accusations started before the 2000 election and have gathered steam through the years. On one hand GWB can't walk and chew gum simultaneously but he can direct conspiracies of mind boggling proportions.

It runs rampant and unchecked through our society fueled by the KOs of this world.

No, I don't want us to field hundreds of thousands marching through the streets around the country screaming DEATH TO ISLAM. But I would like our media, politicians and public figures to notice that that is exactly what our enemies do with other than hushed nonjudgmental tones and no condemnation while burying it in reams of anti Bush rhetoric.

With the rhetoric of KO and many others in mind, what do you think the reaction would be if Christians around the world murderously rioted and killed people in response to Piss Christ being funded by US tax dollars.

Suddenly, people who had years of publicly saying what GWB et al said are calling him a liar. Statesmen NOT. I would like a reasoned disagreement with reasoned alternatives offered so we can reach a consensus.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I haven't trolled on this site in over a month, but it's great to see that so many of the ole wingnuts are still around. Hey Red Wolf- how's you're Islamo-Faso hunt going? I still live for the day to see the newspaper clip giving you credit for breaking up a terrorist ring.

I haven't trolled on this site in over a month, but it's great to see that so many of the ole wingnuts are still around.>>

And here we thought trolls made their appearances monthly... like the cramps...

If you ever needed further proof that Dr. Lapdog has totally drunk the Kool Aid and is off his rocker ....it is with these words :

"I will always be convinced that if The United States does not achieve the objective of a peaceful, strong, modern AND PROGRESSIVE government in Iraq, it will be PRIMARILY because of the cuts of a thousand knives since 3/2003.....From Plame/Wilson to the ISG and beyond, liberals and their lead propagandist, Keith Olbermann, have taken every opportunity to use the war as a weapon in their struggle for power, ratings, money and/or relevance. This behavior was unconscionable because it gave the enemy exactly what they needed....

loss of resolve to finish what was started. "

There are no sane people left who feel the US will accomplish its objectives...but look who the lunatic Cee blames if it doesn't !
Plame, Wilson, Olbermann,liberals etc.

NO Cee...The fact that Bush had no understanding of the regional differences in Iraq had nothing to do with it.
The horrid post war planning had nothing to do with it.
The fact that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld thought the war would be a cakewalk had nothing to do with it.
The fact that Bush was stubborn and wouldn't listen to anyone who had a different POV about Iraq had nothing to do with it.
The fact that the Wolfowitz/Cheney/ Rumsfeld cabal had planned since the early 90's to invade Iraq and that Bush was just their puppet to get the job done....is Keith Olbermann's fault !
LOL

All Junior had to do is listen to Daddy when he said ( in the 90's) it would be a huge mistake to bring ground troops into Baghdad.
HIS OWN FRIGGING FATHER KNEW BETTER!

Just a little bit of common sense and we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Junior didn't listen...got us into a war that was unwinnable...and now the totally insane Dr. Lapdog is going to blame liberals and Olbermann etc. with the inevitable failure.

Now I've heard everything.

Please, send a strait jacket to Cee's house....immediately.If he can say what he just did, he's capable of saying and doing ANYTHING !

Just remember, the opinions held at this site by Cee, Grammie, Red Wolf, Cecilia etc represent less than 19% of the American people.

That fact definitely needs to be put into perspective.

81% of the American people totally disagrees with them on Iraq.

Talk about a bunker mentality !!!!!!

Bob,
I'm for withdrawal so the sunnis, Saudis, Syrians, Shiites and Iranians all kill each other!

Mr. Cee; So you blame all those multitudes of people who just refused to fall in line and keep their damned mouths shut! That's pretty amazing! You think human nature can be suppressed within a free society, and that it wasn't is why Iraq is in the state it is in???? Humans being what they are is one of the major reasons that this ridiculous endeavour was a mistake! This was 100% predictable!

Talk about denial!

"81% of the American people totally disagrees with them on Iraq."
Bob's daily hissy fit...

While you're putting things into the perspective of how persuasive majority opinion should be, Bob, it might be worthwhile for you to remember how the majority feels about gay marriage and prayer in school and felt about segregation at one time.

Cecelia- you juxtaposing your support for the Iraq debacle and the civil rights movement is disgusting.

What is it gonna take for the hardcore wingnuts to realize that the Iraq War was a huge mistake and a horrible waste of our soldiers lives?

"Cecelia- you juxtaposing your support for the Iraq debacle and the civil rights movement is disgusting."

No, I'm countering Bob's nonsensical point that majority opinion is significant, with the best example of misplaced majority sentiment that I can find, Mr. Concrete.

Cee, something reminded me of this that I had planned to mention to you.

I had provided for your amusement the tidbit that someone made a claim re stem cell research that the JULICH LIBRARY that catalogues scientific research papers CONDUCTED a study and then proceeded to cherry pick one little fact re per capita research, thereby turning the entire findings of the paper on its head.

Now, in the same vein, someone has stated that a JOINT VENTURE by Smith Owens of Michigan and McCormick of Stanford are two SEPARATE papers. And twisting and turning like a pretzel distorted that paper's findings.

As I said before, what a joke!

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Indierik, facts are facts. We all can sometimes be uncomfortable when facing disagreeable ones.

The American public was brought kicking and screaming to the reality of the wrongness of centuries of law, majority opinion and accepted common knowledge. And, the majority were persuaded over time that they had been WRONG.

We are in the midst of another divisive debate. Majority opinion and accepted common knowledge will not necessarily rule the day.

Time and historical perspective will pass judgment on us all.

As individuals, all we can do is make our best decisions without kowtowing to the perceived wisdom of the day if we disagree with it.

If you are offended by that I can't help it.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

- It's funny. Whenever polls are against the president, conservatives say "Oh, polls don't matter.""Majority opinion doesn't matter."

But, when someone brings up the fact that there were never any WMD's, conservatives always say "Well, you can't blame us or the administration. EVERYONE thought there were weapons of mass destruction!!!"

Or, when prayer in school or gay marriage are brought up, they say... "Hey, the majority of armerican's beleive what we believe.

Can't have it both ways.

"It's funny. Whenever polls are against the president, conservatives say "Oh, polls don't matter.""Majority opinion doesn't matter."

But, when someone brings up the fact that there were never any WMD's, conservatives always say "Well, you can't blame us or the administration. EVERYONE thought there were weapons of mass destruction!!!"'

Sing with me now, folks....One of these things is not like the other... One of these just doesn't belong...

"Or, when prayer in school or gay marriage are brought up, they say... "Hey, the majority of armerican's beleive what we believe.

Can't have it both ways."

That's why I've never used polls or television ratings as a means to support my ideals and opinions.

But don't be too hard on Bob...

Cecilia:That's why I've never used polls or television ratings as a means to support my ideals and opinions.

You also don't use facts and the simple truths about the Iraq War to support your ideals and opinions.

"You also don't use facts and the simple truths about the Iraq War to support your ideals and opinions."

Since I've never articulated any of my ideals and opinions about the war in Iraq, that would go without saying...Herr PMS.

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

On July 28, 2004, former president Gerald R. Ford sat down for an interview with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. The interview was conducted at Ford's Beaver Creek, Colo., house; the former president agreed that his comments could be published any time after his death.
Ford says he does not believe the United States should intervene militarily overseas unless it is directly in America's national interests.
"Based on the facts as I understand them, I do not think that I would have ordered the Iraq war if I had been president."
Ford also says he believes that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld erred in justifying the Iraq war as one aimed at eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Ford says that while he never publicly criticized the Bush administration's war in Iraq, he does think they made a mistake in how they justified the war.

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

Representative Ron Paul (R-TX):
"Even opponents of the war now sometimes erroneously argue that we must occupy Iraq indefinitely until a democratic government takes hold, no matter what the costs. No attempt is made by either side to explain exactly why it is the duty of American soldiers to die for the benefit of Iraq or any other foreign country. No reason is given why American taxpayers must pay billions of dollars to build infrastructure in Iraq. We are expected to accept the interventionist approach without question, as though no other options exist."

Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) :
"The most unfortunate thing has been the more than 1,700 young Americans who have been killed there now, and the some 12,000 who have been wounded, many of them severely wounded, maimed for life, in what was a totally unnecessary war." He reminded people that before this war started he told people "that there was nothing conservative about this war; that it was going to mean massive foreign aid, which conservatives have traditionally been against; that it was going to mean huge deficit spending, which conservatives have traditionally been against." He highlighted the comments of Lawrence Lindsey, who was the President's leading economic adviser until he was fired for his comments on the war, who said before the war started that it would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Now, by the end of this fiscal year, we are going to be at the astounding figure of $300 billion. And I think the only reason more people are not upset about that is that it is humanly impossible to truly comprehend a figure as high as $300 billion."

James Leach (R-IO), a moderate Republican who has differed with the president on Iraq from the outset. He has quietly questioned the war. In a speech on December 23, 2003 on Iraq he said: America is in a strategic pickle and Americans are in a judgmental quandary. He addressed the limits of a superpower's power by asked a series of important questions:
"Does, for instance, overwhelming military might protect us from terrorism or, if used unwisely, increase our vulnerability to terrorism?"

"Likewise, does overwhelming economic power ensure loyalty or buy friendship even from the countries most indebted to the US?"

"In other words, can military and economic might ever become a substitute for sensible and sensitive foreign policy?"

"And given the dilemma of Iraq, could it indeed be that the most important multi-billion problem America faces is not deficits measured in dollars, fiscal or trade, but the antagonism of billions of people around the world who object to our current foreign policy?"

He noted ,"Many are not convinced by our words; many are appalled by our actions" and concluded the speech saying: "The lesson of the past year is clear: America does better as a mediator and multi-party peace maker than as a unilateral interventionist."

It's doubtful Chris Hitchens reads Olbermann Watch and would have the opportunity of seeing Pres. Ford's comments used as some imagined ammunition by a lefty, but I dearly hope he has experienced the delicious irony of reading these comments from Suharto's ole pal. :D

"So now The Republican Party killed the troops and the innocent civilians.....it wasn't the terrorists? The insurgents loyal to a despot or marred in sectarian revenge killings had nothing to do with the thousands killed over the last three years? George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the R's were the ones who continued to push violence, committed hideous acts of brutality and planted those IED's under cars, near children getting HERSHEY bars from the troops or near mosques.

Wow, I missed those reports in the papers!...Posted by: cee at December 27, 2006 08:40 AM"

Wow the party of "personal responsibility" now has "cee" telling the world that all the death and destruction in Iraq is anyone's fault but the Republican party's or it's leader George W Bush!

Standard faire for this fake blog's rightwing hacks who call anyone who points out the failure of Bush's war in Iraq, "an apologist for terrorists." This is the core of your typical coward, support policies that invade a nation that never attacked us, destroy it's government, disband it's military and do it on the cheap sending in our troops totally under equipped and undermanned. Then when it all fails pretend that is not what is relevant. The death and destruction this failed adventure has caused means nothing, and anyone who calls it such is "an apologist for terrorists".

This kind of inability to acknowledge failure, and instead defend it, is what being an uneducated Fox News brain dead sheepeople is all about!

Many of the advisors to Rumsfeld and Cheney warned them of the long history of sectarian hatred in Iraq. And yet when this administration of chicken-hawks goes forward and totally blows this "operation" to grab an oil rich nation, all the while ignoring the generals and experts on the region, what do geniuses like "cee" here say? They say nothing of the failures, the chaos, the death and destruction, and even worse, nothing of the loss of America's finest men and women trapped in the middle of this hell on earth.

No, all these pin head cowards can come up with is the blaming of it all on anyone who dares to be outraged at such folly. As if the critiques were the ones who sent our nation's finest men and women into Iraq with orders designed to fail. Chaos = dollars for the Bush buddy war profiteering system!

Someone is truly living in a delusional world!

Even Fox News has reported that Bush's war has increased the number of committed Islamists who want nothing more than to kill as many Americans as they can, not for what you or I believe, for what they believe is America's doing in Iraq.

George Bush fulfilled Osama Bin Laden's prophetic claims that America and the west are out to grab their only natural resource - the oil that your gas guzzling SUV runs on.

While you are slopping back your corn and slugging down to Wal-Mart to buy plastic crap you don't need, more than a billion Muslims live in poverty and you don't want to listen to anyone who would dare rub this in your self-righteous face. After all, you've accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior so you can do wrong. Right? Wrong!

You and your ilk are pathetically ignorant of the world beyond your front door. You don't care, you don't want to know simply because you have no clue what the word - responsibility means. Now tell me how the meek will inherit the earth and how a camel walks through the eye of needle! You are as I have pegged you, corn fed and stupid. Go read your bible some more. Start with the sermon on the mount and tell me how you are one of the chosen ones. I don't think so!

Has anyone noticed that CowardWatch's posts have exactly the same repetitiveness, cadence, and form letter nature as the pharmeceutical spams that are posted here?

Could they be from the same source?... :D

"Has anyone noticed that CowardWatch's posts have exactly the same repetitiveness, cadence, and form letter nature as the pharmeceutical spams that are posted here?

Could they be from the same source?... :D
Posted by: Cecelia at December 28, 2006 01:49 AM"

Has anyone noticed that the more sense you make to the Fox News educated lame brains, the less they can address it and the more they redirect attention else where?

Immoral - uneducated - anti-American - anti-democracy liars that always fail to cement a meaningful argument when it is most obvious there is none for them to make!

You are - as always - delusional!

"Immoral - uneducated - anti-American - anti-democracy liars that always fail to cement a meaningful argument when it is most obvious there is none for them to make!

You are - as always - delusional!"

See what I mean.

"See what I mean.

Posted by: Cecelia at December 28, 2006 02:35 AM"

I see what you mean. You mean to demonstrate your ignorance as tool for your and end to your "means".

You are doing well. Keep going you make my point well.

"See what I mean.
Edited Version:

Posted by: Cecelia at December 28, 2006 02:35 AM"

I see what you mean. You mean to demonstrate your ignorance as a tool for your - end to your "means".

You are doing well. Keep going you make my point well.

"You are doing well. Keep going you make my point well."

Posted by: Coward Watch Bot at December 28, 2006 02:42 AM...

"You are doing well. Keep going you make my point well."
Posted by: Coward Watch Bot at December 28, 2006 02:42 AM...
Posted by: Cecelia at December 28, 2006 02:45 AM"

You can always tell when a puddle is out of rot and decay for the bacteria to feed on - the water gets clear - very clear.

"So now The Republican Party killed the troops and the innocent civilians.....it wasn't the terrorists? The insurgents loyal to a despot or marred in sectarian revenge killings had nothing to do with the thousands killed over the last three years? George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the R's were the ones who continued to push violence, committed hideous acts of brutality and planted those IED's under cars, near children getting HERSHEY bars from the troops or near mosques.

Wow, I missed those reports in the papers!...Posted by: cee at December 27, 2006 08:40 AM"

Wow the party of "personal responsibility" now has "cee" telling the world that all the death and destruction in Iraq is anyone's fault but the Republican party's or it's leader George W Bush!

Standard faire for this fake blog's rightwing hacks who call anyone who points out the failure of Bush's war in Iraq, "an apologist for terrorists." This is the core of your typical coward, support policies that invade a nation that never attacked us, destroy it's government, disband it's military and do it on the cheap sending in our troops totally under equipped and undermanned. Then when it all fails pretend that is not what is relevant. The death and destruction this failed adventure has caused means nothing, and anyone who calls it such is "an apologist for terrorists".

This kind of inability to acknowledge failure, and instead defend it, is what being an uneducated Fox News brain dead sheepeople is all about!

Many of the advisors to Rumsfeld and Cheney warned them of the long history of sectarian hatred in Iraq. And yet when this administration of chicken-hawks goes forward and totally blows this "operation" to grab an oil rich nation, all the while ignoring the generals and experts on the region, what do geniuses like "cee" here say? They say nothing of the failures, the chaos, the death and destruction, and even worse, nothing of the loss of America's finest men and women trapped in the middle of this hell on earth.

No, all these pin head cowards can come up with is the blaming of it all on anyone who dares to be outraged at such folly. As if the critiques were the ones who sent our nation's finest men and women into Iraq with orders designed to fail. Chaos = dollars for the Bush buddy war profiteering system!

Someone is truly living in a delusional world!

Even Fox News has reported that Bush's war has increased the number of committed Islamists who want nothing more than to kill as many Americans as they can, not for what you or I believe, for what they believe is America's doing in Iraq.

George Bush fulfilled Osama Bin Laden's prophetic claims that America and the west are out to grab their only natural resource - the oil that your gas guzzling SUV runs on.

While you are slopping back your corn and slugging down to Wal-Mart to buy plastic crap you don't need, more than a billion Muslims live in poverty and you don't want to listen to anyone who would dare rub this in your self-righteous face. After all, you've accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior so you can do wrong. Right? Wrong!

You and your ilk are pathetically ignorant of the world beyond your front door. You don't care, you don't want to know simply because you have no clue what the word - responsibility means. Now tell me how the meek will inherit the earth and how a camel walks through the eye of needle! You are as I have pegged you, corn fed and stupid. Go read your bible some more. Start with the sermon on the mount and tell me how you are one of the chosen ones. I don't think so!

Hey Coward Watch.....

I am not even going to try to engage in a debate with someone who dehumanizes people....(see my post from December 27, 2006 06:13 AM)...it is a waste of time because your hatred has blinded you.

But before I begin ignoring your posts...one last point (of course).....

I read your posts and shake my head. You have no ability to determine right from wrong because of your hatred...just like the jihadists and those that decide to support them based on reactive motivations like:

revenge
insult to human pride
greed
power
anger
rage
jealosy
prejudice
bigotry
arrogance
self-rightousness
self-pity

When ANYONE, from the billionaire in some American city, to the poorest bum on some street in some Middle Eastern city, decides to lash out based on those powers of their sinful nature....death results.

It may be the death of thousands...it may be the death of one....but sin always ends in death.

Saddam Hussein lashed out....killing thousands and making millions of people's lives hard for decades...in his own country and in peaceful countries like Kuwait, Israel and the US...he will pay for his crimes under justice...I thank George Bush for that accomplishment.

I also wish those who still err by choosing the above motivations...BY THEIR OWN FREE WILL...would come to the truth to know that it only leads to death. IF those people you mentioned (the Muslims who now hate America and have decided to support violence) WILLFULLY did what was right, I quarantee you that the US would be out of Iraq in 6 months.

But the reality is the human nature of hatred and sin is a powerful thing and when it threatens innocents someone should defend the weak.....THAT IS THE HONORABLE MISSION OUR TROOPS ARE DOING IN IRAQ!

Your hate, Coward Watch, twists the reality to project motivations like oil, money, political domination, "religion." Your hate stops you from offerring an alternative (other than deserting the Iraqi people), to stop the terrorism.

I know the reality of the world...there are bad people with various degrees of power to hurt others. Choosing how and when and where to defend their targets of hate is difficult....NONE THE LESS, Iraq needs our support...it is right and just.

My parting advise to you, Coward Watch, is stop your hatred of people. Stop dehumanizing people.

Cee,

It's a bot.

It's like one of those websites where you type in a word, press a button, and out comes a post-modernist mini-screed or one of those higgity piggity poems.

it is a waste of time because your HATRED has blinded you.
You have no ability to determine right from wrong because of your HATRED.
Your HATE twists the reality to project motivations like oil, money, political domination, "religion."
Your HATE stops you from offerring an alternative.
My parting advise to you is stop your HATRED of people.

----------

A. Pretty simplistic platitudes there, Cee ... Just like "They Hate Our Freedom" ... Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

B. Hatred is a most appropriate response to the many unconstitutionally fascist policies of state-sponsored torture, illegal spying, regime change, propaganda, etc. -- which you and BushCO and the duped storm troopers herein support.

All quotes "'s below are from "cee" posted December 28, 2006 05:35 AM.

My responses are quoted in *'s
-
"Hey Coward Watch.....

I am not even going to try to engage in a debate with someone who dehumanizes people...."
-
*I will take this as an admission that you have lost a moral debate with me.*
-
"My parting advise to you, Coward Watch, is stop your hatred of people. Stop dehumanizing people."
-
*your parting advice is to justify the hundreds of thousands of dead innocent men women and children in Iraq at the hands of US policy and not as you suggest I have said by our troops.*
-
"Saddam Hussein lashed out....killing thousands and making millions of people's lives hard for decades...in his own country and in peaceful countries like Kuwait, Israel and the US...he will pay for his crimes under justice...I thank George Bush for that accomplishment."
-
*And yet Kim Jong Il of North Korea kills millions more. Do your hollow claims address this or any of the many worse situations like Genocide in Darfur? No, for the simple reason that there are no oil riches to plunder there. You are full of nonsense here and you know it. Just more Fox News propaganda as would be expected from a person that talks about "sin" while being silent about the pimping of Jesus by the Republican party.*
-
"But the reality is the human nature of hatred and sin is a powerful thing and when it threatens innocents someone should defend the weak.....THAT IS THE HONORABLE MISSION OUR TROOPS ARE DOING IN IRAQ!"
-
*Exactly and that is exactly what I am doing here, defending the weak. And your despicable use of our troops is the motivating factor that drives me to so strongly challenge cowards like you. How dare you come here and defend the lies of George Bush and Dick Cheney and at the same time pretend to be supportive of our troops? You make me want to vomit! The children of GI's who woke Christmas morning with no father home, and in some cases no mother, because a--holes like you pretending to be objectively supportive of an invasion of a sovereign nation that never attacked us and sent our troops in ill prepared to do it, is exactly why Bush and Cheney have gotten away with it. Your fake "Christian values" are most evident in what you claim is your last response to me.*
-
"Your hate, Coward Watch, twists the reality to project motivations like oil, money, political domination, "religion." Your hate stops you from offering an alternative (other than deserting the Iraqi people), to stop the terrorism."
-
*I have hate for one thing - deception - it is your cowardly use of it and promotion of ignorance through the pretending that oil rich Iraq was a more pressing matter than the nuclear threat of Kim Jong Il and the millions he has starved to death. You know the logic you spin here holds no water so why do you make a fool of yourself with it? Now you have me feeling sorry for you. You are pathetic.*
-
"I know the reality of the world...there are bad people with various degrees of power to hurt others. Choosing how and when and where to defend their targets of hate is difficult....NONE THE LESS, Iraq needs our support...it is right and just."
-
*No you don't know the reality of the world. You know your reality and it is all about living the fat life of a TV educated person with fake morality whose truth is measured by the propaganda of Fox News and the "Christian leadership" whores who pimp Jesus.

Yes Iraq does need our support, after all it was our nations leadership that sent our finest men and women in there with no plan for victory - only chaos. A chaos that has made billions in profits for the wealthy buddies of the Republican party. Our troops need our support, but supporting the failed policy of grabbing an oil rich nation's resources is not what I call supporting our troops. You can't even come close to making an argument to back up your false claims to that you give a shit about our troops or the people of Iraq. None of you pin heads on the right here ever mention either unless it is in the form of arguing in support of continuing the blood shed. You a dark empty morally bankrupt group of coward fakers and no Jesus that I know stands on your side of the room!

Darfur - North Korea - Do you know how to say millions dead of slow starvation? How about nuclear threat? The real kind not like the lies from Bush and Cheney that Saddam was building a nuke. You are a joke!*

All quotes "'s below are from "cee" posted December 28, 2006 05:35 AM.

My responses are quoted in *'s
-
"Hey Coward Watch.....

I am not even going to try to engage in a debate with someone who dehumanizes people...."
-
*I will take this as an admission that you have lost a moral debate with me.*
-
"My parting advise to you, Coward Watch, is stop your hatred of people. Stop dehumanizing people."
-
*your parting advice is to justify the hundreds of thousands of dead innocent men women and children in Iraq at the hands of US policy and not as you suggest I have said by our troops.*
-
"Saddam Hussein lashed out....killing thousands and making millions of people's lives hard for decades...in his own country and in peaceful countries like Kuwait, Israel and the US...he will pay for his crimes under justice...I thank George Bush for that accomplishment."
-
*And yet Kim Jong Il of North Korea kills millions more. Do your hollow claims address this or any of the many worse situations like Genocide in Darfur? No, for the simple reason that there are no oil riches to plunder there. You are full of nonsense here and you know it. Just more Fox News propaganda as would be expected from a person that talks about "sin" while being silent about the pimping of Jesus by the Republican party.*
-
"But the reality is the human nature of hatred and sin is a powerful thing and when it threatens innocents someone should defend the weak.....THAT IS THE HONORABLE MISSION OUR TROOPS ARE DOING IN IRAQ!"
-
*Exactly and that is exactly what I am doing here, defending the weak. And your despicable use of our troops is the motivating factor that drives me to so strongly challenge cowards like you. How dare you come here and defend the lies of George Bush and Dick Cheney and at the same time pretend to be supportive of our troops? You make me want to vomit! The children of GI's who woke Christmas morning with no father home, and in some cases no mother, because a--holes like you pretending to be objectively supportive of an invasion of a sovereign nation that never attacked us and sent our troops in ill prepared to do it, is exactly why Bush and Cheney have gotten away with it. Your fake "Christian values" are most evident in what you claim is your last response to me.*
-
"Your hate, Coward Watch, twists the reality to project motivations like oil, money, political domination, "religion." Your hate stops you from offering an alternative (other than deserting the Iraqi people), to stop the terrorism."
-
*I have hate for one thing - deception - it is your cowardly use of it and promotion of ignorance through the pretending that oil rich Iraq was a more pressing matter than the nuclear threat of Kim Jong Il and the millions he has starved to death. You know the logic you spin here holds no water so why do you make a fool of yourself with it? Now you have me feeling sorry for you. You are pathetic.*
-
"I know the reality of the world...there are bad people with various degrees of power to hurt others. Choosing how and when and where to defend their targets of hate is difficult....NONE THE LESS, Iraq needs our support...it is right and just."
-
*No you don't know the reality of the world. You know your reality and it is all about living the fat life of a TV educated person with fake morality whose truth is measured by the propaganda of Fox News and the "Christian leadership" whores who pimp Jesus.

Yes Iraq does need our support, after all it was our nations leadership that sent our finest men and women in there with no plan for victory - only chaos. A chaos that has made billions in profits for the wealthy buddies of the Republican party. Our troops need our support, but supporting the failed policy of grabbing an oil rich nation's resources is not what I call supporting our troops. You can't even come close to making an argument to back up your false claims to that you give a shit about our troops or the people of Iraq. None of you pin heads on the right here ever mention either unless it is in the form of arguing in support of continuing the blood shed. You a dark empty morally bankrupt group of coward fakers and no Jesus that I know stands on your side of the room!

Darfur - North Korea - Do you know how to say millions dead of slow starvation? How about nuclear threat? The real kind not like the lies from Bush and Cheney that Saddam was building a nuke. You are a joke!*

Gee, guys. I have to part ways with you. I made a contract, signed in blood, that if I ever doubted or didn't promulgate everything that Fox News reports I would send my firstborn to Iraq.

I know you all claim to not listen to Fox, so this is goodbye.

Fox rules, KO drools.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Cecelia, could you direct me to one or two of whatever you were talking about above:

"It's a bot.

It's like one of those websites where you type in a word, press a button, and out comes a post-modernist mini-screed or one of those higgity piggity poems."

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Janet,

Here's a post-modern essay generator. With this one you just refresh your page and get drivel. Just like with Coward Watch Bot.

There used to be a more interactive one, but I can't find it. This is cute though:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

Here's an interactive bullshit generator, which would be more analogous to Coward Watch Bot:

http://www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html

Here's a love poetry generator:

http://www.links2love.com/poem_generator.htm

Cecelia, thanks. I see what you mean.

I just created the worst poem in history. But, thats OK. The second worst poem was by me, too.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

I'll take bad poetry over Coward watch's incoherent ramblings any day.

I do have to say, while I think that Olbermann's newscast is anything but and his bias is so blatant it sickens me, the Best of Oddball is quite entertaining. If anything, Olby is very talented at working in some subtle lines from the Simpsons...

Coward Watch is a perfect name. Olbermann is an itellectual coward! So our site watches a Coward!

Cecelia, ain't it the truth.

Grammie

Coward Watch I feel the need to critique your writing style. Really dear, you need to learn to EDIT. Sometimes, usually actually, less is more. I realize you have anger issues and obvious mental problems but honestly, you don't need to use 20 words when one will do. No one things you're smarter because you do. I'm surprised no one has told you before now just how bad your writing style truly is.

Okay, so I'm the dumbass who wrote things instead of thinks while critiquing your writing style. Still, I guarantee you my post is far more readable with that errors than your epic posts will ever be.

KAF, ain't it the truth!

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Those lies are awful! Almost as bad as claiming a win in a sexual harassment suit in which you settled for a few mil.

I was just over at inside cable news.

Did Keith get beat by the "O'Malkin Factor" last night?

why give a flying f--- about ratings on a week of reruns?

The year that was for the Republicans:

On February 11th, 2006, the top domestic policy adviser to the president resigned "to spend more time with his family". Less than a month later, on March 9th, he was arrested in the Maryland suburbs, charged with stealing merchandise from Target and Hecht's through a not-so-elaborate scheme of fraudulent returns.

Claude Allen would buy something, take it out to his car, leave the item he purchased in his car, then go back into the store, pick out another copy of the same item he'd just purchased, and "return" the thing he'd just plucked off the shelves.
He'd get the refund for the item he'd just picked up in the store, and also get to keep the merchandise that was already secreted in his car in the parking lot.

It happened more than 25 times, according to Maryland police, with items as cheap as $2.50, and as expensive as a $525 home theater system.

When Claude Allen was accused as the White House serial shoplifter, he initially denied it. There'd been a "mix-up" with his credit cards because he'd moved recently; as soon as the facts came out, Allen would "clear his name". Ultimately, he pled guilty in August to a single count of shoplifting; he wept and broke down in court, and got probation.

Claude Allen wasn't the biggest news story of the year, obviously. His convenient resignation from the White House before his arrest insulated him from intense media focus. But the sad, quiet disgrace of the president's top domestic policy adviser can be seen in retrospect as the first creaking floorboard -- an initial sign of rot in the Republican superstructure.

In time, this year, Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham would be in jail, for breaking the all-time American record for most bribes taken by a sitting Congressman. Republican Congressman Bob Ney would be in jail. Republican uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff would be in jail. Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's mugshot would grin out at us from the front page of every newspaper in the country. Republican Congressman Mark Foley would become the new face of pathetic, closeted American letchery (is he ultimately going to jail?). David Safavian, Chief White House Procurement Officer, would find himself in prison. Susan Ralston, executive assistant to Karl Rove, would resign in disgrace. The list of people who pled guilty, resigned, or were investigated in connection with the hemmorhaging Republican ethics scandals got long and even tedious: Adam Kidan, Neil Volz, Ed Buckham, John Doolittle, Conrad Burns, Grover Norquist, Tony Rudy, Steven Griles, should I go on?

Claude Allen's shoplifting humiliation, it turned out, was the pathetic first bleat of the Republican party being felled in 2006 by the most pitiful and human of failings. Being wrong on Iraq, wrong on terrorism, and wrong on the economy is a policy disaster. Being wrong because you wanted sad little golf trips and free dinners and box seats is maybe even worse -- it shows the absence of even the basic honorable ambition to represent constituents in government.

The fact that Claude Allen's disintegration was downplayed by the White House and in the press makes it all the more seminal as 2006's most important news story. The Republicans, in their arrogance, never thought that the American people would pay attention to all these individual feeble human failures. They never thought that Americans at large would connect the dots and realize that a party ideologicaly opposed to government, when handed control of the government, would inevitably find ways to pervert public resources for their own personal ends.

The American people did connect those dots, and in the November 2006 elections, we handed the Republicans their walking papers in the most significant political uprising since the 1994 Republican "revolution".

2006 is the year that the Republicans blew it, in the form of myriad personal, measly, low-tech failures. In retrospect, Claude Allen's sad downfall at the hands of Target security guards was the first sign of the small, human, common defeat of the GOP that was to come.

Winning the "corruption crusade" may be only "success" the Republicans have experienced this year! A sad record, to be sure! It's amazing what ignorance, arrogance, greed and incompetence can accomplish in such a short period of time, isn't it?

My mind is like a fog.
I don't care.
That's how it is.
teacher sex | teen huge boobs | young teen | toons f---ing | looney toon sex | teacher f---ing student
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-47-7/teacher.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-48-12/teen-boobs.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-53-37/young-teen.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-51-25/toon.html

My mind is like a fog.
I don't care.
That's how it is.
teacher sex | teen huge boobs | young teen | toons f---ing | looney toon sex | teacher f---ing student
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-47-7/teacher.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-48-12/teen-boobs.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-53-37/young-teen.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-51-25/toon.html

My mind is like a fog.
I don't care.
That's how it is.
teacher sex | teen huge boobs | young teen | toons f---ing | looney toon sex | teacher f---ing student
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-47-7/teacher.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-48-12/teen-boobs.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-53-37/young-teen.html
http://maclaren.hosted.jivesoftware.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/8-31-51-25/toon.html

"I'll take bad poetry over Coward watch's incoherent ramblings any day.

Posted by: KAF at December 28, 2006 08:49 PM"

Really?

One sure fire way to detect the effect you are having on those who group up to challenge you is their tag team exchanges. But what is even more telling is when they offer up the claim that you are not making sense. This is code for "I can't win with you."

People like me fail quickly when trying to argue with those who not only like to argue but have the brains to do it well. My style of argument is not so much based on factual knowledge of the subject matter being debated. Instead my style works best in the exact environment you find here - an environment of intellectually ill equipped people that think facts and the art of argument is all about consensus.

Those of us though who are not cowards are able to wonder away from the mythology of the group told around the fire burning outside the cave. We quickly learn that clawing your way up the social ladder can be done one of two ways. With alliances if you are small and inferior, or by yourself if you are large and superior.

Only the delusional can't see the difference and always fail when they try to stand alone as inferior. For some, the group makes you strong but for those who were born to be bigger than the limitations of any group, we learn to stand on our own. Get a group of us together and eventually one will stand above the rest. This is how man conquered this planet. It is our system of establishing our superiority as social beings over all animals, man or beast.

In short, the more you form alliances and the more you claim you are not defeated (as opposed to showing you've won) the more you advertise your limitations and your inferiority as an individual. You know where you fit if you feel good in the group and feel shaken when you step out alone.

This is why you all despise Keith Olbermann. He is, as far as cable news entertainment goes, the king of the jungle, the alpha male you all want to bring down because he dares to stand alone. So pretend all you want, the truth is easy to see.

People who cling to religion are programmed to attack those who stand apart from the group because doing so promotes thinking for yourself and that is contrary to everything religion was invented for. The ultimate tool for group control.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But let's keep your world of pretend in context with your delusions and close that curtain back up, I know you are feeling naked by now. Let's go back to the charade:

Here are the facts that you can not shoot down as an individual or a group.

--The Republican party does a better job than the Democrats at pimping and whoring Christianity to get the votes of poor and middle class people. An addition that goes with this fact is the obvious - "Christian voting" is tantamount to being the johns to such whoring.

--Saying you support the troops is code for - as a voter I don't want to be responsible enough to know if a war is just or not, I just hope we win. (This says nothing about voting out of office any politician that actively reduces funding for vets, their families, or sends them into battle ill equipped and ill advised).

--Claiming to be a Christian may get you a date at a church social or a job pimping for politicians, it won't impress your god or the rest of us that think for ourselves. This label you give yourself is right in line with safety in numbers and has nothing to do with living the life Jesus spoke of. On the contrary, the bible says beware the wolves in sheep clothing but because of your abject cowardice you cling to the most pro-war, pro-death and destruction politicians the corporate power structures pimps up to the podiums. All they have to do is say they are against abortion and they love Jesus and you line up to vote for them just like you were drinking grape Kool-aid.

Now carry on with your huddling in a group. The cave is dry, the fire is warm, no need to venture out in the world. The rest of will take care of that for you. We know you will follow, we always see you behind us every where we go.

Arrogance.....check

Bigotry rationalized by casting judgement.....check

Mocking ridicule disguised as rightous indignation.....check

The hate speech regarding faith echos from centuries of secular bigots who's radical ideology was applied to the "sheep-like masses" (as they frequently dehumanized them).....

The "superman"....individual who knows truth....
no need for authority....God is dead....

The results....dehumanizing rhetoric (please look at Coward Watch's previous posts), isolation and segregation, attempts to "re-educate," and in the extreme....annihilation.

This secular ideology of absolute faith in the individual (self) is what the left has offerred for 4 centuries now....please look at the history of war, strife and death resulting from the arrogant, self-rightous and hate-filled ideology. The philosophy which, disguised as progressive, evolutionary, revolutionary and modern, is actually the primitive's base instinct.

Evolution of thought in the secular mind has actually, ironically, been a circular trip.....Return to concern and worship of SELF.

The polar opposite of worship of self is the apex of human history....Jesus Christ and his willful surrender to the cross....His example of doing what The Father (Jehovah, God), requested...

without anger,
without hate,

is what love is....please see the difference.

Two very applicable passages for this behavior for all to think about this Christmas season:

"Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
MATTHEW 27: 37-44

He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. ISAIAH 53: 7-8

SILENCE seems right for a response to the hatred of Coward Watch.

"SILENCE seems right for a response to the hatred of Coward Watch."

...so feel free to shut the f--- up any old time, cee.

Hey Loin,

Just because hate and religious bigotry are such a large part of the bedrock foundation of your world view does not give you license to ignore the eventual results thereof....

Coward Watch's hate speech...as one example.

Feel free to logically address the specific points of my analysis of secular humanist ideology, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, but try not succumb to the same instinctual and primitive impulses Coward Watch is so vulnurable to.

hey hey hey! WWMFJD?!? Silence!

After mentioning the radical left's most hated D yesterday....the great statesman, Joseph Lieberman, has a GREAT op ed in today's WaPo....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122801055.html

"I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there, all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001."

More of that principled rhetoric the radical wing of his party just can't relate to.....It just must burn 'em up inside.

"Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it."

But will the extremists in OUR country help our allies, even ALLOW our allies to succeed?

And then, the great Senator from Connecticut uses facts that his more liberal haters just don't like to address.....

"This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country."

WOW! There are radical islamic terrorists in Iraq?......I thought Iraq was a DISTRACTION from the war on terror? The PRESENT situation seems to say otherwise.

"In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."

Once again, for every liberal who says these brave men and women are being used by their leaders, another SPECIFIC HERO says they want to do the honorable thing and win.

Great point at the end....

"As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.

"In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home."

So, Mr. Lieberman, now a part of the DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY of The Senate, plainly puts himself in that 20% of Americans who have it right.

I wonder what other Democrats will see the same light?

No Loin, again you show your biblical ignorance....

Insults, cursing, hatred should be met with accepting silence.....that's what Jesus did.

Otherwise, He had a lot to say even to people who really did not want to hear His truth.

I do like his advice to His disciples....

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. MATTHEW 10: 13-15

Lieberman is a pre-modern witch-doctor bent on expending the riches and lives of Americans in the interests of a scripturally dictated Promised Land.

Its all a fairy tale resulting in near servitude that our nation has placed itself under in regard to a single small foreign nation. Israel's interests are not our interests any more than Iran's interests are our interests.

Iran cooperated with us during the 1st Gulf War - at least in terms of agreements to stay out of it, and promises to aid downed pilots. Syria just last year thwarted a violent terrorist assault on our emabassy there - forcing a strained statement of gratitude from our president before he slammed down the diplomatic phone again. These countries and the people in them are not our enemies. The can and must be negotiated with.

The reason we cannot bring stability to the middle east (aside from actively destabilizaing the region with an illegal invasion of Iraq) is that we have overtly taken sides, and with our little puppet/puppet master Israel we have taken an intransigent, arrogant, and offensive position on every crisis and issue in the region.

We have f---ed-up Iraq ourselves - one again I refer to the fact that the Pentagon's own figures have never estimated that that the foreign fighters have ever accounted for more than 7% of the insurgency in Iraq. Most estimates are much lower. What is with this recent drive by the brownshirts to raise this estimate to ridiculously high levels? The Iraq quagmire was not the work of AlQeada - if it were, what would that say about the naivite and utter bufoonery of our government to be led into disaster in such a thorough way by a tiny paramilitary group of zealots?

Syria is a Sunni power that has influence among the Sunnis in Iraq; Iran is a Shi'ite power that has influence among the Shi'ites in Iraq. These two regional powers are currently allies of one another. The only responsible course of action with any hope of success (assuming that "success" is defined by a cessation of internecine hostilities and the initiation of reconstruction of Iraq's civil society) is to beg and pay these countries to exert their influence on these general ethnic groups to stop the killing. American soldiers kicking in the same doors night after night or patrolling the same bomb-strewn streets day after day are simply not going to achieve this success.

I know many of you think that an endless bloodbath in the ME would not be a bad thing, at least a better option than going to Iran with our hat in our hand. Most people disagree. The only option left us by the president's irresponsible belligerence is international humility and cooperation.

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. MATTHEW 10: 13-15"

I think Osama said similar things about New York City...

The percent terrorists in Iraq don't really matter, Loin, if they use terrorism to inflame Shiite populations...like blowing up ancient mosques and coordinated car bombs in Sadir City....

And again, the religious bigorty aimed at Jews and Christians is just typical of your politcal cabal. Read the op ed.....Lieberman differentiates between RADICAL muslims from those who desire peaceful, democratic coexistance....The governments of Iran and Syria want Israel GONE/WIPED OFF THE MAP, and will do anything against The United States, Middle Eastern Jews, Christians and their more moderate muslim brothers/sisters, to accomplish their hateful goals.

And once again, Sir Loin of Milquetoast defends the radical against the evil Jew and Christian.

Coward Watch said, "One sure fire way to detect the effect you are having on those who group up to challenge you is their tag team exchanges. But what is even more telling is when they offer up the claim that you are not making sense. This is code for "I can't win with you."

Don't flatter yourself dear. You're not nearly as clever as you belief yourself to be and you're entirely too self-righteous, a common affliction among the Olbermann fanatical. And your writing style blows chunks. Remember, I'm a liberal. You're preaching to the converted, although I am able to see the lies and dishonesty within my own party and most certainly within Olbermann who has pandered himself to the lowest common demoninator in an effort to boost his ratings and fatten his checkbook. And any teacher of English or Debate will tell you that you do not need 10,000 word essays to make your points. You seem however to feel you need 50,000 when 500 would do. I've seen this same style of bloated prose before on the Olbermann fan boards. It's why I can't stomach them. Well, that and the non-stop idolization of someone who is so obviously nothing more than a very skilled con man, much like the president you seem to detest so much.

So now it's not "WWJD," because the other part of His ministry challenges some of the modern liberal immoral proclivities.....

Instead the liberal Loin connects Jesus Christ to OBL.....wow....what selectivity of Christ's words and actions.

Sir Loin of Beef,
Why doesn't Olbermann debate someone on the Right? If he's so confident about his views why not debate them? Is he an intellectual coward?

"The percent terrorists in Iraq don't really matter, Loin, if they use terrorism to inflame Shiite populations...like blowing up ancient mosques and coordinated car bombs in Sadir City...."

Well, sorry to inform you, but the coalition forces got a head-start on them. Remember the British SAS agents caught "dressed as Arabs" an in possesssion of a car-bomb by Iraqi police at a Basra checkpoint? They killed a number of Iraqis during their capture, and were subsequently sprung from jail by a British armored assault - on our own allies!! The British investigator of the matter was soon murdered....

The SAS did it in Ireland as recently as 1998 - blowing up civilians in order to destabilize an oiccupied region. The coalition did it in Iraq. This was a tailor-made chaos devised for American/British profiteering; Al Qeada has just opportunistically hitched a ride.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00052.htm
http://earth.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/825106.shtml
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00242.htm

"The percent terrorists in Iraq don't really matter, Loin, if they use terrorism to inflame Shiite populations...like blowing up ancient mosques and coordinated car bombs in Sadir City...."

Well, sorry to inform you, but the coalition forces got a head-start on them. Remember the British SAS agents caught "dressed as Arabs" an in possesssion of a car-bomb by Iraqi police at a Basra checkpoint? They killed a number of Iraqis during their capture, and were subsequently sprung from jail by a British armored assault - on our own allies!! The British investigator of the matter was soon murdered....

The SAS did it in Ireland as recently as 1998 - blowing up civilians in order to destabilize an oiccupied region. The coalition did it in Iraq. This was a tailor-made chaos devised for American/British profiteering; Al Qeada has just opportunistically hitched a ride.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00052.htm
http://earth.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/825106.shtml
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0510/S00242.htm

Instead the liberal Loin connects Jesus Christ to OBL.....wow....what selectivity of Christ's words and actions.

Posted by: cee at December 29, 2006 09:46 AM

You selected the words, I put them in relevant context.

Instead the liberal Loin connects Jesus Christ to OBL.....wow....what selectivity of Christ's words and actions.

Posted by: cee at December 29, 2006 09:46 AM

You selected the words, I put them in relevant context.

Actually, I think Sir Loin is calling your mind set OBLish, Cee.

Of course that's always the way. To use another biblical analogy there's always great wailing and gnashing of teeth among these sorts for statements far less inflammatory than the ones they make on a routine basis. As when you said something fairly innocuous (and highly debatable) about things going better in Iraq if Western resolve both here and abroad were implacable. Oh, THAT results in escalated Bob daily hissy fits, several Coward Watch Bot screeds packed with the usual cliched agitprop, and obscenity laden cuss-outs from Sir Loin and fellow deep thinkers...

But now Sir Loin turns around and compares your psyche to that of Bin Laden and proceeds to say that our troubles stem from our alliance with Israel and to imply they also come from a Jewish loyalist "paramilitary group".

That there are REAL paramilitary groups in the hills of Montana, who hold just such sentiments is beside the point, right?... But then most folks here, I'm sure, are keenly aware that if you compare even those whacked-out militia members with Loin and crew, the militia folks come off as models of mental health and as mensa members...

I'm getting seeing double.....

Oh, so I just have to be like Thomas Jefferson and remove anything Christ did or said, as recorded in the gospels, which does not fit my self contrived moral and intellectual construct.....

I think I'll try to pass on that one.

Sir Loin of Beef,
Why do you admire Olbermann who's an intellectual coward?

Excuse me, Cecelia, but the "paramilitary group" I referred to was Al Qeada. I was asking how, if this whole quagmire was the plan of Al qeada, our giant and powerful nation could be made such patsies by a little enclave of terrorists. Pretty emabrrassing, you have to admit.

I hope yopu are familiar with the farewell address by George Washington, in which he warned against strong attachments preferrential to any particular foreign nation, or intransigent enmity toward any other foreign nation. We are stuck in the quagmire resulting from both of these symptoms of political decadence.

We also suffer from a lack of attention to the parting admionition of another great US president - Dwight Eisenhower - who warned to beware the insidious, antidemocratic effects of the "Military Industrial Complex" (Ike first coined that phrase, by the way). Iraq was not the creation of Al Qeada; it is being opportunistically used by Al Qeada to advance their interests. We created the chaos more efficiently than could be imagined as a fertile field for reaping profits off of misery and confusion.

....yes, cee wields his religion exactly like a terrorist.

So true Cecelia....

I thought the passage had Christ commanding men to peacefully walk away from those not receptive to their message....as opposed to OBL's reaction of bringing his own judgement down with terrorism.....

Whether or not one believes there is a God to bring judgement is another topic of which I already know Loin's position.

"Whether or not one believes there is a God to bring judgement is another topic of which I already know Loin's position."

Thank you, cee. Such a position would be patently ridiculous and intellectually juvenile.

"Whether or not one believes there is a God to bring judgement is another topic of which I already know Loin's position."

Thank you, cee. Such a position would be patently ridiculous and intellectually juvenile.

"I thought the passage had Christ commanding men to peacefully walk away from those not receptive to their message....as opposed to OBL's reaction of bringing his own judgement down with terrorism....."

You are right, cee, I stand corrected; I was being unfair to Christ in the interests of glibness. It was the many little religious demagogues who followed that twisted this type of admonition into a holy license to kill indiscriminantly those who read different books.

So tell me why it would not be Christian or appropriate to "shake the dust (of Iraq) off our feet" and scuttle off?

Because these fine men and women in uniform are not Christ's representatives, they are representing The United States of America....a secular institution commited to establishing a secure, democratically elected government made up their fellow Iraqis.

I rest assured in that the religious demagogues who, through-out history, ignored Christ's command from Matthew, have stood in holy judgement for their disobedience...as I will someday, as well. It is hard not to succumb to the human impulse to resort to base behavior, including violence.

Sir Loin of Beef,
Olbermann is hardly an example of Christian morality. He attacks people and when criticize goes nuts! Why do you view Olbermann as a good example, when he's a slimeball?

...well you seem to be resisting military service pretty effectively in regard to the war you support. Is that because you ARE one of Christ's representatives?

lst message was to cee

Sir Loin,

The only way Cee has wielded his religion is via speech.

That you've equated speech about religious precepts with those who wield their religion by blowing folks up is, as usual, far more inflammatory than what ole Rummy, himself, said about what he views as a Neville Chamberlain mindset and a charge sure to have sent you into new dimensions of conspiracy-charging paranoid bouts of moral outrage.

But then what else is new...

Olbermann attacks every religion except Islam. Why is that?

No, Cecelia, you seem to miscomprehend then entire issue of citizenship and responsibility in a democracy. cee uses his political franchise - and possibly more (political donations; ?) - to support the current ravaging of Iraq and the future attack on Iran. I am responsible for these things as well, being a free part of this political system, and that infuriates me. Therefore, I work as hard as i know how to curtail these crimes on the part of my government.

Conversely, cee applauds from a distance the military adventures of this administration but says "I'm too special/important/holy to actually take part in these crimes, and personally face the dangers therein" and hides behind arbitrary mythological tenets of original sin etc.

...in short, cee is all talk, or "speech" if you prefer.

Sixth time into absurdity.....Sir Loin of Milquetoast just can't resist that avenue....again, #6...it is a contradiction for a committed anti-war activist to be encouraging people to enlist....If I went down to my local Army recruiting station right now and signed up, I would, in your view, be contributing to an immoral, illegal and evil activity...You should be physically blocking these facilities as I type if you REALLY had moral problems with the war.

Also, I am not resisting military service by not volunteering, Loin. By your specious logic over 60 Million of your fellow Americans MUST volunteer to serve in Iraq if they give their verbal support to the current policy. In a word, absurd.

Have a draft and when I am called, no resistance from me.....You, however, have claimed you would be a concientous objector....although in reality you would be a malefactor because your present overt anti-war commitment is pretty shallow.

Become a pacifist now, Sir Loin of Milquetoast... we all would have greater respect for you and you would no longer be considered a malefactor if you refused consignment.

You have been called, chickenshit - the military has desparately needed doctors for years now. Who is supposed to patch up our kids if you don't step up? - I guess just the LMC suckers who needed some governemnt help with their med school.

cee said "Also, I am not resisting military service by not volunteering, Loin. By your specious logic over 60 Million of your fellow Americans MUST volunteer to serve in Iraq if they give their verbal support to the current policy. In a word, absurd."

So its absurd to step up and offer your service when needed? No, we cannot suit up 60 million people at once, but Bush just the other day stop-lossed tens of thousands of our weary servicepeople for an additional 500+ days of forced deployment. Maybe just a few of those chickenshit 60 million could offer to do a stint - you guys could draw straws.

"Become a pacifist now, Sir Loin of Milquetoast... we all would have greater respect for you and you would no longer be considered a malefactor if you refused consignment."

But I'm not a pacifist, cee - I just reserve the right to exercise my judgment in regard to my political behavior. As for my being considered a malefactor - where did that come from? You have energetically argued - correctly - that trhere is no law dictating any American's obligation to serve in the military.

I have been accusing you on the grounds of moral equivocation and ethical cowardice.

Sir Loin of Milquetoast, you arbitrarily judge my commitment when ignoring the level of your own commitment....that is why I chose the nicer sounding milquetoast as compared to your description of me.....What profanity!

...and I really was serious about your self-percieved status as a "representative of Christ" - is this the basis for your self-extended military deferrment?

"Sir Loin of Milquetoast, you arbitrarily judge my commitment when ignoring the level of your own commitment...."

Aside from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about;

you just got through arguing that it is "absurd" to expect Americans to make their actions match their rhetoric and expenditure of political franchise. How can my own "commitment" therefore be in question?

You are twisty little queen, cee. I hope I never have to count on you for anything, and I pity those that do.

cee is an A1 bonified a--hole.

There you have it in a handbasket, Sir Loin.

It's not enough that they be bad policy decision or failed policy decisions, of POLITICIZED policy decision, they must also be "criminal" as you have portrayed just about every policy decision in the myriad of paranoiac scenarios and counter scenarios that keep you in a state of infuriation.

Oh, I'm sure you'll now fill this website with rants about such and such conspiracy and every blueblog summation of events and then turn around and say that it only goes show that most in the media are Republican corporate whores too or else they'd be sounding like a Democracy Now broadcast on a regular basis too.

That you are part of a system which elects leaders, knowing that they come in with certain mindsets, that they have particular world-views, and choose to "cherrypick" intel and its interpretations within that context, never occurs to you. Or if it does you dismiss it because outrage and conspiracy are more fun.

That the voters have already cast a verdict on this Administration's view of the world and that this is the way it's done in YOUR and MY democracy, is not quick enough for you in you dire little world.

You come here to a site about Keith Olbermann and you know your political opponents here would like Olbermann to debate someone he's leveling charges against but that's termed as obsession and a trivial pursuit in your crowd. How can we care about that when there are criminals about. We think the media has certain left of the general population biases about certain issues and that's deemed out the realm of all reason to YOU-- who goes much further and sees them as a mouthpiece for the laisse-fare capitalist status quo at best, whores for criminality at worse. That you'd have no trouble charging them with other cultural biases, yourself, does not diminish the disdain you have when conservative point any concerns they have about particular cultural biases.

You're not a terrorist, Sir Loin. You're not someone who wants to maim and kill your political opponents but you are a paranoid political zealot.

They'll never be the slightest middle-ground with you or others in who inhabit your "dire little world".

I don't know where Cee gets his energy.

I said IF there was a draft, you would be a malefactor, not a true concientous objector because your moral indignation about the war is so superficial and not based on a deep political or religious conviction....as illustrated by you telling me to become one of those nasty people killing innocents.

cee- are you a he or a she?

Just an observation:
Cee and Cecilia want it both ways.They talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Loin asked....

How can my own "commitment" therefore be in question?

Because the ONLY real reason you would not fight in Iraq is because you do not want to risk your own injury or death....your flippant moral arguments fall away when you do not do everthing in your power to stop the war.

Now unless your lengthy religious or political affiliations shows you to be a pacifist, CLAIMING political disagreement with the war is not enough to be considered a consientious objector....you need a pretty lengthy AND VERIFIABLE history of anti-war activity beyond typing on a keyboard on a website. I hope, for your sake, you do not stand in front of your local draft board someday and use transcripts of your poor arguments as proof you have moral outrage to this conflict!

And encouraging others to participate in a crime, (as you have called this war A CRIME hundreds of time), can be seen as morally equivalent to actually committing a crime.....you dim bulb.

You are no more a man of action than I am, Sir Loin of Milquetoast.

And what have I done to Anon to deserve such profanity?

Cecelia, very good and overdue post. Offhand, I can not think of one regular or semiregular poster who is not outraged that religious beliefs informs some decisions and judgments for many to one degree or another. They have brought to the table the absurdity a la Rosie, comparing Christians in our country to Middle East theocracys and sharia law wannabees.

The logical extension based on some I've read is that freedom of religion should become a total ban except perhaps in designated child free zones only open by dictated schedule. Sounds stupid, but reading some of the crap here you could believe they are capable of anything.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Of course it makes perfect sense that everyone who backs a military action should be held morally resonsible to personally go and enlist in the military-- a peer-pressured draft of sorts.

I have no idea why past political and military administrations didn't think of that sooner and place no restrictions on service or why there was ever the notion that there are different types of service, and that being part of the social contract meant they also serve who obey the law, pay their taxes, and vote.

I'm sure the armed forces would be thrilled with this new moral imperative and the masses of over-forty enlistees. Since we now have this new moral imperative of it not being enough to do all the above and support the troops via actions in other private organizations, I say we broaden out this philosophy to those who merely support the poor via their tax dollars and private charity work. That's not enough now, they should take vows of poverty in order to expend the same level of resources the poor spend. Environmentalists should forsake all sources of global warming, pollution, and give up petroleum based products as stringently as possible.

Yes, it's a new world of moral responsibility now. It's now a world of social responsibility as an inane political rhetorical weapon to illogically thump at your political opponent.

Warms the cockles of one's heart, does it not?...

And while we're going back to a time when it will be argued that men did rush out and join the service to fight for their country's cause, let's also remember how those who didn't back that cause and the call of their president were perceived by that same society, weilding its pressure...

Yes, Cecelia....The true Taliban in our country is the self-proclaimed morally superior progressive who can evaluate whether anyone is living up to their individual construct....

But challenge their behavior according to another (perhaps more traditional) paradigm and you are committing the ultimate crime.....You are being judgemental!

Cee,
Keith Olbermann is the chief propagandists of the American Taliban and the Afghan one too!

You're right Red Wolf....Moral indignation so easily flows from Olbermann, but his WPITW is littered with people doing the same exact thing....just the usual suspects he picks on are relying on more traditional mores and are easily tagged as hypocrites.

One you washed-up old hippy freak, liberal, anti-american, FriutCake, creeps might remember.
Just change the words around a little.

Saddam Hussein's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Saddam Hussein's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein.

Peace,Love,Acid,Flowers,Free Love all that BS...goodtimes

"The true Taliban in our country is the self-proclaimed morally superior progressive who can evaluate whether anyone is living up to their individual construct...." by Cee

I just wanted to repeat this... It, uh, speaks for itself. I'm not going to dissect it, or even comment on it, except to say Wow.

Cecelia, very good and overdue post.
Warms the cockles of one's heart, does it not?...
Yes, Cecelia....
You're right Red Wolf

* * * * *

StormTrooperCircleJerk at it's very best.

What's the matter kos (Shaun), it is not obvious to you that the politically correct, moral left is MORE rabid with regards to conformity and adherance to their secular humanist religion?

The only thing missing from your crowd is the dress code....and that would actually be an improvement over the typical shirt/tie color combinations Keith Olbermann chooses.

LIEBERMAN: IRAQ IS ISLAMO-FASCIST VS. REPUBLO-FASCIST THUNDERDOME

-- Zionist Senator Strongly Supports War Dreamed Up By Zionist Neocons --

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman has written an op-ed for The Washington Post in which he explains his reasons why more troops are needed in Iraq. Lieberman argues that the war is "winnable," yet acknowledges that "more U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success" in the fight. "I've just spent 10 days traveling in the Middle East and speaking to leaders there," writes Lieberman, "all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging."

"Olbermann attacks every religion except Islam. Why is that?
Posted by: Red Wolf at December 29, 2006 11:25 AM"

Made up claims are a regular pattern of Mr. Wolf. This is one more of them.

Two groups of idiots are making life on this planet more painful than any other groups, that being Islamists and the other being evangelical Christians.

The idea of Keith Olbermann being critical of the one religion that CNN and Fox say 90% of Americans claim to be, that being Christian, makes perfect sense. Last I checked Islamists were not pimping Mohammad on Fox to get political support for themselves or a political party active in our government!

No amount of expose' on Islam can justify the adoption of Islamic social/political practices here. Yet that is exactly what geniuses like Mr. Wolf not only defend, but actively participate in.

Anyone on TV in Iran being critical of Islam and Mohammad would get the Iranian version of the same treatment Keith Olbermann get's here on this page for being outraged at the pimping and whoring of Jesus and Christianity. Mr. Wolf and the rest of his peanut gallery are doing their own version of it here. But because there are more people like me, Christian or not, than there are pin heads like that found here, Keith Olbermann and others like him are still able to speak out.

Long live our constitutional democracy - down with theo-fascism!

"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman has written an op-ed ... writes Lieberman, "all of which has made one thing clearer to me than ever: While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging."

yes and you can thank George Bush for destabilizing the region making Iran into the power broker of the region.

Tell me Redwolf, beings you are so good at seeing the world through who defends what religion, who is Mr. Lie berman defending with this rhetoric? Christianity or Judaism?

"In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home."

Senator Joseph Lieberman.....MODERATE Democrat, great statesman....

From Daily Kos...

In an op-ed appearing in today's Washington Post, Joe Lieberman manages to hit every talking point from the Bush administration to support the escalation of the war in Iraq. From invoking September 11th, to denying the reality of civil war, to "victory in Iraq," he doesn't miss a beat. Rarely has such delusional, disingenuous flag-waving been seen outside of a White House press conference.

After taking care of the 9/11 reference in his opening paragraph, Lieberman lays out his case for escalation:

Because of ...the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable.

Surely this isn't the recent "coming together" he speaks of :

"Iraq's most revered Shiite Muslim cleric has rejected calls for a U.S.-backed effort to form a bloc of moderate Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish leaders to isolate extremists in the government, Shiite leaders said Saturday. [...]"

Sistani's endorsement of the proposal was considered key. But during the meeting, Shiite leaders said, Sistani called on them to keep the 130-member United Iraqi Alliance intact.

For the record, that's the alliance that includes Moqtada al-Sadr. But Lieberman pretends that the proposed moderate alliance is alive and well because that means the war is winnable. Much like he pretends that opposition to this war is simply frustration.

The American people are justifiably frustrated by the lack of progress, and the price paid by our heroic troops and their families has been heavy. But what is needed now, especially in Washington and Baghdad, is not despair but decisive action -- and soon.

What the American people think is needed is an end to this war, not an escalation of the mistake. And beyond that, it's frustrating to lose your keys. It's frustrating to be stuck in traffic. To describe the American people's feelings about this war as frustration is dismissive and insulting.

Lieberman goes on to explain that the "most pressing problem" in Iraq is a lack of security. One can't help but wonder whether he required his own study group to come up with that bit of breaking news. And then, perhaps realizing that he had written several sentences without a recognizable talking point from the administration, Lieberman says:

"On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran."

If? Iraq descended into civil war long ago. But ignoring that obvious reality, Lieberman moves onto the point of the op-ed:

"To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. "

But does he believe it as strongly as he did last year when he said:

"If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007."

Or as strongly as he did six months ago when he said:

"I believe, that we will be able to withdraw a significant number of our men and women in uniform from Iraq by the end of this year and even more by next year. "

Which belief should we believe? Or more to the point, how many times can someone be wrong and still be taken seriously? To be fair, Lieberman didn't base everything on gut instinct. He talked to military people in Iraq and they assured him that they wanted more troops. Particularly touching was the anonymous plea Lieberman said he received to "finish the fight." It's too bad he didn't take the time to talk to people who were willing to give their names. People like Spc. Don Roberts, who said:

"I don't know what could help at this point. What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."

Or Sgt. Josh Keim:

"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it. It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."

But hey, what do they know? They probably don't believe strongly enough. Lieberman says:

"In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission."

Like the one he described last November?

"Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do."

It seems that sufficient troop strength would have been a part of a good plan and strategy for victory, doesn't it? Was he lying then or is he dissembling now?

Lieberman finishes by saying:

"Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. "

In other words, instead of facing reality and listening to what the American people want, we must continue and escalate the disastrous course in Iraq that we've followed for nearly four years. And somehow you know that this is something that Joe Lieberman strongly believes.

"Senator Joseph Lieberman.....MODERATE [INDEPENDENT] Democrat, great statesman...." by Cee

See, this shit is why Lieberman WAS so dangerous. If he were actually still a real Democrat, this would have given Shrub bipartisan cover for this escalation he is seeking. Now, it's just Lieberman, on his own, another pathetic Neocon.

If any Dem has Cee respecting them, they must be doing something wrong.

You see....I KNEW Shaun was really kos.....and look at the vitriol the radical leftist site has our fine Senator who is not a coward in standing up to the radicals in his own party. Wow....it did not take them long to get out the fangs!

Down boy, down.....

Too bad Keith is not doing WPITW tonight.....The great senator would at least get the silver!

Anon at 4:24 PM was cee......

go JOMENTUM

Now, don't all you Dems feel a lot better that we have the Electoral College that kept that evil Liebermann from being vice president right now.

What a close call that was for you all.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Coward Watching,
What evangelicals are going around beheading and doing suicide bombing? None.
The fact is the intolerants in America are Leftists like you and Olbermann that hate evangelicals!

What's not to hate about bible thumping, hypocritical, homophobic, racist, holier than thou, gullible evangelicals?

They were used by the Shrub administration in '04 and yet they continue to go back for more. Shrub could care less about gay marriage, he just used it to get them to the polls. It worked hook, line and sinker. They are too stupid to live.

"The fact is the intolerants in America are Leftists like you and Olbermann that hate evangelicals!"

Again, you simplify and distort. I have no problem with evangelical Christians - they are free to worship as they see fit, just as I am.

My problem is them using their RELIGION to justify a POLICY decision, which is something that shouldn't happen in a society that is supposed to be religiously-neutral in terms of laws.

And let me clarify that I only speak for myself lest my rant get attributed to every Dem on this site. These evangelicals are just so gullible to think that Shrub gives two shits about them, or anyone for that matter.

Ensign Expendable,
What if their religious beliefs is what motivates their political views? That's their business. I'm sure Keith Elllison's Muslim worldview and his saying "That Muslims can be example to American's" doesn't bother you?
Replace Muslim with Evangelical and you's be upset! Olbermann would be denouncing the politician!

EE, thanks for the reply. Now, where in the hell do I find crow, hot or cold?

"My problem is them using their RELIGION to justify a POLICY decision, which is something that shouldn't happen in a society that is supposed to be religiously-neutral in terms of laws"

Did you accurately state your opinion? I believe that freedom of religion is the right to practice, SPEAK, attempt to persuade and inform your decisions about anything based on your beliefs.

If that is not the scope of our constitutional freedom, what is the scope and what term would describe it. Certainly not freedom of religion. And I don't see any attempt to impose religious beliefs on others when one works through the political system to achieve their personal idea of a more just society, foreign policy or even to control buracacies. What should the litmus test be to assure that everyone can participate freely EXCEPT those who use religion as part of their judgment making process.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

Shaun, your comment posted below is a wonderful example of exactly what several of us were commenting about:

"What's not to hate about bible thumping, hypocritical, homophobic, racist, holier than thou, gullible evangelicals?

They were used by the Shrub administration in '04 and yet they continue to go back for more. Shrub could care less about gay marriage, he just used it to get them to the polls. It worked hook, line and sinker. They are too stupid to live.

Posted by: Shaun at December 29, 2006 04:51 PM

I have read many similar and worst comments by self described liberal democrats.

Christians are worthy of hatred and are so stupid that their lives should be forfeit.

Now, would you mind reminding me again of the tolerance and inclusiveness of the lib dems. Or, does this only extend to the right sort of people.

I'm a non practicing Catholic and, no thank you, I'll take my chances with and put my lot in with those dangerous Christians.

Janet Hawkins
AKA Grammie

"And I don't see any attempt to impose religious beliefs on others when one works through the political system to achieve their personal idea of a more just society, foreign policy or even to control buracacies."

I'm going to rely on the words of Kent Greenwalt, a Professor of Law at Columbia University: "I am not suggesting that legislators should deny religious bases that motivate them; only that they should develop public arguments in other terms,"

In other words, I have no problem if Senator Smith believes that his faith compels him to support a gay marriage ban. But if Senator Smith's ONLY public justification for such a ban is his religious beliefs, then it is encroaching upon the rights of people, not of the Senator's faith, to exercise freedom FROM religion.

"Christians are worthy of hatred and are so stupid that their lives should be forfeit." by Janet Hawkins

I never said that. Most of this country is Christian. EVANGELICALS are worthy of hatred and are so stupid that their lives should be forfeit. Don't twist my words. lol...

Evangelicals are at the root of the problems facing this country today. I believe they are something like 35% of the total voting population. They are the ones that want: school prayer, abortion completely outlawed, physicians who perform abortions murdered/jailed, gay people relegated to second class citizen status, and I could go on and on.

They are crazy motherf---ers and this country would be better off without them. These people are like sheep, just waiting to be led around by their pastors. The fact that these megachurches are getting involved and instructing their sheep who to vote for (indirectly by preaching against abortion, gay marriage, those who believe in a separation of church/state), things get fuzzy. They believe the separation of church and state is a myth, yet they believe every word in the bible. How freaking gullible can you be? If your pastor said it, it must be true right? Especially if it's Ted Haggard.

SADDAM HANGING SOON: TRILLION-DOLLAR EXECUTION OF FORMER U.S. ALLY NEARS

-- Bin Laden Thrilled With Secular Enemy's Demise --

-- Thanks GOP For Theocratizing Iraq, Weakening U.S. Military, Fueling Regional Chaos/Global Jihad --