Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

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

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    In

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

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

    KO Mini Blog



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

    KO Countdown Clock


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

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

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

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


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

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

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

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

    ...they should be...

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

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

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

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

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

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

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

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

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

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

    Friends of OlbyWatch

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

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

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


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

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

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


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



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

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

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    December 27, 2006
    Keith Olbermann's Top Ten Lies of 2006

    The task of selecting which Olbermann lies are the top ten of 2006 was a daunting one. A preliminary scan of the year's programs turned up 100+ candidates for the list. So to prune down the possibilities, and in the interest of fairness, we tossed out any falsehoods that were specifically acknowledged and corrected by Keith Olbermann. That left 100+ candidates for the list. But now the hours of research and review are completed, and we are pleased to present the official Olbermann Watch list of Keith Olbermann's top ten lies of 2006.

    MADMAN

    #10: To hear Keith Olbermann tell it, ratings are irrelevant. They don't prove a thing. As he famously said, "800 billion flies can't be wrong". But this is artificial bravado. KO is so preoccupied with numbers that he fabricates them. He'll blithely claim that his ratings are up a third or that they have risen to two-thirds of O'Reilly's, both false. The #10 entry in our Countdown of calumny is a pair of shameless lies Keith concoted to artifically inflate his own miserable viewership. The MSM never fact-checks his wild allegations. We did.

    MADMAN

    #9: Olbermann quit his first job at A-Mess-NBC because he didn't like covering the investigations and impeachment proceedings against Bill Jefferson Clinton. And when B.J. was a subject of controversy this year, Herr Olbermann rushed to the defense of his sacred cow. When an interviewer asked what Clinton himself deemed a "fair question", Olby frantically went on the attack against that "monkey" Chris Wallace. KO blustered preposterously that the veteran newsman sandbagged the President and tried to shift the blame for 9/11. He went so far as to falsely allege that Wallace had violated ground rules for the interview. But our #9 is Keith's preemptive attack on the Path to 9/11 movie. The film, he declared, puts the blame for 9/11 on "Democrats and Democrats alone". Even Olbypologists can't defend this brazen lie unless, like Keith, they never watched the movie.

    MADMAN

    #8: On OlbyPlanet, one of the best motives to avoid telling the truth is the traditional one: CYA. Krazy Keith will go to any lengths to make himself look good, and to cover up his transgressions. That's why he can smear two ball players, lie about everybody from Condi Rice to Catherine McPhee, and never admit he was wrong. Which brings us to #8: when rape charges in the Duke case were dropped, Keith Olbermann invented a fanciful tale about how Countdown only reported on it once. What's more, while "everyone else" was assuming the players to be guilty, he was the only one who spotted the weakness of the case against them. Har.

    MADMAN

    #7: The first rule of a journalist is "get it right". Since Keith Olbermann is no journalist, this rule obviously doesn't apply. Especially when it comes to quotes. To Krazy Keith, quotations are fungible: made to be sliced, diced, pureed, and reassembled at will. He can tamper with the words of Robert Novak and Patrick Fitzgerald, falsify the State of the Union address, and misrepresent statements by Ann Coulter or Laura Bush. And of course there's always David Shuster, ready to doctor a taped interview to make it more favorable to the Democrats. But this year's premier example takes the #7 position: Olbermann's slice-and-dice falsification of a comment by Brit Hume. KO took a Hume remark about event A and claimed it was said at an entirely different time about event B. His mock outrage and supercilious arrogance are that much funnier when we know he was lying through his wig.

    MADMAN

    #6: "The infamous, deplorable Matt Drudge". He has long been a favorite target of Olbermann's slanders. Sometimes it's nothing more than coy insinuations about lifestyle. More often it's just more Olbermann lies, as when he blasted Drudge for making up a story about Al Gore taking multiple cars to a movie event. Only Drudge didn't make it up at all. The classic exemplar that is #6 on our hit parade: an ABC employee's email was leaked to Drudge by the White House. There was no evidence, no source, no report that verified this fabrication. Olby got this information from his favorite wellspring: he pulled it out of his ass. It turned out the leak came not from the White House, but from a disgruntled ABC employee, and, deservedly, Matt Drudge had the last laugh.

    MADMAN

    #5: If Monkeymann has a jihad going against Drudge, it's nothing compared to his all-consuming Olbsession over his bete-noir, Bill O'Reilly. Keith has been lying about Bill for years (example: this whopper from 2004). But 2006 has been a banner year: lies about the Al Franken lawsuit, Bill's book, and even what search engines turn up. Our #5 entry is a typical Olbermoronn falsehood. KO blasted O'Reilly, called names and hurled insults, all over an alleged statement that in fact Bill O'Reilly never said. But remember, Keith boasts he's never said anything factually inaccurate about O'Reilly. Right.

    MADMAN

    #4: Keith Olbermann claims to be "nonpartisan", despite the people he interviews. Yet whatever the hot issue is on the blue blogs, whatever the DNC talking points happen to be, there you will find Citizen Keith, shill-in-chief. Olby makes up a story about three "neocons" calling for the US to enter the war in Lebanon, uniquely characterized by KO as a pre-emptive war by Israel. Then a document called the National Intelligence Estimate drove Keith to new heights of dissimulation. To hype The Great Leak case, Monkeymann claimed that Libby had authority to release classified information. In truth, that authority dealt solely with the NIE, not the leak case at all. But the best was yet to come, and it's our #4. When Olby (and his sidekick slippery Shuster) got around to actually talking about the NIE, they both lied about what was and wasn't in it. "Nonpartisan" Keith at his most biased.

    MADMAN

    #3: You know there had to be more than one entry dedicated to Ahab Olbermann's fixation on Bill O'Reilly. A typical trick is to lift something from Media Matters, juice it up with name calling and personal attacks, and then fire at will. That doesn't always work, like the time he bellowed at Mr Bill that he's a "holy you-know-what liar", when he wasn't. But it was one of Herr Olbermann's most grandiose smears that earned the #3 spot on our countdown. Bill O'Reilly slandered US troops. Bill defended stormtroopers and said the Nazis were the victims in World War II. The Great Malmedy Calumny twisted O'Reilly's words into a rhetorical pretzel, but it was all a tawdry, dishonest defamation. The intellectual bankruptcy of Olby's case was made even more apparent with his barefaced lies about the transcript, another example of Edward R Olbermann pulling "facts" out of his rear.

    MADMAN

    #2: There is nothing so stubborn as OlbySpin. Once the infamous, deplorable one gets an idea in his head, no facts need apply. He railed against General Hayden's supposed "mistake" regarding the constitutional standard for searches, and continued to flog this phony talking point despite the fact that it was KO who was wrong. This intransigence of inaccuracy reached a zenith with Krazy Keith's reckless demagoguery about "habeas corpus". The new law means "you" can be arrested and held forever without seeing a judge. Just on his whim, "Mister" Bush can "put you in jail and throw away the key". The law "does away with habeas corpus". The truth? No US citizen's habeas corpus rights have been done away with, lessened, or changed in any way. It's in the law. Tell a lie. Tell it big. Tell it again. This year's #2 from Olbermann's Ministry of Propaganda.

    And the #1 Olbermann lie of 2006:

    MADMAN

    #1: This was a tough call. There was just so much to pick from. But a lie this shameless and impudent deserves pride of place. The subject matter was another eeevil Fox employee: John Gibson. Gibby was never entirely off of Olby's radar. KO chortled as he distorted Gibson's words to claim the guy favored massacres. Krazy Keith had to rewrite what Gibson said to justify another cheap shot. But then Mr Gibson went too far. He dared to speak out when he caught Keith Olbermann in a lie. Olby was in a bind. How could he respond to Gibby when every word Gibby spoke was true? The solution: the Double-Helix Self-Referential Olbermann lie. Keith lied about John Gibson, and to do so, lied about himself to cover up the original lie caught by Gibson. Confused? That's exactly what Fat Ass was counting on, but it was all caught on tape. Keith Olbermann's double fabrication, in the face of conclusive proof via transcripts, audio, and video clips, was so flagrant that it virtually cried out to be named Keith's #1 lie of 2006. And so it is.


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (769) | | View blog reactions

    769 Comments

    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?

    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?

    "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 --

    BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein could face execution within hours, reports from Baghdad suggested Friday. Judge Munir Haddad and an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki each told CNN that the paperwork for Hussein's execution is in order, and a defense attorney said the hanging could take place "very shortly." Haddad -- who confirmed that the hand-over of Hussein from U.S. to Iraqi custody is ongoing -- told reporters he thinks the hanging will be Friday night or Saturday. He also said there is no need for a presidential decree for the implementation of the execution.


    EE, that argument is a bit sophistic. There is no religious test to hold office. And, officeholders have the same rights to speak, persuade and vote on whatever reason they have.

    I don't know the particulars of Senator Smith and what he has or hasn't said in his public life. But it is his right to do so. Just as it is the right of others to simply base there view on a woman's right to total control of her body. One could consider that a quasi religious statement.

    So, if I understand you correctly, you only apply your disapproval to public officials who give only religious reasons for a vote. It is still OK for others to talk about their beliefs and how it influences their decision making.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    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

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at December 29, 2006 04:43 PM


    Post of the month!

    Shaun, how foolish of me. Of course you only think that 35% of US citizens, not 90%, are worthy of hate and so stupid their lives should be forfiet.

    Of course, now that I understand that you only want to, by the way, what is the extension of your position. Start forfeiting the lives of evangelicals in a small public way and stop when they give up their citizenship?

    How magnaminous of you. How tolerant of those who disagree with you.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "Of course you only think that 35% of US citizens, not 90%, are worthy of hate and so stupid their lives should be forfiet." by Janet Hawkins

    Again, with the twisting of my words, 35% of the US VOTING population.

    I will not hide my disdain for these idiots. However, they have as much right as anyone to speak their minds. Granted, they utilize less of their minds than others, but I digress...

    They attempted to shove their beliefs down the throats of every single American in this country. And until the 2006 elections, the rightward trajectory of this country was unmistakable, and extremely scary for those who aren't awaiting the rapture with bated breath. It was extremely scary for those of us who weren't looking to start WWIII by provking the entire Middle East.

    They are fringe kooks who happen to vote in huge numbers, which makes them, unfortunately, pretty powerful. Until 2006 that is. There are many Democrats who want to woo these people. I say f--- 'em. Let the Republiscum Party be trapped by their extreme beliefs. The Republicans are already in danger of being a Southern only party. They've made this bed, the Dems are going to make them lie in it. Their only other option is to become less extreme and that will turn off the crazy evangelicals even more.

    Lieberman was put on the ticket as VP
    precisely because of his pro-war stance.
    It's called a (fair and) balanced ticket.
    Approval for Bush, the GOP, and the war was positive then.
    But that has all changed now.
    And pretty drastically.

    "Lieberman was put on the ticket as VP
    precisely because of his pro-war stance."

    Huh? There was no war when Lieberman was on the ticket in 2000.

    "I will not hide my disdain for these idiots. However, they have as much right as anyone to speak their minds. Granted, they utilize less of their minds than others, but I digress... They attempted to shove their beliefs down the throats of every single American in this country."

    - - - - -

    WASHINGTON -- Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). "In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is 'no comment'."

    We hadn't even been attacked in 2000.

    Post by Anonymous @ 6:52

    Exactly! According to these kooks, Noah's flood probably created the grand canyon. lol

    "StormTrooperCircleJerk at it's very best."

    Anon, I've also noticed a tag-team tendency between cee and Cecelia. Could this be a Victor/Victoria charade?

    Janet said "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 now?"

    Duh...NO Janet, we don't! Gore, not Liebermann, would be the president, and I'd say the odds would be about 99.99% we would not have entered this Iraq adventure at all. We probably would have still gone into Afghanistan, and hopefully, completed the job because our resources would have remained more focused, and our actions more justifiable.

    Liebermann would have remained a typically irrelevant VP because I doubt if he would have ever been granted the unprecedented influence Cheney was given.

    That all said, if we had to choose between Cheney and Liebermann, Liebermann would win hands down, but that would have been a little like choosing between the fire and the frying pan.

    "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 occupied region. The "coalition" has done 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

    Agreed , Mike.

    I've used Lieberman's existence countless times to argue against the DNC fundies who to this day excoriate Ralph Nader for runing for president in 2000 and 2004. Nader brought the only discussion of real issues to both of those campaigns.

    '"StormTrooperCircleJerk at it's very best."

    Anon, I've also noticed a tag-team tendency between cee and Cecelia. Could this be a Victor/Victoria charade?"

    Sir Loin I bet you see a conspiracy behind your coffee pot every morning.

    You guys outnumber the Olbermann Watchers here, and have a virtual echo-chamber in the post section, but three non-liberals being cordial with one another smacks of yet another nefarious fascist plot.

    Any day now Cee, Janet, and I will find some way to suspend your Blockbuster cards...

    You do make militia member cranks seem like Ward Cleaver in comparision.

    We outnumber "olbermann watchers" everywhere, Cecelia.

    The secularist attacks are getting nasty....now they have people segregated into the south....eh ahhhh...

    Hate for Jews and Evangelical Christians is nothing new. Scapegoats for the problems of secular societies are always needed. The small mind needs a bogeyman to rage against.

    Secularists are base thinkers....as my response to Coward Watch this morning discusses...although they hold grand delusions that they have evolved and if they just think about something long enough, and hard enough....the truth will emerge. Well, see for yourself the pitiful results of these progressive minds...."I hate..."

    Well, I must admit, the "I hate" statements are pretty amusing....and sad. The indoctrination of the small minds of kos and his group has had great results. They hate.

    This is the attraction Keith Olbermann has for these schlemiels...he hates as well.

    The Jewish prophet Isaiah expressed these inspired words....

    "Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.

    "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    and clever in their own sight."
    Isaiah 5:20-21


    President Ford's favorite passage was from King Soloman...and is great advice for any leader...in great harmony with Isaiah:

    "Trust in the LORD with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;"

    Proverbs 3:5

    Jehovah has the answer to ending up with hate towards people. The Christmas holiday was all about that answer, Him.

    Your right Beef, "Olbermann watcher's" are a minority because "Obermann watching" is nothing more than an illogical obcession.

    Cee says: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil..."

    I would say Woe to those who are a little confused about the difference.

    You seem to be one of the latter!

    We outnumber "olbermann watchers" everywhere, Cecelia.


    Yes Cecelia and this is why the Democrats lost so badly last November, right?

    Just another excellent example of delusional thinking.

    It's nice to know you agree with the rantings of kos (Shaun), Mike....jus....please remeber me when I am in my Evangelical Christian ghetto just outside Birmingham, Alabama.

    "We outnumber "olbermann watchers" everywhere, Cecelia."

    So do bald eagles, snail-darters, and spotted owls, but Keith says his ratings are up...

    I have no trouble with you guys feeling comfortable here, I think Bob and Johnny have created an environment where everyone can and does feel that way.

    "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 wrong and decietful cee. The crime is happening, and as we speak plans are being made to escalate the crime by adding more American troops (i.e. not letting troops there leave on schedule, thereby turning them into "new troops"). It is going to happen, at least in the short run, and none of the anti-war efforts to which I have substantially contributed have stopped it. This being the case, as I've explained to you a hundred times, justice dictates that the comfortable and influential who support the war should be the ones to suffer in it. You claim that were there a draft, you would serve if called - what you really mean is you would serve if FORCED - a very safe boast for a wealthy Republican physician these days.

    What you refuse to recognize is that you HAVE been called - your profession is one in particularly high demand in the war zone, or in the rear-eschellon medical centers in Europe which would probably be more appropriate to your disposition. Why are you so special? Do you consider yourself to be exempt from the moral imperative to make your actions match you expenditure of your political franchise on the basis of your status as a "Representative of Christ", as you've suggested earlier today? Is your unimpeded income and the persistence of your comfortable condition a valid reason to have others do your heavy lifting?

    Why is all this so difficult for you to understand, or acknowledge as a valid ethical equation?

    As a liberal, I of course entertain the possibility that in any particular disagreement I may be wrong. Now, as time goes on the developing disaster in Iaq vindicates my position on the war to such a degree that my previous statement may seem preposterous, but it remains the case. It remains for my rhetorical opponents to convince me through valid arguments - or demonstrate to me through consistency and positive outcome of their actions - that their position is correct, or moreso than mine. You people fail miserably on both criteria.

    Speaking of Olbermann, Cecelia....on COUNTDOWN tonight (instead of covering the execution of Saddam....

    "Olbermann has snake charmers and elephants with balls," (TVNewser).

    Wow....I think I'll go read my bible instead.....and pray for kos.

    Cee, you won't believe this but the majority of my family are Southern Evangelical Christians. We have a lot of interesting discussions and many disagreements. I have a brother who I think has probably memorized the Bible.

    Now here's the part you probably won't believe; Most of them believe the Iraq war was a mistake....and....that Bush is an idiot!

    "Hate for Jews and Evangelical Christians is nothing new. Scapegoats for the problems of secular societies are always needed. The small mind needs a bogeyman to rage against."

    That's right, cee; Godly civilized societies use Muslims as their scapegoats!

    "Olbermann has snake charmers and elephants with balls."

    So it's John Dean and Craig Crawford on tonight as usual, huh...

    Cee, I guess you'd like to see live coverage in color!.....How Christian!

    They just said "A US judge has refused to delay Saddam's execution".....and I thought we were not supposed to be involved in this process!

    "...Jehovah has the answer to ending up with hate towards people. The Christmas holiday was all about that answer, Him.

    Posted by: cee at December 29, 2006 08:42 PM"


    Let's see, who says 150,000 dead Iraqi civilians is justifiable and useful?

    Who says 3000 dead American GI's dead is justifiable?

    Who says boosting the power and influence of Iran in the region is a good thing?

    Who also says on top of all of this that they do not want their tax dollars spent on fetal stem cell research? But their tax dollars spent in Iraq? Do they protest or promote?

    This bible quoting is par for the course. Complete 180 degree backward projection of their own beliefs and morality.

    Typical morally bankrupt abuse of bible teachings to justify the use of death and destruction as a solution to social and political problems.

    Remember, Iraq never invaded this nation. Saddam Hussein was allowed, with western support, to be a brutal dictator just as long as he served his purpose as a power balance to Iran in the region.

    We made Saddam in some ways, so it is just that we take him out. But that is not what the final objective was all about. Control of Iraqi oil wealth was then and is now.

    Jesus does not stand on the side of these fake Christians who subjugate the teachings of the bible.

    "Now here's the part you probably won't believe; Most of them believe the Iraq war was a mistake....and....that Bush is an idiot!"


    Right, Mike

    The Christmas cards I recieved from my deeply religious cousins in Oklahoma and Kansas this year reflected deep dismay over the moral mud-pit this country is wallowing in in regard to the war. These are strict Baptists and Mennonites, and some of the cards were produced by the churches attended by these relations - entire congregations of earnest christians joining their voices with that popularly attributed to their messiah. It made me very hopeful for this country.

    That's right, cee; Godly civilized societies use Muslims as their scapegoats!

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at December 29, 2006 09:08 PM

    Sir you have made me laugh out loud. I Knight thee!

    The Hamburgler opined: "We outnumber "olbermann watchers" everywhere, Cecelia."

    Funny, Olbermann's ratings don't reflect that at all.

    The hate keeps flowing....come on liberals, just say it....

    Just replace....

    Europe with America
    Jewish with Evangelical Christian
    Germans with Progressives
    international Jewish financiers with Evangelical Christians
    Bolshivization with Theocracization
    Jewry with Christianity
    Jewish race with Evangelical Christians

    "Europe cannot find peace until the Jewish question has been solved. …One thing I should like to say on this day which may be memorable for others as well as for us Germans. In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet and have usually been ridiculed for it. … Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshivization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
    ADOLF HITLER - Reichstag, 1/30/39

    See all the fascists bloom!

    Good night, and good luck.

    "President Ford's favorite passage was from King Soloman...and is great advice for any leader...in great harmony with Isaiah:

    "Trust in the LORD with all your heart
    and lean not on your own understanding;"

    Posted by: cee at December 29, 2006 08:42 PM"

    Oh a wise man indeed. So I am certain you agree with his assessment of Bush, Rummi, and Cheney in his last interview with Bob Woodward. He basically put the baby to rest with his opinion of these three stooges! Ford was very distraught about the failed adventure of these criminals!

    What is most disgusting about this is your implication. A president trusting in the lord as a way to make presidential decisions. Life and death decisions. So once again your fake Christian teachings convolute bible teachings into suggesting that Bush's hand is guided by God. Talk about the anti-christ wolf in sheep's clothing.

    You just can't accept in your KKK hillbilly mind that 150,000 dead Iraqi's are exactly equal in value as 150,000 Americans and therefore require equal outrage for their unjustified deaths. No God is so ignorant as to believe that our rich nation could not have come up with a better approach to solving our problem with Saudi Islamists - the sworn enemies of Saddam Hussien.

    You and your poisonous polluting of the bible make for a perfect example of the total failure of the religopolitical practices in this nation.

    Great job! I love how you people make my job so easy! You are the spawn of the anti-christ - born of KKK Kulture!

    more hate....keep it going......

    Cecelia,

    Read cee's post above and tell me: who is the "paranoid political zealot"?

    Um, Merry Chirstmas all?

    (DODGES BULLETS)

    Please, Loin, do not confuse my use of a famous speech by Hitler as an example of how your bankrupt secular humanist ideology will lead you to bigotry and morder WITH my actually believing you will be able to come to such horrid ends! I have faith in our Judeo-Christian inspired US Constitution to protect normal people from secular zealots like you and kos......_________ Watch is in an asylum allllll by himself.

    Again, night.

    Cee...please define your definition of 'hate' in the last few posts. What exacatly is it that you are calling 'hate'?

    Once you do, it becomes clear that what you are calling 'hate' is nothing but common sense within a simple ideological disagreement. A sure sign of a "paranoid political zealot".

    cee, are you truly exempt from military service in the war you love because of your special status as a "representative of Christ", as you sugested this morning?

    "more hate....keep it going......

    Posted by: cee at December 29, 2006 09:43 PM"

    You are the one who abuses the use of this word "hate". I rarely if ever us it. The only "hate" demonstrated here is the "hate" of a constitutional democracy. The standard belief and practice of all evangelical leaders in this nation is to put their brand of Christianity as the law of the land here. Fascist arrogant Klan Kulture!

    You call my outrage aimed at your hollow morality about the magnitude of death in Iraq, "hate". This is just one more fake delusional attempt to paint yourself as a victim of my aggression. As if you do not do the exact same to me, yet I make no claim to be a victim of hate, only ignorance. Their lies the difference between us. That difference is that I have respect for the teachings of the bible and the man it was all about. You have none. It is merely an instrument you use to justify any behavior you stand behind.

    The only thing worse than your empty humanity is your desecration of the teachings of Jesus Christ. This is the exact same practice that allowed 400 years of slavery in this nation by bible toting so called Christians.

    Spawn of the Klan Kulture, nothing more, nothing less. Spawn of evil then, and now.

    Repent sinner no god advocates the brutal killing you defend! Especially Jesus Christ!

    OK, for you Mike, since you seem nice, I'll delay my bedtime....

    Read Coward Watch at December 27, 2006 05:23 AM
    and then my response at 06:13 AM

    Read The Wrath of Coward Watch at December 28, 2006 12:26 AM and then my response at 05:35 AM.

    Shaun at December 29, 2006 05:55 PM

    Shaun at December 29, 2006 04:51 PM "They are too stupid to live."

    I could go back further and quote Professor Honeydew (Bob) and the ever lovable Colbert who has yet to make a return apperance....we went back and forth for weeks.

    Night.

    "The Hamburgler opined: "We outnumber "olbermann watchers" everywhere, Cecelia."

    Funny, Olbermann's ratings don't reflect that at all. "

    Posted by: Brandon at December 29, 2006 09:36 PM

    Brandon, like so many at this site, is a true Free Market Fundamentalist. This cult goes so far as to allow the marketplace to determine the validity of relatively simple arguments. I f a set of firm, empirical facts don't "get ratings", they are considered invalid - if a heap of absolute claptrap draws enough viewers or listeners to be considered significant by advertisers, then that argument is considered valid.

    This is the pernicous mob mentality that caused our educated founders to fear pure "democracy". Jefferson saw ubiquitous educaton as a solution, but much of our population has always been too superstitious or lazy for that to get a relevant foothold.

    Ugh, bed awaits.....no Loin, why I do not volunteer for military service is none of your business. But the reasons would never include because I am a Christian.

    But you're the one who believes polls matter. So let's use common sense here my friend. If polls matter, then ratings matter. And if ratings don't matter than polls don't either. So which way do you want it? Oh, I forgot. You're a liberal, an Olby groupie. You want it BOTH ways.

    Not so fast, Mike and Fake Christian Watching:

    I honestly hate cee.

    The Left hates their fellow Americans more than enemies like Al-Qaeda, Hizballah or Iran. The Tolerance of the Left. Ingenious!

    The biggest whopper of the night....I will laugh all the way to bed......

    "That difference is that I have respect for the teachings of the bible and the man it was all about."

    Yeah....right...chapter and verse please....I'll read it tomorrow morning.

    LOL

    hate, hate, hate....remember, you called me trash?

    hate....more hate

    LOL

    check out the weeping and wailing and shaking of fists over the death of "poor saddam." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=364

    These DUmmies love their dictators don't they?

    "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees; Hypocrites! For ye devour widow's houses and for pretense make long prayer. Therefore ye shall recieve the greater damnation!"

    "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."


    Good night, cee.

    Sir Loin of Beef,
    It's sad you hate fellow Americans based on their Religion.
    Oh well it's the tolerance of The Stalinist Left!

    Brandon, you simpleton; opinion polls have no relation to markets. Of course, if you start PAYING people for their opinions, the way Republicans do in their media kennels, then they do, but what are you measuring?

    - or if you you surreptitiously stick an opinion solicitation into a bundle of goods that people need to buy and sell, and then count one way or another that an opinion has been registered - that's fraud.

    A joyus time for Iraqis, Saddam is now dead.

    Congrats guys and gals. Here's hoping this sets the stage for a good year next year. May many more tyrants follow after him sooner rather than later.

    ."....no Loin, why I do not volunteer for military service is none of your business.

    - here is some progress in my running argument with this pompous chickenhawk: its the first time cee has admitted to having reasons for not enlisting in this war he energetically supports.


    "But the reasons would never include because I am a Christian."

    - you didn't say "Christian" this morning, you mentioned "Representatives of Christ".

    That's weird- most of our arguments of this nature have ended with you crawling behind some wispy argument involving the "universal original sin of mankind".

    Shaun, sorry that I twisted your words from 35% of the voting population as opposed to 35% of the US population. I should, of course, have realized that you would exempt those under 18 to YOUR WORDS

    " EVANGELICALS are worthy of hatred and are so stupid that their lives should be forfeit. Don't twist my words. lol..."

    Well, at least by paring back to the core of your words and debating percentages has gotten ONE reasonable and unobjectional statement you and I agree about:

    " However, they have as much right as anyone to speak their minds."

    Vicious personal attacks against an entire group of people may be emotionally satisfying, but they don't add anything but negative points to your arguments.

    And, this entire exchange with you buttresses my belief that lib dems talk a great game of tolerance and inclusiveness but are some of the worst offenders of the opposite.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "These DUmmies love their dictators don't they?"

    "Their dictators"? Sorry, but that vicious cocksucker was Reagan's and GHW Bush's dictator.

    Sorry Beef but as usual you're the idiot here. You continue to want it both ways, hey look at this poll--look at how low Bush's popularity is! But don't look at those ratings that show Olbermann's show is scraping bottom, why no, you can't pay attention to that. Again, you want it both ways and you obviously have issues with me pointing out the hypocrisy of your ratings versus polls crap. Honestly do you think that we can't see through you? You're not beef. You're not even Hamburger Helper. But you're amusing I'll give you that. Oh, you're serious? Even funnier.

    Castro. Chavez. Iran's president. All DU idols. And you cannot deny that the vast majority of posters over at DU tonight are mourning the death of Saddam. Sure there are a few there who are not mourning at all and are trying to point out to the rest of the DUmmies what an ass Saddam is but of course, they're being shouted down by the mob mentality that rules at places like DU. Again, you're just pissed that what I say is right and you're wrong, again, as usual.

    Brandon,
    Olbermann is selling a product. Bush is the elected office-holder who is charged with executing the collective political will of our nation. Only a crass corporatist would conflate the two.

    but how can I be a "crass corporatist" and a redneck hillbilly too? Again, you can't have it both ways. but God knows you try. LOL. Keep talking buddy. It provides me with more laughs than your average sit-com.

    I have a question! Why don't you give a breakdown of the Gerald Fo0r episode of Countdown, hmmmmmmmmmmmm? Is it because you all know that he was sincere and respectfull of president Gerald Ford's passing?!? Is it because you know that Keith Olbermann was not the pinata that you all take him for?!? Or is it because you can not face the truth that Keith Olbermann sedated his vacation for us?

    "Duh...NO Janet, we don't!". Uh, duh, Mike. No joke. It was a commentary on how Liebermann, who is a very liberal dem, has in the space of a few years descended into the bowels of the Christian beast. And, duh, I know he is Jewish.

    Lib dems have not just expressed opposition to his stance on the war. They have rhetorically flayed him alive and question his character and morality.

    So we go from his being a super lib jewish dem to a schill for the fundy right.

    Again, another example of the tolerant and inclusive lib dems being hypocritical.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    He "sedated" his vacation for "us"? Do you actually know the meanings of the words you try to throw out? To answer your question, Olbermann showed that he can do a mostly unopinionated show when he wants to. And that's what Countdown began as and was for a good year and a half. And then he decided to sell out and whore himself to the Liberals in a cold, calculating move designed solely to win him ratings and boost his banking account. You don't mind being used like that, but I do. meanwhile, you apparently can't even realize what you're asking here. You want us to praise Olbermann for doing his job the way he is SUPPOSED to, not the way he usually does his show these days. If anything, it only made me hate him and his show even more because I know he's capable of better but you apparently think he should get an Emmy for doing one show, one stinking show more or less straight and opinion free (although he still managed to stick an opinion or two in there).

    And by the way, why wasn't he "sedating" his vacation for us this evening on the night that Saddam hung? Why isn't he coming off vacation this weekend to cover Ford's funeral the way Chris Matthews who just recently spent more than a week in the hospital is going to do?

    Explain to me again why YOU and he think he's worth $4 million a year when he obviously doesn't think he should be working weekends or why MSNBC should be considered any kind of threat at all to CNN or Fox when they were running the 10th rerun of Oddball while the rest of the networks were LIVE with the news about Saddam's hanging?

    Gram: go check out DU. It's the best comedy site I know of. Tonight in addition to the whining re Saddam's execution, there's a long thread complaining about the fact that John Edwards is a multi-millionaire who owns homes worth millions. It seems that they want all their candidates to take a vow of poverty and leave in a shack somewhere. Hmmm. Isn't it communists/socialists who hold similar views on wealth? No wonder they love those dicators so much, they all secretly yearn to live in Cuba etc.

    Gee Mike said his family is southern christians and they think Bush is an idiot.

    Boy the idiot sure pulled one over on you hicks twice.

    By the next week Mike will be on here telling us how half his family are muslim converts.

    Mike, sir chop chuck, and the bot are here for the nightly arm chair quaterback should've, could've, would've, circle jerk.
    Watch it Cee! The spray could hit ya.

    I'm happy John Edwards tossed his hat in the ring again. The democrats need an upstanding citizen like Edwards. My only question is how come John didn't announce in front of his brand new 3 million dollar house in North Carolina instead of doing it down in New Orleans?

    Gee it might not have anything to do with him being a bottom feeder, ambulance chasing lawyer?

    But I bet ya he's a southern christian. And if he's not I'm sure he will be the day he go's to see Mike's family. Unless they became Muslim converts at that point. Then.......well who knows? Maybe John will convert for the day. You know how these dems will stand on their principles. Heck, maybe they will all turn Jewish!

    Now Mike will tell us how he's not a democrat.

    Didn't Olby get beat by the "O'MALKIN FACTOR" the other night?

    The thing that I like about these guys are all they want to talk about the war is the beginning. Bush made a big mistake, night after night, blah, blah, blah, Don't they ever update anything at the blue blogs?

    Simple point, there was a Republican senator from Washington state I do belive, I could be wrong. Who on the floor spoke how he was turning against things at this point because he wanted to know "What was the goal at this point?"

    I'm praphrasing at this point but the senator did ask. How safe can Baghdad get at this point? How many times can you send troops down the same street with Baghdad's version of the Hatfields and McCoys going on? We are there right now! What's the goal right now!

    Most of you're major U.S. cities have shootings every night between gangs. What's the difference? Anybody drive around Detroit?, South Central? Newark, New Jersey?(There are no go zones in Newark.) Camden, New Jersey? If we can compare Baghdad to these cities then is it okay for the troops to come home? By the way aren't just about all the big major cities run by Democrats? interesting.

    Okay, we don't have roadside bombs yet.

    Yet night after night all these stooges want to talk about is the beginning, the decision to go to war. Ya know nobody was saying anything about it being a bad decision the first few weeks when we were running towards Baghdad like a hot knife through butter. But now it's all they can talk about.

    If one of these yutza's came to me and asked a question like. With the greatest fighting forces in the world. With Sadamm probably dead at this point. With free elections being done, and a new goverment getting underway, why can't we get a handle on this? Whats going on right now, today. Then I might listen to the Loon Patrol. But I guess it takes the blu blogs a few weeks, or months to get new marching orders out. Or maybe they think that the flock might have trouble with new indoctrination orders.

    But anybody can play arm chair quarterback. And this same old crap they keep spewing day after day, week after week, month after month. The same point, never changing. It gets back to that sheep thing.

    Did anybody notice how Mike said his family said Bush was an idiot? He did that so just in case things change. Mike can say, "My family said that! I didn't."

    Principles, Sheep,...............Goodnight!

    Wait! Brandon, Did Olby say he came off of his vacation for us. Watch it folks! that circle jerk is going to get hot and heavy! Okay, which one of you loons blew a load in you're pants when you saw Olby live on the screen tonight.

    I'd like to meet that person. After he or she takes a shower. Maybe I can get a few million dollar grant from the goverment for a Loon study. I'll just ask Robert Byrd "King of the Earmarks!"

    Paragraph #1: "you don't mind being used like that, but I do." I do not know what you are talking about. Those in Keith Olbermann's saddle do not "use" us (accept for ratings). Keith Olbermann, benevolent, gleaming, thoughtfull, entertaining, neutral, meager, low-brow, unrectifyable, consorted, draconian, arbitrary, or corrosive is not using anybody --- even the people that like his program --- Sure, there may be people that follow in his footsteps in a short-term way, but come on --- Keith Olbermann is not the do all/say all in Liberalism or any other part of life. If you feel like you are being used... then it is not Olbermann using you, but Olbermann Watch that is.

    Paragraph #2: You still did not answer my question on why this website did not break-down the latest episode of Countdown.

    Paragraph #3: Keith Olbermann, any newscaster is worth 4 million dollars a year. It is just the opposite. Every single show host, radio host, or any other anchorman or entertainer or commentator should not earn more money than the average earned income of the people that regularly watch the show --- period. Not Olbermann or Rush or Susan Malveaux or Bill O' Reilly, or Randi Rhodes or any one should be an exception. No channel, either. economic/the Alphabets/ cable news/ satellite... no one. It would be a better world .

    I sure will. But I don't know what DU stands for or what their address? is.

    I just love being accused over and over of being a Christonazi. I don't have a religious bone in my body. I am a non practicing Catholic and was born and lived in New Orleans till just a few years ago. And New Orleans is very much a different strokes for different folks city and way of life.

    I don't care on what others base their political decisions and actions. I work that my decisions are implemented, but if they're not I don't go into paroxysms of foaming at the mouth hatred. Live and let live.

    This constant drumbeat of hatred disturbs me though because in other places at other times it has led to some of the world's most shameful moments. I wonder sometimes though if we could be heading in a direction like that before the Civil War.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I was so impressed by Cecelia I am copying it here:

    "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?...

    Posted by: Cecelia at December 29, 2006 12:51 PM"

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    The address is www.democraticunderground.com.
    You click on "Lobby" and then General Discussion and read away. Just don't try to register to become a member or post a contrary opinion. They dont' allow that sort of thing over there being good liberals and all. Must go along with the hive mentality. Here's a direct link to the General Discussion forum. Watch out, it's a real brain trust over there, what with their commie worship and dicator mourning and socialist thinking and all:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=364

    And for more kicks and giggles, check this out, it's their Keith Olbermann "Special Group". I think they're called special because they ride the short bus to their old age homes. I'd say school but these estrogen-challenged women haven't been in a school since 1973. And they just think KO is the bee's knees.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=315

    And Puck? Olbermann didn't show up tonight. They knew his groupies would accept the 5th reairing of the same episode of Oddball in the past two weeks so they just had that on instead of live programming when CNN & Fox were on live. No big names for them, nope, they used their third-stringers. But then again, aren't all the MSNBCers third stringers?

    An idiot wrote:

    > I have a question! Why don't you give a breakdown of the Gerald Fo0r episode of Countdown, hmmmmmmmmmmmm? Is it because you all know that he was sincere and respectfull of president Gerald Ford's passing?!?

    And added:

    > You still did not answer my question on why this website did not break-down the latest episode of Countdown.

    Are you referring to the writeup that we posted approximately one minute after the show ended? The one you claim isn't sitting right on the front page of this website and has, so far, over 200 comments appended to it?

    Idiot.

    Cecelia: Want to fill in for Bill O' Reilly, aye? LOL!

    So Olby came on tonight and said he came off his vacation for us. I just checked out O'Reilly's show and Bill didn't say he came off his vacation for us.

    So can we say for the Tin Foil Hat crowd Olby is their "Big Blanky"? Or The Master Sheep hearder?

    Or is it "The Ringmaster of the Looney Lib Circus"?

    Many lib news hacks say Olby has momentum going into 2007. Interesting....... I saw this on another blog.

    If the Oakland Raiders beat The New York Jets this Sunday to end at 3-13. Does that mean they have momentum going into 2007?

    Johnny Dollar does not have an answer to why, after three days, there exists no breakdown ([5] [4] [3] [2] [1]) on Keith Olbermann's unbiased coverage of the passing of Gerald Ford. Therefpr 'Dollar has to resort to name calling and leaving out what I had stated. Very good for Olbermann Watch.com, an all american annex of the national debate.

    Paragraph #1: "you don't mind being used like that, but I do." I do not know what you are talking about. Those in Keith Olbermann's saddle do not "use" us (accept for ratings). Keith Olbermann, benevolent, gleaming, thoughtfull, entertaining, neutral, meager, low-brow, unrectifyable, consorted, draconian, arbitrary, or corrosive is not using anybody --- even the people that like his program --- Sure, there may be people that follow in his footsteps in a short-term way, but come on --- Keith Olbermann is not the do all/say all in Liberalism or any other part of life. If you feel like you are being used... then it is not Olbermann using you, but Olbermann Watch that is."

    Seriously are you that stupid to believe Olberman is all the things you seem to think he is? You're either his agent, his mother, his sister, his latest employee, I mean girlfriend, or him. Olbermann has repeatedly claimed in interviews he's not biased. Yet his show is one giant bias-fest. So right away, we know he's lying. He begin making a clear turn in the direction of his show when he began to gain more and more favor from the liberal blogs. Next thing you know, he's the liberal's darling and his ratings, while still utterly pathetic, begin to go up. And then he begins the special comments. And even though he proclaims he's not doing them for the ratings, what do you know, every time he bottoms out in the ratings (which is at least once a week), he hauls another special comment out of his ass and pimps his ratings, knowing that the video will be posted on You Tube and all the liberal blogs and gosh, he'll have a momentary spike in his ratings. He's been seduced by the liberal praise and with a self-admitted egomaniac like Olbermann, that's what it's all about. By the way, is a man who sleeps with his fans and uses them for one-night stands, who is now shacked up with a recent college grad, is that Mr. Moral Imperative to you? My you must have very low morals indeed.

    "Paragraph #2: You still did not answer my question on why this website did not break-down the latest episode of Countdown."

    I'm not in charge of breakdowns of episodes. That's not my department. And I don't do them ad-hoc for the likes of you. What, is your memory so short you can't break it down for us? I mean, I know you Olbymaniacs watch each show, the original broadcast and the re-air and then tape all the episodes so you can mastrubate to them later so you should have it committed to memory by now shouldn't you?

    "Paragraph #3: Keith Olbermann, any newscaster is worth 4 million dollars a year. It is just the opposite. Every single show host, radio host, or any other anchorman or entertainer or commentator should not earn more money than the average earned income of the people that regularly watch the show --- period. Not Olbermann or Rush or Susan Malveaux or Bill O' Reilly, or Randi Rhodes or any one should be an exception. No channel, either. economic/the Alphabets/ cable news/ satellite... no one. It would be a better world ."

    Well i won't argue with you there. The salaries these people get paid to do are ridiculous but then again so are the salaries of sports stars, movie stars, the likes. But the idea that Olbermann wants Brian Williams style money (BW makes about $4 million a year) is just crazy, insane, even for Olbermann. Brian Williams hosts the most viewed broadcast, BROADCAST news show in America. Meredith Viera and Matt Lauer pull down $10 million dollars a year each. They host the most watched morning news show in America which is a vertifiable cash cow for the network based on the three hours of advertising dollars it generates for the network. Networks sell commercial time. The more viewers a show gets, the more they can charge for commercials. The more commercials, more revenue. The difference between the average ad rate of a top-rated network news show and the lowest rate cable-news show can be in the tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single 30-second ad. In no way is Olbermann worthy of $4 million and that's why you saw someone at the network squeal on him re his latest salary demands. But again, I think it's a very revealing look inside of Olbermann's messed-up head. He really thinks he's worth that kind of money and the more the liberals feed his massive ego, the more ridiculous his demands will become, the more outrageous his behavior will become, and he'll implode again just like he did at ESPN, just like he did at MSNBC the first time, just like he did at Fox Sports, the list goes on and on. Come to think of it, hell, I hope they do give it to him and let the rest of you who think he's the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and is saving Democracy will watch him sell out, bloat up, and then bail out.

    puck: Nope, Bill O' Reilly does not say that he comes off of vacation for his fanhood. --- HE SAYS THAT HE LOOKS OUT FOR THEM!!! (He also writes books about them entitled "Who's looking out for you", "The O' Reilly Factor For Children", and "Culture Warrior".)

    Correction, he writes true best-selling books, ones that end up on the best-seller lists, the real best-seller lists and not some manufactured list for 2 minutes like the ones that Olbermann pulled out of his ass.

    And real news people, you know, journalists, were out working tonight while KO was probably bedding another fan (or trying to). Why KO can't even come in this weekend to work, he's got to send in the ailing Chris Matthews because you know, Olby can't have his weekend of watching sports and hitting on his fans, and bidding on Ebay messed up just for some stupid funeral of a former president or the death of a dictator.

    Really you weren't expecting him to work tonight were you? He might slip up and say something offensive to the liberal fan base, like, I don't know, the fact that Saddam killed countless thousands of his own people and was a ruthless dicator and he just can't run the risk of those liberal fans turning on him, not at contract negotiation time and all now can we?

    Brandon: You missed the point of paragraph 1 completely. It is not that Keith Olbermann is or is not a source of some form of propaganda. The qualm here is the very fact that Keith Olbermann is not the ruler of the world. The liberal blogosphere is using Keith Olbermann as a rallying cry and that is all, right now. Keith Olbermann does not control or convey national sentiments of any active mindset and I do not even think that Keith Olbermann himself is going for that.

    Man... the Olbermann Gerald Ford coverage is almost as vitriolic as when Rush Limbaugh attacked Michael J. Fox for political bias.

    He's broadcasting the liberal talking points, straight off the liberal blogs, without any opposing opinion from anyone on his newscasts. Not only is that intellectually dishonest, it's biased reporting and it is most certainly NOT journalism, and it's WRONG. He's little more than a propagandist. You seem to think that becuase he's not number one in the ratings that we should just ignore him and let him continue on unchallenged. But what he is doing is wrong and he's fully aware of it and knows why he's doing it (more ratings = more money = more fame= more fuel to feed the massive ego) and that makes it even more unconscionable. He can actually be a very good writer when he plays it straight, but he abandoned that notion ages ago. He is 5x smoother covering breaking news stories than Anderson Cooper will ever be as an anchor, but Olbermann has chosen to waste his talents, such as they are, and sell himself out to curry favor, gain ratings, etc with liberals. That's not propaganda, it's prostitution. And in doing so, he's crossed the line and no longer deserves to be called a journalist, yet he still insists that's what he is. He's not. He's an actor now playing the part of a journalist. And if you don't think that's dangerous, than you're part of the problem. And before anyone says, "What about Fox?" I've already said I'm not a Fox fan. So no apologies from me or excuses for them to be offered up here on their behalf. This is Olbermannwatch, not FoxWatch.

    Wait a minute Bicker. Is your issue in number one that KO is NOT ruling the world and you want him to? If you think the world is screwed up now..........

    Nevermind the use of the word "almost", "is worse" is certainly more appropriate for this region. SinceMichael J. Fpx may or may not have been usin his illness as some sort of vantage point ------------------>>>>>>>>>>>KEITH OLBERMANN WAS COVERING THE FIRST HOURS OF THE AFTERMATH OF OUR 38TH PRESIDENT. Without going into any mentiopn tha Gerald Ford gave Dick Chenny, Donald Rumsfeld. Paul Wolfowitz, Danie Pearle, and Antonin Scalia their first breaks in the White House and addressed the Nixon pardoning situation in the most restraint of terms. ---------------------------- Come to think about it, if I made a living out of much raking on Keith Olbermann's name, I also would not have documented that episode, except for the "Guarded" results for the ratings.

    Not ruler of the world and never will or should be. Noone should, except Jesus Christ.

    Nope nope nope --- Keith Olbermann should be challenged for his lies --- but when you have people on board who are attacking him on a daily basis waiting for him to slip up, that is another realm of concern.

    "And, this entire exchange with you buttresses my belief that lib dems talk a great game of tolerance and inclusiveness but are some of the worst offenders of the opposite.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at December 29, 2006 10:38 PM"


    This bit of convoluted nonsense is right in line with the cries of Redwolf, always the reference to "tolerance" as though being Jewish, African American, or Gay is the same as being a proud defender of KKK religio-political fascism that advocates putting the bible above the Constitution that protects our democracy.

    Since when does ignorant anti-American and anti-democracy pro-war sentiment win you a seat with all the groups the far right has persecuted for hundreds of years in this nation?

    Once again a continuous flow of twisted logic found only in the empty heads of Sean Hannity followers. This is Sean Hannity's non-stop whine "where is the tolerance of the left?"

    Nothing like taking what you are guilty of and pretending like those who reject you are guilty of the same simply because they won't stand for your bigoted intolerant KKK Kulture of theo-fascist shit!

    Keep pretending you are the representative victims of intolerance in this nation. The rest of know very well what the true legacy of Klan Kulture is all about! Hiding your family lineage of Klan Kulture behind the bible!

    Poor babies!

    Prediction: Olbermann Watch.com combed the Gerald Ford episode three time for some-sort of lie so that they can exploit Keith Olbermann for a hard-hitting, recent inclusion on this top - ten list. They could not, thus no breakdown.

    Saddam's recent trial and execution are nothing more than evidence of how foreign interventions to change political regimes will destroy entire countries and split entire nations.

    This post is strictly for of about Puck, who I now know is the biggest jerk of everyone who posts on this site. He simply cannot make a post without calling people he's never met a liar, idiot, or both. It must be that Puck himself is nothing but a pathological liar since it is typical for liars to assume that others operate on the same bankrupt moral compass that they do.

    This is the third time this jackass has done this, even though my post was not directed at him, nor did I intentionally insult anyone. I suppose I've proven my point if this idiot can't find any way of refuting it without claiming that I'm just a damned liar!

    No, it's just not possible someone like me could live in a Christian Red State, have a Christian (Methodist) background, and have a family comprised mainly of Evangelicals (Southern Baptist & 7th Day Adventists)?...This just is not possible, is it you jerk? It's just not possible that EVERY Evangelical Christian out there is not just another sheep who hasn't figured out that Bush is an idiot. Actually, what my family really believes is that Bush is nothing but another "false profit"....one of many whom the Bible constantly warns Christians about.

    No Puck, you are one sorry excuse for a human being if the only thing you can do is come on here with incoherant rants impugning the character of someone just because they have different ideas than you do. Trust me a--hole, you do your side no favors!

    If you address me in any more of your incoherent, insulting, raving, and profane on line rants, I won't bother to read it because I'm pretty sure even the KO haters on here can see you for the jerk you clearly are!

    One thing I'm pretty sure of....only a coward would hide behind an annoymous Internet keyboard and call others trying to engage in an honest debate 'liars'!

    Mike,
    Never argue with fools, for they will mock the wisdom of your words!

    Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker],
    Olbermann is an intellectual coward. If his beliefs are so strong why doesn't he debate with someone like Michael Savage. He's a propgandist. That's all he is.

    Thanks for doing this I really appreciate SOMEBODY! COUNTERATTACKING HIM! I didn't know that 88% of his Worst Person in the worlds were conservatives.

    You should really go after INN and the 9/11 Conspiracy kooks I'd really appreciate that.

    I don't have cable TV at home, but have 'stumbled' across several KO rants when staying in hotels.

    To me, he is the alter-ego of Michael Savage, one of the men he appears to love to hate. Yet I do not see in KO any of the originality of thought or capacity for ideas that exist in the other.

    KO appears to live exclusively off sarcastic tirades, without saying anything fresh or original of his own.

    I was shocked when I first heard him. I find his rants vile, vitriolic, dripping with undisguised malice and hatred. I regard him as one of the most disgusting men on television today.

    I would very much contrast his style with that of Dennis Prager, who is respectful and tolerant of his intellectual, idealogical opponents ... as they themselves will often concede and express gratitude for.

    Prager always has guests on his show who disagree with him on all manner of subjects, and he engages them politely, respectfully, fairly and firmly.

    Admittedly, I don't watch much of KO, but he seems to interview mainly his own types and stages little luv-ins with them ... from what I have seen.

    Althogh TV is a difficult job which many of us would absolutely fail in, KO appears to me to be an intellectual lightweight who could not cope with the rigor of debate, and so he is restricted to scratching and clawing in a very schoolgirl-like manner, without ever having to face his adversaries in person.

    He makes me feel ill. But maybe that's what MSNBC wants .. maybe it's good for ratings.

    I don't have cable TV at home, but have 'stumbled' across several KO rants when staying in hotels.

    To me, he is the alter-ego of Michael Savage, one of the men he appears to love to hate. Yet I do not see in KO any of the originality of thought or capacity for ideas that exist in the other.

    KO appears to live exclusively off sarcastic tirades, without saying anything fresh or original of his own.

    I was shocked when I first heard him. I find his rants vile, vitriolic, dripping with undisguised malice and hatred. I regard him as one of the most disgusting men on television today.

    I would very much contrast his style with that of Dennis Prager, who is respectful and tolerant of his intellectual, idealogical opponents ... as they themselves will often concede and express gratitude for.

    Prager always has guests on his show who disagree with him on all manner of subjects, and he engages them politely, respectfully, fairly and firmly.

    Admittedly, I don't watch much of KO, but he seems to interview mainly his own types and stages little luv-ins with them ... from what I have seen.

    Althogh TV is a difficult job which many of us would absolutely fail in, KO appears to me to be an intellectual lightweight who could not cope with the rigor of debate, and so he is restricted to scratching and clawing in a very schoolgirl-like manner, without ever having to face his adversaries in person.

    He makes me feel ill. But maybe that's what MSNBC wants .. maybe it's good for ratings.

    "He makes me feel ill. But maybe that's what MSNBC wants .. maybe it's good for ratings.

    Posted by: Geraint Roberts at December 30, 2006 03:05 AM"


    Gee I wonder how a person whose commentary rounds about an eighth grade level only sees KO while staying in "hotel rooms"? Your parents taking you to Disney Land often?

    "To me, he is the alter-ego of Michael Savage, one of the men he appears to love to hate."

    Again with claims of "hate", what is the sense of pretending to be an original poster here when you are going to use the most over used word by fools who dwell on one man when we all know it is Bush you are humiliated about. KO was a major player in putting an end to the criminal antics of the entire Republican party. You put your eggs in the wrong basket Bucko! Mr. Savage is your cup of tea, you seem to know a thing or two about him. Your parents let you listen to the radio too when you're at Disney Land?

    Tell Goofy you want free ice cream!

    (google this name: Geraint Roberts )

    Against all evidence of partisanship and irrefutable lying and embellishment, I will defend Olbermann. I am a loon and I will say over the top things such as Bush is the worst ever and I will show my historical ignorance by making claims about free speech restriction and curbs on civil liberties. I am a loon. I have no idea what I am talking about but I will still look down my nose. I don't even know what I don't know and my ass never get tired of talking.

    Bicker said: "Nope nope nope --- Keith Olbermann should be challenged for his lies --- but when you have people on board who are attacking him on a daily basis waiting for him to slip up, that is another realm of concern."

    Why is that such an area of concern for you? The site is called Olbermannwatch. What do you want us to do? Fall down on our knees and join the Olbyloons in worshipping him as the Second Coming, savior of the democracy, the new Edward R. Murrow, etc? And in fact you did notice that when Olbermann plays it mostly straight as he did on Thursday night, there's just not a whole lot there to critique. Now if he could only do that every night, and do his job, and do it correctly, without the lies, bias, etc, I honestly wouldn't be here talking about him.

    Your assert that it is an 'area of concern" for you that we at Olbermannwatch are gathered here on a daily basis to 'attack" him. Can I ask you why it's not an area of concern for you that his own fansites do not allow a contrary word to be said about him? Is that what you want? Open worship only of him allowed?

    I have spent a lot of time observing liberal websites and more specifically, the Keith Olbermann fansites, it's something of a hobby of mine just for the sheer amusement factor. And I can tell you that from what I've observed, no genuine criticism can be spoken of him in any way, shape, or form at those websites.Did you know that the more fanatical of his fans ganged up on one site that actually dared to call him on his BS, threatened to sue the moderator of that board and its members for defamation, slander, etc? All because the members of that board weren't appropriately worship of his Royal Highness? That type of fanatical behavior and censorship of fans by other fans is far more dangerous than anything we offer up here at Olbermannwatch but I never saw a single board question the demise of that one fan board, instead, they celebrated it. If you were the liberals you claim to be, shouldn't open and free speech and debate be welcomed? Shouldn't people be called out for their BS, their lies? Their hypocrisy? You and your liberal brothers and sisters want to slam Bush, Fox, the GOP etc all day long but you seem to have a real problem with anyone, even if they are a FAN Of Olbermann's for calling our Olbermann or the Dems, etc. Don't you see your own hypocrisy in this?

    As I've said, I read the liberal websites. I've seen it over and over again, this ganging up against people who ask real questions, point out inconsistencies, etc. That should disturb you far more, the demand for group-think.

    I'm not saying that the conservatives aren't guilty of it too at some sites but here at Owatch all forms of debate are welcome and Bob Cox doesn't censor or delete posts (unless they're pushing porn or drugs). Why don't these other liberal websites and more specifically, the Olberamnn fan sites do the same?

    There seems to be a rather large element which honestly believes that Olbermann is above any critique at all so long as he continues to openly slant the news in the direction they want. And I think he's absolutely encouraged that and tried to set himself up so that if his employers dump him for behaviors totally non-related to his outspokeness, he'll be able to say, "Look, they dumped me because I was too liberal." And no one is questioning this repositioning of Olbermann by Olbermann to set himself up to be beyond critique by openly embracing the liberal side. And it's worked so well for him that his fanatical fans absolutely, 100% believe that he shouldn't be questioned at this or any other site, including his own FAN sites!

    Good mornings fascist progressives...

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast,

    My post you are referring to said the following:

    "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."

    You misunderstand the reason for this post. It was in response to your claim and question:

    "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?"

    The forces in Iraq are not their to bring Christ to the people, they are defending them from elements committed to radical islam. That is why Christ has nothing to do with this secular event called war. You leftists try to claim Bush and the right are on a religious crusade but never supply evidence that proves your claim.

    I would gladly serve if called (and I have not received a calling either through consignment or personally) based on my personal faith in the following verse:

    "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command."
    JOHN 15:12-14

    That is what our coalition forces are doing in Iraq. They are killing the Iraqi people, they are defending them from murderers....terrorists. The left only sees hatred....they cannot see that the sacrifices being made by the close to 3000 troops have been for a noble cause....freedom.

    Jesus Christ taught about many things other than what love is...he showed us holiness IN ALL THINGS...including...

    business transactions
    sexual behavior
    compassion for those in need

    But the bottom line always was: What was the relationship between Jehovah and his creation and how did Yeshuah fit in that relationship.

    Yeshuah (Jesus) is to be King, our shepherd, our mother hen, our Prince. Submission to Christ in ALL things is what he requested..."pick up your cross."

    This is frwequently forgotten both by his self-proclaimed followers and those who only see Christ as a good man.

    It seems to me that the progressive secularists posting here either...

    1 Do not believe there even is a Jehovah
    2 Pick the few items they agree with out of the bible (and hit people over the head with them) and throw away the rest as either anachronistic or opressive (INCLUDING MANY OF THE HARD TEACHINGS OF CHRIST)

    or

    3 Say the whole thing is a bunch of childish stupidity and ignore it entirely

    Again, I think both I and anyone who truly follows the teachings of Christ will say "ok, that is what you believe," and walk away. But when radical secularists begin blaming the current worldy turmoils on Evangelical Christians wholesale and suggest they should be opressed, segregated, hated....I will call it what it is....

    bigotry.

    This is _______ Watcher's, Shaun's and even Loin's ultimate end.....hatred....the very basis of fascist thought.

    Again, I stll feel safe in my country that wisely enforces (for the most part) the vital freedom clauses of the Judeo-Christian US Constitution. Until the secularists gain enough power to supress free thought, the reasonable people that make up over 80% of this country will be able to freely worship as they choose.

    I know, I know.....before you all start attacking me...it should have been:

    That is what our coalition forces are doing in Iraq. They are NOT killing the Iraqi people, they are defending them from murderers....terrorists. The left only sees hatred....they cannot see that the sacrifices being made by the close to 3000 troops have been for a noble cause....freedom.

    Let me preface this by saying that Saddam was a brutal dictator and deserved what he got. The world is a better place now that he has been sent off this mortal coil.

    That being said his execution, while within the bounds of Iraqi law, seemed to be more of the same old "publicity stunt" mentality that this Administration has used to shore up the war. It was played as an "look, we did something!" moment - but no one can explain how this execution makes us any safer or advances the cause of eliminating terrorism.

    If anything, the fact that his execution occurred just before a major Muslim holy day (Eid) and the talk of cremating his body (which is a desecration in the Muslim faith) may stoke the insurgency and cause them to lash out with even harsher attacks.

    What day isn't a major muslim holy day?

    Some rightie above equated Saddam with Castro and Chavez. This is spurious - particularly the childish, menaingless analogy drawn to C
    Chavez.

    In terms of deaths caused his analogs are in the line of Hitler and Stalin, although he had some catching up to do in that regard. In terms of his relation to our country Manuel Noriega and Osama bin Laden are more accurately identified as his peers, these a--holes being creations of the US/CIA who outlived their usefulness to become targets themselves.

    I wonder how George H W Bush feels at his execution? - Saddam having been a dependent ally of his supported through the worst of his documented crimes by word, action, and treasure.

    Some rightie above equated Saddam with Castro and Chavez. This is spurious - particularly the childish, menaingless analogy drawn to
    Chavez.

    In terms of deaths caused his analogs are in the line of Hitler and Stalin, although he had some catching up to do in that regard. In terms of his relation to our country Manuel Noriega and Osama bin Laden are more accurately identified as his peers, these a--holes being creations of the US/CIA who outlived their usefulness to become targets themselves.

    I wonder how George H W Bush feels at his execution? - Saddam having been a dependent ally of his supported through the worst of his documented crimes by word, action, and treasure

    That's right all the bad ones are the fault of the US. We forced them to kill people, but don't try to remove these people, then I will say that the maniacal dictator was contained and was no threat. Either way you a screwed and it is America's fault. It is best to do absolutely nothing and talk a big game as if I could do something, if only ...... .

    I've been through all of this before re Castro & Chavez. 95% of the left adores them, praises them as if they wish they were OUR leaders and live in utter and total denial about what these men are really like. Quite frankly it would be fine with me if they lined them both up and threw them off a gallows or two as well.

    Brandon - you have not been through this before. I've asked you and anyone else here to lay out for me exactly what the crimes are that Chavez is supposed to have committed, and I always get squat.

    He doesn't like Bush; he's based his popularity on his bucking of northern hemisphere corporate patronage; he has made strong threats against foreign corporations taking too active a role in his country's politics; ...


    ....but he's never jailed a single journalist or closed a single newspaper, despite surviving one US-backed coup attempt , two general elections, and one special recall referrendum.

    Yeah, brandon, lots of autocratic dictators acquiesse to special recall referrenda.

    "BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll. "

    http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061229-101021-1168r


    They are mostly glad to see him die...I wonder how they'd party if we executed Bush?

    EE, how contradictory to yourself can you be in two short paragraphs.

    That publicity stunt mentality and implied control over the Iraqi's by the US have come together to execute Hussein on one of the biggest party weekend and holiday seasons of our year. Not only a weekend when folks are distracted, but a former President is being honored and buried this weekend. And the A team of news networks and news and opinion shows are not working and the whole sub line is in.

    I realize you intensely dislike GWB et al, but your argument is thin. Sometimes, things are just what they are said to be. And your emotional reaction that everything that happens shows you again how bad GWB et al is a bit sad.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    "BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll. "

    http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061229-101021-1168r


    They are mostly glad to see him die...I wonder how they'd party if we executed Bush?

    "BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll. "


    Where is Challenger Grim, with all his hectoring that lefties never look at the "good news"? What good news?

    Beef, not for the first time, you are lying your ass off. I posted any number of links several weeks ago that illustrated the human rights violations and supression of the media and citizens by Chavez. You just chose to ignore the facts, as you always do when they collide with your mindset about what you prefer to believe. Look back through the archives, you'll find it you lazy, dishonest bastard. Now I know what you have in common with Olbermann.

    Brandon, I remember those posts - lengthy screeds of innuendo and rhetoric.

    Tell me some facts; how many dissidents has he killed? How many journalists has he jailed? Haw many political prisoners is he jailing? How many sovereign nations has he invaded or atacked? Which ethnic minorities is he oppressing and how?

    Go look it up yourself you lazy bastard. I'm using well-known "conservative" sources like Amnesty International, PBS, Time Magazine, & the BBC. These articles document his systematic take-over of the court systems, his dispensing of due process, his clamp down on the media, and his supression in elections by voters which ensure his reelection. It's not my problem that you're too damn lazy to read them and too damn stupid to understand what you read if you read them. But yoru continued claims that he's not a dictator are laughable at best and pathetic at worse. But you do continue to prove my point re the left's continued love for and support of dictators. Tell me, does this sound like a country you want to go live in? If so, let me know. I'll be glad to buy you a one-way ticket there or to Cuba.

    http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24491/pub_detail.asp

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1562009,00.html
    In Venezuela, It's Support Chavez — Or Else

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm
    Venezuela 'landslide' for Chavez

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/latin_america/venezuela/index.html
    In-depth look at Venezuela by PBS

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6787
    Corruption, Mismanagement, and Abuse of Power in Hugo Chávez's Venezuela

    http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2006/68968.htm
    Venezuela: Terrorism Hub of South America?
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530032004?open&of=ENG-VEN
    Venezuela: Fear for safety/use of excessive force

    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530042006?open&of=ENG-384
    http://www.amnesty.org/un_hrc/venezuela.html
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530032006?open&of=ENG-2M3

    I have a bush in my front yard and there is another one in the Oval office.

    If the one in my front yard had been president for the last 6 years, the country would be in FAR better shape than it is today!

    Brandon,

    I read your links. Big Deal.

    "Incidents of political violence,
    attributed to both government and opposition supporters, during President
    Chavez’s administration, such as the deaths and injuries during the attempted
    coup of 11 April 2002, have not been investigated effectively and have gone
    unpunished. The impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators encourages further human
    rights violations in a particularly volatile political climate."

    Amnesty International doesn't seem to really say who the reported civil rights abuses are to be attribued to. Their cataloguing of some 6000 reported killings by police cover five years that span the last two years of Chavez's predescessor, as well as the 2002 military coup that was supported and recognized by the United States. In all, a taking of the general natonal temperature of unrest and turmoil, but nothing at all interms of partisan attribution.

    The Time article is blown-up propaganda - if the "purges" (i.e. "firings") it reports are true, then so are the administration's explanations that it was curtailing undue foreign manipulations of Venzuela's political process. I for one would not advocate a US war with Venezuela based on a few firings of potentially traitorous bureacrats.

    Thanks for including the PBS article - it clearly vindicates Chavez of any alleged "over-reaction" to foreign-owned (US, Britain) media outlets that overtly broadcast disinformation during the elections and coup attempt.

    I didn't read all of the Cato Inst. document, which was writen by a former member of a previous US-patronized administration; but I am fully willing to believe that increased government control of oil revenues has been coincident with a rise of government corrtion in regard to this money. Big deal - Any data as to how it measures up to the levels of US/British oil company corruption in regard to Venzuelan oil revenues that they used to control?

    The COngressional report is utter innuendo - part of the petulent pissing match that's been going on between the US Republicans and CHavez lately. The fact that "Chavez has sought deals with Iran" does not make him a terrorist, noe do the activities of Columbian paramilitary cocaine dealers near his borders. Reprehensible innuendo by legislators who should act more like adults.

    The BBC article identifies a purpoted "boycott" of the recent elections by opposition parties as being responsible for a low voter turnout (25%). er... a voluntary boycott does not represent opression.


    You didn't read these yourself, did you? Lazy bastard. You just posted them because the evocative headlines seemed anti-Chavez. I fuly admit that CHavez gets a lot of bad press in the US - its just interesting that the facts are rather slim.

    The right wing is already salivating over an oil war in this hemisphere, and Chavez is clearly in their sites. There is no casus belli here, only looming patsy-ship to energy corporations and the MIC.

    You tried this once before Chicken McNuggets. Do you really want me to embarrass you yet again by pointing out how you have cherry-picked single lines within lengthy articles in the hopes that people won't be intellectually curious enough to go read the entire article? That didn't turn out quite so well for you last time, are you sure you want to go there again?

    Chavez is a thug, a dictator who hero worships another brutal dictator, Castro in much the way that Saddam modeled himself after other dictators.

    The only reason you support him is that he insults Bush. What you're too much of an idiot to realize is that he would say the same things if Clinton were still in Office. It's the UNITED STATES he hates you dumbass and that includes YOU. But go ahead and continue to support dictators and sadists like Chavez and Castro. It just goes to show everyone here what a true idiot you really are.

    That's right. All the right wing wants is war. Just put out of your mind the fact that Hugo wants to shut down television stations that he accuses of subversive activities.

    -Chavez was asked in a televised interview if he would consider asking the nation whether the government should block certain channels from renewing their broadcast licenses next year.

    "That is perfectly possible," Chavez said. "It's perfectly possible that the country gives its opinion, including for how long."

    Chavez also said he regretted not having shut down the country's major private broadcasters right after a short-lived 2002 coup against him, citing four in particular: Globovision, Venevision, RCTV and Televen.

    I will keep denying these FACTS just like my fellow douchebag, sir loin of incomprehensible self hatred. I am so open-minded that I ignore arguments and facts that do not support my own twisted, illogical arguments on behalf of Chavez and Castro. I will ignore the old axiom that your friends tell a lot about a person. I am a dumbass.

    the latest on Chavez? He's pulling the plug on the only opposition television network in the country. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6215815.stm

    But hey, ignore the evidence that he's supressing free speech and free press in his own country because that would mean I'm right, you're wrong and this man is a dictator. And we can't have the liberal Chavez love fest shut down over a simple thing like facts now can we? Just so long as he continues to Bush bash, you're happy, screw freedom of the press, free speech, and the right to due process of its citizens. Who cares so long as he Bush bashes! viva Chavez says Chicken Mcnuggetless!

    Brandon,

    I have made "tender vittles" look like the idiot self-loather that he is several before times beginning a couple months ago, but this glutton for punishment just keeps posting nonsense over and over again. Evidently, he really likes to write and read his own bullshit.

    Hey "Vittles",

    No one gives a shit that you majored in English Lit and that you know a little Latin. Hell I took 8 years of a Latin in high school then college. You know why I don't remember that much from my Latin days? Because its a dead freakin language, and I have no earthly use for it. So unless you are a scientist, doctor, or a pretentious ass, give it a freakin rest.

    Ita vero puer. Tu filius non matris ovis

    Pulling the plug? Their license is up for this American founded/American owned oposition newspaper, and the govt is legally declining to renew it.

    Why is the right always manufacturing enemies?

    wrong, Brandon; I approve strongly of Chavez'z naionalization of his country's natural resources and putting the proceded to the benefit of the people. A slavish corporate scuttlebutt lke you wouldn't understand.

    > Their license is up

    Sir Loin defends this? Perhaps he thinks the federal government here should license newspapers too. See, then the government could "legally decline" to license them, and silence any newspaper they like. Why does it not surprise me that Sir Lion, who defends a descredited sports guy that censors opinions other than his own, also defends government censorship of free speech?

    Brandon and his punk corporate gophers are fighting hard to start another oil war they will hide from serving in. Go Venezuela!

    Brandon and his punk corporate gopher freinds are fighting hard to start another oil war they will hide from serving in. Go Venezuela!

    "Why is the right always manufacturing enemies?"

    That's what I am saying.

    No johnny, I just don't like our country nosing into the internal affairs of peaceful. self-determined countries. Venezuela went through the 20th century as an American/British oil colony, and it was terrible for the majority of the people there. American-owned media outlets have formed the core of the US-funded opposition to any attempts to nationalize the benefits of the conty's natural resources. I don't blame Chavez for his concern in regard to these powerful forces - What would you propose we do with a Iranian-owned network set up in Washington that had demonstrably funnelled money and propagandized for a failed military coup in this country? Be honest.

    No johnny, I just don't like our country nosing into the internal affairs of peaceful. self-determined countries. Venezuela went through the 20th century as an American/British oil colony, and it was terrible for the majority of the people there. American-owned media outlets have formed the core of the US-funded opposition to any attempts to nationalize the benefits of the conty's natural resources. I don't blame Chavez for his concern in regard to these powerful forces - What would you propose we do with a Iranian-owned network set up in Washington that had demonstrably funnelled money and propagandized for a failed military coup in this country? Be honest.

    Licensing newspapers doesn't mean "State Sanctioning" it simply means that we know better for you than you know for yourself.

    Question: Do you have any comment regarding draft legislation proposed by Venezuelan President Chavez to crack down on freedom of the press and curb freedom of expression?

    Answer: The U.S. is closely watching the debate in Venezuela’s National Assembly on the draft Media Content Law. As U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela Charles S. Shapiro said May 13 during an event in honor of International Press Freedom Day, “The situation in Venezuela is very worrisome. Last year, some 80 reporters were assaulted -- in many cases with firearms and knives. Newspaper buildings and television and radio stations were attacked. Yet no investigations have identified those responsible for these attacks; no one has been prosecuted for these actions.” Continuing, the Ambassador stated, “It is enough to say this: These aggressions are unacceptable and intolerable.” We hope that this draft legislation enhances protections for these essential elements of democracy and does not contribute to the further erosion of these freedoms in Venezuela.

    Go Hugo!!!

    "Why is the right always manufacturing enemies?"

    That's what I am saying."

    Hah!! so this douchebag Chamberlain is saying Chavez represents another Hitler. Your standards for virulent dictatorships are pretty low these days.

    Al Jazeera's news channel is starting in the US in 2007. The Chinese own the majority of ports in California, and Sir Loin is an idiot.

    Yeah. That whole nationalist socialist movement and shady elections thing. Why would I ever think they were similar? Pick up a history book for crap's sake.

    If Al Jazeera ever is shown to have the ties to bona fide traitors to this country that Empressas IBC similary exhibits in regard to Venezuela, I will help storm their offices myself. I also don't like the CHinese or any other foreign country owning our ports, you f---ing doormat corporate glory-hole whore.

    You go Sir. Capitalism sux. Collectivism stimulates invention and progress just ask the Soviets.

    "If Al Jazeera ever is shown to have the ties to bona fide traitors to this country that Empressas IBC similary exhibits in regard to Venezuela, I will help storm their offices myself."

    No amount of evidence would ever persuade people like you.

    Its best-known Arab reporter, Tayssir Allouni, was arrested in Spain in September for his alleged membership of a Syrian-dominated Al-Qaeda group suspected of close links to the cell responsible for the Sept 11 attacks. He has since been charged.

    Then, in October, US forces detained two Al-Jazeera employees covering a suicide bombing at a police station in Baghdad suspected of having had prior knowledge of the attack. They had arrived at the scene and started to film before the bomb went off.

    That publicity stunt mentality and implied control over the Iraqi's by the US have come together to execute Hussein on one of the biggest party weekend and holiday seasons of our year. Not only a weekend when folks are distracted, but a former President is being honored and buried this weekend.

    Kinda like when the Bush Ad/GOP COngress tried to push their worst bills through (the ones that hurt people and helped corporations) on the unsuspecting public by doing it on a late Friday afternoon or the day before a holiday.

    Those damn corporations. All they do is invent stuff, employ people, provide health care, retirement, and make our lives easier. Damn corporations. We would be much better if the government just took care of everything.

    Anon,

    I am unaware of these events. If they are accurate, then I imagine Al Jezeera could be declared persona non grata, and I would support barring them from operating in the US. I'll look into it on my own acount.

    But back to Chavez - why the enmity? This country is embarassingly pussified in regard to who we consider threats these days: "oh no - toothless Saddam is going to bomb our eastern seaboard! EEK! Hugo Chavez has insulted president Bush! This weak, impoverished country that has never invaded anyone represents an existential threat to America!!"

    You people just jump on any bandwagon your masters tell you to - you ignore the fact that half of our allies actually ARE brutal, violent, opressive dictators and you waste your political capital trying to pressure a popular democatic socialist leader in a struggling banana republic into becoming one. This is immoral, cowardly, and venal. You consider cheap gas worth putting on a show of fearfulness that time after time results in our brutally swamping the self-determination of societies that have been forced into peasantry for generations. America is becming a nation of venal cowards.

    U.S. intelligence is still coming to grips with reports that Al Qaeda and
    other Muslim terrorist groups are setting up bases in Venezuela. A London
    newspaper reports Osama bin Laden has established a training camp on
    Venezuela's Margarita Island, a tourist destination that also has an
    Arab-Muslim community and a bad reputation as a hangout for smugglers and
    terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

    U.S. intelligence is still coming to grips with reports that Al Qaeda and
    other Muslim terrorist groups are setting up bases in Venezuela. A London
    newspaper reports Osama bin Laden has established a training camp on
    Venezuela's Margarita Island, a tourist destination that also has an
    Arab-Muslim community and a bad reputation as a hangout for smugglers and
    terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

    The more you know about Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and his list of
    friends, the less surprising this all seems. Footage shows Hugo hugging
    Iranian President Khatami. More footage shows Hugo hugging Libya's Moammar
    Gaddafy. By the way, you won't find any video of Hugo meeting, much less,
    hugging George W. Bush.

    But Chavez has met with Saddam Hussein. In fact, he was the first foreign
    leader to visit Baghdad after the first Gulf War, and he expressed his
    admiration for Saddam. He has offered support to convicted terrorist Carlos
    "The Jackal." He considers Fidel Castro his mentor. He gives sanctuary to
    Colombia's FARC rebels, a group that is trying to overthrow the Colombian
    government and has also killed Americans.

    Hugo Chavez came to power by tapping into frustration over Venezuela's
    corrupt political system. He was elected in 1998 by a landslide. Since then,
    Chavez has been engaged in what has been called a "slow-motion
    constitutional coup." He has abolished the senate, brought in Cubans as
    strike-breakers against the oil industry, and organized gangs to beat up
    opponents.

    Venezuelan opposition leader Omar Garcia-Bolivar said, "He was elected, we
    respect the fact that he was elected. But then he turned to a non-democratic
    agenda. He violates the constitution, he encourages violence and so on. We
    Venezuelans are feeling the violation of human rights, the lack of respect
    of rule of law, the lack of respect to freedom."

    Last December, a former high-level Venezuelan major gave sworn testimony
    that he personally delivered a million dollars to Al Qaeda and Taliban
    forces in Afghanistan, on behalf of Chavez. Chavez did not condemn the
    attacks of 9/11 until his silence became a political issue. Then he called
    the U.S. attack on Afghanistan "terrorism." But would Chavez be bold enough,
    or some would say stupid enough, to allow Al Qaeda to operate in Venezuela?

    "There's a lot that we don't know about his motives, a lot that he keeps
    concealed," said Stephen Johnson, a Latin American specialist at the
    Heritage Foundation.

    Johnson says even though the claims about Al Qaeda in Venezuela have not
    been verified, he considers them to be highly probable.

    "It'd be very easy for them to operate there, and they would not be
    unwelcome in Venezuela. There's testimony, the testimonial evidence. There's
    anecdotal evidence. But none of this has really been followed up, and it
    needs to be," Johnson said.

    Garcia-Bolivar said, "The fact that President Chavez has met with Saddam
    Hussein. The fact that President Chavez has met with Moammar Ghaddafy and Al
    Khatami.the friendship with Fidel Castro, the fact he has not condemned the
    guerillas in Colombia, all of those things kind of take you to suspect that
    there is some kind of connection."

    General James Hill, Commander of the U.S. Southern Command, has recently
    admitted that in Venezuela the U.S. has a new problem on its hands. Some
    still believe Chavez will have to clean up his act in order to revive
    Venezuela's oil industry and woo back its biggest customer, the United
    States. But on the other hand, Chavez has also said that trade agreements
    with the United States are "the road to Hell."

    Johnson said, "Venezuela is one of the more extreme examples of a failed
    society; of a democracy that's elected a dictator. You look at Venezuela and
    the chaos there and the kind of government that has begun to take shape
    under Hugo Chavez, what you would probably remark is that it is Haiti with
    oil."

    Garcia-Bolivar not only agrees, he sees what could be a dire future ahead.
    He feels most Venezuelans will not stand for the direction Hugo Chavez wants
    to take the country, which is probably a Cuban-style dictatorship. "It's
    gonna get worse. And the worst, we believe, is going to be a civil war. A
    lot of civilians in Venezuela are now believing that the only way out of
    this situation they have is violence," he said.

    I have no masters. I have a brain and critical thinking skills. I'm also not a socialist/communist sympathizer like you are Chicken McNuggetless. We've outlined how Chavez is systematically depowering the court system in his country, yanking the plug on opposition media, and the voting irregularities in elections during his tenure. You of course have supplied excuses for all of them and still seem to think he's a hell of a guy. If we took away Chavez's outspoken criticisim of Bush I wonder what you'd say to all of this? What if he were a supporter of Bush's? What would you say then? No wonder you're an idol of Olbermann's: you're just as big of a hypocrite and not even half as bright as he is so you're very easily persuaded and of course, as always, hatred for Bush so leads the way in your thinking that it's completely blinded you to the truth.

    I have no masters. I have a brain and critical thinking skills. I'm also not a socialist/communist sympathizer like you are Chicken McNuggetless. We've outlined how Chavez is systematically depowering the court system in his country, yanking the plug on opposition media, and the voting irregularities in elections during his tenure. You of course have supplied excuses for all of them and still seem to think he's a hell of a guy. If we took away Chavez's outspoken criticisim of Bush I wonder what you'd say to all of this? What if he were a supporter of Bush's? What would you say then? No wonder you're an idol of Olbermann's: you're just as big of a hypocrite and not even half as bright as he is so you're very easily persuaded and of course, as always, hatred for Bush so leads the way in your thinking that it's completely blinded you to the truth.

    "Cuban-style dictatorships" occur when wealthy super-power neighbors of small struggling countries tired of serfdom will not give the smaller, weaker parties any breathing room whatsoever. I do not advocate or applaud the grip that Castro has maintained on Cuban society, but had he relented his country would have succummed to the billions of American dollars being spent to revert the country to the private feifdom for the American oligarchy that it was for the 1st half of the 20th century. Chavez is facing the same thing.

    So how exactly do your right-wing brains make the shift from cheering for wars to promote democracy to cheering for wars to stifle a small, sovereign demoratic country's determination of of its peaceful policy course and dispensation of property rights?

    yeah, that whole Cuba thing is working out so well for the people there that they just keep trying to make boats out of cars from the 1950's in a desperate bid to get away from the abject poverty in that country. And the whole crap about the free medical care available there? If it's so wonderful than why were they flying in a doctor and medical equipment from Spain to treat ole' Fidel?

    Thanks McNuggetless: You've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a communist sympathizer and that what you really want is socialisim in this country. So tell me, why aren't you firing off angry screeds asking Mr. olbermann to redistribute his requested $4 million a year to the serfs that watch his program?

    yeah, that whole Cuba thing is working out so well for the people there that they just keep trying to make boats out of cars from the 1950's in a desperate bid to get away from the abject poverty in that country. And the whole crap about the free medical care available there? If it's so wonderful than why were they flying in a doctor and medical equipment from Spain to treat ole' Fidel?

    Thanks McNuggetless: You've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are a communist sympathizer and that what you really want is socialisim in this country. So tell me, why aren't you firing off angry screeds asking Mr. olbermann to redistribute his requested $4 million a year to the serfs that watch his program?

    Brandon, you have merely outlined the systematic, recycled framing of Chavez by our corporatist government. You are merely looking for excuses to start a war that you think will swell your 401k. Anonymous cut and pasted a write up - probably out of the British papers- that makes baseless allegations that have been floated for years without a shred of evidence.

    If you in fact advocate an American war against Venezuela, as I suspect strongly that you do, tell me how the casus belli would be stated.

    Please try to understand, Brandon - I did not say it worked out well. I am saying that we are almost entirely responsible due to the severe limitation of options we left to Castro. Sovereign governments throughout history have almost never voluntarily relinquished their sovereignty - the Swiss Cantons and the 13 American colonies are just about the only example I can think of - and those were unique instances in which ethnio and social similarities amongst the parties were strong enough to foster trust in the new constitutionsl processes represented by these examples. The revolutionary Cubans knew that allowing American influence to dictate their course would only revive the harsh colonialism they had sufered under for centuries. The harsh socialism of Castro may be no better, but its his and our pressure only gave him the opportunity to clamp down.

    That was the American plan, and it kills the oligarchs that Fidel has held out this long.

    You mention the people leaving Cuba in ramshackle boats: that is indeed indicative of severe dissatisfaction in that country - but what about the pressures that drove the island's population to follow 60 waterlogged, shot-up revolutionaries that popped up on a beach one day and took the country from the US-aligned Batistas?


    I thought I was a backwards redneck who lived in a trailer park and was married to my sister. I've got a 401K now and golfing buddies? Which is it Beef?

    And as usual, you're wrong. I do not support a war against Chavez and it's news to me we're planning one. And re Cuba? As usual you are 100% wrong.

    To educate yourself and of course, cherry-pick out of context lines you will come back and quote here to "prove" something that of course doens't exist, but here, links:

    http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/2004/33656.htm
    Human Rights in Cuba

    http://www.canf.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm
    The truth about Health Care in Cuba

    http://www.canf.org/camila's%20trial%20and%20error/cuba%20accused%20slave%20labor.htm
    Slave Labor situation in Castro's Cuba in 2006

    http://www.canf.org/camila's%20trial%20and%20error/cuban%20reporters%20face%20harrassment.htm
    Castro and the Press

    The last three are links to articles in newspapers, mostly from the Miami Herald whom I'm sure you'll tell me is biased towards the Cuban dissidents because of the large Cuban population in South Florida, not knowing that there has been somewhat of a battle between the editors of the Miami Herald and the S. Florida Cubans.

    But to summarize, Castro has "redistributed" the wealth in his country all right, right into the pockets of his family and wealthy friends and supporters. They can carry $3,000 purses and wear designer clothing and receive the best of medical care but somehow, those funds aren't filtering down to the poor in Cuba as you seem to think. Cuba has assets which they could use for their poor independent of trade with the U.S. which you seem to think the lack of is the root of all economic evils in Cuba. Again, you're talking out of your ass about something you have zero knowledge of and again, supporting a communist dictator who has brutually supressed opposition of any kind to his regieme within his own country. The idea that you seem to think that the U.S. is the root of all evil again illustrates how much you hate your own country and again, the offer remains to buy you a free ticket to the communist/socialist country of your choice where you might finally develop a true understanding of the difference between the liberal ideals of what these countries are and the brutual reality of what they're really like. Hell, you might even learn to like your own country instead of hating it so much.

    Talking to you is like talking to a mud-fence, Brandon. Who said I "support" Castro? In fact I have been telling you very clearly that I believe it was our superpower pressure that created the current undesirebale conditions in Cuba, and I think it would be wise to avoid a similar course of action in Venezuela.

    But think what you want...er, I mean; what your corporate masters want you to think.

    Grammie:

    I'm sorry, but when American news networks (except MSNBC) hold this macabre "death watch" over Saddam, I can't help but wonder when we became a modern-day Rome and his execution a Coliseum event. It's ghoulish and sickening - executions should not be celebrated, no matter how horrid the criminal. And the way this was handled cannot help but raise the speculation of "PR stunt".

    The Administration can keep its bread and circuses. I shall have no part of it.

    EE, your contention was that GWB et al controlled the time and manner of Husseins execution as a publicity stunt. I pointed out the factors that argue against that statement: our biggest holiday season of the year, bigest party time of the year, the death of a former president and national attention distracted by State Funeral and B and C reporters filling in for the A teams.

    And now your argument is that American news outlets have handled it by making it a 'macbre death watch', is equivalent to bread and circuses. So, naturally it is a publicity stunt engineered by GWB.

    Is there anything you consider evil in the world that you don't lay at the feet of GWB et al. I would not want our government handling executions exactly as the Iraqis have. But, they were Hussein's victims and did it based on their laws and customs.

    And my sorrow and revulsion goes completely to the hundreds of thousands who would have been glad to trade the deaths they had at his hands than the ones they did have. In short, I am pleased that he met his fate at the hands of the Iraqis themselves.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    Loon, I like your approach. It puts me in mind of hoisting petards.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    "I pointed out the factors that argue against that statement: our biggest holiday season of the year, bigest party time of the year, the death of a former president and national attention distracted by State Funeral and B and C reporters filling in for the A teams."

    That would be fine EXCEPT: Ford's funeral is Tuesday (and because his family asked for much fewer honors than Reagan, it is a subdued event), New Year's Eve isn't until tomorrow night, and MOST of the coverage on the news last night and tonight has been about the execution. It's become THE story - and at a time when the "top tier" of reporters isn't around to ask hard questions and put people on the spot.

    "I would not want our government handling executions exactly as the Iraqis have. But, they were Hussein's victims and did it based on their laws and customs."

    Except - U.S. Judicial advisors assisted the Iraqis every step of the way, he was held by U.S. forces until just hours before he was executed, and the U.S. Government narrowed the scope of what he was actually tried for.

    Saddam was convicted for helping to kill 148 Shi'ite Muslims in 1982. That's it. He wasn't convicted for gassing the Kurds or attacking the Iranians or even attacking and occupying Kuwait in 1990-91. The U.S. Government told the Iraqis that they couldn't charge him with ANY of those crimes because then it would come to light that the United States was his backer in the Iran-Iraq war.

    I see Bush isn't going to make his "Iraq speech" until well into January.
    Well , he has been busy.
    He had Christmas tree lightings at the White House, singing Xmas carols with Dr. Phil and appearing in this year's Barney's Video Extravaganza.

    Priorities, priorities, priorities !

    This dolt should have been hanged with Saddam.

    Cry Baby Watch, you better look out. Big Bad Coward is not going to like you coopting his inimicable stlyle and wandering prose. Imitation without attribution smacks of cowardice.

    And I have seen Coward in action and just have to warn you. My conscience compells me.

    He is fiercely dedicated to rooting out cowards and smiting them with his mighty pen and keyboard.

    Maybe if you abjectly grovel at his feet he will show forgiveness and let you off this time with just a warning.

    If not, I least I got to know you a bit before his wrath crushes you.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    "But to summarize, Castro has "redistributed" the wealth in his country all right, right into the pockets of his family and wealthy friends and supporters."

    Who does that remind you of ?

    "Is there anything you consider evil in the world that you don't lay at the feet of GWB et al."

    Which is Janet's way of saying George Bush isn't responsible for any of the problems in the world.
    She's so consistent!

    One real dumb partisan bitch !

    Anon, that reminds me of Hussein, Stalin, Kim Jung Ill, Peron and other dictators that ravish their country and people and leave them hopeless and destitute.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    Anon, that is Janet asking a straightforward question.

    It is not an unreasonable question. We have a comment posted a little bit ago linking a few Christmas activities by GWB to the assertion he should have been hung with Hussein.

    The sentiment that he is the source of all the evil in the world is abundant.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    EE, your worldview is very different from mine. Many consider EVERYTHING he does as lying, cheating, manipulating, criminal and evil.

    I don't. Everyone makes mistakes. But that is extended to GWB as everything he does is evil.

    There have been figures in history, some recently dead, about whom that argument could concievably be made.

    But GWB being compared to Nero, Caligula, Tiberius et al.

    I guess I got my answer.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA GRAMMIE

    Sir Loin of Beef,
    Can you explain the American's left fascination with Fascistic Socuialists like Chavez and Islamo-Fascists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Has the Zarqawi replace Che yet among the Lonney Left yet as an idol? Now that David Duke has attacked Zionuist Corporate influence in the governmnet is he an ally.
    I really don't ubderstand the Leftist-Islamic-Nazi alliance? Me. Skirt Steak please explain?

    A middle class still thrives in this country. And our poor live a life unimagined by the poor within Cuba and Venezuala.

    Just yesterday the DUmmies were posting about how bothered they were by John Edward's wealth and ownership of three, million dollar plus homes. Your admiration of socialists, communists and your disdain for the wealthy is so very revealing.

    Red Wolf,

    The American left is indeed fascinated with Chavez. His social programs using nationalized oil revenues for the benefit of the society's lower classes appear to be sincere, legitimate, and specualtively successful (it can take a while to turn around a 400-year old colonial caste system - but there are positive developments in terms of availaity of health care, food and energy for the very poor). His repeated and significant victories in a string of transparent and relatively scandal-free (compared with Florida or Ohio) elections is also a source of the American left's admiration for Chavez. Many of us are made a little uneasy by Chavez's bombastic style and militarist background (Chavez in fact once was at the center of his own attempted military coup), but recent history suggests to us that he has become in fact a committed democrat - despite the spurious accusations of "autocracy" or dictatorship that flow from the corporate mouthpieces posing as legitimate media outlets both here and in Venezuela.

    You should just admit that what bothers you about Chavez is the old capitalist "property rights" jeremiad: "the unwashed are seizing our property! (...that we seized at the heart of their country's productivity!") Real lefties think that its about time, and we hope this country learns a thing or two from Venezuela. I know this will send Brandon off in a fit of appoplectic dismissal, but that's the story.

    Ahmadinejad seems to be your obscession, Red Wolf. I don't like him; and I think its sad when a blatantly opportunistic populist charlatan like him can come across as a much more seasoned, rational, and poised statesman than the President of the United States; but there we are.

    Ahmadinejad is apparently not very popular in his country, judging by the recent Iranian elections in which moderates beat out Ahmadinejad's party to a surprising degree. Bush could really help Ahmadinejad out by forcing a confrontation in which - given all curent variables surounding America's ability to back any new plays - Mamoud would probably come out looking pretty good and with a ighter grip on power in his country (you are aware, aren't you, that the president of Iran hs very litle actual power - he's a figure head whose only source of influence is the "bully pulpit") ...or he could engage diplomatically with Iran, something they seem quite willing to entertain, giving the moderates and democrats some breathing room to organize on the grassroots level. That's how positive civic change is achieved - not through a stupid and destructive military incursion.

    "A middle class still thrives in this country."

    Still? Be patient, Brandon; your side is working really hard.


    "And our poor live a life unimagined by the poor within Cuba and Venezuala. "

    Not true - the lower economic classes of Venezuela can easily remember a time when their government also exhibited no shred of concern for their condition. Some of the older Cubans as well.

    Quick, Brandon; who's got the better stats on infant mortality; Cuba or the US?

    Chavez like all Leftists engage in a new form of feudalism. Instaed of using the oil revenues to empower thge population, he hands out cheap loans and money. That makes them dependent on the government. Hence Fuedalism. Dependancy on the government. What if there's a crash in oil prices? Hmm. Then where will Chavez get the money for his handouts? Instaed of creating a society where people are self sufficinent. He's created a nation of vassals.

    Skirt Steak,
    I'd rather live in Pinochet's Chile than Castro Cuba and Chavez Venezuela. Hey look at Chile today, the best economy in Latin America.

    ...well, there's also the clinics. And the schools. And the enhanced water systems. And the food distribution programs....

    On this last item: last year there was a British article that alleged that Chavez was a fascist because one of the two govt. trucks full of weekly free food to a remote village arrived late ( a new, oil-financed program). This is the kind of stuff that desperate oligarchs try to start their fires with.

    How would you recommend that the government distribute oil revenues from a nationalized oil industry if not through some government program?

    Sir Loin of Beef,
    So you belive people should be dependent on the governmnet like vassals correct?

    "Instaed of creating a society where people are self sufficinent. He's created a nation of vassals."

    er...do have any concept of Venezuelan society in 1998?


    But your point about oil prices is legitimate - too many eggs in one basket is dangerous for any country's economy. When exactly do you forsee oil prices dropping, however?

    Where do you suggest they start? decades of core/periphery syphoning of Venezuelan natural resources has left almost nothing in the way of a civil infrastructure, and nothing but oil stuff in regard to an industrial infrastructure. By making universal education a priority perhaps Venezuela can forge its own niche when and if the oil and natural gas fail. Isn't that what we should be doing?

    Sir Lion with the money they have they shpuld build roads and give loans to private enetities for wealth CREATION. with oil revenues and wealth creation they then could diversify the economy. Business creation should be encourage with governmnet loans and regulations to back them up.
    That way people become self sufficient. All Chavez has done is make people dependent on the governmnat.
    I guess you're a fan of feudalism.

    "So you belive people should be dependent on the governmnet like vassals correct?"

    No, Red Wolf. I've been very patient tonight but your rank stuidity is beginning to annoy me.


    If you read our constituton, you will find that the Government is a tool of the people. We elect representatives to fill certain technical and decisive roles so that it can do its job, but the government is supposed to be the vassal.

    Now people need to adhere to the consensual decision, or face the consequences - so some thick-headed people may see something like the regulation of industry to protect the commons as an illegitimate "taking", but what else are you going to do - make one guy King?

    Sadly, Americans like to venerate and mythologize their elected leaders, turning them into de facto royalty on some occasions. It makes me want to puke.

    "Sir Lion with the money they have they shpuld build roads and give loans to private enetities for wealth CREATION. with oil revenues and wealth creation they then could diversify the economy. Business creation should be encourage with governmnet loans and regulations to back them up."

    So you're saying that by allowing American and British oil companies to syphon away fully 80% of Venezuela's oil revenues we would be promoting the self-sufficiency of or Venezuelans? well lets see -didn't work between 1920 and 2000, so maybe its time to try something new.

    And look it up - they are using the oil money to build their first real nation-wide system of roads. Prosperity; here we come!

    Where did I say British and American companies?
    The problem is you belive in Feudalism, I belive in individual responsibilty. By the way I'm not a big fan of big business, I'm not a fan of Big Governemt either. I belive the government's role is to rpovide a balanced level field and make sure small and medium sized businesses thrive. I'm a Nationalist so I don't belive in monopolies. That's why I'm not a Bush or Clinton fan. Their Globalist hacks who care nothing about their nation. Neither does Chavez. He wants to creat a dependent class to ensure him and his cronies power.

    "The problem is you belive in Feudalism, I belive in individual responsibilty."

    Posted by: Red Wolf at December 30, 2006 11:10 PM

    Right here is my biggest (of MANY) problems I have with Republi-fascists today. It is this entire myth that 'individual responsibility' is so much beter than 'collective responsibility,' or that all types of collective responsibility is feudalism.

    It was the reaganist movement that brought these 'progressive' views to power in this country, &, it MOST CERTAINLY hasn't worked!

    Take the city of Pittsburgh, for example, where I am a resident. I would have to say that the number one reason this city is losing it's population so quickly is that we never built a reasonable & a solid subway system. Why not? Welll, because back in the 1980's (yes, that GREAT decade to all of the Conservatives in this room,) we couldn't find the federal (or, for that matter, the State) funding to do it... & why not? So reagan could pay for his trickle down economic experiment, (an experiment that certainly did save SOME Americans money,) but that in the long run has cost us far more as a society because of this lack of Community Services, & it's reculting high costs in regards to the enviroment, our health, costs in terms of increased drug use, etc...

    In the case of the city of Piuttsburgh, it has cost us far more than that also... It has also cost us hundreds of thousands of potential jobs (because of this same 'Me first' attitude in regards to foreign policy)

    Now I know that the many varied republi-fascists in this room will call me a Communist, & hurl other such epithets at me for saying this, but it is the truth, &, as they say, the truth will set you free: The modern Democratic-Republic is based in good part on the will of the community to share in some of the expenses of society. If we didn't do this, we would be nowhere near wheree we are at in this American century. It is a polity, if you will, between these Karl Marx-based theories & our unique need for individual freedom which give us the country we have today. A country that can reach the moon... A country that can set off a nuclear bomb... &, yes, even a country that can send 500,000 Americans 10,000 miles away to fight a war that the vast majority of Americans now oppose.

    But it is also this country that has given us such blessings as the right to vote... That has given us the right to protest... & that has even given us vthe right to write in this blog today. Finding the balance between the two is what we must strive for in this country. & what we haven't been striving for since those days of the 1980's. & what newt Gingrich, w., Big Dick cheney & company are all opposed to: A Big (but efficient) governemnt that actually works to benefit it's people, & that protects our individual rights is what we need in this country... & we need it now!

    "Creating a dependent class" by giving absolutely impoverished people the basic materials for human dignity and sustanence would be possible, I suppose, but I disagree that that is what Chavez is up to. Did you ever consider that Chavez's social programs were his initial effort to create the "level playing field" you speak of? Venezuela may not have one now, but they have the promise of one - something they never had previously.

    Your libertarian utopia is an impossibility - without consensual governmental controls on economic activity a capitalist economy is nothing but a game of "Monopoly" - in which the winners after each turn get to make up new rules that make themselves more "competitive" than any hopeful "small and medium sized businesses" by exponential factors. Were you aware that something like 95% of new small businesses in this country fail within two years? Entry into most industries is very effectively blocked by the big boys n our current system. What are you going to do about it? Blow up a Muslim?

    The people have to protect the commons through cooperative, consensual regulation or the inevitable result is monopoly and oligarchy. Libertarians harken back to the days when you couldn't see the fire from your neighbors frontier cabin - but after no more than ten years of that in any region and all the wild game was gone and all the best land was acquired by speculative corporations.

    Red Wolf -

    If you advocate a "level playing field" for the American economy, you must therefore support the drastic redistribution of wealth from the preposterously rich to the lower classes. You have no other logical option. Tax, Tax, Tax.

    That's right. Redistribution is the way to go. Let those who work harder than others earn the same amount as those who sit on their ass. Abdicating personal responsibility and disallowing individuality is the only way to go. It has worked so well in the past, and when it hasn't, I blame that on the US. It is never the fault of the failed it has to be some oppressor. I am a f---ing loon.

    I see that cee is starting really fill out his new role as "loon".

    "It is never the fault of the failed it has to be some oppressor. I am a f---ing loon."

    Yes you are. you mean "some oppressor" like the big bad government your mommy read to you about out of "Mother Gingrich's Bootstrap Fairy Tales"?.

    The little corporate scuttlebutts out there don't care that 95% of new small businesses fail due to overwhelming "competition" (i.e. "obstructionism") from established conglomerates. It fact, this statistic comforts them. It means there will always be anonymous little cubicles waiting for them if they sell their lives to their corporate masters. Additionally, it frees them from feeling compelled to do the really hard work of starting their own small enterprise in their own neighborhood - a pattern that would thrive in an equitably regulated economy.

    Willing, compliant slavery is much less difficult than self-determination, but it requires a very particular disposition.

    Castro claims to have better infant mortality rates than the U.S. however the U.S.'s rates can be independently verified, Cuba's of course, cannot. But being the commie-loving, socialist-dicator worshipper that Chicken McNuggettless is, he prefers to believe the word of a dictator.

    These Free Market Fundies come up up with stupidest "smack" I've ever heard. "Chicken McNuggetless"? Even your trash-talk is corporate.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2523502,00.html

    Hey Free Market Fundies - here is what results from your unregulated Monopoly (TM) game posing as a human society: One a--hole can spell ruin or solvency for the fifth largest economy in the world. This is not democracy, liberty, or equality under the law. It is oligarchy; the rule by fortunes.

    That's right pull that 95% supposed stat out of your ass who cares if it is completely wrong. Don't worry that the largest constituency of the Republican party are small business owners, just keep pulling stats out of your ass. No one will call you on it. Don't worry that the dems are hostile to small business owners by promoting higher taxes, more restrictions and more regulation. Ignore what has happened in California and the movement of business to other states. Redistribution and high tax high regulation works. I am a f---ing dingbat loon and the "beef" is my idol.

    You go beef. A government dependent upon one tax payer is the system I want. Koom by f---ing ya we are all the same and we would be much happier if we could just get rid of this meritocracy. And in the spirit of the just released "In pursuit of Happiness" movie starring Will Smith, I will say that he would have been much better off had he only just accepted that he is a victim, done nothing, and bitched and complained his way through life. No that is a movie I wanna see, oh wait I see it every day from my fellow dems. I am a batshit crazy loon. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    http://sbinformation.about.com/b/a/257199.htm
    Loon/cee/Brandon,

    This article states that 80% of small business fail in the first two years. This is a cumulative statistic. I was citing numbers (94 -95%) relating to the economy since the "Gingrich Revolution" - I will keep seeking the source for you.

    Are you happy with the established cumulative rate of 80%? That's not "bootstraps difficult", that's damn near a statistically impossible challenge. But that's OK - you can always cook or market Chicken McNuggets for your masters.

    "Starting a small business is always risky, and the chance of success is slim. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, over 50% of small businesses fail in the first year and 95% fail within the first five years."

    http://www.sba.gov/smallbusinessplanner/plan/getready/SERV_SBPLANNER_ISENTFORU.html


    Yep - right out of my ass. I'm f---ing killing you dweebs today!

    ...now guess what the rate of failure is for big established corporate conglomerates?

    Yep. Ignore the reasons for this failure. It has to be corporate monopolies that cause the failure. It couldn't be.

    1. Lack of experience

    2. Insufficient capital (money)

    3. Poor location

    4. Poor inventory management

    5. Over-investment in fixed assets

    6. Poor credit arrangements

    7. Personal use of business funds

    8. Unexpected growth

    Gustav Berle adds two more reasons in The Do It Yourself Business Book:

    9. Competition

    10. Low sales

    What the rate of failure for "established" business is low? Even I think your a moron.

    SLOB does not debate. He intersperses cherry picked stats and qoutes with reams of derogatory specious and sophistic screeds.

    Loon, again, I like your style. Illustrating the absurd with the absurd.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Janet,

    You must be high. "Cherry picked stats"? The numbers I cited are entirely relevant and legitmized by respected business publications and the US government itself (look at my links, please); and my arguments based on them remain untouched by the unsophisticated reactionary brain-farts launched in response.

    Or do you dispute the figures in question -that 95% of small businesses in Amerca FAIL in the fist FIVE YEARS (OK - at first I said 2 years - I corrected myself on this insignificant point to no disadvantage to my argument)? Look at my links before you respond this time.

    I will not stop. I will relentlessly continue to buttress SLOB's comments with my own in order to fully illustrate the mindset of the loon.

    ...and in addition you discredit yourself by claiming I "do not debate". Look back on the economic discussions between me, Brandon, and Red Wolf this morning and last night on this thresad and tell me who supplies facts, answers, conscessions, and at least a modicum of respect.

    Try not to be too wiltingly precious in regard to the ballanced exchange of trash-talk which is ubquitous on this site. Such strained sensitivity is unbecoming in a lurking sniper such as yourself.

    Who supplies facts? I can tell you who doesn't and that would be you Beef. You just embrace and spew whatever the latest liberal talking points are from the most popular lib websites and then chide others on getting instructions from their 'corporate masters" when it's you who wouldn't know an independent thought if it kicked you in the ass. But at least you provide some comic relief when KO is MIA.

    I'm a small businessman and I can't see where this Republican led government has done one damned thing to make it easier to help me to survive.

    I can see where they have made it infinitely easier for big corporations to thrive on the backs of truly small businesses, and on the backs of the middle class. Hell....Congress has been practically letting the Corporations write the laws for the last 6 years!

    When I use the word 'small' business, I do mean SMALL business...you know, mom and pop size. These, along with the middle class is what built America into what it is today.

    Could somebody please compile "Brian Stelter's Top 10 Lies of 2006?"

    "Who supplies facts? I can tell you who doesn't and that would be you Beef. You just embrace and spew whatever the latest liberal talking points are from the most popular lib websites and then chide others on getting instructions from their 'corporate masters" when it's you who wouldn't know an independent thought if it kicked you in the ass."


    ...so ROFLMAO also disputes the undisputed statistic that 95% of small businesses fail inside of five years, and considers the official website of the United States Goverment Small Business Administration to be one of the "most popular lib websites". These people remain unacountble in their argments.

    "Who supplies facts? I can tell you who doesn't and that would be you Beef. You just embrace and spew whatever the latest liberal talking points are from the most popular lib websites and then chide others on getting instructions from their 'corporate masters" when it's you who wouldn't know an independent thought if it kicked you in the ass."


    ...so ROFLMAO also disputes the undisputed statistic that 95% of small businesses fail inside of five years, and considers the official website of the United States Goverment Small Business Administration to be one of the "most popular lib websites". These people remain unacountble in their argments.

    "Who supplies facts? I can tell you who doesn't and that would be you Beef. You just embrace and spew whatever the latest liberal talking points are from the most popular lib websites and then chide others on getting instructions from their 'corporate masters" when it's you who wouldn't know an independent thought if it kicked you in the ass."


    ...so ROFLMAO also disputes the undisputed statistic that 95% of small businesses fail inside of five years, and considers the official website of the United States Goverment Small Business Administration to be one of the "most popular lib websites". These people remain unacountble in their argments.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2523502,00.html

    Hey Free Market Fundies - here is what results from your unregulated Monopoly (TM) game posing as a human society: One a--hole can spell ruin or solvency for the fifth largest economy in the world. This is not democracy, liberty, or equality under the law. It is oligarchy; the rule by fortunes.

    We've been through this already. It's awesome that California would have to rely on one person to help make sure they meet their financial responsibilities. The lesson here is obviously we need to tax more and spend more.

    And Mike your right. That whole HSA and tax incentives for investment back into small business as well as the ability to expense even more; the attempt to repeal the estate tax; the proposal to let small business pool together to get better Health Insurance rates. These are all the "Devil's" (Bush) ideas. They couldn't possibly help. What we need is the government to take care of us all and abdicate any personal responsibility. Only then can we be truly ignorant. Yeah Nanny State. Take care of me for I am too stoopid to take care of myself.

    Your penn name "shut down TVnewser" says it all about some of you people! Someone is saying or writing something you don't like, and your reflex is to try and shut them down! How American of you!

    "
    ...so ROFLMAO also disputes the undisputed statistic that 95% of small businesses fail inside of five years, and considers the official website of the United States Goverment Small Business Administration to be one of the "most popular lib websites". These people remain unacountble in their argments."

    No dumbass. You attributed this 95% failure to the corporate cabal. Remember.

    "It means there will always be anonymous little cubicles waiting for them if they sell their lives to their corporate masters. Additionally, it frees them from feeling compelled to do the really hard work of starting their own small enterprise in their own neighborhood - a pattern that would thrive in an equitably regulated economy. "

    Funny thing is that the majority of people employed in the US are employed by small business. 80% of employer firms (that's businesses) have 10 or fewer employees.

    You and Mike are complete f---ing dumbasses. It is actually painful to watch that hamster in your head get on its wheel and crank away.

    Hey Mikey. Running a website out of your parents' basement does not constitute a small business and it is certainly not what people call a "Mom and Pop" operation. We call that welfare.

    You douchebags need to look in the mirror and quit blaming others for your obvious failures.

    See this is what happens when all the kids get a trophy. There are winners and losers in life and you two are the prime example of losers.

    Loon, I never said a damned thing about wanting the Government to "take care of me". I've spent my entire life and never gotten a thing out of the government, much less any money or financial assistance of any kind.

    All of the things you just mentioned do NOTHING for a true 'small' mom and pop type business, and very, very, very few small businessmen have a large enough of an estate to benefit from "repealing the estate tax"....you forgot to add "for the rich".

    Your a fool if you buy the talking point line that most non-republicans advocate anything close to a "nanny state". We just advocate a government responsive to the PEOPLE, and not just the few rich enough to buy access and legislation.

    Bush knows NOTHING about business, just his "have and have more" base (an actual quote). I personally don't believe he could manage a corner hardware store by himself.

    "Bush knows NOTHING about business"

    Yeah they just give out those MBA's at Harvard. You go Mikey. Keep yappin.

    John Galt:

    There are "winners and losers" in life and you are clearly one of the latter....and that remains true no matter how much money you have!

    If you can't make a point without calling someone you know nothing about "douchebags", "dumbass", then you truly are a judgemental son of a bitch worse than anything you have called us!

    Who are you to decide what kind of a small business I have and where I run it from? You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

    Furthermore, nowhere in any of my posts did I blame anyone for "my obvious failures" or did I say I wanted anyone to take care of me.

    No, you self absorbed son of a bitch....you hear what you want to hear and believe what you want to believe.

    a--hole!!!

    You talk and all we hear is whaaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa. Complaint after complaint after complaint. Life isn't fair. Bush doesn't help. Get off your ass and do it yourself, quit complaining, then maybe you may actually have that million dollar website that you can leave to your adopted Haitian son and then pay $500k in estate tax because the estate tax laws have sunset. And then the government won't go broke because you paid your taxes.

    No Loon, a degree means nothing if you don't use it successfully.

    Just how badly would Bush have to screw up this country before you right wing hard liners would say anything negative about this screw-up?

    Galt you Son of a Bitch, you haven't heard me make one complaint about my own personal situation, nor do you know the first thing about it. I simply stated the truth....this Republican Administration has not passed one law or made one proposal that will help someone like me...yes someone like me who has worked hard all my life, never accepted a dime from the government, and am doing just fine anyway, thank you.

    Just because I'm doing OK doesn't mean I'm not blind to obvious problems that need correcting. Sorry if I want a government "by the people for the people" instead of "by the corporations for the corporations", but thats just me!

    If you can't address me without making imaginary personal judgements about me, then don't address me at all!

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/columnist/abrams/2004-05-06-success_x.htm

    The other morning I was listening to the radio when I heard a distinguished professor from a distinguished university quoted, saying that 90% of new businesses fail.

    Now, when I hear something like that, it's like hearing fingernails scraping on a blackboard; it gives me the creeps. I know those statistics scare people away from starting their own businesses, but I've looked at statistics of business births and deaths closely, and I know of no credible study showing anything close to a 90% failure rate.

    So I picked up the phone and called the good professor. He couldn't remember where that number came from, and he quickly backed away from it.

    "How do you define failure?" said Professor David Blanchflower, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth University, explaining that failure didn't really mean failure. "Failure usually includes companies that change their name or ownership or a person who is self-employed who moves to employment."

    That's the rub...statistics you'll hear about business "failures" are likely to mean business "closures." In some cases, not even closures, just business changes.

    For instance, I had my own — successful — consulting practice for many years. Like most sole proprietors, I reported my business income on my personal income tax return, using my own social security number. When I incorporated, the business got its own tax identification number. So my first "business" probably shows up in statistics as a business "death" even though it was actually getting larger.

    As Mark Twain said, "News of my death is greatly exaggerated."

    Overwhelmingly, businesses don't die or fail; the owners close them for reasons unrelated to whether the business is making money.

    Take restaurants, for instance. Restaurants have a notoriously high "failure" rate. You'll often hear that 90% of restaurants fail in the first year; that's what they said on the TV reality show, "The Restaurant." Well, don't believe everything you hear on a reality show.

    In a study in Columbus, Ohio, Professor H.G. Parsa of Ohio State University, tracked new restaurants from 1996-1999. In the first year, 26% closed. Another 19% closed the second year, and 14% the third. Collectively, 59% of new restaurants closed those three years. By the way, the "failure" rate wasn't very different between franchised restaurants – 57% — and independent restaurants – 61%.

    Now, even though these numbers are much better than the 90% failure rate bandied about on TV, it's not particularly heartening to know that six out of ten restaurants closed in three years.

    However, Professor Parsa found that reasons other than economic necessity made the owners decide to close. They cited divorce, poor health, and most importantly, an unwillingness to make the immense time commitment necessary as reasons for shutting their doors.

    In other words, they had what David Birch, former head of a research firm specializing in studying small business data, called the "I Had No Idea" syndrome. Would-be entrepreneurs don't realize what's truly involved with running a business.

    So what is your chance of success? I think Birch's statistics are probably as accurate as any. His survival rates:

    •First year: 85%
    •Second: 70%
    •Third: 62%
    •Fourth: 55%
    •Fifth: 50%
    •Sixth: 47%
    •Seventh: 44%
    •Eighth: 41%
    •Ninth: 38%
    •Tenth: 35%

    "Once you've hit five years, your odds of survival go way up," Birch said. "Only two to three percent of businesses older than five shut down each year."

    The lesson? To greatly increase your chance of success, find out as much as you can BEFORE you open your doors. Talk to people who run their own businesses, especially businesses similar to yours, and get a realistic understanding of the time, financial, and emotional resources necessary. Keep your eyes open — not to the possibility of failure, but to the very real demands of running your own business.

    So … what about that 90% failure rate cited on the radio? I went to the station's Web site and replayed the story. Listening closely, I realized they didn't mention any time period. So, perhaps the professor is right after all. I think it's safe to assume that within some period of time — oh, let's say 50 years — 90% of all businesses will close. I can live with those odds.

    Stat: There were 671,800 new businesses, and 544,800 business closures according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, June 2006.

    Two-thirds of new employer firms survive at least two years, and about 44% survive at least four. Source: Survival and Longevity in the Business Employment Dynamics Database, Monthly Labor Review, May 2005.

    The problem with the extreme right wing apologists, such as Galt and Loon, is that they are only capable of looking at the world through their own selfish little lens. Because of this limitation in themselves, they believe everyone else is looking at the world from a selfish perspective too.

    This is why they always attribute self centered motivations to anyone who expressed concern for or tries to help anyone less fortunate than themselves. They just can't undertand anyone who might actually care about the plight of other human beings that they don't even know!

    Guess what guys, your WRONG. Some of us want to see a little mix of social justice simply because it is the right thing to do.

    When you guys see a homeless man, I'm sure you tell yourselves "it's all his fault that he's homeless" so you don't have to feel any personal guilt yourself, don't you?

    Guess what, everyone in America is not quite that selfish!

    "Just how badly would Bush have to screw up this country before you right wing hard liners would say anything negative about this screw-up?" - Mike

    I've often pondered this myself. Sometimes I think Cheney/Rove/Bush/Condi are Democratic insiders that bullshitted their way to the top of the Republican Party to destroy it permanently with their UNBELIEVABLE amount of f--- ups. What they were not counting on was the unswayable support from the wingnuts that refuse to acknowledge just how messed up this country has become in the last 6 years.

    So you're telling us that the homeless are Bush's fault too? While I will not dispute that higher housing costs in some sections of the United States undoubtedly lead to difficulties finding affordable housing your gross assumption that homelesseness is due to economic reasons alone is quite laughable. Untreated mental illnesses, substance abuse problems, Lack of education which in turn leads to obstacles finding a high paying job and in turn finding decent housing is another cause. Is it my fault that someone didn't stay in school and obtain a high school diploma? Oh, forgot, that would be Bush's fault too. Ahem. Other causes have been shown in studies to include those released from institutions such as prisons, and youths who “age out” of of foster care, etc.,

    No Fact Check, this is where you miss the point entirely!

    Sometimes it just doesn't matter who's 'fault' it is. Sometimes it is the fault of the unfortunate that they are in that situation, and sometimes it's just bad luck. Either way, doing the right thing is not about 'fault' or blame.

    The same is true of the fortunate....sometimes they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, and sometimes it's just dumb luck.

    More often, it's a combination of both!

    What's Bush's fault? Not any of the above....he just doesn't seem to give a damn.

    Now what's really Bush's fault?
    (1) The debacle in Iraq!
    (2) Record National Debt!
    (3) 3000 young Americans dead for no coherant reason!
    (4) 20,0000 young Americans severely wounded for no coherant reason!
    (5) Alienation of 80 - 90% of the world.
    (6) A divided America!

    Liberals have no ideas for improving America's situation. Just blame Bush.

    "What's Bush's fault? Not any of the above....he just doesn't seem to give a damn." - Mike

    And this was proved after Hurricane Katrina.


    "Liberals have no ideas for improving America's situation. Just blame Bush." - Anon

    Please Anon. The Dems haven't been in control of the govt this entire century. You can start critizing in January when they take control of the House and Senate.

    B.T.W- six years after Clinton left office he still gets blamed for screw ups that should be attributed to our dry drunk president.

    Happy New Years Eve! May 2007 be better than the previous.

    I got news for you Anon, the Iraq invasion, and it's regrettably consequences has nothing to do with Liberal/Conservative philosophy! Never did...never will!

    There was not a damned thing 'conservative' about invading a far away country in some starry eyed attempt to "change the world by spreading Democracy" by force....that after lying to the American people about the real reasons for doing it.

    Liberals, like Mike blame any and everything on Bush, even when the facts don't support their claims. For instance, i would like to see proof of the claim made about that 80-90% of the world is "alienated". Alienated from what? From whom? Why? Show me your source and stop pulling things out your ass and from unlimited resource of bile you people seem to possess.

    Mike, why are you doing the exact same thing that you accuse your detractors of doing. Subscribing your belief that they are selfish, uncaring and sadistic because they aupport capitalism more strongly than you do. The best economic and welfare policy is the one that creates the maximum of self sustaining citizens and the minimum who need and/or depend on society for their very lives.

    I agree with those who think that the government who governs least in punitive taxes, regulations and rampant welfare benefits govern best.

    Take a look at the economic and social indicators of western Europe. They are dismal compared to the US. And, if they face a defense crisis in the future that the US doesn't bail them out of than they will be between a rock and a hard place. Aready ruinous tax rates becoming higher, unfunded liabilities and guarantees to their citizens and an urgent need to increase defense funding.

    Just my two cents and statement of my broad view on the subject.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    No Janet, I was responding specifically to Loon and John Galt, who were both arrogant enough to infer that they somehow knew exactly what my Political motives are, and what my financial situation was. One of them even accused me of running a "website out of my parent's basement". This kind of crap is uncalled for and I don't see what it achieves!

    Please, go back and read their demeaning posts that were aimed directly at me. Why some on both sides want to dwell in the gutter is beyond me, but it does seem that their are more of them on your side than mine...maybe it's just my perspective.

    My belief is that people with such a narrow perspective as Loon and Galt truly ARE very selfish individuals. I realize that I probably should not even respond to freaks like that...my bad!

    That post was not mean't for you at all, nor would I call every Conservative 'selfish', just a difference of opinion about how to achieve similar common goals.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    Fact Check:

    So out of that fairly extensive post, the only thing you have a beef with is my claim that 80 - 90% of the world has been alienated by our pre-emptive and un-necessary invasion of Iraq?

    So would it make you feel better if it were only 70 - 80% of the world that has been alienated?

    I read newspapers, I watch & listen to the news, both foreign & Domestic, and I've heard the subject debated many, many times. You have too unless you are one of the majority of Americans who think "American Idol" is more important than world events, therefore you know perfectly well that what I stated is pretty much the prevailing opinion.

    I don't have to 'prove' anything to you!

    "I don't have to prove anything to you".

    Translation: I pulled that stat out of my ass and it's totally a lie but I don't have the balls or guts or spine to admit it.

    Any of those stats in those list though are highly dubious and not totally attributable to Bush as you'd like to believe. But since you just showed yourself to be a liar and a coward by not apologizing for pulling a stat out of your ass, I think that in and of itself should certainly put the validity of anything else you have to say totally in doubt.

    Oh yeah Mike, your side is just so much nicer on this board...especially towards individuals who hold different religious convictions....

    It is ironic that the attacks on intelligence, sheep behavior and/or greedy motives all seem to flow in and out without any of the users realizing they are actually contradictory.

    Calling Grammie really bad stuff was even worse....bad manners towards a lady.

    I would have to say suggesting I, with both Jewish and Catholic families in my family tree, am a slave to a KKK mentality is rather harsh...am I being too senisitve, Mike?

    To Mickey Mouse of Disneyland.

    You accuse me of 8th Grade performance, but have you not demostrated greater childishness than I, reducing the discussion to schoolyard names and girly name-callling?

    And in an equally infantile, if not cowardly, manner, you hide behind a mask of anonymity .. a Disney mask even.

    And why are you upset about my staying in hotels? Don't you get to stay in hotels very often? Don't worry, they're really not that great, but you'll be able to go on business trips too .. when you grow up.

    OK "Fact Check". so this is the standard you hold others to on whenever they make a general statement they believe to be true based on a prepondurance of evidence. If they won't send you a ten page documentation and two hours of research, you call them a "liar or a coward". As I once heard someone else say on this very site -"I'M NOT YOUR RESEARCH SLAVE"!

    Only a complete idiot would make a statement like your post above.

    Prove to me the statement isn't true, idiot!

    Cee:

    Yes, it does bother me when I read inflammatory and demeaning posts from those on my side, because I really want to believe that we are better than that. But I admit, some keep proving me wrong.

    Wouldn't this be a better board if both sides could just debate facts and opinions without being insulted in the process? There are some on this board who can't make a post or a response without hurling around insults. Then it becomes nothing more than a psiing contest.

    No your not being too sensitive and I respect Grammie a lot for her restraint even when she has was attacked, something I can't claim.

    Cee:

    Yes, it does bother me when I read inflammatory and demeaning posts from those on my side, because I really want to believe that we are better than that. But I admit, some keep proving me wrong.

    Wouldn't this be a better board if both sides could just debate facts and opinions without being insulted in the process? There are some on this board who can't make a post or a response without hurling around insults. Then it becomes nothing more than a psiing contest.

    No your not being too sensitive and I respect Grammie a lot for her restraint even when she has was attacked, something I can't claim.

    Now I'm really laughing.

    Mike hysterically wrote, when exposed as the liar he is, "so this is the standard you hold others to on whenever they make a general statement they believe to be true based on a prepondurance of evidence."

    Why yes, Mike, it is the standard to which I hold people when they are throwing out stats, with specific percentages, which as it turns out, they have pulled out of their asses.

    And no, just because you BELIEVE it to be true, "based upon the prepondurance of evidence", does not, in fact, make something true.

    Now I realize you get your "preondurance" of evidence from places like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Huffington Post, etc. but those are hardly reality-based communities. And just because you believe them to be true, does not give you the right to make up a ficitional percentage, throw it out and make it true because you want it to be so.

    I mean I could say that 99.9% of all Olbyloons are stupid whackjobs. Wait, they are. Never mind. But thanks for proving my point with your latest bit of ridiculousness.

    FAct Check: Lught all you want! So If I tell you the sky is blue, I'm a liar if I don't back it up with 'facts' that prove me to be right? In case you missed it, I gave a RANGE of figures since there is no precise poll in existence about this, nor would one even be possible. For that reason, yes, it's my OPINION that the figure is somewhere in that general range, but it is a fairly educated opinion.

    What YOU are doing is trying to split hairs arguing about exact numbers in order to avoid discussing the real issue.....that the vast majority of the world thinks we are arrogant and in the wrong!

    By the way "fact Check", I don't read Huffington Post, Daily KOS, Democratic Underground, etc. Never have, never will! I didn't even the KOS and DU existed until I saw them mentioned on this site.

    Keep backing yourself in the corner Mike. You make yourself look like an even bigger idiot than we already knew you were. But hey, at least you're giving me a good laugh tonight.

    It'd be a lot easier to admit you lied your ass off and got caught at it and were W-R-O-N-G.

    And Mike? Take a look at the nearly 600 posts above. Notice how many good points were raised and then a Loon would immediately change the subject or target in on a single point to avoid having to discuss the broader subject in play? Please, you people are experts at it. It's a habitual compulsion with you in fact as the posts above prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. You're just annoyed now because someone is using your tactics right back at you. Although that's not why I called you out on it. I called you out on it because you're completely full of shit and I knew that stat was straight out of your ass. And you can't conceed and admit you are, which makes it funnier still.

    To "Fact Check"..LOL:

    I guess I'm "backed in a corner" simply because you SAY I am. Funny, I don't feel a corner behind me.....LOL!

    In this entire inane discussion, you never touched on one of the actual issues I raised. All you wanted to do was split hairs.

    I guess that means I'm right.

    OK a--hole, I'll say it once again...we have alienated approximately 80% - 90% of the world. Prove me wrong, you freakin detail jerk!

    The only way I would gladly concede is if you were to somehow prove that the world's disapproval was not within that range. You can't call someone a liar if you can't disprove what you say they are 'lying' about.

    Keep on splitting hairs instead of arguing issues...clearly you are conceding the larger political point in favor of pressing a personal attack. You might want to apply for a job as a Republican campaign manager.

    There's not a single stat that proves that statistic and you know it. And you're just making an even bigger ass of yourself by insisting that it's true when we all know it's not. There's no spinning of my remarks. It's YOU who has been proven as a liar who is willing to bend facts for your own little Bush bashing parties. Pathetic doesn't even begin to describe you really. But keep it up a--hole. It gets even more funny watching your cry like the little whiny bitch you are.


    Most Republicans running for office last month ran as far as they could from Bush .
    The morons at this site don't understand why.
    When the American people voted in November, it was a referendum on his presidency , and in case you don't remember, the Republicans lost.

    Just how stupid do you have to be to not get this ?

    Mike is correct.Bush has not only alienated a large part of the world, he has brought disgrace to the United States of America in a countless number of ways.
    Many on here want to pretend it didn't happen.

    I wish.

    Factold, Go screw yourself! You refused to engage in a real debate about real issues and instead chose to attack me personally splitting hairs about numbers.

    You know as well as I do whether on not my 80% to 90% is 100% accurate can be nothing other than my opinion vs yours in the abscence of reliable polling data, therefore an educated opinion IS relevant in this scenario. Voicing a reasonably educated opinion in this situation is not lying at all. You know all of this but you still chose to not only to engage in semantics, but push it to it's extreme.

    Is it that people like you feel that you are personally being attacked whenever Bush is criticized. What is this knee jerk defensive reaction anyway? You can't defend this president's actions so you choose to go after so called "Bush basher's" personally. Why would you want to defend him anyway? Was up wid dat???

    Now, while you claim to be laughing, you are really wallowing down in the gutter by throwing out a barrage of pathetic, meaningless insults behind the anonimity of a computer, something only a coward would do! I didn't start this insult fest...you did, but I do admit I should never have climbed down into the gutter with you! This is the last post or response I will address to you...you've proven yourself to be nothing more than a gutter queen!

    May 2007 be a lot better than 2006 is all I have to say. Well I also would like to say thank you to sir loin, mike, and all others who I have been sitting back and reading lately. You have much more stamina than me for dealing with the right wing and olby haters. Keep up the good work. Janet and cecelia, and yes even cee and all the rest of you I hope have a happy new year.

    Cee, Mike didn't and hasn't ever been, shall we say slobbish, cowardly or bobish towards me. Or, for that matter anyone that I've ever noticed.

    He sometimes gets a bit carried away. But not a bad guy at all, except that he is a lib dem :).

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Mike and cee,

    The very first interaction I had of any kind on this site with Grammie involved her popping up out of the blue and accusing me of lurking on beastiality, incest, scatophlia, and homoerotica websites. Don't feel sorry for this old battle-axe's wilting sensibilities.

    Disputes regarding the fact that 95% of small business fail within five years have not disputed these figures effectively. Thanks to Fact Check, we can see theat there is a discrepancy between government agencies (my numbers come from the the Small Business Administration)as to the exact stature of this pattern, but all the estmates are large, and reflect the statistically impropabability (ranging upward toward impossibility) of new entreprenuers today achieving what used to be mthe Aerican dream.

    Only the peanut gallery denizon Loon has responded at all - and that in a wholly pedantic, confused manner - to my questions regarding the recent events in California: an "anonymous" billionaire has voluntarilly coughed up smme 200 million in back taxes - single handedly raising the State from an economic crisis of red ink to solvency.

    Does this seem OK to anyone here? Billionaires cannot become billionaires without a maintained infrastructure and a stable society -so despite all the "bootstraps" self-carressing engaged in by successful capitalists, they are in fact feeding off the rest of us.

    Exponentially disproportionate wealth of this sort is not in any logical way attributable to "hard work" It is a matter of corporate welfare (a caustic form of socialism) and systematic avoidance of the external costs of doing business. Externalities need to be paid by someone, and for big industry in this country the patsy is always the American citizen and taxpayer.
    Paying these externaities would result in huge tax bills for some out there, and would result in them bringing home perhaps only 10 times more than the average income rather than a multiple of 500. Sorry, but that's economic justice. We're all only human.

    ...allow me to tweek my previous statement: Hard work can get one into a position in which one can take advantage of the existing corporate system of societal looting, but then so can the status of one's birth, rank dishonesty combined with cleverness, or winning the "Powerball", for that matter.

    From what passes for Mike's Brain: " you are really wallowing down in the gutter by throwing out a barrage of pathetic, meaningless insults behind the anonimity of a computer, something only a coward would do!"

    Fact One: You are the one who threw out a barrage of pathetic, meaningless numbers that you called statistics.

    Fact Two: "Anonimity of a computer", well yes it is an internet-message board and you are posting on it so I guess that makes you a coward too.

    Corporatists alternately boast and complain that corporations pay for their employees health care coverage. This situation is, in either case, of their own creation - health insurrance was a voluntary perc offered at a time when the American Middle Class and labor represented the real power in this country (i.e. the brief period of socialized prosperity following WWII).

    Its time we recognize that with the increasing power of industry relative to individual humans this "benefit" has become a noose around the American people's necks. The health and well-being is not the purview of America's businessmen, and we abdicate portions of our rights and liberty by permitting them this power.

    Single payer universal coverage - payed for by the monolithic American Taxpayer in the interests of the monolithic American Citizen - is the only civilized way to procede. It is NOT the zero-sum game pretended by the Fre Market Fundamentalists - WE can simultaneously improve the health, education, and social health of this contry for all of us.

    "As a liberal, I of course entertain the possibility that in any particular disagreement I may be wrong. Now, as time goes on the developing disaster in Iaq vindicates my position on the war to such a degree that my previous statement may seem preposterous, but it remains the case."

    If he wasn't real, we'd have had to make him up!

    Sir Loin:

    I have heard that approximately 33% of the health care dollar goes to the insurance company administration and gatekeepers, so the present system is not a model of efficiency at all.

    I am a believer in free enterprise in almost every endeavor...except healthcare. It simply does not work.

    We will only become a fully civilized society when every person who truly needs health care can get it without risking loosing everything they or their family owns in the process.

    We've gone over the 3000 American deaths mark in Iraq.Happy New year !
    I wonder how many more have to die...how much worse Iraq has to get, how much more it has to deteriorate, how many more refugees the war will create before the The drum majorettes of the Bush parade like Grammie , Cecilia, Cee and the bunch admit they've been wrong about it.
    When the death tolls reach 4000?...6000? 100,000?
    When everyone in the country is displaced ?
    My guess is .....
    NEVER !

    "I have heard that approximately 33% of the health care dollar goes to the insurance company administration and gatekeepers, so the present system is not a model of efficiency at all."

    Is that an actual statistic or just what the voices in yoru head are telling you?

    Just as I suspected, the voices in Mike's head are wrong, again. A NY Times article printed just yesterday, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/business/yourmoney/31view.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=3e09a7e6344af55a&ex=1325221200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss, quote a 2003 Harvard Study which says that administrative costs represent AS MUCH AS 31%, however that is contradicted by a Lewin study in 2005 which found the costs to be closer to 20%, and is also more in line with a 2006 Blue Cross/Blue Shield study which pegs the cost at 11.6% and a Californa Health Foundation study (www.chcf.org/documents/insurance/healtcarecosts06.pdf) which estimates the expenditures towards administrative costs at 7%.

    In none of those studies does the percentage come anywhere near to what Mike claims them to be save for the Harvard study which is contradicted by several newer studies. the correct amount would seem to be somewhere in the range of 7-20%, but not the 33% out of Mike's ass.

    "If he wasn't real, we'd have had to make him up!"

    Cecelia does me the undue honor of comparing me with God.

    A study done by Law & Economics Consulting Group in the state of Massachusetts in December of 2002 found that 40% of the health care dollar in that state was for overhead, CEO salaries, etc.

    There have been plenty of other studies that conclude some less than that but the overall average is AROUND 33%, just like I said. It is not my job or obligation to post proof of anything I post here nor am I your research slave, as I stated yesterday.

    Listen Factoid, This is NOT a newspaper and we are not journalists here, so there is no requirement by anyone to back up every opinion they place on this discussion board with documented research just to please detail freaks like you!

    Just like last night, you can go do your own damned research and tell me where I'm wrong if you want to. I'm a big boy and I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong about something, but I do expect to be contradicted in a respectfull manner, just as I think you would do if you were speaking directly to my face.

    If you think I or anyone else on this board is mistaken about something, there are socially acceptable ways of stating your disgreement without resorting to cursing, name calling or insulting their intelligence, as you did to me last night several times.

    However, do not expect me or anyone else to provide you with supporting research every time I give a statement about something....I owe you nothing!

    FactCheck: There you go again, you pompous, pompous JERK! While I was posting, and TRYING to show you some undeserved respect in the process, you were once again resorted to gutter talk about me to try to dispute a point.

    Like I would accept an Insurance Company's own study as an 'unbiased' source.

    Just who the hell do you think you are! Either you want a debate or you don't, but I seriously doubt if you are the official "fact checker" of this discussion board!

    Once again, go screw yourself and leave those of us who want an honest open minded debate alone, you FREAK!

    Yes Mike, Factoid is a strawman weaver. Earlier he tossed out a figure from one govt agency that contradicted in specificity, but not in overall implications, a fact that I had provided from another govt agency. This is argument through "grasping at straws".

    But what do we expect from someone arguing from a camp that denies global warming; thinks the Grand Canyon was carved by Noah's flood 4000 years ago; and disregards every fundamental principal laid out by Adam Smith.


    Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada

    Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.





    ABSTRACT

    Background A decade ago, the administrative costs of health care in the United States greatly exceeded those in Canada. We investigated whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed care, and the adoption of more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased administrative costs.

    Methods For the United States and Canada, we calculated the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners' offices, nursing homes, and home care agencies in 1999. We analyzed published data, surveys of physicians, employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and home care agencies. In calculating the administrative share of health care spending, we excluded retail pharmacy sales and a few other categories for which data on administrative costs were unavailable. We used census surveys to explore trends over time in administrative employment in health care settings. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars.

    Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

    Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

    Conclusions The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

    Source Information

    From the Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass. (S.W., D.U.H.); and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Ont., Canada (T.C.).

    Address reprint requests to Dr. Himmelstein at 1493 Cambridge St., Cambridge, MA 02139.


    Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada

    Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D.





    ABSTRACT

    Background A decade ago, the administrative costs of health care in the United States greatly exceeded those in Canada. We investigated whether the ascendancy of computerization, managed care, and the adoption of more businesslike approaches to health care have decreased administrative costs.

    Methods For the United States and Canada, we calculated the administrative costs of health insurers, employers' health benefit programs, hospitals, practitioners' offices, nursing homes, and home care agencies in 1999. We analyzed published data, surveys of physicians, employment data, and detailed cost reports filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and home care agencies. In calculating the administrative share of health care spending, we excluded retail pharmacy sales and a few other categories for which data on administrative costs were unavailable. We used census surveys to explore trends over time in administrative employment in health care settings. Costs are reported in U.S. dollars.

    Results In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

    Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

    Conclusions The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

    Source Information

    From the Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass. (S.W., D.U.H.); and the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Ont., Canada (T.C.).

    Address reprint requests to Dr. Himmelstein at 1493 Cambridge St., Cambridge, MA 02139.

    Yes, Loin, even after a specifically stated that "I HEARD" the figure was 'AROUND' 33%, so as to not give the impression I was making a statement of undisputed fact.

    What an idiot this guy is!!!!!

    Typical Mike...new year, but the same old sophomoric attacks on other posters. "Idiot", "pompous jerk" and "freak" in obnoxious CAPS to those simply looking for an honest debate.

    Happy New Year all! (except Mike)

    Yeah your right Redstate, I shouldn't have stooped down to his level....or yours!

    I quoted three sources, one from BlueCross, Blue Shield, one from the state of California, and another from a national study by a health care group. I mentioned the Harvard Study as being unusually high in the reporting they made and of course, as predicted, here comes Beef who quotes the nearly five-year old Harvard report whose figures seem out of line with the other three reports which are MORE CURRENT.

    Beef, you're not helping Mikey at all.

    If you're going to use figures all I ask if that you not pull them out of your ass and not use ones that are five, ten, 100 years old.

    Oh yeah, and not whine like a bitch when you get called out on it.

    Is there any actual ISSUE you'd actually like to debate, or do want to keep whining about opposing statistics?

    I'd like you and Beef to stop pulling statistics out your ass that have no bearing on reality. You can't debate a point when your essential starting point is so seriously flawed as this one was.

    Look at the NY Times article again. It explicitly says that a 2005 study by the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm commissioned to examine a proposal to provide universal health coverage in California, estimated that administrative costs consumed 20 percent of total health care expenditures nationwide. Yes, it quotes the Harvard article cited by Beef but only that Harvard article seems to estimate costs that high.

    here's one more source:
    Fall 2006. http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1498
    "An estimated 15 cents of each private U.S. health care dollar goes simply to shuffling the paperwork."

    15 cents is a long way from the 30 cent range.

    Additionally, from 2005: http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday255.php
    "A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI) shows that Medicare’s costs are underestimated, and private costs overestimated. If hidden administrative costs are added in, Medicare’s costs are seen to be about 5.2 percent. Private sector costs, calculated in a comparable way, are 8.9 percent, or 16.7 percent if commissions, premium tax, and profit are included."

    So tell me, why is it that you two can't seem to use FACTS, why you must INFLATE, EXAGGERATE and LIE about what you're saying, and why, when refuted, can't admit you're wrong?

    I know Olbermann is your idol. I know you're used to seeing him do the same thing, right down to refusing to correct his mistakes, but really, don't you think it's time to get a new resolution for this New Year and get your facts straight and apologize when you're wrong?

    Mike: It's "You're right, RedState," not "your right". I see your grammar will continue to be embarassing in 2007.

    And you should know better, FactCheck...Mike is never wrong, and everything in the world is doomed to fail. It's all part of his sunny personality.

    On to other topics, I'm disappointed that the Iraqis somehow screwed up a simple execution. Who decided to use a guard who is a member of Al Sadr's gang to mock Saddam? Now we have protests from the Sunnis over that stupid exchange, who, like Mike, will look for any opening to complain about anything.

    Sigh! FactCheck: I'll try one more time.

    First off, my only problem with you is that you don't seem capable of arguing a point without trying to demean your opponent with statements like 'pulling it out of your ass", "half a brain", 'dumbass', etc. Is this like "trash talking" in a sports event to you? You started that crap both times, and I admit I failed to show enough class to avoid getting in the gutter with you. I'm not going to do that again.
    Are you at all capable of disagreeing or disputing something without throwing around insults, because if the answer is no, I'm not interested in addressing anything else you have to say. If you ARE actually capable of having a civil on line conversation, then...lets talk!

    Now, If you will go back and look at that statement you attacked earlier today, you might just note that my actual quote was "I have heard that approximately 33% of the health care dollar goes to administrative and gatekeepers". That was NOT a lie....the last newspaper study I read on the subject stated that this was a composite figure taken by averaging a number of studies. The 2 key words in that quote from me were 'heard', and 'approximately'. That clearly meant I was repeating something out I had read fairly recently in a credible source, not as an absolute statistic. What is there about that concept is so difficult for you to grasp? Why do you think I should have to 'prove' to you that I'm not lying about something I have recently read?

    I could easily also say that I heard Bush's last approval rating was 32%, and that would also be the truth. Would that mean I was also "pulling that out of my ass" just because the latest figure you saw was 34%?

    Beef is correct, you DO keep throwing out strawman arguments because you clearly don't want to debate real issues. Why is that?

    In both situations; today's and last nights, my arguments were very sound regarding the issues I was trying to raise, but all you wanted to do was split hairs.

    The truth as I see it is that too way much of the health care dollar is being eaten up with insurance adminstrative costs, overhead, and CEO costs. That basic truth remains true whether the actual figure is 40%, 33%, 31%, or 21%, all figures put out by apparent credible studies...it's TOO high, and that money could be put to much better use in the actual treatment of patients...or lowering costs. That is the real point here!

    The vast majority of the rest of the world hates our foreign policy. You know it, I know it, and everybody with a brain knows it. I and many others believe that the figure is in the 80% - 90% range, and you may think the figure might actually be closer to 60% - 70%. Problem is, you have no 'facts' in which to dispute what I believe, so exactly what is your problem with someone stating what they believe using an approximate numerical value!

    You can cut and paste, and link to so called 'facts' all day long from any number of equally compelling sources, and never find any two studies that agree. We could do that all day long but that would be running away from the real arguments.

    RedState:

    You're problem is that you don't ever actually say anything in your posts other than to try to demean others, but that last comment sounded suspiciously like you were the one doing the whinning and complaining to me!

    And yes, I admit my grammar is far from perfect, but if you go back over previous posts, you will see that I do normally use 'you're' in the correct context....little Miss perfect!

    Sir Lion, Codas and Mike,
    Happy New Years. I know at times I've made outrageous statements towards. I apologize. It's a new year and I'm turning a new leaf. It's a new year and I'm not doing personal attacks on you guys no more.
    Anyway getting back to the conversation. I agree that's there's too much of corporate monopoly. It's globalization, which I oppose. As a Nationalist It's not good when International entities can influence the the govenment. However making the people dependent on the governmnet is not the solution. What is needed is Governmnet making sure that these entities don't become powerful. There are many issues I agree with the Left with on certain economic and social issues. However I do not out of a Socialist mind but out of love of my nation.
    I do believe the Internationalist companies be broken up. Also the outsourcing of jobs must stop. One way to do this is raise taxes on the profits the companies make by down sizing.

    Mike,
    Who cares what the rest of the world thinks. We should have no permanent allies, but permanent interests. That's where I and the Left diverge. I'm a Nationalist not an Internationalist. Besides the reason people are anti-American is because they can't get immigration visas. Give those people a Visa and you'll see how pro-American they become.

    Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike: Just admit that you pulled this number our your ass and we can discuss anything you'd like. You're just digging yourself in deeper. Now it's that this study you claimed to have heard quoted with the 33% figure was an AVERAGE of studies. Problem is that other than the now debunked Harvard study I couldn't find a single study that had a percentage even approaching 30% and if studies were being averaged at to arrive at the stat you claim to have heard (i.e., dreamed up) then the percentages in those averaged studies would have had to have been even higher than the 31% percentage in the Harvard figure, depending, upon how many studies were averaged, as high as 40-50-60. There is NO study that shows that. NONE. Which means you're LYING again. The rules are simple. You stop lying and I'll stop calling you out on it. Deal in facts Mike. See, those links I posted? Those lead to facts. Not numbers pulled out of thin air. You don't seem to grasp that when you create this history of using misleading figures, facts, quotes, etc, that your credibility goes flying out the window. And when your credibility goes, what's the point of discussing anything with you? You're trying to set forth items for your agenda to "debate" but the problem is that your basic premises are so deeply flaw and error filled that I just have to ask myself what the point is really, given your well-known propensity for hedging, shading the truth, and lying. Much like the subject of this website, one Mr. Keith T. Olbermann.

    "However making the people dependent on the governmnet is not the solution. What is needed is Governmnet making sure that these entities don't become powerful."

    Red Wolf is my new hero. Exactly, My Friend! That is exactly what Mike and I have been saying. This perspective is the one that will realize the "level playing field" for millions of small, successful entrepreneurs that you have advocated in the past (although with less clear understanding of what that really means than what you just articulated).

    The idea that "deregulation" is anything but letting the powerful industrial interests rewrite the rules governing economic activity in their own favor is a delusion. Universal/single payer health coverage would be a consensual decision between free citizens to collectively maintain a minimum standard of physical well-being for American citizens - it is the farthest thing from dependency and its societal and economic benefits would be exponential.

    I am delighted to reach this common ground with you, Red Wolf - and I too promse to maintain more decorum in our discussions in this new year.

    OK, I give up, you hang on to your so called 'facts', and I'll hang on to mine! Clearly you didn't understand the meaning of the word 'average'.

    Nope, keep fooling yourself....you certainly don't have all the 'facts', nobody does.

    Your hero Bush, certainly had the 'facts' when he invaded Iraq, didn't he? I'm certain that you believed all those 'facts' about WMD yourself.

    Although KO's not my hero, I'll certainly take him as a role model any day over your's!, Mr. Factoid.

    Good night and good luck!

    I give up factoid:

    Yep, you keep on believing you have a handle on the 'facts'. It seems to be all you have.

    Yep, your hero sure did have the facts about WMB and sectarian rivalries when he invaded Iraq, didn't he? Now why didn't straighten him out on these things before he went and got us in the middle of a deadly quagmire?

    Since you alone seem to be privy to all the 'facts', why in the world are you wasting your valuable time on this little old discussion board? We need really someone who knows everything in DC right now!

    KO is not my hero, but I'll take him over your hero Mr. Shrub, anyday!

    Red Wolf:

    You are a riot! I never know when you're putting us on or when you are serious?

    ....let me add, Red Wolf:

    Adam Smith begins his protracted discussion of economic systems ("The Wealth of Nations") with an exploration of matters regarding labor - which is essentially every productive member of society that does not own the capital of production. He is clear that a sustainable (Smith is refreshingly big on sustainability relative to modern economic "conservatives") economy is one that considers the health and well-being of laborers and their spouses and children. He clearly lays the responsibility of a "comfortable" (his word) maintenance of the working class on the "masters" (his word). In his day this referred to capital ownership, as well as the governing class, who were generally one in the same.

    Here in the 21st century we citizens claim to be our own masters and, as I have pointed out above, constituionally in control of our government. It is well within our power to take Smith's good advice, and mandate for the good of the American people, industry, economy, and society a universal collaborative health system.

    Dang, I just cain't wait until Olby comes back tomorrow. He'll straighten ya'll out!

    I do undersatnd the definition of the word average as well as the practice of averaging and the truth is that you can't take Study A that says 100% and Study B that says 80% and arrive at an average of 20% but that's what you've tried to do. In fact, what you've tried to do is worse because you don't even have Study A that says 100% or Study B that says 80%, you've gone ONE discredited study from Harvard that says 31% but are referring instead to some mythical study which you now claim (post-being caught at it) that was 33% that averaged in other (mythical) studies to arrive at that figure. But as I've stated, I've researched carefully and there's not a single study I can find that arrives at a percentage higher than the disputed Harvard study with 31%, meaning that you are lying.

    Just admit that you were wrong and that you lied Mike. And then that you told another lie to get out of your first lie. Now you're trying to "lecture" me on the concept of averaging when it's very evident you don't have the slighest concept of the meaning of the word.

    Furthermore, could you please tell me where you got your evidence that I supported Bush or this war from other than the deep recesses of your brain and/or ass? Look back at my posts. There's no evidence there that says any such thing.

    I don't know Mike, it seems to me admitting you're wrong, apologizing for your poorly executed cover-up, and then deciding to make up tales about me and my believes that are totally without a shred of evidence might be easier than continuing this little farce you've decided to carry to the nth degree.

    Understand. Not undersatnd.

    see how easy that is to admit I was wrong and apologize for it? Take notes Mike.

    I agree with Fact Check: the level of significance in regard to the matter being discussed of the statisical discrepancies that he has been hectoring Mike about is about the same as that for his minor and materially irrelevant misspelling above. Bravo.

    I'm glad you guys were able to smooth this one over.

    I do think there needs to be some Healthcare reform. It's a burden on businesses and individuals. That depresses wages.

    "The very first interaction I had of any kind on this site with Grammie involved her popping up out of the blue and accusing me of lurking on beastiality, incest, scatophlia, and homoerotica websites. Don't feel sorry for this old battle-axe's wilting sensibilities......

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at January 1, 2007 09:25 AM"

    I just have to respond to SLOB cherry picking and being abusive and misstating facts again. I did a little research and here is the chronology. It is both denotatively and connotatively accurate and is directly quoted from us both.

    The first two are the first two posts made by SLOB.

    "I just found out about this pathetic site. ...
    ... Crawl away - crawl back up O'Reilly's ass...

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 10, 2006 08:27 AM"

    "...you pack of deluded fascist goons.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 10, 2006 08:35 AM"

    It didn't take SLOB long to become slobish, did it?

    Within two days this is what SLOB proudly claimed as his and his alone:


    ....irrational bumblef---s
    bloodthirsty paranoid rat-finks
    Kiss my ass you stupid f---ing neocon freak
    sick, lazy, banal examples of the worst humanity has to offer
    violent xenophobia
    worthless pieces of heartless shit
    REPRESSED homos
    murdering cocksucker
    jackass
    retard

    and all this just since 1247pm today!"

    " You are extrapolating this this list of vile curses and harsh epithets as being the agressive effluent of every progressive posting at this site; but this is absolutely not the case!

    If I'm not mistaken each and every one of those well deserved labels were from my posts....

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 12, 2006 05:35 PM"

    SLOB went on to flesh out his raison d'�tre:

    ".....I just like to express hatred of America's right wing and its leveraging America into fascism.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 03:03 PM"

    "Yeah, I hate. Your side makes me seethe with rage, and the concommitant feelings of intellectual superiority......

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 04:09 PM"

    .... I only post here for the catharsis I experience by expressing my visceral hatred to some of the right wing dipshits that are destroying our country and world....
    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 01:24 PM"


    "... I've said it before, I come here to vent my spleen on you stupid fascist bumblef---s who are voting your country into ruin. Its very cathartic.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 09:23 PM"

    "The people left in Bush's camp.... they're psychotic leader-worshippers. Bush could tell them to slaughter their own children....and these fools would probably do it.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 13, 2006 09:30 PM"

    ".. my conclusion .... the dregs of the Republican base .... at heart crave a redemptive race-war. They mix ancient history, cardboard cut-out "realism", and bronze-age mythology in their cluttered rationales.... They willfully ignore clear evidence that they are wrong,.... because they literally desire this war .... televised carnage ......

    Go back to licking your own hairy nutsack, wolfie.

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 15, 2006 11:43 PM"

    Having never addressed SLOB before I posted the following slanderous lying comment the next day:

    "Just a thought. Lets let Sir Rotten Loin of Beef talk to himself and ignore him. If no one will play his little game he might confine himself to porn sites where he can rhapodise (sic) to his heart's content about body cavities, his mother and/or father, animals, toddlers, young boys, nubile girls, corpses and whatever else he is obsessed with.

    I think Winston Churchill said if you let your opponent change the topic of the debate you've already lost. And for myself, I don't like the topic being constantly changed by his obviously sick mind.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 16, 2006 03:21 PM"

    And, in his inimitable style SLOB responded:

    "Some sick bitch called "Grammy" posted this:...
    "Change the topic"? It wasn't me that started talking about body cavities, inscest, beastiality. necrophilia, etc.

    Wanna get together?

    Posted by: Sir Loin of Beef at October 17, 2006 08:53 AM"

    I corrected his claim of outraged purity by quoting exerpts from a few hours the previous day:

    "Sir Rotten Loin, this is the SICK BITCH GRAMMY (sic). ...

    From five posts by you in a few hours:

    How deep into your own navels can you crawl?

    Packed into the mother f---ing Crystal Cathedral fighting over the youngest altar boys

    How many gay male prostitutes work for Olbermann Watch?

    (in red states that would be f---ing too many of the dogs himself)

    its wierd and oedipal

    I am convinced at some point you will lose your super human restraint in the face of such provocation and throw in necrophilia. How dare anyone disagree with such a superb intellect and debater? Shameful!

    Poor little baby. Grammie hates to treat potty mouthed little boys harshly, but sometimes she must for their own good.

    Now, if you can stop crying and whining Grammie will give you some cookies and juice and put you down for a nice little nap.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at October 17, 2006 03:50 PM""

    Some quick illustrative examples of SLOB's outrage on 10/17/06:

    'some old perverted bat'

    'her own sick fantasies.

    'Clinton, virgins, volcano....stop it! You're making Grammie hot.'

    'Aw Grammy, you barbaric old cunt

    No doubt SLOB frequently calls his own grandmothers 'barbaric old c**ts' when he sees them as the fondest terms of respect and love that he can give them.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Another point of crytaline agreement with Red Wolf!! It is a New Year!!

    The requirement to supply health care to employees is an onerous one for small business - one of the burdens that huge business interests have been hapy to lay on the system to prevent the entry of diverse competition.

    Big companies absorb these costs through economy of scale and by using the very effect of depressing wages as a sob-story to ....keep wages unnaturally low!!

    The original idea appears to have been voluntary on the part of industry- to woo empowered labor during the hey-day of the post-war New Deal. Although he attempted to remove the security and health of our nation from the vagaries of the market, FDR failed the idea of an open equitable economy when he acquiessed to the Industry demands for an imposed employer-paid system rather than a universal single-payer health care system.


    Grammie,

    I never said I didn't cast vile epithets and insults along with most others on this site; but don't pretend you don't take part as well ("My word! I'm getting the vapors!")

    Your first message to me was unsolicited, scatological, and repulsive. I'm not complaining about it; I'm not saying I didn't invite it through similar behavior; I'm just pointing out your crocodile tears.

    Shall we get on to topics of some relevance and import?

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

    And what's with the dossier on my OW activities from day one? That's pretty f---ing wierd, if you ask me.

    Do Dollar and Cox archive stuff that far back? or does Grammie keep such close track herself? Kind of makes me go "eeeeeeyuuugghhh".

    Actually, Grammie - thanks for the retrospective on my previous comments from months and months gone by - some of those were f---ing brilliant, if I do say so myself!

    I just wish you'd supplied the full context for some of them - in order to show the multi-layered irony with which I at times have skewered my opponents here at Olbermann Watch. Hapy New Year to you, as well!

    I am cutting and saving your post, Grammie, for my own litle trophy files - but if you feel like filling in the context as I have discussed I would be very grateful.

    Factoid: Well now, you just pulled your description of my averaging ability straight out of your own ass. No a--hole, if you average 80$ and 100%, you get 90% and nothing I said or implied indicates otherwise. YOU sir are the liar! I stand by everything I've said!

    Amazing, all the wordage, and yet you've said absolutely nothing!

    You are also about the strangest SOB I've ever come across on an opinion board, and just about the biggest jerk as well!

    Now now FactCheck, you've spent the last day badgering and making up things about Mike, why shouldn't he be making up things about you?

    Factoid, I'm glad to see that your hero, Mr. Shrub, is finally working on a 'plan' for Iraq. But damn, I sure do wish he'd done that a little sooner!

    Irony is lost on you isn't it Mike? I was actually using those numbers as an example of the type of 'averaging" you would like us to believe existed to prove your 33% figure was correct. I knew full well those numbers didn't average out to what I said they did, which was my point. Just using your math skills as an example Mike ole' buddy.

    So you've had a bit of a difficult day here at Olbermannwatch. You've been caught lying, you've then been caught trying to cover that lie with your oh so pathetic "averaging" alibi and now once that has been exposed for what it is what do you resort to? Insults.

    Excuse me, but aren't you the same Mike who likes to lecture people here on not insulting others, name-calling etc, then likes to grandly announce you're not going to speak or acknowledge them because they've insulted you and hurt your feelings? A bit hypocritical there aren't you Mikey?

    Irony is lost on you isn't it Mike? I was actually using those numbers as an example of the type of 'averaging" you would like us to believe existed to prove your 33% figure was correct. I knew full well those numbers didn't average out to what I said they did, which was my point. Just using your math skills as an example Mike ole' buddy.

    So you've had a bit of a difficult day here at Olbermannwatch. You've been caught lying, you've then been caught trying to cover that lie with your oh so pathetic "averaging" alibi and now once that has been exposed for what it is what do you resort to? Insults.

    Excuse me, but aren't you the same Mike who likes to lecture people here on not insulting others, name-calling etc, then likes to grandly announce you're not going to speak or acknowledge them because they've insulted you and hurt your feelings? A bit hypocritical there aren't you Mikey?

    The right wing Kool Aid squad all agreed that getting rid of Saddam was supposed to make the world safer.
    Losing another 2,500 soldiers since Saddam was imprisoned and now a civil war raging does not sound very safe to me. Does anyone believe that America is safer today even with Saddam Hussein dead?

    Just a thought.

    While you idiots argue about who said what and when, we rang in the New Year with grim news: 3,000 American war dead in Iraq. Untold tens of thousands of Iraqis too.

    Too bad, really, because it was all a mistake. What do 3,000 dead look like when it was all a mistake?

    It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake.
    It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake. It was all a mistake.

    3,000 American war dead. So, how do you ask anyone, American, Iraqi or otherwise, to be the last to die for a mistake?

    Does anyone believe that America is safer today even with Saddam Hussein dead?

    Just a thought.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 1, 2007 11:40 PM

    I would say the world is safer with his two lunatic sons dead. That is the only good that came from this rotten war, that those two will never have the power that their father had. Although I believe they would and could have been dealt with without using our army and our soldiers lives. Saddam had not pity on the ones he put to death but I still think his exacution was barberic and below us. Who knows what kind of karma will bite this country in the ass because of this entire bloody mess.

    Keep supporting the war,you f---ing idiots.

    Codas,

    We did not execute Saddam.

    Did getting rid of saddam's sons (who were barbarians)
    make the situation in Iraq any safer?
    Is it helping to get to the light at the end of the tunnel ?
    Violence begats violence.
    On and on and on it goes.

    check out this shameless wonder:
    Guess who he is ?

    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/01/the-shameless-wonder/

    No, it's only just your little illusion that I've been "caught lying", because I HAVEN"T LIED! Not one time!

    Tell me ole buddy, if you read something in a respected newspaper and then restate that information later in a casual discussion as an OPINION, would you expect someone to call you a liar simply because you don't currently have access to the source of that information? Would you really....somehow I don't think so! That's exactly what you have been doing to me.

    That's where I will admit you did get to me. You see, I'm just not used to people calling me a liar, and it's obvious that you don't understand the definition of a lie. I stated those figures as my OPINION, not absolute fact. This is an opinion board. How can my opinion be a lie, unless I were somehow lying about my own opinion?

    I did in fact name a credible study that stated the figure to be 40% (yes, even higher than 33% I stated), yet you threw that one out, or conveniently forgot about it. Who are you to pick and choose the studies you will accept, and the ones you won't?

    Not one of your posts has addressed any of the points I raised on this issue. Whether the actual number is 33%, 20%, or 40% is probably not even known, so despite your continued bluster, there is probably no such thing as absolute 'fact' regarding this statistic, and rest assured, you don't have them either.

    You refused to address the fact that I said "I heard" and also used the word 'approximately' in that post as if it would have no bearing on the issue. Then you even cited one study that gave the figure at 31%, but then you conveniently dismissed that one as 'discredited'.

    I stated opinions in both instances and you refuse to acknowledge that I have every right to state an opinion regarding issues and statistics, and honest opinions by definition, are not lies.

    OK, so now lets define a 'lie': Lying is knowingly stating something to be a fact when you know otherwise. Stating an honest opinion is NOT a lie, even if it that opinion is proven false. You also have been trying to impugne my integrity by calling me a liar when you have no proof whatsoever that I 'lied' about anything.

    I will admit that you are pretty good at what you are doing here, but then there is nothing honorable about what you are doing. I am pretty new at this game and it's clear I have made a mistake allowing myself to become engaged in semantics with you.

    Yes...and about the name calling! This is the only thing I have to be apologetic for. You see, I truly don't understand name calling and insults, and yet it happens all the time on this board. It seems very cowardly to hurl insults at someone from the anonimity and safety of a keyboard. That said, I admit I was not big enough to keep from stooping to that level once you started it...hypocrytical?...maybe!

    Finally, If my OPINIONS are wrong in these instances(something I have not conceding), it does not in any way make me a liar, and if you insist on continuing to define it that way, then it just makes you a pretty small human being, even if you are pretty good at verbal badgering.

    Good night!

    Codas,

    We did not execute Saddam.

    Posted by: Rico at January 1, 2007 11:54 PM

    Would Saddam have been executed without us? It was without a doubt an Iraqi court and it is fine with me if that is what they wanted. Americans delivered him to the executioner knowing full well he would be put to death. So we did play are part. It just gave me a sick feeling. Killing him didn't bring back one life he took. It just showed the world more barberism.

    Codas,

    Saddam was rightfully executed for the crimes he committed. I suppose you also think it was wrong to hang those Nazis at Nuremberg?

    Did getting rid of saddam's sons (who were barbarians)
    make the situation in Iraq any safer?
    Is it helping to get to the light at the end of the tunnel ?
    Violence begats violence.
    On and on and on it goes.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 1, 2007 11:55 PM

    I hear you, but Saddams sons, paticulrly Udah or whatever his name was would have made their dad look like tiny tim. I hate the Iraq war, but I am glad that crazt bastard didn't live long enough to do whatever it is he would have done.

    Codas,

    Saddam was rightfully executed for the crimes he committed. I suppose you also think it was wrong to hang those Nazis at Nuremberg?

    Posted by: Rico at January 2, 2007 12:03 AM

    In fairness to the conversation, I am against the death penalty so I would be against killing even Nazi's. I don't say the some don't deserve death, just that I believe taking a human being and planning their death even if it is for a hideous crime is a murderous act.

    Codas,

    At least you are glad that Saddam's two boys, Beevis and Buttheat, are dead. That's better than nothing. Half full!

    Codas,

    At least you are glad that Saddam's two boys, Beevis and Buttheat, are dead. That's better than nothing. Half full!

    Posted by: Rico at January 2, 2007 12:14 AM

    If I am not mistaken, doesn't Saddam have a daughter? I would be very wary of any of his family ever having anything close to power in that country for a mighty long time.

    Codas,

    Three daughters. Two of them are widows. If Saddam were still alive he would enjoy telling us how that happened.

    Codas,

    Three daughters. Two of them are widows. If Saddam were still alive he would enjoy telling us how that happened.

    Posted by: Rico at January 2, 2007 12:37 AM

    Let me guess, he killed his son on laws? Who is going to play Saddam in the movie about his life? Pacino?

    Mike, I am ecstatic that not only do you aggree with me, but you state the case so persuasively:

    "OK, so now lets define a 'lie': Lying is knowingly stating something to be a fact when you know otherwise. Stating an honest opinion is NOT a lie, even if it that opinion is proven false. You also have been trying to impugne my integrity by calling me a liar when you have no proof whatsoever that I 'lied' about anything."

    Every intelligence agency that I know of, including Mid East, Israel, England, Germany, France, Russia, USA et al reported that Hussein had and was pursuing WMD.

    This assessment began in the 1980's and continued thru Clinton and GWB to after the the Iraq invasion. Saddam Hussein made every effort to advance the belief.

    This intelligence, in the same form presented to the president, was shared with the appropriate leaders of both parties by all the presidents. Clinton, GWB, Gore, Cheney, Kerry, Frist on and on made numerous similar public statements re the danger this presented and that we would not shy away from inflicting the ultimate consequence on Iraq.

    All appear to have been mistaken. But some have conveniently forgotten their own roles and now join in the chorus that Bush lied.

    I am so glad to see that you now realize the difference between a lie and a mistake made in good conscience.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Janet:

    Do I agree that we have no proof that Bush 'lied'? Of course not, but I don't rule out the possibility given the fairly credible allegations of "cherry picking". He seemed to "want it" awful bad at the time.

    Do I think he used good judgment in going into Iraq? NO! I'm not one of the Johnny come lately's on that point.

    You made one very good point in that if you were to use 'FactCheck's' definition of a 'lie', Bush would be guilty as sin!

    Elect....Obama!

    Grammie, I screwed up the post above: I meant to say of course we have no proof that he lied.

    SLOB, I know that any search for remotely equivalent behavior from me will be in vain.

    You seem to think that you are memorable. Not quite. I would put it more in the category of infamous.

    I've been around the block a lot more times than most who post here. And in all that time I have never been called a c**t, barbaric or not. For some strange reason it stuck in my mind.

    It took fifteen minutes to locate the few days that I catalogued above. It was pure luck that I hit upon the first two days you posted here.

    I took you at your word. You have justifiable self righteous rage because your inferiors refuse to acknowledge their wrong doing. Your purpose, therefore, is to vent your hatred because it feels good. I assume the imaginative language is just an added bonus for your psych.

    Not having seen any repudiation of your own words I have declined to engage with you for several months and have not changed my low opinion of you as an individual.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Mike, that is two things we now seem to be in general agreement about, Habeus Corpus and Bush lied.

    Averages are very tricky things. You can't average averages. And, when it comes to statistics there are so many variables and different terminologys involved one must be extremely careful. Without some guide of what is being measured, in relation to what, in what time frame, using what terminology and the exact meaning of the terminology, what are the variables and have they been accounted for etc you can make statistics say black is white.

    I have read some excellent articles on this by Thomas Sowell, Phd.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Janet:

    I never tried to average 'averages'. That was just Factoid twisting what I had actually said. All I did was cite a study I had read in a major newspaper around 6 months ago. Since I read newspapers every day and I don't exactly file them away, I didn't think it would be particularly unusual to post what I remembered of this study from memory....preceded by "I heard", and 'approximately'. Call me naive, but it just didn't occur to me that some fool was going to call me a 'liar' just because I couldn't provide him with a link to that particular study. I'm not even a computer wiz, so cutting, pasting, and finding on line data is not exactly my forte. I have to admit this zealot calling me a 'liar' kind of floored me, but I shouldn't have let it bother me! Funny, I just don't think like that...I don't assume someone is 'lying' just because I can't confirm or agree with something they post. I guess I'm just too new at this!

    As for the "Bush lied" thing, do you hold open the POSSIBILITY that Bush wasn't 100% truthfull in the leadup to the war. That could be a difference between us.

    Mike, I skimmed thru the exchanges and didn't particularly mean that you had averaged averages. I was really just making the point about the whole realm of citing statistics and all the pitfalls. Many people deliberately take advantage of the inherent ease of manipulating statistics to lie.

    The 'Bush lied thing' depends on what you mean by that. I don't see any possibility that he did not essentially state the case as he, and other high ranking officials from both parties, saw it for many years. Do I see any possibility that he may have fudged on some occassions. Of course.

    As the head of state I don't see how he, or any other, doesn't do it at times. That is a far cry from he and his administration perpertrated a deliberate hoax on the American people. And that is the accusation in the whole 'Bush lied thing'. And if Bush lied, so did all the others who had esentially the same access that he did to the original intelligence reports.

    The additional frenzied Bush is still lying every day about the conflict is no more credible to me than the 'Bush lied thing'. I have followed this pretty closely and have always understood him to mean by 'stay the course' to refer to the ultimate goal, not the paricular objective or tactics employed to get there on a day to day or month to month basis.

    As CIC, do you really expect him to moan and groan to the public about every set back? I would say that the early years of the Civil War were very likely the most perilous years our country faced in our history. Are you certain that the Union would have been preserved if Lincoln had given doom and gloom speeches detailing each and every setback proclaiming his incompentency in picking generals, the disastrous campaigns and the losses suffered? And, no, I am not comparing GWB to Lincoln in any other way than in the sense that leaders just shouldn't and don't continually panic and highlight every pitfall or they are lying.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    The two options at the time (2002/2003), in dealing with Saddam Hussein, was either continued sanctions/containment/diplomatic efforts, or military enforcement of the resolutions. President Bush, with advice from his cabinet, including doves, opted to move militarily. The bed was made.

    The senseless debate about who knew what when, and who said what when has never factually proved that the administration had a plan of fabricating support for war. Even "the press," has only made sweeping, unsubstantiated judgements with regard to motives....no whistle blowers have ever come forward to show there was a concerted effort to "lie us into war."

    Plame and Wilson have shown themselves to be partisian, with their own, selfish motives for fame, money and power. The whole affair has come to symbolize war opposition strategy in trying to imply some conspirisy factory.

    Keith Olbermann's special comments with regard to the war uses these unsupported smears against a policy that controls millions of people's lives. Has it really been effective in changing anything for the better?

    No. In fact, it is now being predicted MORE troops will be sent. If the people opposed to the war REALLY wanted to stop it, a different strategy would have emerged since 7/2003 (Willson's op-ed)....Nothing has changed.....it is still Bush lied....

    No increased war protests
    No widespread civil disobedience to thwart the war effort
    No attempt at blocking war funding
    No "Jane Fonda" like moments where the left takes a chance to effect a cease-fire

    Why? I ask the committed anti-war activists on this site, even Keith Olbermann...Why nothing stronger from the left for over three years now in stopping the war? All I hear are words/threats/opinion about bad it all is and it should be stopped....NO ACTION.

    The election in 2006 should give the left the ability to act now......so let's see....ACTION?

    If Bush lied....articles of Impeachment brought to a vote in the house?

    If the war is immoral....decreased funding to force troop redeployments?

    If there is such widespread corruption and war profiteering....congressional investigations, supoenas and requests for special counsels?

    No democratic leaders have specifically mentioned the above possibilities. Why?

    I have my own answer to the question....but the election in 2008 is a LONG time away and how many more people is the left willing to see die or be wounded so that political power can be gained?

    If Bush lied....articles of Impeachment brought to a vote in the house?

    Posted by: cee at January 2, 2007 07:50 AM

    He did lie and articles of impeachment should be brought up against him. The Democrats know that impeaching him wouldn't solve the problems he is responsible for and have more sense and class than the Republicans who impeached Clinton had. Not to mention that in this case the VP is WORSE than the President. History will impeach Bush. This country, or at least the sane part of it knows that Bush at the very least was deluded and at the worst a tool of the "Christian" fanatics who would have us all die in a nuclear nightmare if they had their way. But unfortunetly for them, God is in control, not them. Or you cee.

    Poor codas...like the rest of your group, all you see in this war is a chance to

    gain political/worldy power

    have revenge on George Bush

    have revenge against a group of people you see as an enemy...."Christian" fanatics

    The worst part is that you say you want to save lives, stop the killing and have peace...but you do not, in reality. You just want the above.

    codas, I feel sorry for you in becoming a tool of the radical left. The goals of any secular political group is void of principle or honor. This is why Bush gets you so angry. He actually is acting on principle and honor, however you project your own weaknesses of being consumed by the want of power and revenge on him and his supporters.

    And codas, you once again speak out of both sides of your mouth with regard to God and history.....Since I know how it irritates you when I do it:

    "Fear of man will prove to be a snare,
    but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe."
    PROVERBS 29:25

    Bush has said and shown he does not worry about, "what history will say." Guess who writes the history......MEN!

    Bush's attitude is TRULY believing God is in control! Codas, you live in fear of what men think. Stop projecting.

    This is silly, Janet. You just wrote:

    "SLOB, I know that any search for remotely equivalent behavior from me will be in vain."

    ...but in your post from last night you yourself included this opening salvo from you months ago, at a point at which I had never interacted with you:


    "Just a thought. Lets let Sir Rotten Loin of Beef talk to himself and ignore him. If no one will play his little game he might confine himself to porn sites where he can rhapodise (sic) to his heart's content about body cavities, his mother and/or father, animals, toddlers, young boys, nubile girls, corpses and whatever else he is obsessed with."


    You have no moral high ground over me in this regard - quit your bellyaching. Lets forget vile insults that have flown both ways and follow suit with Red Wolf: lets resolve that this New Year will be one with more decorum between our opposing positions.

    codas, I feel sorry for you in becoming a tool of the radical left. The goals of any secular political group is void of principle or honor. This is why Bush gets you so angry. He actually is acting on principle and honor, however you project your own weaknesses of being consumed by the want of power and revenge on him and his supporters.

    And codas, you once again speak out of both sides of your mouth with regard to God and history.....Since I know how it irritates you when I do it:

    Bush doesn't get me angry. I think he is a deluded and misguided man. You use the war as a political hammer against liberals and then accuse them of being political. You have been speaking out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to God from day one. Saying Bush believes God is in control is the stupidest thing you have said. I guess Bush didn't think God was in control enough so he helped him out by attacking Saddams country. If he believed God was in control than shouldn't his gripe be with God, not Saddam? You are very deluded cee. I feel bad that you still support a world view that is causing so much death and discrediting your religion.

    "Bush's attitude is TRULY believing God is in control! Codas, you live in fear of what men think. Stop projecting"

    Spoken like a true Jihadist, cee.

    Idiots....

    You both selectively apply what I write....my first post clearly said Bush acted based on information and advice from his cabinet. He chose option #2....enforcing the UN resolutions regarding Iraq.

    He did it and continues to the goal of a stable Iraqi government DESPITE the fear you guys spread about him. I support him despite the hateful things you say about him.

    I never said he did it because God told him to....he has said he prays and feels the peace of God that is available. You secularists, who do not experience such in prayer, immedietly jump and say he says God is endorcing what he is doing.....give me a quote otherwise.

    I nor Bush know what God has planned. It may be peace it may be war....you automatically believe that what you want is what a loving God wants. Guess what...it does not work that way.

    Bush's ATTITUDE....no matter what happens...pain, pleasure, good, bad, success or failure....God is in control. Loin will never understand that idea because

    1 he does not believe in God, and

    2 only pleasurable/beneficial to man things are "good."

    Guess what? Good and bad have nothing to do with how it feels.....If it did, people would never sacrifice for a good cause...like Iraq.

    That is a core difference between the secular humanist and the theist.

    It takes 5 minutes at most to go to Google and confirm something. Mike can't be bothered. And why? Because he pulls his facts out of his ass and empty brain and then tries to pass them off as having been published in a major newspaper. In fact he can't even seem to remember if he "heard" this mythical stat of his or if he "read" it. That's the thing with lying, it becomes very difficult to repeat a story correctly because you see, it's a story of fiction. And Mike seems to keep nit-picking with me without ever admitting to the fiction he told at this board, without ever apoloogizing for lying. Instead he wants to lecture me on what a lie was. Mike, we don't need lectures on lying, we have your "fine" posts to choose from which more than illustrate the concept. And extra bonus points too for your lack of courage in admitting your error and your attempts to pas de deux around it and create red herrings instead to avoid having to face the fire so to speak. You're nothing if not predictable and oh so amusing.

    Cee is just another religious nut who believes God is controling George Bush.
    To Cee, Iraq is an honorable and noble endeavor.

    Now back to reality.
    Iraq is the worst foreign policy excursion in our country's history.
    3,000 of our young ones dead.Tens of thousands permanently injured.Possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead or maimed.

    All of this in the name of God.

    This is surely some sick thinking.
    Along the same lines as our religious nutcase enemies.

    Dr. Lapdog continues to lick the boots of George Bush no matter how discredited Bush nor he has become.
    Thank our merciful God that these bozos have been shown the door with the election this past November.

    Bush is back at his ranch,"rethinking" his Iraq policy.

    Keep thinking.


    TOTAL U.S. MILITARY CASUALTIES IN IRAQ TOPS 3000

    -- 3K Troops Die For Nothing; America Less Safe; Bush Still Sleeping Fine ---

    WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military on Sunday announced its 3,000th fatality from the Iraq war. More than 22,000 other U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq since the war began nearly four years ago. Estimates of Iraqi dead range from about 50,000 to several hundred thousand.

    Before
    President Bush arrives on Capitol Hill on Jan. 23 for his State of the Union address, House Democrats intend to update ethics rules, raise the minimum wage, implement 9/11 Commission recommendations, cut subsidies to the oil industry, promote stem cell research and make college educations and prescription drugs more affordable.

    "Democrats are prepared to govern and ready to lead."

    This is in total contrast to the past 6 years of the GOP "do nothing" Congress.
    The Democrats ARE our only hope.

    HEADLINE: Liberal Manipulate News- Have No Ethics

    All in 20 Days- as if

    The Associated Press and AOL recently did a year end poll where they asked people to make predictions on 2007. There were some interesting findings, like the fact that there are more Americans who think that the draft will be reinstated next year (35%) than those who think we will withdraw our forces from Iraq (29%).

    There are also numbers that showed how well the public is attuned to the current political and economic climate, with eighty percent predicting an increase in the minimum wage and ninety percent predicting higher gas prices.

    But there is one number that stands out among the rest as absolutely unbelievable. Twenty-five percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth in 2007. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT! IN 2007!

    These people are nuts. There's no polite way of saying it. If I sound superior, too bad. Sanity has its advantages.

    The Associated Press and AOL recently did a year end poll where they asked people to make predictions on 2007. There were some interesting findings, like the fact that there are more Americans who think that the draft will be reinstated next year (35%) than those who think we will withdraw our forces from Iraq (29%).

    There are also numbers that showed how well the public is attuned to the current political and economic climate, with eighty percent predicting an increase in the minimum wage and ninety percent predicting higher gas prices.

    But there is one number that stands out among the rest as absolutely unbelievable. Twenty-five percent of Americans believe that Jesus Christ will return to earth in 2007. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT! IN 2007!

    These people are nuts. There's no polite way of saying it. If I sound superior, too bad. Sanity has its advantages.

    HEADLINE: Liberal Manipulate News- Have No Ethics

    Please tell this loon who won this past electionand why they are in the news.
    He also says the Dems have no ethics.
    Coming from the party of Duke Cunningham,Republican Congressman Mark Foley who would become the new face of pathetic, closeted American lechery (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 hemorrhaging Republican ethics scandals got long and even tedious: Adam Kidan, Neil Volz, Ed Buckham, John Doolittle, Conrad Burns, Grover Norquist,Claude Allen,Tom Delay, Tony Rudy, Steven Griles,Jack Abramoff, should I go on?

    The Olby haters at this site will never learn.

    Not only is Keith a fake, a fraud, and a liar, so are his fans.

    And FactCheck, you are nothing but a pompous jerk....and a lying one....yes, really!

    To determine who the real fakes, frauds, and liars are, all you have to do is look at Iraq, Guantanamo, New Orleans, and the midterm elections.

    cee,

    so how does it feel to hide abjectly from your "good cause"? Is it a "pleasurable/beneficial to man thing"?

    "Jail to the Chief", Bob

    One election and you think you have a mandate. A mandate you refused to aknowledge the reps for 6 years! Get a life. The democrats have already had 2 months of bickering and missteps and they don't even have real power yet. It'll be a fun 2 years. Dems are incapable of true leadership in today's world. All they do is complain and whine and pretend there is no threat. AND here comes immigration reform... all illegals on this site, sit tight, amnesty is coming!

    isn't there a i hate bush and all wars website you losers should be shitting on instead

    "It'll be a fun 2 years."

    well, at least you got that right.
    congressional investigations of all things BushCo
    against the backdrop of Iraq flushing down the toilet more all the time.


    On the anti Olbermann side of this board, we have total jerks like FactCheck, who want to pick and choose their own 'facts', and thinks of himself as a self appointed 'truth' monitor - if - what he read's doesn't fit his own limited worlview. he doesn't seem to get it that this is a personal opinion forum. This guy can't seem to see the difference between real debate and splitting hairs over simple numbers that often vary significantly, depending on just who is putting out those numbers. His definition of debate is to try to browbeat his opponent into submission with insults without ever really touching on the real argument behind the numbers. In addition, he simply cannot bring himself to post a simple disagreement without trying to demean his opposition in every way possible in the process. Last, he is a liar himself, and proves it once again with every new personal attack post he makes.

    Yes, there are some anti-olbermann poster's on this site who try to show some class, and respect...Janet and Cee come to mind immediately, but if this clown is the kind of character that hates Olbermann, than I'll take KO every time!

    "A mandate you refused to aknowledge the reps for 6 years!"

    Crybaby revisionism. Bush got everything he wanted from the rubberstamp congress, including from many spineless Democrats. He claimed a spurious mandate from 2000 and was allowed full latitude to weild it - and he f---ed everything up. You people should not be able to look yorselves in the mirror.

    "isn't there a i hate bush and all wars website you losers should be shitting on instead"

    as has been said many times before
    (ya gotta keep reminding the ditto heads,
    just to break through their extremist propaganda)
    it isn't so much just bush,
    and it isn't so much just the war,
    as it is the consistently criminal and corrupt incompetence of the current administration.
    flawed values, failed policies, fiasco results.


    Loin,

    When I remember to do what Christ commanded at the beginning of his ministry:


    At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

    "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

    "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
    Matthew 11:25-30

    I can persist even under the most hateful words, darkest conditions and or trying times.

    It is when I listen and believe the lies of those who call evil good, tempt with the easy/pleasurable way, and/or use hate to provoke anger do I see the results of disobedience...death.

    How about you, Loin? How do you hide from the failure of you world view to even save one soul from despair?

    Idiots....

    Guess what? Good and bad have nothing to do with how it feels.....If it did, people would never sacrifice for a good cause...like Iraq.

    That is a core difference between the secular humanist and the theist.

    Posted by: cee at January 2, 2007 10:20 AM

    There is also a difference between someone who believes in the dignity of a human life and someone who blindly follows an ideology born out of a false religion. If your head wasn't so far up your own ass cee, you might figure out that Jesus, who you claim as your lord said the tree is know by its fruit. Your God inspired leader has brought death to thousands of innocent human beings. You have supported him. You begin your post with the word "Idiots". You feel superior because you have what? You are one of the spirtually elite? You are a patriot? You are born again? For what? To what?

    Olbermann once again makes even an event like the Ford funeral about HIMSELF. He just couldn't resist taking some shots at George W. Bush, and never referred to him by name ("Mister" Bush couldn't apply here since his father was also on site), so instead, the deplorable Olby only referred to him as "the current President" at least a dozen times.

    Oh- I know why you are here. Your lead antenae for left propaganda - air america- is floundering without an audience so you come here and spout your hate. Save your fingers- you have nothing but hate


    U.S. MILITARY DEATHS FROM BUNGLED IRAQ WAR NOT TOTALLY IN VAIN

    -- Sacrifice Scuttles Rise of American Fascism, Neocons, Extremist Wing of GOP --

    BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- With U.S. deaths at the 3,000 mark, the U.S. military is accelerating plans to turn its main mission in Iraq from fighting insurgents to training Iraqi forces and hunting al-Qaida terrorists. Thousands more U.S. advisers would work inside of Iraqi units to improve their skills, which in most units still fall short of what is needed to bring down the country's violence. President Bush is also considering the "surge" option - increasing temporarily the number of U.S. combat troops from its current 134,000 by 25,000 or more in hopes of securing the capital Baghdad to boost chances for political reconciliation.


    "Oh- I know why you are here ... you come here and spout your hate. Save your fingers- you have nothing but hate."

    as has been said many times before
    (ya gotta keep reminding the ditto heads,
    just to break through their extremist propaganda)
    it isn't so much just bush,
    and it isn't so much just the war,
    as it is the consistently criminal and corrupt incompetence of the current administration.
    flawed values, failed policies, fiasco results.

    "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."


    ...so Jesus commanded cee to take a load off while our troops do the heavy lifting for him and his fellow neocon chickenhawk war-mongers? My regard for Jesus should diminish here, but I know that cee is full of pious shit.

    It is when I listen and believe the lies of those who call evil good, tempt with the easy/pleasurable way, and/or use hate to provoke anger do I see the results of disobedience...death.

    Posted by: cee at January 2, 2007 12:18 PM

    You call murder good. You call war good when you support this one. You talk about the results of disobedience being death and then you support war while you exclude yourself from the guilt of it, or just claim grace. You are no represenitive of anything good that comes from the bible or the born again movement. You are brainwashed by your politics.

    "Olbermann once again makes even an event like the Ford funeral about HIMSELF. He just couldn't resist taking some shots at George W. Bush, and never referred to him by name ("Mister" Bush couldn't apply here since his father was also on site), so instead, the deplorable Olby only referred to him as "the current President" at least a dozen times."

    Boy, the Republo-fascists are really out in force today. Desperately trying to steer the stoopid illegal/botched war and torture talk back to the more pressing issues regarding that unconstitutionally incompetent civilian-killer and country-wrecker Edward R. Olbermann. After all, this is StormTrooperCircleJerkOlbyWatch!!

    Fascist? How dare you. The Nazis were fascists, and for you to call me or any good American such is disrespectful and insulting.

    Olby's coverage has already concluded that Bush's funeral speech was an advance of his policies (read the transcript...it did nothing of the kind) and that Condi Rice looked depressed because of Iraq (maybe it was because she was at a funeral and was being respectful...can that possibly be it?). This is pathetic...NBC News is now reduced to guessing what is going through people's minds and coded messages.

    "Fascist? How dare you."

    Torture.
    Rendition.
    Habeas Corpus.
    Secret Prisons.
    Election Fraud.
    False Propaganda.
    Warrantless Spying.

    If it talks like fascist, and it walks like a fascist ...

    "How dare YOU sir" -- Keith Olbermann.

    Professor Honeydew (Bob)....

    Show me one quote from me or Mr. Bush that says we are in Iraq in the name of God.

    Some quotes from Bush:

    "America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman."

    "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

    "Prayer is a gift from Almighty God that transforms us, whether we bow our heads in solitude, or offer swift and silent prayers in times of trial. Prayer humbles us by reminding us of our place in creation. Prayer strengthens us by reminding us that God loves and cares for each and every soul in His creation. And prayer blesses us by reminding us that there is a divine plan that stands above all human plans."

    "This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom."

    "The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology and give momentum to reformers across the region."

    "We've not come all this way -- through tragedy, and trial and war -- only to falter and leave our work unfinished."

    "Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know: We can overcome evil with greater good."

    "Our enemies send other people's children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice - made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today. We choose freedom and the dignity of every life."

    "Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they don't build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live in hope and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists only influence is violence and their only agenda is death."

    "As I have met the heroes, hugged the families, and looked into the tired faces of rescuers, I have stood in awe of the American people."

    "The promise of faith is not the absence of suffering, it is the presence of grace."

    "Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history have a moral design."

    "As individuals, we know that suffering is temporary, and hope is eternal."

    Please spare me any more religious bigotry, people...Doing something in the name of God and relying on Him for strength and peace are two TOTALLY different things.

    Redstate,

    Yes, the Nazis were fascists, but not all fascists are Nazis. Mussolini called his seminal movement in this regard "corporatism" due to its salinet unity of executive political power with the economic power of industry. Today this is represented by the Military Industrial Complex warned of emphatically and explicitly by President Eisenhower at his farewell address.

    Cheney permits Ken Lay and other unnamed energy CEOs to write the US energy plan (still a secret); mining regulations are overseen by mining industry executives taking a sabatical in government; our military's ancillary functions, as well as some combat roles are "privatized", and these functions are given as no-bid contracts to large firms with incestuous connections to the White House; past, current and future executives of these very companies are given top decision-making roles in our war-effort;....

    And all the while the White House argues on the basis of poorly defined national dangers for wider and more general powers for the executive, while disputing the degree of oversight available to the judiciary and the legislature in regard to its activities.

    If this is not fascism - or at the very least proto-fascism - then cee is a courageous and sincere man following the dictates of Christ to the letter. HAH!

    It's been amusing watching Mike try to wiggle his way out of his lies. It's been even more amusing seeing new, anonys with names that attack me pop up. Bet they share an IP addy with Mr. Mike. But the truth, as it always does, remains unchanged. Mikey lied. He got called on it. Instead of admitting to it, he decided to make up even more whoppers about averaging, non-existant studies that showed what he claimed, etc. None of that was true either. And when all else fails, he and his little minions and partners in crime here began to hurl names at me. Call me anything you'd like. The one thing you can't call me is wrong and that's what galls you all the most. Hypocrites, liars, fools, my what a fine collection of "fans" Olbermann has. He must be so proud.

    Here are Bush's exact words, quoted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in June of 2003:

    "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

    Sounds like God has an explicit cabinet position to me. Bush is a psycho on Jihad being used by a fascist cabal headed by Cheney. Not too Jihadi, however, to submit to the requirements of crass politicization when elections loom. Please wake up, people.

    last message was in response to cee

    When did I call murder or war good, codas?

    When did I say I would sit back and relax, Loin?

    You guys just can't read. Instead of answering hard questions, you go return to your primative, base instinct with your religious hate speech. Go back to the original post, brainiacs, and TRY to have a civil back-and-forth with resorting to hate specch.

    I'll repost for simplicity....

    Keith Olbermann's special comments with regard to the war uses these unsupported smears against a policy that controls millions of people's lives. Has it really been effective in changing anything for the better?

    No. In fact, it is now being predicted MORE troops will be sent. If the people opposed to the war REALLY wanted to stop it, a different strategy would have emerged since 7/2003 (Willson's op-ed)....Nothing has changed.....it is still Bush lied....

    No increased war protests
    No widespread civil disobedience to thwart the war effort
    No attempt at blocking war funding
    No "Jane Fonda" like moments where the left takes a chance to effect a cease-fire

    Why? I ask the committed anti-war activists on this site, even Keith Olbermann...Why nothing stronger from the left for over three years now in stopping the war? All I hear are words/threats/opinion about bad it all is and it should be stopped....NO ACTION.

    The election in 2006 should give the left the ability to act now......so let's see....ACTION?

    If Bush lied....articles of Impeachment brought to a vote in the house?

    If the war is immoral....decreased funding to force troop redeployments?

    If there is such widespread corruption and war profiteering....congressional investigations, supoenas and requests for special counsels?

    No democratic leaders have specifically mentioned the above possibilities. Why?


    ##
    And from another liberal humanist:

    "Cee is just another religious nut who believes God is controling George Bush."

    Again, quote and date Professor Bunsen Honeydew...

    Once again, the left shows their hate and intolerence. It's a cry'n shame.


    When did I call murder or war good, codas?

    When did I say I would sit back and relax, Loin?

    You guys just can't read. Instead of answering hard questions, you go return to your primative, base instinct with your religious hate speech. Go back to the original post, brainiacs, and TRY to have a civil back-and-forth with resorting to hate specch.

    I'll repost for simplicity....

    Keith Olbermann's special comments with regard to the war uses these unsupported smears against a policy that controls millions of people's lives. Has it really been effective in changing anything for the better?

    No. In fact, it is now being predicted MORE troops will be sent. If the people opposed to the war REALLY wanted to stop it, a different strategy would have emerged since 7/2003 (Willson's op-ed)....Nothing has changed.....it is still Bush lied....

    No increased war protests
    No widespread civil disobedience to thwart the war effort
    No attempt at blocking war funding
    No "Jane Fonda" like moments where the left takes a chance to effect a cease-fire

    Why? I ask the committed anti-war activists on this site, even Keith Olbermann...Why nothing stronger from the left for over three years now in stopping the war? All I hear are words/threats/opinion about bad it all is and it should be stopped....NO ACTION.

    The election in 2006 should give the left the ability to act now......so let's see....ACTION?

    If Bush lied....articles of Impeachment brought to a vote in the house?

    If the war is immoral....decreased funding to force troop redeployments?

    If there is such widespread corruption and war profiteering....congressional investigations, supoenas and requests for special counsels?

    No democratic leaders have specifically mentioned the above possibilities. Why?


    ##
    And from another liberal humanist:

    "Cee is just another religious nut who believes God is controling George Bush."

    Again, quote and date Professor Bunsen Honeydew...

    Once again, the left shows their hate and intolerence. It's a cry'n shame.


    "The election in 2006 should give the left the ability to act now......so let's see....ACTION?"

    Should but doesn't, meathead. I'm still marching and writing and calling and donating - along with millions of others - but the legislature has procedural rules - or hadn't you heard?

    "If Bush lied....articles of Impeachment brought to a vote in the house?"

    Well; venal dishonest Republicans run the show for little while longer; then come INVESTIGATIONS so we have something tangible to impeach him for. Its called procedure; why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    "If the war is immoral....decreased funding to force troop redeployments?"


    Ever hear of Dennis Kucinich? This cutting off of funds is his platform, and I am working my ass off for him.

    "If there is such widespread corruption and war profiteering....congressional investigations, supoenas and requests for special counsels? No democratic leaders have specifically mentioned the above possibilities. Why?"


    - Have you ever heard of Representatives Waxman and Conyers? War profiteering and white house/journalistic corruption are among their planned investigation targets. How about Biden (not my favorite Dem) and Dodd? They plan to look into the lies taking us to war.

    Just wait a month cee, when the Republican kiddies get strapped into the back seat where they belong. Will you publically eat these words? I doubt it.


    Cee- I am proud to have you on the war front defending all that is good.. You are strong in your responses, always citing how they change and manipulate your words and the facts. Bravo- stand strong. It seems easy against the simpletons like Loin Cloth and Code-Ass

    Keep posting you vile attack comments! I'm pretty certain people on here can see you for exactly what you are....an arrogant, pompous, lying jerk!

    cee "on the War-front"? UR2Hi!

    Loin Cloth- and prepare to eat you words. Almost every left AND right pundit thinks that a glut of investigations and impeachment hearings would be suicide for the Democrats. Bring it on- Cheney could get elected in '08.

    I am familiar with that typical liberal LIE.

    Uh, no Loiny....that quote was from Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.....No one has independently corroborated this quote AND Bush never denied OR confirmed he felt this way.

    Shame on you Loiny...."Bush's exact words," get it right before you post it.

    You can check the press reference.
    WaPo - June 27, 2003

    "Imagine our surprise Wednesday to read in the Israeli paper Haaretz (online), that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, President Bush had told him this:

    "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

    Do you have anymore quotes?

    Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day. His history degree from Yale makes him mindful of the importance of the moment. He knows he's making "history-changing decisions," Evans says. But Bush doesn't keep a diary or other personal record of the events that will form his legacy. Aides take notes, but there's no stenographer in most meetings, nor are they videotaped or recorded.

    . . . . .

    Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God". "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ... And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

    . . . . .

    Just over a week ago, Time published an article by Michael Duffy, who had interviewed more than a dozen senior Republican Party operatives, people who advise and support the president and talk regularly to him and his inner circle. "Bush has always preferred his poison straight up or down, good vs. bad, dead or alive, you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists,” Duffy wrote. "In one horrifying two-hour period [on September 11], the world shuddered and conformed to his way of thinking: there was good and there was evil, and it wasn’t hard to tell the difference.” Then Duffy added: “Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

    . . . . .

    Did Mr. Bush ask his father for any advice? "I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, 'Well, no,' and then he got defensive about it," says Woodward. "Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, 'He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.Â’ And then he said, 'There's a higher Father that I appeal to.'"

    . . . . .

    Bush's closest advisers have long been aware of the religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bush's first term, spoke extensively about the connection between the President's religious faith and his view of the war in Iraq. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that "God put me here" to deal with the war on terror. The President's belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that "he's the man," the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reëlection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.

    . . . . .

    The book, which depicts a President who prays each day and believes he is on a direct mission from God, will give ammunition to critics who claim Bush's administration is heavily influenced by extremist Christians. Bush is already under fire for allowing the appointment of General William Boykin to head the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Boykin, who speaks at evangelical Christian meetings, once said the war on terror was a fight against Satan, and also told a Somali warlord that, 'My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.'

    . . . . .

    Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'

    . . . . .

    In another incident, Mansfield recounts how, on Palm Sunday last year, Bush was flying back from El Salvador aboard the presidential jet Air Force One and seemed to be destined to miss church. However, knowing that Bush hated to miss a service, some officials suggested they worship in the air. Bush agreed, and soon 40 officials were crammed into the plane's conference room. The service was led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while the lesson was read by close Bush aide Karen Hughes.

    "Loin Cloth- and prepare to eat you words. Almost every left AND right pundit thinks that a glut of investigations and impeachment hearings would be suicide for the Democrats. Bring it on- Cheney could get elected in '08."


    Well, if it plays out that way it lays out that way; and it'll be on the heads of a deluded and degraded American electorate. People of honor and convictions will insist on investigations into the crimes and lies that drove our country into this ruinous situation, and will ensure that they occur.

    "Loin Cloth- and prepare to eat you words. Almost every left AND right pundit thinks that a glut of investigations and impeachment hearings would be suicide for the Democrats. Bring it on- Cheney could get elected in '08."


    Well, if it plays out that way it plays out that way; and it'll be on the heads of a deluded and degraded American electorate. People of honor and convictions will insist on investigations into the crimes and lies that drove our country into this ruinous situation, and will ensure that they occur.

    But Loinery- your party is the party of moral right- they should ignore the polls and do what they think is right- stress 'think'


    VOICE OF GOD REVEALED TO BE CHENEY ON INTERCOM

    -- All Historical Crusades Result From Evangelicals Being "Dumb as Nails" --

    WASHINGTON -- Telephone logs recorded by the National Security Agency and obtained by Congress as part of an ongoing investigation suggest that the vice president may have used the Oval Office intercom system to address President Bush at crucial moments, giving categorical directives in a voice the president believed to be that of God. In a transcript of an intercom exchange recorded in March 2002, a voice positively identified as the vice president's identifies himself as "the Lord thy God" and promotes the invasion of Iraq, as well as the use of torture in prisoner interrogations.


    Hey Anon...nice try but NO DICE....

    My exact words:

    "I never said he did it because God told him to....he has said he prays and feels the peace of God that is available. You secularists, who do not experience such in prayer, immedietly jump and say he says God is endorcing what he is doing.....give me a quote otherwise."

    George Bush said, "_______________________" with a date is not too hard to do people.

    "But Loinery- your party is the party of moral right- they should ignore the polls and do what they think is right- stress 'think'"

    well, anon - that's exactly what I just said. Do you think before you post?

    Just wait a month cee, when the Republican kiddies get strapped into the back seat where they belong. Will you publically eat these words? I doubt it."

    I'll be here, Sir Loin of Milquetoast, ready to challenge every lie you post, just like now.

    "Loin Cloth- and prepare to eat you words. Almost every left AND right pundit thinks that a glut of investigations and impeachment hearings would be suicide for the Democrats. Bring it on- Cheney could get elected in '08."


    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    yeah, right. Cheney in '08! The only White House office holder whose approval ratings are even lower than Bush's!

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    "Bring it on"

    As dumb now as when it was first uttered by the monkey boy.

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    Dems won't call for impeachment.
    Unless there's a public outcry for it.
    But there will be lots of investigations.
    Political suicide. Yeah, right.
    The midterms were just a start.
    That's the mood of the country right now.
    And as Iraq worsens, and investigations reveal,
    BushCO and the GOP that enabled him will sink further and further.
    Watch and learn, losers.


    ...so when I write "well cee, conyers, Waxman, Dodd, etc. just commenced all the investigations they promised" following their actually commencing these investigations, you will....chalenge it as a lie?

    typical.

    so what's your point, cee?
    that Bush is in Iraq because of his faith,
    he just never said as much publicly?
    a lot of good that will do you.

    No Loin, I will say, in January 2009 when FORMER President GW Bush is standing up on the dais with the newly elected Republican President.....

    "Where did all the endless political witch-hunts get us? Bush stayed in office and wasn't even impeached."

    When the hearings occur and they get ZERO, I will gladly acknowledge you predicted the hearing but also point out you said they would strap the R's in the backseat like children.....hardly.....the D's will scream and yell like they have been doing these last 6 years, but just have another one more extra at the table with them.

    President Bush will continue being a leader, making the hard decisions and ignoring the petty political games.....he isn't facing re-election.

    My point is that Bush makes these hard decisions that impact the lives of millions based on real facts, advise from his advisors and his personal value system....NOT by following a voice from heaven he believes he hears....He prays for strength and the grace to endure the attacks he receives for his decisions....this is the whole point that Loin just does not get.

    And then......
    Codas and Professor Honeydew (Bob) do not even present any evidence that Bush has made his decisions based on some religious wisdom or crusade....It is posted like it is fact....

    Yeah......fact to religious bigots who are incapable of RESPECTING my or President Bush's faith.

    "My point is that Bush makes these hard decisions that impact the lives of millions based on real facts"

    nonsense.
    BushCo isn't much into facts.
    that's how we got into Iraq in the first place.

    . . . . .


    Bush's beliefs are unimpaired by reality; he is unfazed when facts, events, evidence, or science contradict his statements or policies. This type of mindless denial and pathological resoluteness is quite common in extreme religious faith, but it's a disturbing behavior to see in a President. Leaders need to weigh options objectively, and base decisions and policies on the best available evidence, not on unshakable private faith and ideology.

    Examples of Bush holding fervently to unsupported ideology are disturbingly easy to find. Some clearly have a religious foundation, and some do not, but all are embraced with the same irrational faith.

    For example, Bush's tenacious belief in the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, a belief mercifully unburdened by facts. Abstinence-only programs have not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

    Scientists, unlike the general public, are fully aware of Bush's faith bias and are not remaining silent. The Washington Post reported that over 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 11 winners of the National Medal of Science, publicly oppose Bush's use of faith-based "scientific" advice. Moreover, the Associated Press asserts this is "the first time that a broad spectrum of the scientific community has expressed opposition to a president's overall science policy."

    US Rep. Henry Waxman's website, "Politics & Science: Investigating the State of Science Under the Bush Administration" details numerous examples of ideology trumping science in the Bush administration. From editing global-warming reports, to stacking scientific advisory committees, the Bush administration has habitually distorted evidence and misrepresented facts.

    Equally disconcerting, and downright bizarre, was Bush's recent supernatural claim. Our reality-impaired leader assured a group of Pennsylvania Amish that, "God speaks through me." Evidently, God has a penchant for malapropisms and is shockingly ignorant.


    cee said, "Bush makes these hard decisions that impact the lives of millions based on real facts, advise from his advisors and his personal value system...."

    -Don't you mean he makes his decisions based on real lies, deliberate misinformation, pigheadedness, arogance and poor judgement? I'm sure that's what you meant.

    Journalist Ron Suskind relates a chilling conversation he had in 2002 with a senior aide to George W. Bush, who taunted Suskind for being a person from "what we call the reality-based community."

    The Bush aide said this "reality-based community" consists of people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Suskind nodded in agreement and muttered something favorable about the principles of the Enlightenment, only to be cut off by the aide.

    "That's not the way the world really works anymore," the Bush aide told the journalist. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're historyÂ’s actors -- and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do."

    In many ways, that quote -- cited in Suskind's New York Times Magazine article about Bush's "faith-based presidency" -- sums up the anti-rational arrogance that has become the hallmark of Bush's inner circle, a group that apparently thinks that its actions transcend both law and reason.

    "Fascist? How dare you."

    Torture.
    Rendition.
    Habeas Corpus.
    Secret Prisons.
    Election Fraud.
    False Propaganda.
    Warrantless Spying.

    If it talks like fascist, and it walks like a fascist ...

    "How dare YOU sir" -- Keith Olbermann.
    ==================================================
    http://books.nationalreview.com/review/?q=NDdmY2FlYjZkOTg3YjQ5Njg2YTQ2MzViZDkzYzdiODg=
    I especially like this section of the article:
    "Restlessly seeking some restraint against which to define or prove ourselves, Americans must now imagine and oppose oppressive authorities or hateful enemies, even where none exist. The newly unbounded American self, says Wood, is a ghostlike figure, perpetually in search of “something solid against which it can prove its own existence.” New Anger, Wood concludes, “is the desperately intense effort of these ghosts to feel real.” "

    Something to chew on any time you read ANY of those "dire warnings" on terrorism, fascism, global warming.......

    "My point is that Bush makes these hard decisions that impact the lives of millions based on real facts ... NOT by following a voice from heaven he believes he hears...."

    how ridiculous.
    bozo bush bases five+ years of decisions of state
    on faith instead of fact,
    and now you've got the nerve (idiocy)
    to claim he doesn't.

    (kind of like when Bushy said StayTheCourse wasn't what he was saying all along, when it's all on videotape)

    . . . . .

    "I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do," said Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official in the first Bush administration. "He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence."

    Because Bush is convinced of his rightness, he often snaps and snarls at aides who question his "gut" judgments, according to Republicans who have watched Bush in action. "This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts," Bartlett told Suskind.


    . . . . .

    as Iraq, the GOP, and this administration continues to go down the toilet,
    I suspect jokers like you will be denying a lot over the next two years.
    and denying "Stay the Course" and Bush's Faith-based politics is just the start.
    backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.
    now that your ideals have been shown to be crap
    in the marketplace of reality.
    flawed values, failed policies, fiasco results.


    The conclusions Mr. Suskind comes to regarding the "One Percent Doctrine," are taken to ridiculous levels and conclusions. In order to sell books and go for that next Pulitzer, the author makes great leaps from the compilation of quotes, "from administration insiders."

    I trust Mr. Suskind no more than I trust Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, Al Franken, Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly.

    Especially when they use anonymous sources....

    Please tell me who the aide was.

    And again, anon does not show me a Bush quote actually saying he gets his marching orders from God. Please, a simple request.

    The left wing anti-religion propaganda is once again getting gooood.

    Today we mourn the the passing of a truly great president....one of our very best, although we didn't necessarily know that at the time.

    How I wish there had been someone with his judgement, character, and integrity in the Oval Office for the last six years.

    yeah, it's lies all lies, cee.
    living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

    like how things in iraq ain't goin so good.
    just lies all lies.

    and how so many corrupt republicans have been indicted and resigned.
    just lies all lies.

    and how no one imagined they'd fly planes into buildings,
    and how no one imagined the levees would be topped,
    and how no one imagined there would be an insurgency.
    just lies all lies.

    yeah, right.

    as Iraq, the GOP, and this administration continues to go down the toilet
    ------
    like how things in iraq ain't goin so good.
    just lies all lies.
    ====================================================

    Hey, there IS some good news out of Iraq.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/12262006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_boom_outside_baghdad_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm?page=0
    (summary:
    http://newsbusters.org/node/9905)

    Happy new year all.

    Oh yes, Bruce Bartlett, IMPOSTER...another book I wasted time on.....anonymous sources, grandiose conclusions....objectivity non-existent....

    The left loves to use "insiders" who tow their line and reject those who don't. Look at the man's motives....does he have an axe to grind?

    You know anon....PRIMARY sources are good things....primary sources that can be verified....it is hard when all of these 'journalists" (who are really book pimps) use anonymous administration sources to write history....beware.

    Even Bob Woodward seems to now put money from publishing over the venerable duties of journalism.

    I am not revising history....I am trying to find out the truth.....unlike the radical left in this country.


    U.S. PRESIDENT TO RE-RE-RE-CLARIFY FAILED IRAQ WAR POLICY FIASCO

    -- Catchy "Stay the Course" War Jingle Changed to "Overstay the Course" --

    LONDON -- U.S. President George W. Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learned. The speech will reveal a plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces. The move comes with figures from Iraqi ministries suggesting that deaths among civilians are at record highs. The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week. Its central theme will be sacrifice.


    Anon,

    We go from me destroying your point that every decision W makes is from God to me having my eyes closed......this is what happens when one tries to reason with a liberal.....they just change the subject.

    No one has shown me specific PRIMARY sources for the wild claims George Bush thinks he is The Messiah....so what happens.....we cry "lie" and go away.

    Those planes, those levees and those insurgents have many more coupable people behind them in addition/other than George Bush. But again, the Bush hater blames George Bush alone when their Frappachino spills on the car upholstery.

    "In 2003 and 2004, supporters of the war in Iraq pointed to high approval ratings in the Military Times Poll as a signal that military members were behind President Bush's the president's policy. But support for President Bush and for the war in Iraq has slipped significantly in the last year among members of the military's professional core, according to the 2005 Military Times Poll. Approval of the president's Iraq policy fell 9 percentage points from 2004; a bare majority, 54 percent, now say they view his performance on Iraq as favorable. Support for his overall performance fell 11 points, to 60 percent, among active-duty readers of the Military Times newspapers. The poll also found diminished optimism that U.S. goals in Iraq can be accomplished, and a somewhat smaller drop in support for the decision to go to war in 2003."

    - - - - -

    and these are just the 2005 polls.
    wait till the 2006-07 polls hit the presses.

    the public finally caught on.
    the troops are finally catching on.
    i guess that just leaves you morons.

    No, Anon, because right is right, honor is honor, and no poll will change my mind.

    Like it has been said before....

    A majority of Americans backed many troubling things over the years only to have their OPINION change.

    Now you want to use "positive" poll numbers to make your case....just like those silly rating numbers for Olbermann v. O'Reilly.

    Lastly, are you suggesting by saying, "the troops are finally catching on," that they are just a little less moronic then, "us morons."

    Elitist progressives saving the world!


    "every decision W makes is [not] from God"

    time and again GWB has shown himself to be faith- rather than reality-based.
    but you will deny this.

    -------

    "they just change the subject."

    i didn't change the subject.
    it's all the same subject.
    lies-based/faith-based over reality-based.
    but you will deny this.

    -----------

    "No one has shown me specific PRIMARY sources for the wild claims George Bush thinks he is The Messiah"

    who said he thinks he's the messiah?
    we simply said he thinks his actions are directed by god.
    but you will deny this.

    and like i said before,
    it doesn't take a direct quotation from GWB
    saying, "i get my marching orders from god."
    to see that he thinks he gets his marching orders from god.
    but you will deny this.

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


    "But again, the Bush hater blames George Bush alone"

    as has been said many times before
    (ya gotta keep reminding the ditto heads,
    just to break through their extremist propaganda)
    it isn't so much just bush,
    and it isn't so much just the war,
    as it is the consistently criminal and corrupt incompetence of the current administration.
    flawed values, failed policies, fiasco results.

    No, Anon, because right is right, honor is honor, and no poll will change my mind.

    Like it has been said before....

    A majority of Americans backed many troubling things over the years only to have their OPINION change.

    Now you want to use "positive" poll numbers to make your case....just like those silly rating numbers for Olbermann v. O'Reilly.

    Lastly, are you suggesting by saying, "the troops are finally catching on," that they are just a little less moronic then, "us morons."

    Elitist progressives saving the world!


    No, Anon, because right is right, honor is honor, and no poll will change my mind.

    So despite the fact that the public in general, the voters in specific and now the soldiers who actually do the fighting (and dying) all say that sending more troops in is a bad idea and believe that Bush's policy on Iraq is more wrong than right, we must do it because "honor is honor"?

    No one is asking Bush to do like LBJ and "govern by opinion poll". But when every major poll produces the same results, maybe the President should at least listen rather than stubbornly proceed on what he THINKS is right.

    "No, Anon, because right is right, honor is honor, and no poll will change my mind."

    ---------

    spoken like a true ideologue.
    and if you run the ship of state like that,
    it runs aground in iraq, and new orleans,
    and in the torture chambers
    of our secret eastern-block prisons.

    ---------


    O'Neill described a host of administration policies – from Bush's "preemptive wars" to the budget deficit – that “were impenetrable by facts." O'Neill, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations and later ran Alcoa, was startled by the contrast in Bush's administration where major decisions were made with little deliberation beyond Bush's tendency to embrace ideological certainties. O'Neill said Bush was "clearly signing on to strong ideological positions that had not been fully thought through. But, of course, that's the nature of ideology. Thinking it through is the last thing an ideologue wants to do."

    Your quote from the faux journalist......

    "I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do"

    Evidence other than third party quotes are usually the standard with which history is written. The Messianic reference is a clear sign that someone has a particular agenda to meet in what they are claiming about The President.

    Even Loin claimed the quote he used was a direct quote from Bush....it was two people later.

    I think you guys live is a pretend world.

    "No, Anon, because right is right, honor is honor, and no FACT will change my mind."

    I think you guys live is a pretend world.

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

    so "mission accomplished" didn't mean mission accomplished.
    and "stay the course" didn't mean stay the course.
    and "I believe that God wants me to be president" didn't mean GWB believes that god wants him to be president.

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

    who's living in the pretend world?

    Olbermann lives in a pertend world. He grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. He never has dissenting opinions and is an intellectual coward.