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


    January 2, 2007
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - JANUARY 2, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • SACRIFICE IN IRAQ: Richard Wolffe, Newsweek chief White House correspondent and MSNBC political analyst; Lawrence Korb, former assistant defense secretary
    • PRESIDENT FORD'S FUNERAL: David Gregory, NBC chief White House correspondent
    • SADDAM'S HANGING VIDEO CAUSING AN OUTRAGE: Rajiv Chandrasekaran, former Washington Post Baghdad Bureau chief and author of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone."

    The opening spiel kicked off with Olby promising a Speshul Komment on the President's new plan for Iraq--even though "Mister" Bush hasn't announced it yet. And another thing, Bush is trying to "scapegoat" the generals. So eager was KO to hype his talking point of the day that he back-shelved the Ford funeral so he could lead The Hour of Spin with...spin.

    MADMAN

    The President is going to "sell" his new policy under the "brand name sacrifice". The decision is political, not military. Gen Casey is being made a "scapegoat". You can bet Thomas Ricks won't be called in to comment on this. Instead it was The Wolffe Man. KO: a "horrid milestone" (the body count), the President makes "infamous" mistatements, it's all Cheney's doing. What's more, it's a sneaky plan to shift the blame to Democrats. Whew! All that spin in less than ten minutes' time!

    After great thanksing The Wolffe Man, up came Larry Korb, again (and as predicted) described as a Reagan man, not as the far-leftist that he is. Bush is wrong, it's all nonsense, yada yada yada. All of a sudden Gen Casey is the font of knowledge, and it's wrong to replace a General who hasn't been performing. (Sorry, "Mister" Truman.) KO hoped that the "illogic" of the yet-to-be-announced policy will cause GOPers to abandon Bush in droves, and Larry dittoed his wish-fulfillment. More great thanks, more plugs for the Speshul Komment.

    After the delayed recap of today's Ford ceremonies and an Emmy-worthy edition of oddball, it was the execution of Saddam, where the chaos served as--ta da!--a metaphor. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the first OlbyMetaphor of 2007, and if past is prologue, merely the first of multiple dozens. The executioners taunted Saddam, but according to Monkeymann, the hanged dictator still maintained his "dignity". Krazy Keith asked Rajiv Chandrasekaran if this would be a "negative turning point". Now there's a shocker. RC agreed. Two shockers in a row, and very great thanks.

    Then Britney Spears, K-Fed, Verne Troyer, and the Media Matters Minute. A Republican Congressman got a mention, so the streak continues.

    MADMAN

    The hilarious thing about the latest Fat Ass Speshul Komment [see APPENDIX below] is not all the hokey, scripted camera pivots, or the ever-growing abundance of insinSirs, with Krazy Keith running overtime so he could ad lib a few more. No, it's how beautifully it demonstrates Olbypocrisy. Just a few days ago Keith dismissed the Iraq Study group report as a meaningless "all things to all people" bromide. Tonight, he slams "Mister" Bush for not bowing down to it. But wait, there's more! Rev Olbermann proclaimed O'Reilly a "worst person" for daring to disagree with John McCain, but Krazy Keith blissfully slams the former P.O.W., declaring that McCain has lost touch with reality. Why is it wrong for Mr Bill to disagree with Sen McCain, but noble and righteous for Herr Olbermann to claim Senator McCain is delusional? Answer: it isn't wrong, as long as you're reporting from OlbyPlanet. Never before has Olbermoronn's rank hypocrisy been more flagrant.

    OLBY

    Dogs that did not bark: Nothing from KO on the battle against Islamic militia in Somalia. Tony Blair's comments on Iraq were spiked, as were incendiary statements by the Iranian dictator. And you know Krazy Keith is going to ignore Jamilgate. As far as selective reporting and cherry-picking of stories, it seems 2007 will be a rerun of 2006.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name is down to #7,581 at amazon, while Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" is #118. The OlbyTome stands at #2,418 at Barnes & Noble, but O'Reilly's book is #714, and is one of the year's top ten best sellers according to Nielsen's BookScan. On his most recent broadcast, Herr Olbermann was not up against his nemesis, but even so, The Kasich Factor beat Olby by three to one, and left the discreted sports guy in fourth place, both in total viewers and in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading is an all-time record: 16 [DANGER!]

    APPENDIX: Tonight's Speshul Komment:

    If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

    Would you at least protest?

    What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

    What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them -- and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

    This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's "new Iraq strategy," and his impending speech to the nation, which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about troop increases and "sacrifice."

    The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group.

    He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.

    If the BBC is right -- and we can only pray it is not -- he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for "sacrifice."

    Sacrifice!

    More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.

    More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.

    More American families will have to bear the unbearable and rationalize the unforgivable --"sacrifice" -- sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever.

    And more Americans -- more even than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, not more -- will have to conclude the president does not have any idea what he's doing -- and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.

    It must now be branded as propaganda -- for even the president cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone "the decider."

    But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklaszewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called "surge and accelerate" -- as many as 20,000 additional troops --f or "political purposes" ...

    This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.

    [PIVOT]

    This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.

    If this is your intention -- if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be "sacrifice" -- sacrifice your intention, not more American lives!

    As Sen. Joseph Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1.

    "Sacrifice?"

    No.

    A drop in the bucket.

    The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.

    They will not be there "short-term," Mr. Bush; for many it will mean a year or more in death's shadow.

    This is not temporary, Mr. Bush.

    For the Americans who will die because of you, it will be as permanent as it gets.

    The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen "sacrifice" constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.

    The former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Sen. John McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.

    If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.

    Then there is the argument that to take any steps toward reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world.

    This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.

    We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason.

    We have now shown them that we will continue to do so.

    We have shown them our stupidity.

    [PIVOT]

    Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq -- and now about "sacrifice" -- is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.

    Your most respected generals see no value in a "surge" -- they could not possibly see it in this madness of "sacrifice."

    The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.

    Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.

    And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying "best two out of three … best three out of five … hundredth one counts."

    Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and moreover, they do not want you to do this.

    Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.

    Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!

    To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship -- those bonded still, to this president and this administration, and now bonded to this "sacrifice" --proceed at your own peril.

    John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds -- he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.

    That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.

    Or, maybe it is obvious to him and he simply no longer cares.

    But to the rest of you in the Republican Party:

    We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country's most precious assets -- the lives of its citizens who are in harm's way.

    If you do not, you are not serving this nation's interests -- nor your own.

    November should have told you this.

    The opening of the new Congress on Wednesday and Thursday should tell you this.

    Next time, those missing Republicans will be you.

    And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.

    President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.

    The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

    It wants fewer.

    Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

    Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war, Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.

    [PIVOT]

    Because that's what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?

    That is what this "sacrifice" has been for.

    To continue this senseless, endless war.

    You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation ... then of regional imperative ... then of oil prices ... and now in these new terms of "sacrifice" -- it's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir?

    This senseless, endless war.

    But -- it has not been senseless in two ways.

    It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

    It has gotten many of us used to the idea -- the virtual "white noise" -- of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague "sacrifice" for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase "the war on terror."

    And the war's second accomplishment -- your second accomplishment, sir -- is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

    Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more until the first thousand have been destroyed.

    The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.    

    This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, complete with restaurants.

    At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

    And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

    You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don't fight them there we will fight them here -- as if the corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.

    And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better, on the premise that we need to be ready to "fight them here," anyway, and always.

    In point of fact even if the civil war in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat -- not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.

    But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.

    Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here.

    You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.

    You have already stoked paranoia.

    You have already pitted Americans, one against the other.

    We ... will have to live with it.

    We ... will have to live with what -- of the fabric of our nation -- you have already "sacrificed."

    The only object still admissible in this debate is the quickest and safest exit for our people there.

    But you -- and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone -- still insist otherwise.

    And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, sir, so that you can say you did not "lose in Iraq."

    Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable.

    But it is all too easily understood now.

    First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

    Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.

    If what is reported is true -- if your decision is made and the "sacrifice" is ordered -- take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning -- Gerald Ford:

    Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision.

    Atone.

    Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?

    No, sir, this is not "sacrifice." This has now become "human sacrifice."

    And it must stop.

    And you can stop it.

    Next week, make us all look wrong.

    Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.

    And you must stop it.


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (447) | | View blog reactions

    447 Comments

    I actually tuned into his specail comments. I was laughing, I was watching the rantings of a madman. His color was red and he was shaking. I thougt he was going to have a mental breakdown on TV. He's either a good actor or genuinely mentally ill. He needs help!

    Man,, Keith was perfect with his special comment.

    Bill O'lielly,
    He's mantally ill. He was shaking and almost brokedown. He even seemed like he was about to cry. I was funny!

    Krazy Keith,

    Did you say that the President "so elequently spoke" at Jerry Ford's funeral? I can't believe that you are complimenting George W. Bush. Are you OK, Keith? Maybe all of those "Special Comments" have taken too much out of you.

    As still we wait for a terrorist or terrorist organization to make the WPITW list......

    THAT is ALL you need to know about Krazy Keith and his loony left leaning ways....KOOOOOOO-KOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

    This was the funniest shit I've seen in a long time! It was hysterical! I have a therory?
    Maybe he's upset his Islamic buddies got their asses handed to them by Ethiopia?

    This is going to be a long year with many KO's "special comments" coming up..but atleast we know what they'll all be like....he's got to pad that next book with something so it'll be a bunch of this crap.

    As a compationate person, I think we need to write to MSNBC. We need to tell them that Olbermann is having a nervous breakdown. He needs help!

    How could Keith even find an excuse to attack O'Reilly when he just returned from vacation today?

    I enjoyed the pivot in the middle of the special comment. It finally added new badly needed dimension. Didn't Ed Murrow do the PIVOT like that?

    Even though he was mostly on radio, you could still hear the chair squeak with the PIVOT when Murrow hit the right spot in his spiel. Couldn't you?

    So, now Countdown has two dimensions. Straight ahead and PIVOT, look right! That's perspective, fellas, and class A journalism.

    I think that during the worst person in the world segment, Silver should have went to the bad parent, not Mr. Goode.

    For those who watch FNC - noticed that Bill O and Sean Hannity both went visit our soldiers.
    Here's a suggestion for the first poll of 2007.
    If Krazy Keith should ever leave the studio and laughing stage hand, where will he go?

    Red Wolf:"I actually tuned into his specail comments. I was laughing, I was watching the rantings of a madman. His color was red and he was shaking. I thougt he was going to have a mental breakdown on TV. He's either a good actor or genuinely mentally ill. He needs help!"

    Of course Red Wolf was laughing. He'll laugh at anyone who is heartsick over this war, who is heartsick of how Bush has mangled this war and has caused the deaths and suffering of so many.

    And the other Olby haters who should be hating what this president has done , instead laugh and criticize Keith for having a soul and not being afraid for anyone to see it.

    It is time for sacrifice. All of you Olby haters who support the war...it's time to sacrifice at least one member of YOUR family to this war.Go ahead, who are you going to throw into the pit that is Iraq?
    ...or are only other people's children the sacrificial lambs to this war?

    Ok...Grammie...Cee..Rico...all of you...pick one.
    Which member of your family should die for this war?

    Time to stop talking shit and sacrifice yourself or someone in your family.
    Afterall, it is a noble cause , right ?

    mlong said: "it's going to be a long year with many KO "special comments" coming up"..

    Uh, why mlong? Why would you torture yourself watching someone you hate??

    The American people have turned against this president ( See November elections)
    The generals have turned against this president.
    The troops are turning against this president( See latest Military Times )

    All that are left are the chicken hawks.

    ( so they crow about Keith Olbermann)

    Doesn't your idiocy make you cringe ?

    That was one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen. He wanted so badly to bitch at President (not "MISTER") Bush, he ranted for 15 minutes about a plan that quoted anonymous names released by the freaking BBC.

    And since when are NBC reporters "impeccable"? Does David Shuster get the same adjective? His anonymous sources were wrong about Karl Rove, wrong about Denny Hastert, etc....

    Red Wolf said: "I was watching the rantings of a madman"...

    I guess you would know all about that. Most of your posts look like the rantings of a madman!

    wrong about Dennis Hastert?

    You mean the former GOP Speaker of the House who enabled a pedaphile ?

    Have you people completely lost your minds ?

    OK Big Red, who should die in your family for this war.
    Don't be shy, time to step up.

    Keith,

    I just "sacrificed" 10 minutes of my life watching your Special Comment. But I won't whine about it. I made it a fun thing, noticing your lovely pink necktie and your impersonation of "Debbie Downer".

    stop talking shit Rico, put your family where your mouth is.
    Who 's going down for the love of George Bush and this war ?

    That special comment kicked ass! Olby has Bush's number - and anyone who hears such things spoken who isn't one of the shrinking brainwashed 15% will see the relevance of the analyses and allegations and start to seeth in anger. You 15% can just impotently writhe in the pain of lonely cognitive dissonance.

    I cannot in good conscience debate somebody who doesn't even have a name. So give yourself one or STFU!

    You don't need to debate Rico...pick which member of your family you think should die for this war?

    Unless you don't think the war is worth it?

    Which one will it be ?

    Cmon now...big, strong, proud, brave, right wingers..it's Sophie's Choice Time !

    You wanna debate...here debate this :
    Choose a member of your family that should die for this war...or....just admit you'd like someone else's children to be the ones...or..admit this war isn't worth it.

    Or just admit you're a f---ing hypocrite.

    But "KO was red in the face...KO isn't a journalist...KO...KO... KO...."


    Bob,

    I didn't say I was happy with how Bush is managing things in Iraq. He's not on offense any more and it's really stupid to be in a war and not taking actions that will cause victory. I want victory there. Do you?

    Whenever our military goes into combat I want there to be zero casualties on our side and 100% casualties on the other side. Do you?

    Sorry, Bob, but there is nobody of military age in my family. All I can tell you is that if I were Commander in Chief there would have been so few US casualties and so many enemy casualties in Iraq that Krazy Keith would have hijacked a 777 airliner and crashed it into a skyscraper by now.

    And Rico calls Keith 'crazy'!

    I was amazed at Keith Olbermans comments tonight on TV. I have never heard anyone put my feelings into words like that. Because of ONE Guys ego thousands of innocent people are DEAD - FOREVER. How sad, our once great country is divided into compassionate people and war loving jarheads.

    I read the comment from the "serviceman in harm's way" - more like professional killer of the weak and defenseless who loves it. I am ashamed of the troops in Iraq - killing thousands of innocent people - because the furror has demanded it.
    WW2 was when troops deserved our respect. This Iraq mess is no different than Hitlers move on the allies and Jews. At least one guy has the guts and decency to call for peace. Those behind Bush and war will soon learn their eternal destiny. (bring a flame suit!)
    For the meek shall inherit the Earth, and the wicked will join Satan in Hell.

    Bush taking money out of the pockets of dead soldiers? Is he nuts? Bush going to Iraq to pick the pockets of dead people? NOW WHO'S LYING?

    They're dying for Bush's lies? WE DID FIND WMD THAT YOU SIR...KEITH OLBERMANN AREN'T REPORTING.

    1500 Gallons of Chemical Weapons found in Mosul on August 8th 2005.
    Mustard Gas found in northeastern Iraq
    Powdered Uranium found in Tuwaitha Iraq.

    Zarqawi a DIRECT MEMBER TO AL-QUADA who was in Afghanistan in 2001...KILLED last year along with Saddam.

    Have Bush, Cheney and RumsFAILED made HUGE MISTAKES IN IRAQ? NO S$*&!?

    But to say such OUTRAGIOUS LIES that Bush is dancing HAPPILY OVER THE DEATHS OF 3,000 SOLDIERS, TAKING THEIR MONEY, IS LUDICRIOUS!?

    And by the way Keith Olbermann HALLIBURTON HAS LOST MONEY OVER IRAQ! Their stock shares are LOWER than they were 6 years ago. WHO'S MAKING MONEY OF THIS NOW?

    This is solid evidence that your show is run by MOVEON.org a website created on Sept 12 2001 moments after the towers fell. So liberal they were against ANY RETALIATION against the terrorists.

    Oh and by the way...Olby. The real reason why the Republicans lost in November was because of the Dubai Ports Deal and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION...that's about it. Check Michael Savage for more information.

    THANKS AGAIN FOR HAVING THIS WEBSITE!

    So Rico, exactly how would you go on offense to "cause victory"? Since you can't really tell friend from foe, would you just kill everybody?

    I think your 'strategy' for 'victory' has some holes in it.

    Liberal fools. Shuster said Rove would be indicted. He said Hastert would resign. He was wrong on both counts.

    And maybe you haven't noticed, we have a volunteer army. I donate my money and time to support the troops and to respond to nitwits like you who denigrate their service every chance you get.

    How many Bobs are out there? One says "the meek shall inherit the Earth", and another uses the F-word. Maybe Bob has gone schizo.

    poor Olby and the liberal media..try as they might to bring back the 60's, there is just not the outrage out there as they would have everyone believe...wheres all the protests??...the election was simply a normal outcome of one party being in COMPLETE control for so long..was only enevitable. Republican presidents always have a muscular approach to foreign policy, especially after 9-11.....btw, NOT ONE AMERICAN HAS BEEN KILLED HERE AT HOME SINCE 9-11!!!!HELLLLO...THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING SOLDIERS!!!...SO CITIZENS AT HOME WILL NOT BE HARMED!!!..not one single car bomb here...no suicide attack of any kind...now really, after 9-11, who really believed that after 6 years, there would be no attack here...EVERYONE THOUGHT WE'D GET HIT again...anyway, the kooks are tryin so bad to see the US fail in Iraq...every military operation is a risk, some more than others. 3000 kia after almost 4 years , compared to other conflicts aint shit...hell, in 4 years time, theres been about 50,000 murders here in the US....Quit your whining libs and let men and women who protect your weak asses do their jobs!

    It was so cool tonite on Bill O'reilly..he had this chick on who could read people's body language and she watched Saddam right before he was hung...and she noted that his body language made it seem like he was nervous! It was so cool. God, is she pysicic, or however you spell it..LOL This lady is so insightful and Bill now has her on once a week. She noted that Donald Trump's body language said that he was sure of himself..How cool! I just read my horiscope. Billo always has the best guests on and all the information I need to find out what is going on in the world and the Irac war. Plus what was really cool was Michelle M. exposed the New York Times! It was awesome..She exposed that the NYT blabbed the secret wire tapping thingie that saved our country from countless terror attacks..anyhoo..first the NYT exposed this secret and THEN, all the other newspapers copied them and reported it too! OH My GOD,,,what a bunch of copycats! It's so crazy...Gotta paint my nails..good nite to you all....lol dinko

    poor Olby and the liberal media..try as they might to bring back the 60's, there is just not the outrage out there as they would have everyone believe...wheres all the protests??...the election was simply a normal outcome of one party being in COMPLETE control for so long..was only enevitable. Republican presidents always have a muscular approach to foreign policy, especially after 9-11.....btw, NOT ONE AMERICAN HAS BEEN KILLED HERE AT HOME SINCE 9-11!!!!HELLLLO...THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF HAVING SOLDIERS!!!...SO CITIZENS AT HOME WILL NOT BE HARMED!!!..not one single car bomb here...no suicide attack of any kind...now really, after 9-11, who really believed that after 6 years, there would be no attack here...EVERYONE THOUGHT WE'D GET HIT again...anyway, the kooks are tryin so bad to see the US fail in Iraq...every military operation is a risk, some more than others. 3000 kia after almost 4 years , compared to other conflicts aint shit...hell, in 4 years time, theres been about 50,000 murders here in the US....Quit your whining libs and let men and women who protect your weak asses do their jobs!

    Bigred:

    Hastert SHOULD have resigned, but he didn't have the moral fortitude to do so.

    I guess it's OK if naive young men die....because they 'volunteered'.

    Moral bankruptcy at it's worst!

    You don't need anyone of JUST military age in your family to sacrifice.

    There have been thousands of young babies and women who have needlessly died in George Bush's war.
    And since you say "All I can tell you is that if I were Commander in Chief there would have been many enemy casualties in Iraq"...that would have to include the innocent women and children.
    So killing innocent Iraqi women and children is fine with you?
    Or would you just have massive MALE causalities?..Going to sort out the Iraqi citizens from AlQaeda and not mix in Iraqi doctors, holy men etc ?

    Just admit it...you're totally full of shit or just a madman too.

    It was so cool tonite on Bill O'reilly..he had this chick on who could read people's body language and she watched Saddam right before he was hung...and she noted that his body language made it seem like he was nervous! It was so cool. God, is she pysicic, or however you spell it..LOL This lady is so insightful and Bill now has her on once a week. She noted that Donald Trump's body language said that he was sure of himself..How cool! I just read my whorryscope. Billo always has the best guests on and all the information I need to find out what is going on in the world and the Irac war. Plus what was really cool was Michelle M. exposed the New York Times! It was awesome..She exposed that the NYT blabbed the secret wire tapping thingie that saved our country from countless terror attacks..anyhoo..first the NYT exposed this secret and THEN, all the other newspapers copied them and reported it too! OH My GOD,,,what a bunch of copycats! It's so crazy...Gotta paint my nails..good nite to you all.

    Keith was way off the deep end tonight. His Special Comment--

    was he THAT upset about having to get back to his regular work schedule?

    What have we learned, MSNBC? No more extended vacations--you'll get a Special Comment like the one tonight.

    P.S. Keith fans-- I love "Countdown," but admit it... a few marbles were misplaced...

    It was so cool tonite on Bill O'reilly..he had this chick on who could read people's body language and she watched Saddam right before he was hung...and she noted that his body language made it seem like he was nervous! It was so cool. God, is she pysicic, or however you spell it..LOL This lady is so insightful and Bill now has her on once a week. She noted that Donald Trump's body language said that he was sure of himself..How cool! I just read my whorryscope. Billo always has the best guests on and all the information I need to find out what is going on in the world and the Irac war. Plus what was really cool was Michelle M. exposed the New York Times! It was awesome..She exposed that the NYT blabbed the secret wire tapping thingie that saved our country from countless terror attacks..anyhoo..first the NYT exposed this secret and THEN, all the other newspapers copied them and reported it too! OH My GOD,,,what a bunch of copycats! It's so crazy...Gotta paint my nails..good nite to you all.

    BTW...there obviously is more than one Bob posting here.

    Blizzard, what a fine brave American you are!

    Yeah....Let our fine young folks die for us over there so us cowards don't have to fight em over here!

    Only a moron would actually believes that tired old Republican talking point lie!

    Bob,

    Your invitation for me to sacrifice somebody in my family(not just of military age) doesn't exactly make you of sound mind.

    Do want the mission in Iraq to be successful or do you not? If you never wanted it to succeed in the first place it would be pointless for me to discuss strategery with you.

    anyway, the kooks are tryin so bad to see the US fail in Iraq.

    No...Your president has already seen to that !

    It was so cool tonite on Bill O'reilly..he had this chick on who could read people's body language and she watched Saddam right before he was hung...and she noted that his body language made it seem like he was nervous! It was so cool. God, is she pysicic, or however you spell it..LOL This lady is so insightful and Bill now has her on once a week. She noted that Donald Trump's body language said that he was sure of himself..How cool! I just read my whorryscope. Billo always has the best guests on and all the information I need to find out what is going on in the world and the Irac war. Plus what was really cool was Michelle M. exposed the New York Times! It was awesome..She exposed that the NYT blabbed the secret wire tapping thingie that saved our country from countless terror attacks..anyhoo..first the NYT exposed this secret and THEN, all the other newspapers copied them and reported it too! OH My GOD,,,what a bunch of copycats! It's so crazy...Gotta paint my nails..good nite to you all.

    HOLY CRAP!

    Did you read Mr. "Meak shall inherhit the Earth?" comments?

    ((""I read the comment from the "serviceman in harm's way" - more like professional killer of the weak and defenseless who loves it. I am ashamed of the troops in Iraq - killing thousands of innocent people - because the furror has demanded it. WW2 was when troops deserved our respect. This Iraq mess is no different than Hitlers move on the allies and Jews""))

    It's official! We have a LIBERAL WHO ADMITS HE HATES THE TROOPS! This proves that you radical insane leftists think WE'RE THE NAZIS and they are the heroes?

    NEWSFLASH! Over 30,000 MUSLIMS JOINED SIDES WITH ADOLF HITLER in the 1940's because of their commen hatred of the Jews. Saddam Hussiens Uncle was one of them. Let me repeat that for those who don't know...SADDAM'S UNLCE WAS A CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF THE FOURTH RIECH!!!

    Who is killing Jews this time SIR...the leader of Iran said he denies the Hollocaust. IT'S THEM WHO ARE THE NAZIS!

    Not everybody we've killed in Iraq ARE INNOCENT! Many of them are terrorists and former members of the Baath Party.

    Mr. Bible guy...hey look I'm no saint either no one is but I have read the Bible and I remember that it is written in there than you can KILL IN SELF-DEFENSE! And don't forget in the Old Testament God commanded the Hebrews to go to war with the Phillistines or they would be wiped out.

    Hey everybody do you know what the difference is between US AND THEM? What is the difference between the radical Muslims and US Soldiers.

    We kill Civilians...BY ACCIDENT...the terrorists kill Civilians ON PURPOSE!!!!!!!!

    Rico says:"Do want the mission in Iraq to be successful or do you not"?

    No one is talking about victory anymore ...not generals...no one....except the deaf, dumb and blind Olby haters at this site.

    Way to keep up with current events , Rico.

    HOLY CRAP!

    Did you read Mr. "Meak shall inherhit the Earth?" comments?

    ((""I read the comment from the "serviceman in harm's way" - more like professional killer of the weak and defenseless who loves it. I am ashamed of the troops in Iraq - killing thousands of innocent people - because the furror has demanded it. WW2 was when troops deserved our respect. This Iraq mess is no different than Hitlers move on the allies and Jews""))

    It's official! We have a LIBERAL WHO ADMITS HE HATES THE TROOPS! This proves that you radical insane leftists think WE'RE THE NAZIS and they are the heroes?

    NEWSFLASH! Over 30,000 MUSLIMS JOINED SIDES WITH ADOLF HITLER in the 1940's because of their commen hatred of the Jews. Saddam Hussiens Uncle was one of them. Let me repeat that for those who don't know...SADDAM'S UNLCE WAS A CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF THE FOURTH RIECH!!!

    Who is killing Jews this time SIR...the leader of Iran said he denies the Hollocaust. IT'S THEM WHO ARE THE NAZIS!

    Not everybody we've killed in Iraq ARE INNOCENT! Many of them are terrorists and former members of the Baath Party.

    Mr. Bible guy...hey look I'm no saint either no one is but I have read the Bible and I remember that it is written in there than you can KILL IN SELF-DEFENSE! And don't forget in the Old Testament God commanded the Hebrews to go to war with the Phillistines or they would be wiped out.

    Hey everybody do you know what the difference is between US AND THEM? What is the difference between the radical Muslims and US Soldiers.

    We kill Civilians...BY ACCIDENT...the terrorists kill Civilians ON PURPOSE!!!!!!!!

    Hey Rico; What is 'stategery'?

    Rico says:"Do want the mission in Iraq to be successful or do you not"?

    No one is talking about victory anymore ...not generals...no one....except the deaf, dumb and blind Olby haters at this site.

    Way to keep up with current events , Rico.

    Bob, maybe you should stop getting your news from the liberal blogs and Olbermoron. Then maybe you would have heard of a guy named Saddam Hussein who killed more than 1 million people and tortured & rapes hundreds of thousands more.

    U.S. soldiers are not the ones blowing up innocent women and children. They're the ones trying to put a stop to it.

    You're a typical nonsensical liberal. You probably think we should put a stop to the genocide in Darfur, but leave Iraq.

    Lulu, spamming.. no good.

    That obnoxious segment has become a regular. I call it the "Hmm... no one else to bash? Bring on the body language lady" segment.

    It's almost like Oddball... but worse: O'Reilly-style.

    HOLY CRAP!

    Did you read Mr. "Meak shall inherhit the Earth?" comments?

    ((""I read the comment from the "serviceman in harm's way" - more like professional killer of the weak and defenseless who loves it. I am ashamed of the troops in Iraq - killing thousands of innocent people - because the furror has demanded it. WW2 was when troops deserved our respect. This Iraq mess is no different than Hitlers move on the allies and Jews""))

    It's official! We have a LIBERAL WHO ADMITS HE HATES THE TROOPS! This proves that you radical insane leftists think WE'RE THE NAZIS and they are the heroes?

    NEWSFLASH! Over 30,000 MUSLIMS JOINED SIDES WITH ADOLF HITLER in the 1940's because of their commen hatred of the Jews. Saddam Hussiens Uncle was one of them. Let me repeat that for those who don't know...SADDAM'S UNLCE WAS A CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF THE FOURTH RIECH!!!

    Who is killing Jews this time SIR...the leader of Iran said he denies the Hollocaust. IT'S THEM WHO ARE THE NAZIS!

    Not everybody we've killed in Iraq ARE INNOCENT! Many of them are terrorists and former members of the Baath Party.

    Mr. Bible guy...hey look I'm no saint either no one is but I have read the Bible and I remember that it is written in there than you can KILL IN SELF-DEFENSE! And don't forget in the Old Testament God commanded the Hebrews to go to war with the Phillistines or they would be wiped out.

    Hey everybody do you know what the difference is between US AND THEM? What is the difference between the radical Muslims and US Soldiers.

    We kill Civilians...BY ACCIDENT...the terrorists kill Civilians ON PURPOSE!!!!!!!!

    We kill Civilians...BY ACCIDENT...the terrorists kill Civilians ON PURPOSE!!!!!!!!

    I'll let you chew on that statement ..just a little.

    I wonder if the dead care who kills them.
    Hmmmmmmmmm

    My God...the supporters of this war HAVE completely lost their minds !

    HOLY CRAP!

    Did you read Mr. "Meak shall inherhit the Earth?" comments?

    ((""I read the comment from the "serviceman in harm's way" - more like professional killer of the weak and defenseless who loves it. I am ashamed of the troops in Iraq - killing thousands of innocent people - because the furror has demanded it. WW2 was when troops deserved our respect. This Iraq mess is no different than Hitlers move on the allies and Jews""))

    It's official! We have a LIBERAL WHO ADMITS HE HATES THE TROOPS! This proves that you radical insane leftists think WE'RE THE NAZIS and they are the heroes?

    NEWSFLASH! Over 30,000 MUSLIMS JOINED SIDES WITH ADOLF HITLER in the 1940's because of their commen hatred of the Jews. Saddam Hussiens Uncle was one of them. Let me repeat that for those who don't know...SADDAM'S UNLCE WAS A CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF THE FOURTH RIECH!!!

    Who is killing Jews this time SIR...the leader of Iran said he denies the Hollocaust. IT'S THEM WHO ARE THE NAZIS!

    Not everybody we've killed in Iraq ARE INNOCENT! Many of them are terrorists and former members of the Baath Party.

    Mr. Bible guy...hey look I'm no saint either no one is but I have read the Bible and I remember that it is written in there than you can KILL IN SELF-DEFENSE! And don't forget in the Old Testament God commanded the Hebrews to go to war with the Phillistines or they would be wiped out.

    Hey everybody do you know what the difference is between US AND THEM? What is the difference between the radical Muslims and US Soldiers.

    We kill Civilians...BY ACCIDENT...the terrorists kill Civilians ON PURPOSE!!!!!!!!

    bigred,

    To deny that American soldiers have been "blowing up" women and children is ridiculous. Do you think the death count in Iraq only includes insurgents? Or are we calling all Iraqis insurgents now?... I suppose I didn't get the memo.

    Now Bob, now you get off them Liberal blogs and listen to Aaron and Bigred now....they sound reeeel smart!

    OK I feel better now...calm...calm...got everything out of my system.

    Thanks again for having this website exist!

    Oh and by the way...Olby. The real reason why the Republicans lost in November was because of the Dubai Ports Deal and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION...that's about it. Check Michael Savage for more information.

    Yup...that's about it !...Katrina response, the massive debt..and that little war in Iraq had nothing to do with it.

    Check Savage for info...

    I need to send this to Jon Stewart...All of America needs to hear this comedy routine.

    All I can say is wow... I have friends in Iraq that are put in harms way every day because of what Bush has done. Its hard to believe that the people that support this war call themselves "Christians" and "Patriots". If you people really cared about your country you would have now realized that this "War" (if you can call it that) is bankrupting our country, over stretching our military, and ultimately killing US citizens in the name of "Protection from evil doers". 2973, what does that number mean to any of you? That is the number of people killed in the Sep 11th attacks, how do we honor their memory, start a war against a real terrorist and his organization in Afghanistan, but we do not actually bring this terrorist to justice. But how do we protect Americans( or Israeli's)? We go to Iraq... and we lose over 3000 troops. How many of you can honestly say that you feel more safe walking around your suburb's streets knowing that Osama is still alive? What about Saddam being dead do you feel safer? Are you glad that it took 3000 soldiers sacrifice to bring him to "Justice".

    KO is not crazy you people are!

    Bob, since the real news is so tragic, it's possible to get a little comic relief by coming here to see these Olby haters hyperventilate!

    Just don't make the mistake of taking them seriously!

    I know you libs have no lives beyond your obsession with hating all things Republican, but you should go turn on the History Channel right now and learn about Saddam Hussein and the evil that we put a stop to.

    Now that we did that, are we just supposed to walk away from that country and let absolute chaos reign?

    If only Saddam's execution truly ended all the "evil."

    Some might argue it has inflamed it...

    For those of you who DON'T believe me about WMD BEING FOUND in Iraq after all. Check out these LINKS! AND NONE OF THEM ARE FOX NEWS!

    POWDERED URANIUM FOUND IN TUWAITHA IRAQ
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

    Sarin Gas and a new chemical Weapon called SYCLO-SARIN GAS found in the Polish controlled sector of Iraq.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

    Over 1500 GALLONS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND IN MOSUL IRAQ! August 8th 2005 The Washington Post put this story on PAGE 18!!! Oh yeah...there's no such thing as liberal media bias...NOO...couldn't be.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    An Iraqi General testified that other weapons were moved to Syria in the Summer of 2002
    http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

    JUST COPY AND PASTE THOSE TO THE TOP OF YOUR INTERNET ADDRESS SPACE. I know the libs won't read or take them seriously but give me your thoughts.

    By the way I used to be a liberal until 9/11. I used to call myself a moderate but too many hyper liberals kept pushing me over the edge trying to convert me that it turned me more conservative.

    Again copy and PASTE THIS page go to it NOW! Read it and WEEP KEITH OLBY! Bush didn't lie about EVERYTHING. It's Saddam who was the deciever.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    dam...you got me...too bad I had to post 3 x..otherwise, I might have been in the clear..Doubt anyone would have thought I was any more than isnightful.

    Bigred:

    Uh, I do believe "chaos reigns" at this very moment, and were still there.

    Seriously Bigred, since you keep using that word 'Lib'. Do you actually know what that means? I seriously doubt it. No wait, you do....Hannity explained it to you, didn't he?

    Do you consider defending this war 'conservative'? Well guess what Bub, invading and occupying a far away country for dubious reasons was never a conservative principal.

    Hey to all the conservatives here. COPY AND PASTE THIS WHOLE MESSAGE AND EMAIL IT TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY this needs to get out more ofter.

    For those of you who DON'T believe me about WMD BEING FOUND in Iraq after all. Check out these LINKS! AND NONE OF THEM ARE FOX NEWS!

    POWDERED URANIUM FOUND IN TUWAITHA IRAQ
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

    Sarin Gas and a new chemical Weapon called SYCLO-SARIN GAS found in the Polish controlled sector of Iraq.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

    Over 1500 GALLONS OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS FOUND IN MOSUL IRAQ! August 8th 2005 The Washington Post put this story on PAGE 18!!! Oh yeah...there's no such thing as liberal media bias...NOO...couldn't be.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    An Iraqi General testified that other weapons were moved to Syria in the Summer of 2002
    http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

    JUST COPY AND PASTE THOSE TO THE TOP OF YOUR INTERNET ADDRESS SPACE. I know the libs won't read or take them seriously but give me your thoughts.

    By the way I used to be a liberal until 9/11. I used to call myself a moderate but too many hyper liberals kept pushing me over the edge trying to convert me that it turned me more conservative.

    Again copy and PASTE THIS page go to it NOW! Read it and WEEP KEITH OLBY! Bush didn't lie about EVERYTHING. It's Saddam who was the deceiver.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    I'm sure we ALL appreciate your satirical insight, Lulu...

    Sometimes I wish Reagan was still around...to show all of you "conservatives" what that really means.

    Now now now, Anon 2:14...

    Let's make sure we don't mention that phrase "civil war..." I'm sure all of us "libs" know how that debate would go...

    Conservatives believe in a strong national defense "bub". When you have a dictator who has killed more than a million, used chemical & biological weapons, tried to build nuclear weapons, tried to assassinate a U.S. president and is stationed in the heart of the Islamic jihad movement, that person is a threat to our national security. He needed to be taken out.

    I don't agree with how this war has been waged, but there is no doubt Saddam was a threat to the Middle East, Israel and the rest of the world.

    That's why there were so many U.N. resolutions condemning him. That's why so many DEMOCRATS like Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, etc. voted to take him out. Go check their comments about Saddam before the invasion.

    Boy that Aaron really is smart! Now how come Aaron didn't tell Bush about these WMD finds before he went and admitted to the world that there were no WMDs?

    Aaron also said: "Bush didn't lie about EVERYTHING". That kind of sounds like he is admitting that Bush did lie about SOME things!

    Civil War? phh... merely secretarian violence spurred by regional players...

    I'm sure it was just a typo... Bush is the decider... HE decides when he makes mistakes or lies, I'm sure of it!

    "Bob,

    I didn't say I was happy with how Bush is managing things in Iraq. He's not on offense any more and it's really stupid to be in a war and not taking actions that will cause victory. I want victory there. Do you?

    Whenever our military goes into combat I want there to be zero casualties on our side and 100% casualties on the other side. Do you?

    Sorry, Bob, but there is nobody of military age in my family. All I can tell you is that if I were Commander in Chief there would have been so few US casualties and so many enemy casualties in Iraq that Krazy Keith would have hijacked a 777 airliner and crashed it into a skyscraper by now.

    Posted by: Rico at January 3, 2007 01:26 AM"


    If anyone wants to digest what is behind the "at least I support I troops" double talk, just read what Rico here has written. He and other pin heads like him think that by saying they "want victory" for our troops and our nation, they are supporting our troops.

    Wanting it, and participating in a process that would better insure it, are two totally different things. Putting your political and rhetorical support behind a man and a party that is about as vile and twisted as any in this nation's history is not what I call supporting our troops. Especially as they repeatedly demonstrate their inability to lead.

    Demanding that our politicians stop lying and subverting this nation's democratic process is a good way to begin supporting our troops. You want victory for our troops? Victory over what? Terrorism? Terrorism is not an opponent in a battle, it is a tactic. You want victory of theo-fascist Islamists? Then make dam sure you don't support an American version of it in the form of pimping and whoring Jesus and the bible by the same politicians that send our nations finest men and women into battle.

    No Rico you don't actually support our troops you just say you do. Victory comes in a battle between two opposing sides. Tell me the other side we are fightin in Iraq. If victory is not losing to Islamists then I will ask you how this nation came to be fighting Islamists in what was the most secular Arab nation on the planet.

    You telling me it is to defeat is telling me bullshit. Islamists win everyday our troops die in Iraq. Every American death is a victory for these cavemen from the dark ages. They need not go to Iraq to kill Americans, they need only make sure this civil war goes on for as long as possible. Bush has been their greatest ally in this endeavored and all his rich buddies have made billions in military contracts at the same time. Nice way to support the troops - get rich off war. It's the Christian thing to do right? Wrong!

    Iran is now the biggest force against us in the region. Are we in battle with Iran? No we are in Iraq fighting to stabilize a nation heaving in civil war. Only a political solution will work. And what political power does George Bush have these days? Here or abroad? None! He is a disgraced man who rose to power with the hillbilly vote and huge corporate funding. Not the kind of politics to gain the political trust and respect we need in that region of the world. Especially with all his whoring to the industries who are getting rich off this war.

    The way to defeat theo-fascists in Islam is to demonstrate to the Islamic world that the USA is not what the Islamists say we are. We are not a mirror of them - religious fanatics out to terrorize the weak of this planet. Saying it and demonstrating are two different things. If only this was a Christian nation, then we would have no problem showing them and the world that we are not a nation ran by greedy corporations who pimp religion just like the Islamists. If only, if only.

    The world is not what you want it to be and it not what war and force tries to make it either. The world is the same no matter what corner of the earth you are on. All any person wants is to prosper in the absence of predators of greed who prey on the weak. Killing all the Islamists alive today will create ten times more tomorrow. Jesus made all of this perfectly clear. Yet just as your claims of supporting our troops is total bullshit, like all the rest of your right wing fakers, your religious convictions are just as hollow.

    Show me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you house full of shit.

    Bigred, do you realize how much you guy's rants are ammusing all us 'Libs'?...what with your sophmoric parroting of tired old Neoconish talking points that we have heard thousands of times, and have been discredited just as many times.

    Keep it up though, this is funny!

    "Boy that Aaron really is smart! Now how come Aaron didn't tell Bush about these WMD finds before he went and admitted to the world that there were no WMDs?"

    Believe me I get FRUSTRATED EVERY day as to WHY BUSH WON'T DEFEND HIMSELF AND DO RESEARCH.

    What Bush may be guitly of to the start up of the war is he did Exaggerate the power of Saddams WMD. We now know that he was far from a NUKE...

    BUT...you libs come to the conclusion that because he was wrong about those things he was wrong about WMD ALTOGETHER.

    Was it exaggerated yes? But to say that Saddam was SQUEAKY CLEAN..."Mister Clean...mister clean" is BULLCRAP! Again I'll keep putting this links up until someone reads them.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

    http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

    AMEN!!! Buffalo

    Wait... Ice... I figured you were a "secular progressive".... "AMEN" is totally off-limits to those types...

    :P

    Sorry i got a lil carried away...it is quite early you know.

    Aaron said: I get FRUSTRATED EVERY DAY as to WHY BUSH WON'T DEFEND HIMSELF AND DO RESEARCH"...

    Yeah, I know what you mean; I was kinda frustrated that he didn't do research into things like sectarian rivalries, Muslem culture, insurgent warfare, and Middle Eastern history before he made one of the stupidest moves in US history!

    My God...the supporters of this war HAVE completely lost their minds !

    Posted by: Bob at January 3, 2007 01:55 AM

    And they have lost their souls. Our honor as a nation. Good special comments again from Olbermann. Keep up the good work Keith.

    Agreed, anon. It's those little details that for some reason make all the difference.

    "Conservatives believe in a strong national defense "bub". When you have a dictator who has killed more than a million, used chemical & biological weapons, tried to build nuclear weapons, tried to assassinate a U.S. president and is stationed in the heart of the Islamic jihad movement, that person is a threat to our national security. He needed to be taken out.

    Posted by: bigred at January 3, 2007 02:20 AM"


    Having a strong defense and creating an environment where you need one much larger than necessary are not the same thing. A strong defense can also achieved by not going around lighting fires and then charging billions to other nations to have them put out.

    Your claim that Sadam was trying to build a nuke is total Fox News garbage and a proven lie with zero basis in fact. Boy are you out of it. And if your argument that Sadam had to be taken out is based on how many he has killed is valid, then why is Kim Young il of North Korea sitting pretty right now? Why has Iran been able to escalate it's nuke program more now that we are in Iraq than before we went there?

    Every thing your saying is total garbage propaganda bullshit except the part about the Democrats being in on this fiasco to invade Iraq. Exactly right, but it was not to get Sadam you idiot, it was to get a strong hold in the heart of the worlds richest oil supplies. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton did not run the congress while Cheney and Rumsfeld played puppet master over the Oval Office. You blame everyone but the obvious and have no clue about anything else. The whole idea was sold from the Oval office not the UN.

    If you want to say like it is then don't pretend this was about WMD or nukes. That is for hillbilly pin heads who listen to Rush and Hannity. Say it's about the oil and you are living in reality, all the rest is total bull shit.

    Show me home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of shit!

    What do you "Olbyhaters" think about when you hear someone articulate the truth about Bush the way Keith does? Everything Keith said in his special comment was true. Why do you people still insist on believing in such a mistake? I am so glad that Keith is around to say what needs to be said. For those of you who find it commical to have a man stand so firmly against this administration, you make me sad for you.

    Keith Olbermann is a great American.

    I haven't heard any real details about this new "sacrifice" policy Bush is about to announce.

    Does this mean he's going to ask us all to actually share and sacrifice for the war effort, instead of his previous advice to "go shopping"?

    He might be just a little late on that one!

    No no no, the "go shopping" advice is still alive and well... but this time... discount stores.

    C'mon Buffale Shit, did you really hafta go and bring up the 'oil thing'?

    Do you really want to shatter our illusion that we have might actually have SOME noble purpose in Iraq?

    "What do you "Olbyhaters" think about when you hear someone articulate the truth about Bush the way Keith does? Everything Keith said in his special comment was true. Why do you people still insist on believing in such a mistake? I am so glad that Keith is around to say what needs to be said. For those of you who find it commical to have a man stand so firmly against this administration, you make me sad for you.

    Posted by: codas at January 3, 2007 02:49 AM"


    Pretending your purpose here is to evaluate the degrees of accuracy in the reporting of just one man on cable infotainment is just like pretending that George Bush, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and a whole host of fake bible whores aren't the laughing stock of political loosing poster boys.

    Your beef is not with Keith Olbermann, your beef is waking up last November 7th and realizing that you live in a fantasy world. Yet you refuse to snap out of it and continue the charade by pretending Keith Olbermann is the issue. Who gives a flying f--- what Keith Olbermann looks like when he standing next to Tom DeLay, or Bill Frist? I mean come on who do you think you are kidding?

    Show me home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you house full of shit!

    I love how angry you KO supporters get, yet you cannot refute one single point I made, although you claim all my points already were discredited a long time ago.

    The problem is, I can support my arguments with FACTS. Saddam did try to build a nuke. It was destroyed by the Israelis.

    Saddam did gas the Kurds and the Iranians. He whiped out 40 Kurdish villages and thousands of people in a few days by dropping chemical weapons on them from his warplanes.

    Oh, and let's not forget him paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each.

    Check your history next time you want to bring your weak s*&^ in here.

    What do you "Olbyhaters" think about when you hear someone articulate the truth about Bush the way Keith does? Everything Keith said in his special comment was true. Why do you people still insist on believing in such a mistake? I am so glad that Keith is around to say what needs to be said. For those of you who find it commical to have a man stand so firmly against this administration, you make me sad for you.

    Posted by: codas at January 3, 2007 02:49 AM

    I meant to write:

    Right on... Codas

    And then go on with the buffalo shit

    Bill Frist....now there's a real winner!

    Who can forget what an idiot he looked like diagnosing Terry Shiavo over the television.

    His last great actions as Senate Majority leader was to repeatedly try to ram through a repeal of the estate tax for the rich by making it a rider on other unrelated bills...and this during a time of massive deficits and a time of war.

    You Republicans can be reeeel proud of him!

    "I love how angry you KO supporters get, yet you cannot refute one single point I made, although you claim all my points already were discredited a long time ago.

    The problem is, I can support my arguments with FACTS. Saddam did try to build a nuke. It was destroyed by the Israelis.

    Check your history next time you want to bring your weak s*&^ in here.

    Posted by: bigred at January 3, 2007 03:07 AM"

    Dude you make a bigger fool of yourself.

    At no time did Bush ever refer to ancient history when he lied about an active program to build a nuclear WMD device by Saddam. You are reaching here in a sorry attempt to pretend you are not Fox News educated.

    Get off it. Saddam was not proven to be building the nuke Bush was saying he was actively building at the time.

    Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the two biggest traitors to democracy in the history of this nation. Listen to them and you become a jello headed idiot.


    Show me home...

    Bigred, Bigred, Bigred:

    Your 'facts' are so elementary! He did all of that stuff BEFORE the first gulf war....you know...ancient history, with one exception; Yes he did pay off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers because they got their houses bulldozed.

    No, I'm not defending Saddam at all, but that is the only credible link to terrorism in recent history, and it didn't really involve the US.

    Your 'facts' are just tired old Republican talking points, and even most of the Republicans have abandoned them now! You sound like a third grader arguing your case for the war!

    I know it's difficult, but try to pay attention. I was talking about Saddam's known history.

    As for your statement about Bush, "when he lied about an active program to build a nuclear WMD device by Saddam". Bush did not say Saddam had an active program to build nukes. He said he Saddam wanted an active nuke program.

    He did say Saddam had chemical & biological weapons, which everyone thought he did.

    Did Hillary, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, and the United Nations also lie? They all said Saddam's WMDs were "grave threats".

    The problem is, I can support my arguments with FACTS. Saddam did try to build a nuke. It was destroyed by the Israelis.
    Check your history next time you want to bring your weak s*&^ in here.
    Posted by: bigred at January 3, 2007 03:07 AM"

    More needs to be said about this. "Check your facts" How the hell do people who have no clue what they are talking about talk like this?

    Bush went into Iraq for oil price control. Saddam's biggest mistake was to hint that he was thinking of selling oil in exchange for the Euro instead of the dollar. This was the final nail in his coffin. WMD's had nothing to do with it.

    Tell me big red one (the head of a dick) what backs the US dollar? Gold in Fort Knox or oil in the ground of other nations? Google it Mr Red-one.

    Show me a home...

    Big Red:

    Bill Clinton didn't invade Iraq, Hillary Clinton didn't invade Iraq, John Kerry didn't invade Iraq, John Edwards didn't invade Iraq, Al Gore didn't invade Iraq, And finally, the UN sure as hell didn't invade Iraq! Now...Try to pay attention now....who's left? That's right George Bush and Co. invaded Iraq!

    Anybody else notice how all the war defenders sound a lot like grade schooler's tonight.

    "Did Hillary, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, and the United Nations also lie? They all said Saddam's WMDs were "grave threats".

    Posted by: bigred at January 3, 2007 03:22 AM"

    Yes you idiot they did all lie about why the US went into Iraq. How f---ing stupid do you have to be to not get this?

    Draw a circle around the richest oil supplies on the planet earth and Iraq is dead center of it. This about oil not WMD's. Only kool-aid drinking Fox News educated hillbillies would be gullible enough to ignore this elephant in the room.

    My beef is not with Bush, he is just one man in our democracy, my beef is with the pin headed sheepeople who put him there and then blindly walk lock step behind him while he bankrupts this nation and sends our finest men and women into battle on the cheap with no respect for the advisors that new the most about the region. Their ignorance and arrogance is mirrored by their sheepeople supporters like you. Never admit your wrong and keep on doing it wrong with no ability to stop.

    Show me a home...

    Anon,

    Hillary, Kerry and Edwards voted to invade Iraq. Clinton & Gore openly talked about the dangers of Saddam...before & after they were in the White House. The UN voted unanimously for a resolution that Saddam was in breach of the ceasefire terms, including having a WMD program.

    They all had a role in us invading Iraq, although they all backpedal from their decision now.

    Bigred:

    First, read Buffaloe's comment above, he sounds like a pretty smart dude to me. I'm not QUITE as cynical as he is regarding the oil motive, but it sure as hell played a big part in the decision.

    Yes, every one of those folks voted for the war "as a last resort". I don't think it was all that clear at the time that Bush was going to just charge right on in there, come hell or high water. That said, every one of them were guilty of using lousy judgment...agreed.

    However, I'd be willing to bet my ass not one of them would have followed GW's footsteps into Iraq, had THEY been president!

    One more thing Bigred: I'm going to give away my age now.

    You sound almost exactly as I did about 35 years ago trying to defend the Vietnam War. Thats right, I would bluster and spit out talking points in a vain attempt to defend the indefensible.

    So take heart, you'll get over it!

    "They all had a role in us invading Iraq, although they all backpedal from their decision now.

    Posted by: bigred at January 3, 2007 03:36 AM"

    Back pedal from what? From thinking Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz could pull it off or back pedal from believing the US had to gain control of the region?

    There is huge difference. You think the Dems will change a thing? You think our government is not united about getting control of the region? You think when Hillary is president she will reduce the program to gain power over the region one bit? Not a chance.

    You see once you accept reality and understand this for what it is - about oil - then you will begin to understand that the Republican party and the Democratic party are two halves of the same whole - a political system owned and ran by international corporations.

    Fox News and CNN will never spell it out quite like this, after all they and all the rest of the cable media are owned by these same corporations.

    Stop living in a pretend world and you might actually see that elephant about to shit on your shoes!

    Show me a home where the elephants roam and I'll show you house full of dung!

    Thank you..
    I was having a bad night last night , when I happened to flipp to big bad Keith doing his "special comment"
    This simple fact that KO thinks that most Americans take him serious is funny enough. Watching him set there talking and think that he really makes a difference, took the edge off what a bad day. Keep it up KO, you are definitely showing how stupid you are.. Oh keep beginning your your network in thinking how great you are ...


    Putz!

    Thank you..
    I was having a bad night last night , when I happened to flipp to big bad Keith doing his "special comment"
    This simple fact that KO thinks that most Americans take him serious is funny enough. Watching him set there talking and think that he really makes a difference, took the edge off what a bad day. Keep it up KO, you are definitely showing how stupid you are.. Oh keep believing your network in thinking how great you are ... your definitely a funny man


    Putz!

    Krazy Keith spewed: "We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason... We have shown them our stupidity."

    I hope a--hole Olbermann sleeps well tonight. I'm sure the families of all those "stupid" Americans that gave their lives "for no good reason" appreciate his thoughtful insight.

    Keith, please go away.

    For some reason I tuned in to Keith's comments, I normally can't stand his show, and tonight's comments were especially bad. The number of lies and hypocricies in it were almost too many to count, but I'll try.
    1) He quotes a poll of the military about how they don't want more troops, but does he ever show polls of the troops about whether they think they are doing good there? Of course not, because the vast majority of them feel they are doing a lot of good. And what does that poll mean anyway? They could say "no we don't want more troops" because they feel they don't need them, that they are winning without them, which would refute Keith's whole point.
    2) He then tries to say that leaving before the job is done won't show weakness to our enemies, even though it was our retreat in Somalia that emboldened bin Laden to carry out 9/11 (remember he called us a "paper tiger" after that).
    3) He then says that a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq, and that is a good reason to do so. It is one thing to listen to polls when it concerns taxes and other domestic issues, but no President should ever conduct foreign policy, and especially not war, on the basis of polls. Should Roosevelt have taken a poll before invading Normandy? I imagine a great majority would have been against it, especially if they knew of the expected casualties. In today's media, D-day would have been a colossal failure.
    4) Bush and Rove turning American deaths to political advantage? Utter nonsense. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, Bush would have beaten Kerry by a landslide, but instead he did what he thought was right, instead of what would make him popular (unlike another recent President).
    5) He then tries to make the point that the war is being prolonged simply to make some companies more money. I assume he is referring to Halliburton. The only administration official with any ties to Halliburton is Cheney, but he set it up before he took office that he could not profit from anything Halliburton does. He will leave office in the exact same financial position as when he entered no matter how Halliburton fares. Keith says that Bush wants humvees to be blown up so they will have to buy more. Pure nonsense - so he really thinks we went to war to help out GM? Last time I checked GM was on the verge of bankruptcy.
    6) He says "Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here." Huh? No attacks in almost 6 years - seems like it has had the opposite effect.
    7) He said "First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush. Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego." Slanderous nonsense, even Keith doesn't actually believe either of those statements, but he knows they will sound great to the angry left and the conspiracy nuts.

    The whole time I watched, I kept asking myself, "surely no one is buying this stuff, at least no one with a brain who isn't just dazzled because someone bought him a thesaurus for Christmas." But then I read some of the comments on here and I am amazed. His whole speech was so condescending and disrespectful, not just of the President, but of the viewers as well. It was typical elitism, instead of presenting an argument in order to persuade, instead he tries to shove it down your throat by yelling at the camera, in an attempt I guess to make people afraid to disagree or even critically think about what he is actually saying. Look how mad he is, it must be true! That was fake anger people, he doesn't believe half of what he said, maybe even more. He is simply trying to stir up viewers - "what will crazy Keith say next?" - it's a niche he is trying to create for himself, he can't seem to win over viewers any other way. He was a great sportscaster because he was able to incorporate catchy phrases into the sports news, and make it more entertaining. He is trying to do the same with real news, and it just doesn't work. So he tries harder and harder, and for those of us who are critical thinkers, it comes across as nothing more than absurd theater. If you go back and critically read what he said, there is not one coherent argument against sending more troops, yet he went on for what seemed an eternity. All bluster, no substance. Keith needs to go back to doing sports, where how you say it is just as important as what you say (which is why Chris Berman is so popular). But with news, you need substance, and Keith seems to have little. Perhaps that is why he never has guests who might disagree with him. His total lack of credibility and substance would show through if he did.

    For some reason I tuned in to Keith's comments, I normally can't stand his show, and tonight's comments were especially bad. The number of lies and hypocricies in it were almost too many to count, but I'll try.
    1) He quotes a poll of the military about how they don't want more troops, but does he ever show polls of the troops about whether they think they are doing good there? Of course not, because the vast majority of them feel they are doing a lot of good. And what does that poll mean anyway? They could say "no we don't want more troops" because they feel they don't need them, that they are winning without them, which would refute Keith's whole point.
    2) He then tries to say that leaving before the job is done won't show weakness to our enemies, even though it was our retreat in Somalia that emboldened bin Laden to carry out 9/11 (remember he called us a "paper tiger" after that).
    3) He then says that a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq, and that is a good reason to do so. It is one thing to listen to polls when it concerns taxes and other domestic issues, but no President should ever conduct foreign policy, and especially not war, on the basis of polls. Should Roosevelt have taken a poll before invading Normandy? I imagine a great majority would have been against it, especially if they knew of the expected casualties. In today's media, D-day would have been a colossal failure.
    4) Bush and Rove turning American deaths to political advantage? Utter nonsense. If we hadn't gone into Iraq, Bush would have beaten Kerry by a landslide, but instead he did what he thought was right, instead of what would make him popular (unlike another recent President).
    5) He then tries to make the point that the war is being prolonged simply to make some companies more money. I assume he is referring to Halliburton. The only administration official with any ties to Halliburton is Cheney, but he set it up before he took office that he could not profit from anything Halliburton does. He will leave office in the exact same financial position as when he entered no matter how Halliburton fares. Keith says that Bush wants humvees to be blown up so they will have to buy more. Pure nonsense - so he really thinks we went to war to help out GM? Last time I checked GM was on the verge of bankruptcy.
    6) He says "Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here." Huh? No attacks in almost 6 years - seems like it has had the opposite effect.
    7) He said "First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush. Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego." Slanderous nonsense, even Keith doesn't actually believe either of those statements, but he knows they will sound great to the angry left and the conspiracy nuts.

    The whole time I watched, I kept asking myself, "surely no one is buying this stuff, at least no one with a brain who isn't just dazzled because someone bought him a thesaurus for Christmas." But then I read some of the comments on here and I am amazed. His whole speech was so condescending and disrespectful, not just of the President, but of the viewers as well. It was typical elitism, instead of presenting an argument in order to persuade, instead he tries to shove it down your throat by yelling at the camera, in an attempt I guess to make people afraid to disagree or even critically think about what he is actually saying. Look how mad he is, it must be true! That was fake anger people, he doesn't believe half of what he said, maybe even more. He is simply trying to stir up viewers - "what will crazy Keith say next?" - it's a niche he is trying to create for himself, he can't seem to win over viewers any other way. He was a great sportscaster because he was able to incorporate catchy phrases into the sports news, and make it more entertaining. He is trying to do the same with real news, and it just doesn't work. So he tries harder and harder, and for those of us who are critical thinkers, it comes across as nothing more than absurd theater. If you go back and critically read what he said, there is not one coherent argument against sending more troops, yet he went on for what seemed an eternity. All bluster, no substance. Keith needs to go back to doing sports, where how you say it is just as important as what you say (which is why Chris Berman is so popular). But with news, you need substance, and Keith seems to have little. Perhaps that is why he never has guests who might disagree with him. His total lack of credibility and substance would show through if he did.

    I will dissect more of this hateful speech later, but this was INDEFENSABLE:

    "This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists. We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason. We have now shown them that we will continue to do so. We have shown them our stupidity."

    Sorry to repeat the post of PVT parts, but to use the term "stupidity" in characterizing the actions of our armed forces is unnecessary and crosses the line.

    If it was stupid on day 1 of the invasion, Mr. Olbermann and his radical ilk should have said so.....they did not! Again, I demand PUBLIC QUOTES of reasonable people back in 3/2003 saying this war was wrong, there were no WMD's OR the invasion was "stupid."

    You'll not find one.

    Now those 3003 wonderful people who died for a great cause are stupid. The people signing-up today to defend their country are stupid. The President is stupid, Senators McCain and Leiberman are stupid. I'm stupid. Nice rhetoric.

    I'll use even "nicer" rhetoric....the gloves are off!.....

    No, Mr. Olberman....the terrorists were shown weakness by your behavior and that of millions of Americans that you and they are dishonorable and gutless cowards who couldn't care less about the troops and the sacrifice they have made to TRY to make Iraq a peaceful place. Millions of Americans who would rather sit on their butts (whether behind a news desk, behind a computer or on their sofa watching it all unfold), and curse the darkness. The radical left, as personified by Keith Olbermann are selfish, egotistical and ignorant muslim terrorist apologists. The left supports the victory of radical Islam.

    GO TO IRAQ, MR. OLBERMANN, AND REPORT FROM THERE....GET SOME FACTS ABOUT THE COUNTRY BEFORE YOU CALL YOUR OPPONENTS STUPID. INTERVIEW SOME IRAQIS WHO HAVE BENEFITTED FROM THE HONORABLE SERVICE OF THOSE STUPID AMERICANS.

    It won't happen.

    "Sorry to repeat the post of PVT parts, but to use the term "stupidity" in characterizing the actions of our armed forces is unnecessary and crosses the line."

    - well cee, try real hard to recognize that such descriptions are being applied to the POLICY and the POLICY MAKERS. The troops are doing the job that is handed them - and it is a pointless and counterproductive job.


    "If it was stupid on day 1 of the invasion, Mr. Olbermann and his radical ilk should have said so.....they did not! Again, I demand PUBLIC QUOTES of reasonable people back in 3/2003 saying this war was wrong, there were no WMD's OR the invasion was "stupid.""

    Perhaps you don't group me and millions of other antiwar activists as being of Olbermann's "radical ilk", but we were screaming form the outset the EXACT SAME CRITICIZISMS that are being more widely borne out today. I personally have no concept of Olbermann's position on the war four years ago; but he is spot-on today. Just because you people suffer from intrinsic intransigence and innability to learn does not mean that everyone is afflicted with that disorder.


    "Now those 3003 wonderful people who died for a great cause are stupid. The people signing-up today to defend their country are stupid. The President is stupid, Senators McCain and Leiberman are stupid. I'm stupid. Nice rhetoric."

    This is your own hyper-defensiveness spinning ego-armor, cee. You hold the troops up as a shield from rhetorical criticisms of your thinking as casually as you hide beind their valor and altruism in the field. I think Olbermann's implication was clearly that either Bush, McCain, et. al. are either stupid or cynically and evilly disingenuous. There are examles of both in your list of victims. You, we all are aware, are just a delusional coward.


    "Millions of Americans who would rather sit on their butts (whether behind a news desk, behind a computer or on their sofa watching it all unfold), and curse the darkness."

    ...while cee sits on his butt (whereever), watching it all unfold, and blessing the light that he sees shining out of Bush's ass.


    "The radical left, as personified by Keith Olbermann are selfish, egotistical and ignorant muslim terrorist apologists. The left supports the victory of radical Islam."

    You are a f---ing moron.


    "INTERVIEW SOME IRAQIS WHO HAVE BENEFITTED FROM THE HONORABLE SERVICE OF THOSE STUPID AMERICANS."

    92% of Iraqis want us to leave, and feel that their lives were better before our invasion. Some months ago polls showed that 60% OF Iraqis favored violent atacks on our troops in their country. Deal with it.

    Are YOU going to "sacrifice", cee, when you are "called" by your dipshit messiah in the White House? Have you "sacrificed for your "good cause" to date, besides for the crocodile tears you cry daily for the troops?


    "


    Sir Loin of Milquetoast....the eighth time you are running and hiding behind the go and serve argument.....Hypocrisy.....you attack my line of argument regarding the cowardly and dishonorable arm-chairing of people like you and Olbermann, yet make the same argument that I join the "stupid" in their, "pointless and counterproductive job."

    Let's just disagree over the observation that the left, as symbolized by you and Olbermann, have no respect for service to the country.....it's STUPID to do so, according to you and KO.

    Olbermann did not call "the policy" stupid.....he said "we." The critique has been personalized and includes the volunteers committed to executing Bush's orders. Do not try to excuse or redefine what Olbermann said, Loin.....he said, "We have shown them our stupidity." Hence, the soldiers are stupid. I read what I read, in context and I will not try to spin it any other way.

    Also, I like your retort to THE TRUTH:

    "The radical left, as personified by Keith Olbermann are selfish, egotistical and ignorant muslim terrorist apologists. The left supports the victory of radical Islam."

    - well Sir Loin of Milquetoast, try real hard to recognize that such descriptions are being applied to YOU and the haters from the left. The troops are doing the job that is handed them - and it is the honorable service of humanity in protecting civlians in Iraq from terrorists.

    More facts about President Ford and Vietnam later....



    cee said: "Again, I demand PUBLIC QUOTES of reasonable people back in 3/2003 saying this war was wrong, there were no WMD's OR the invasion was "stupid."

    You'll not find one."


    Here you go, lying chickenhawk:


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

    Comments by Scott Ritter pre war:

    "Lisbon - The United States does not have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war against Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter said.

    "The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win," Ritter told private radio TSF in an interview broadcast here on Tuesday evening.

    26/03/2003

    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0908-05.htm More from Ritter 2003 - re: Bush’s WMD lies.


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

    Comments by Rep Dennis Kucinich

    “Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), today, led 30 Members of Congress in introducing a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence to back its yet unproven claims that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

    “It is long past time that the President and this Administration show its evidence,” stated Kucinich, the leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq in the House. “Today, we are introducing a Resolution of Inquiry to compel the White House to substantiate its claims. The President led the nation to war, and spent at least $63 billion on that war, on the basis of these unfounded assertions.”


    ------------------------------------------
    Comments by: Tony Blair, Feb, 2003


    The liason committee had its biannual audience with the Prime Minister yesterday. In the dark hour before war, Mr Blair presented himself to the grand heads of the select committees. They are Parliament's greybeards, they've independent voices often at odds with the Government. They're the best we've got. They were perceptibly less useless than the last time they found themselves in the prime ministerial presence. (February 2003)
    http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/1/15


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


    COmments by: Ray McGovern, former CIA operative, January 27, 2003

    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0127-09.htm

    In both speeches they had you making alarmist claims that our allies know do not square either with the facts or the judgments of the US and wider allied intelligence communities. I’ll mention just two:

    Singling out the high-strength aluminum tubes Iraq has been trying to purchase, you said they “are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” After an aggressive investigation, the UN inspectors in Iraq have now concluded that the tubes were not meant for enriching uranium but rather for making ordinary artillery rockets, as the Iraqis have said.
    You also claimed that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon “in less than a year.” Our allies are finding it difficult to reconcile that with the formal estimate of the US intelligence community that Iraq will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until the end of the decade, if then.

    On January 3, to the well-rehearsed cheers of our troops at Fort Hood, you stated three times that Iraq is a “grave threat” to the United States. But for our allies, and for an increasing number of Americans, repetition alone does not enhance credibility. They are looking for proof. (You are, after all, talking war.)

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

    March 3, 2003
    IAEA official tells U.S. that the Niger uranium documents are forgeries so error-filled that "they could be spotted by someone using Google."


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

    March 7, 2003
    Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, appears before the Security Council and says that searches have found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. He also says that the Iraqis are cooperating with the inspectors. The IAEA's ElBaradei also speaks and says, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." He says the Niger uranium documents are "not authentic."


    NBC "news" is the industry joke
    Seldom watched by sane minded folk
    Krazy Keith is crying
    "Stupid" soldiers are dying
    I hope Keith has a live broadcast stroke

    Oops, in my last post I pasted the wrong portion of Tony Blair's pre-war comments; here goes:


    "A few posed questions we ourselves would like to ask: "Is there any link between al-Qa'ida, Iraq and terrorist groups in Britain?" Blair watchers were astonished when the Prime Minister said: "No." "

    The twit Olbermann claims....

    "The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

    "It wants fewer.

    "Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

    "Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war, Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there."

    ###
    What is he talking about?

    A lesson from history and what President Ford had to do because of the cowards in his present day Demopcratic congress:

    What happened when Democrats in Congress cut off funding for the Vietnam War?

    Historians have directly attributed the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the cessation of American aid. Without the necessary funds, South Vietnam found it logistically and financially impossible to defeat the North Vietnamese army. Moreover, the withdrawal of aid encouraged North Vietnam to begin an effective military offensive against South Vietnam. Given the monetary and military investment in Vietnam, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage compared the American withdrawal to "a pregnant lady, abandoned by her lover to face her fate." Historian Lewis Fanning went so far as to say that "it was not the Hanoi communists who won the war, but rather the American Congress that lost it."

    Accords negotiated by Henry Kissinger, which implemented an immediate cease-fire in Vietnam and called for the complete withdrawal of American troops within sixty days. Two months later, Nixon met with South Vietnamese President Thieu and secretly promised him a "severe retaliation" against North Vietnam should they break the cease-fire. Around the same time, Congress began to express outrage at the secret illegal bombings of Cambodia carried out at Nixon’s behest. Accordingly, on June 19, 1973 Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment, which called for a halt to all military activities in Southeast Asia by August 15, thereby ending twelve years of direct U.S. military involvement in the region.

    In the fall of 1974, Nixon resigned under the pressure of the Watergate scandal and was succeeded by Gerald Ford. Congress cut funding to South Vietnam for the upcoming fiscal year from a proposed 1.26 billion to 700 million dollars. These two events prompted Hanoi to make an all-out effort to conquer the South. As the North Vietnamese Communist Party Secretary Le Duan observed in December 1974: "The Americans have withdrawn…this is what marks the opportune moment."

    The NVA drew up a two-year plan for the "liberation" of South Vietnam. Owing to South Vietnam’s weakened state, this would only take fifty-five days. The drastic reduction of American aid to South Vietnam caused a sharp decline in morale, as well as an increase in governmental corruption and a crackdown on domestic political dissent. The South Vietnamese army was severely under-funded, greatly outnumbered, and lacked the support of the American allies with whom they were accustomed to fighting.

    The NVA began its final assault in March of 1975 in the Central Highlands. Ban Me Thout, a strategically important hamlet, quickly fell to North Vietnam. On March 13, a panicked Thieu called for the retreat of his troops, surrendering Pleiku and Kontum to the NVA. Thieu angrily blamed the US for his decision, saying, "If [the U.S.] grant full aid we will hold the whole country, but if they only give half of it, we will only hold half of the country." His decision to retreat increased internal opposition toward him and spurred a chaotic mass exodus of civilians and soldiers that clogged the dilapidated roads to the coast. So many refugees died along the way that the migration along Highway 7B was alternatively described by journalists as the "convoy of tears" and the "convoy of death." On April 21, President Thieu resigned in a bitter televised speech in which he strongly denounced the United States. Sensing that South Vietnam was on the verge of collapse, the NVA accelerated its attack and reached Saigon on April 23. On the same day, President Ford announced to cheerful students at Tulane University that as far as America was concerned, "the war was over." The war officially concluded on April 30, as Saigon fell to North Vietnam and the last American personnel were evacuated.

    This is what the good man said.....

    "We are saddened, indeed, by events in Indochina. But these events, tragic as they are, portend neither the end of the world nor of America's leadership in the world. Some seem to feel that if we do not succeed in everything everywhere, then we have succeeded, in nothing anywhere. I reject such polarized thinking. We can and should help others to help themselves. But the fate of responsible men and women everywhere, in the final decision, rests in their own hands."

    ###
    So, do it. Cut off the funding....have a vote and apply the reported will of the majority....let's see what happens.

    cee,

    No one on my side is calling the troops "stupid". After all; 2/3 of them agree with us; despite the requisite brainwashing attendant to military life in active service. They are obviously intelligent enough to overcome the peer pressure, command pressure, constricted information availability, and cognitive dissonance that characterizes their disciplined millieu and carefully managed and directed morale.

    http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20070102-040241-1160r

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070103/LOCAL17/701030455/1012/LOCAL17

    Olbermann is very mentally ill. Part of me felt sorry watching him have a nervous breakdown and come to tears. The other part of me thought it was funny as hell seeing somebody about to lose it. In all seriousness he needs Anger Management.
    He has mental issues. I thought he was going to hide under his desk!

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton.
    - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
    - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    Everyone,
    Can we stick to Olbermann. We're witnessing the mental breakdown of a human being! It's a tragic comedy!

    Although I am rapidly loosing interest in the flailing of cee, I note that he has above argues that we apparently should have "stuck it out" in Vietnam. If such a view prevailed, perhaps we would still be there, having lost maybe hundreds of thousnads of soldier; and we would not be today Vietnam's biggest trading partner.

    But don't despair, cee - your boy-president does not appear anywhere close to shutting this one down anytime soon. I suspect that if the Democrats WERE to vote to cut off funding - obviously a sensble measure for a sensible new legislature when faced with an intractible and power-mad executive - Bush would not do the necessary thing of using money in the pipeline to get everyone home. I suspect that he would instead leave them there until suplies, ammo and payrolls ran out - helpless. The Democrats, of course would not let this happen and the funds would have to be turned back on.

    ...that is, if we didn't just up and storm the White House with torches and pitchforks first.

    You've said on nemerous occasions that you - a dedicated chickenhawk, would gladly serve on the front lines if "called" by means of a draft. I have asserted that statement actually meant that you would serve "if forced", and that you have been "called" simply through the convergence of your political franchise and the stresses our troops are suffering under. Mlitary doctors, for instance, have from the start of the war been in drastically short supply - and you are a war-supporter and a physician, you say.


    You are about to be "called" again. When Bush frames his admonition for national "sacrifice"; what do you think it will look like? Will he ask for patriotic citzens to step up and relieve our over-extended soldiers, marines, and guardsmen? It should, but I wouldn't count on it. Should you step up and put your money where your mouth is anyway? Absolutely.

    Will you? .....naw.

    Sir Lion,
    Question, why doesn't Olbermann doesn't as angry about The Islamo-Fascist movement. How come he didn't mention Ethiopia's defeat of Al-Qaeda backed militants? Why didn't he cover the Iranian's nutjob latest rants? I never he see him get angry at the threat facing our nation from Islamo-Fascism. I understand you like his criticism of Bush. But couldn't the Left get a better spokesman? He was on the verge of crying yesterday!

    Ninth time....does not change the fact that you and Keith Olbermann think the troops are stupid, Sir Loin of Milquetoast. Also, it is not MY opinion that funding should have continued for our ally in South Vietnam, but President Ford himself disagreed with the cuts in funds that surrendered a democratic nation to the atrocity that was your ideological comrade, communist North Vietnam. More about that later....

    This is what it is all about, Loin....Your leftist ideology that EMBRACES tyrrants like Saddam Hussein, as well as failed secular ideologues like Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro and their previous incarnations in Indochina and the USSR. Who cares about the millions under their thumb? The stupid soldiers, their stupid commander-in-chief and the stupid millions of Americans who haven't abandoned their mission.

    I am just using the exact words Keith Olbermann used....."WE show them OUR stupidity...."

    Yes cee, many of the Democratic leaders you cite above were overly credulous of the lies told to them by the administration. Concurrent with those statements I was listening to Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, and Hans Blix - all of whom have been vindicated fully in their warnings that the neocon administration was lying us into war. I wish those clowns also would have paid attention - they should have, and they do not deserve our support anymore than the liars who confounded them. There are plenty of Democratic leaders who did exhibit wisdom and responsibiity in terms of rejecting the administration's shady casus belli.

    I notice you had to go back to 1998 to get such a quote from Pelosi - at which time her statement and perspetive were probably valid. As the quotes I provided from the arms-inspectors, this stalemate situation ameliorated substantially by early 2003, and Pelosi took heed and voted against the war.

    I am just using the exact words Keith Olbermann used....."WE show them OUR stupidity...."

    "We", Cee; the entire American electorate responsible for the disaster in Iraq. Learn to take respnsibility and quit using the troops as a bullet-shield for your ego.

    "This is what it is all about, Loin....Your leftist ideology that EMBRACES tyrrants like Saddam Hussein, as well as failed secular ideologues like Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro and their previous incarnations in Indochina and the USSR. Who cares about the millions under their thumb?"

    Really? Its all about us? If that's the case why don't we leave the poor Iraqis out of it and have another American civil war? You a--holes alway attack the wrong people.

    Well then Loiny.....I fully expect Pelosi and the new congress to pass a resolution that requires Bush to fund withdrwal....if it doesn't happen then your radical leftists better take to that streets and start all over again because you have failed in your mission to end the war.

    I look out my window and see nobody EFFECTIVELY protesting this conflict. Why? Because the opposition runs shallow and is self serving. Just like Olbermann's comments. You call me a chickenhawk?......again......a hollow and ineffectual argument from a hollow and ineffectual sector of society. Keep repeating yourself, Sir Loin of Milquetoast....I'll just keep repeating the response.

    This really is interesting...cee above laid out the newest, most bizzarre, and possibly most honest rationale for the right-wing's war in Iraq. He says that it is in response to the "lefitst ideology" curently being embraced by burgeoning numbers of Americans.

    I agree in part. As Goering clearly laid out after the fall of Nazi Germany, war gives the war mongers incredible domestic political power, as long as nationalism and rhetoric can stand the test of time.

    Cee,
    Do you think Olbermann is having a nervous breakdown?

    I agree, cee - the anti war movement needs to be larger and more effective. I am doing what I can - in the streets and through the written word.

    Can you say the same about the "surge" and "sacrifice"?

    It is time for sacrifice. All of you Olby haters who support the war...it's time to sacrifice at least one member of YOUR family to this war.Go ahead, who are you going to throw into the pit that is Iraq?
    ...or are only other people's children the sacrificial lambs to this war?

    Ok...Grammie...Cee..Rico...all of you...pick one.
    Which member of your family should die for this war?

    Time to stop talking shit and sacrifice yourself or someone in your family.
    Afterall, it is a noble cause , right ?
    ==================================================
    Bob,
    As I have already pointed out, I HAVE a family member over there. My uncle is over there right now, working for the embassy to help get things set up and running in that country.

    And when he tells me that he believes in this effort and we can succeed... I'm inclined to believe him.

    To Red Wolf....

    I did not see Olbermann last night. However, the post seems to suggest he is edging ever closer to the public persona of a radical by using such words as, "stupid,"

    Quotes like, "He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them." which is totally illogical...I am sure Bush has heard from some people regarduing the benefits of increasing troop numbers,

    Quotes like, "The only object still admissible in this debate is the quickest and safest exit for our people there." is also a break from reality...lots of "objects" remain like the Iraqi people....what an idiot.

    Ignoring the results of actions, like surrender, does not make them go away.....Keith Olbermann and his fellow terrorist apologists would like to have many more believe the delusion.

    but does he ever show polls of the troops about whether they think they are doing good there?

    Mr Reasonable does not think.
    Our troops need a reason to get up in the morning and continue thruout the day.
    Of course , they are thinking they are "doing good"
    How else could they possibly continue in that rat hole known as Iraq ?
    Plus any single serviceman or woman is stationed in a general locale. They don't know what's happening in other parts of Iraq.
    And now that the military is preventing them from reading anything "liberal" you can bet that they never will.
    Wake up and smell reality !

    Citizen Keith kicked off 2007 with the full compliment of piss and vinegar. What a deplorable human being.

    I can't wait until Al Jazeera starts airing his special comments in Arabic for all to listen to oversees. It will truly show NBC what type of human being they have on at 8:00pm while they worship at the alter of demographic greed.

    Joe Scarborugh is equally deplorable following the Speshul Comment with more Olbyganda.

    We have Al Jazeera at 30 Rock.

    I wonder why David Gregory, Jim Michalshski, Andrea Mitchell and the others refuse to appear on Countdown?

    Do they know that they have a lunatic in their midst?

    Krazy Keith is operating the wood chipper at NBC News.

    Make no Mistake, NBC news, the stench and taint of Olberloon is rubbing off on all of you.

    Can you imagine if he gets his 4 million? Not everyone at NBC has drank the olby coolaid.
    Some people there must find him very deplorable.

    L.F.


    cee,

    In looking back over Olbermann's comment, I see that you have totally missed the point. He clearly said that the rationales pubcally given for the war are "stupid", but the actual motivations of our leaders in starting it were devilishly clever - venal, disingenuous, and clever. He finally spelled out what I have said from the start - that the entire thing is a ploy for money and power. Its the Military Industrial COmplex doing what Ike told us it would do - erode our liberties and moral basis in the pursuit of self-intensificaton.

    To my vire none of this is any longer debatable - al that is left is to stop them, hold them accountable, and try to fix their mess using reasonable diplomatic measures.

    KO's special comment was filled with so many lies and BS, I could not even begin, not do I have the energy to point them all out.

    He is essentialy calling Bush a war criminal without saying those words.

    He's a very deplorable individual and I'm sure that Chris Matthews will be smelling sulpher today as they co-anchor the Ford funeral.

    I don't know how he can walk the halls of NBC news after his special comments.

    L.F.

    Let's cut the shit...really.

    Dr. Lapdog says the "radical left should take to the streets "
    And Cee would be the first to condemn them and call them secular humanists and cowards.

    Cmon...cut the shit.

    If Bush increases our troops levels like predicted, he will be doing it for one reason and one reason only:
    To desperately try to salvage his legacy.( at the expense of more casualities of our troops)

    Cmon..cut the shit.

    Yes, Cee would have loved the Vietnam War to continue to present day and overlap the Iraq War, and then have that one go on forever too with the AMerican casualites mounting in the hundreds of thousands.
    All the while waving his flag and crucifix and praising his "honorable " president for continuing the bloodshed.

    Dr. Lapdog( Cee) has to be one of the most despicable human beings I've ever come across.


    "I am sure Bush has heard from some people regarduing the benefits of increasing troop numbers,"

    Whoever it is, it sure as hell is not the "commanders on the ground". General Casey, the top U.S. military man in Iraq, does not support an "escalation". Most of the Joint Chiefs don't support "escalation". So that leaves the politicians - and since when should politics dictate troop strength?

    And here's the numbers from that Military Times poll Keith cited last night:

    – Only 35 percent said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved.

    – 50 percent believe success in Iraq is likely, down from 83 percent in 2004.

    – 38 percent believe the United States should send more troops to Iraq. 39 percent believe we should maintain current levels or reduce the number of troops, including 13 percent who support complete withdrawal.

    – 72 percent believe the military is “stretched too thin to be effective.”

    – 47 percent disagree with President Bush’s mantra that the war in Iraq is part of the war against terrorism, while the same percentage agree.

    – Only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

    – 52 percent approve of the overall job President Bush is doing, down from 71 percent in 2004.

    – 63 percent say the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. That number is lower from President Bush (48 percent) and lower still for civilian military leadership (32 percent) and Congress (23 percent).

    "Keith Olbermann and his fellow terrorist apologists would like to have many more believe the delusion."

    So now the MAJORITY of Americans are terrorist apologists because they DO NOT SUPPORT escalation and want to start talking about a drawdown? What the hell?

    Let's put things in perspective...

    1. Loss of life in a war is very regrettable and sad. and yes, there is sacrafice....

    2. 400,000 lost in WW2, 5,000 on D-Day.
    3. 36,000 in Korea
    4. 58,000 in Namn
    5. 3,003 in Iraq

    Is this really a disaster as the left thinks?
    We're any mistakes made in previous wars?

    LF

    It's interesting that more sanity and truth is breaking out all over this site.

    The people of this country are real fed up with this war and Bush's dishonorable intentions.
    The worse this war gets ( and the worse the polls get for Bush, thus the Republican's chances in 2008) the more disgruntled Bush's fellow Republicans are getting in Congress.
    It's been reported that Bush can't even get 18 of 49 Republicans to support his dying war efforts.

    Everyone is getting real edgey over this war.

    Something is going pop real soon.

    (probably, not the least,Cee's inflated head)


    As General Nathan Jessup Once Said...

    "You only weakened a country today"

    2. 400,000 lost in WW2, 5,000 on D-Day.
    3. 36,000 in Korea
    4. 58,000 in Namn
    5. 3,003 in Iraq

    And what was accomplished in #'s 3-5?
    Absolutely nothing !

    War ,huh, what's it good for?
    Absolutely nothing ! ( most of the time )

    Voice of reason???

    A democratic South Korea is nothing?
    Surely, you jest.


    Little Feechie has a very little mind.

    Time to enlist Feechie !

    Bob,
    Why do you look up to Olbermann. He almost had a nervous breakdown and cried. It was hysterical. Can't you guys get a better spokesman. He's nuts!
    He was shaking and his face was read. He's really unstable!

    So Kurt....

    To summarize...

    Bush is Crazy and Olbermann is Sane.

    Is that your point?

    L.F.

    Voice of reason???

    A democratic South Korea is nothing?
    Surely, you jest.

    Learn some history about the results of the Korean War, Little Feechie.

    * The war didn't really end. In 1954, the Soviet officials and representatives that fought in the Korean War met in Switzerland but failed to draw up a stable peace plan. They were unable to settle the unification of Korea, but agreed to work toward the agreement of a stable peace treaty. So North and South Korea were not happy, but a peace treaty was signed by US and China without the participation of the two Koreas. So basically the war did not end. So politically and militarily the war was inconclusive, the two sides still watched each other over the demilitarized zone waiting for the day when the fight might begin again.

    * The outcome of the Korean War was a truce or cease fire to an inconclusive conflict with no victory.

    * The Korean War was a deadlock, it didn’t end far from where it started. Half of Korea’s industry and a third of all homes were destroyed. There were 4 million military and civilian casualties: 33,600 Americans, 16,000 UN allies, 415,000 South Koreans, 520,000 North Koreans and 900,000 Chinese (estimated).

    Good post Kurt Kissel.
    Right on the money !

    this one goes out to all of those of you who are republifascist morons who haven't a clue....

    "Come you masters of war
    You that build all the guns
    You that build the death planes
    You that build the big bombs
    You that hide behind walls
    You that hide behind desks
    I just want you to know
    I can see through your masks

    You that never done nothin'
    But build to destroy
    You play with my world
    Like it's your little toy
    You put a gun in my hand
    And you hide from my eyes
    And you turn and run farther
    When the fast bullets fly

    Like Judas of old
    You lie and deceive
    A world war can be won
    You want me to believe
    But I see through your eyes
    And I see through your brain
    Like I see through the water
    That runs down my drain

    You fasten the triggers
    For the others to fire
    Then you set back and watch
    When the death count gets higher
    You hide in your mansion
    As young people's blood
    Flows out of their bodies
    And is buried in the mud

    You've thrown the worst fear
    That can ever be hurled
    Fear to bring children
    Into the world
    For threatening my baby
    Unborn and unnamed
    You ain't worth the blood
    That runs in your veins

    How much do I know
    To talk out of turn
    You might say that I'm young
    You might say I'm unlearned
    But there's one thing I know
    Though I'm younger than you
    Even Jesus would never
    Forgive what you do

    Let me ask you one question
    Is your money that good
    Will it buy you forgiveness
    Do you think that it could
    I think you will find
    When your death takes its toll
    All the money you made
    Will never buy back your soul

    And I hope that you die
    And your death'll come soon
    I will follow your casket
    In the pale afternoon
    And I'll watch while you're lowered
    Down to your deathbed
    And I'll stand o'er your grave
    'Til I'm sure that you're dead"

    Thank you Very Much, Mr. Zimmerman... I couldn't have put it better myself!

    this one goes out to all of those of you who are republifascist morons who haven't a clue....

    "Come you masters of war
    You that build all the guns
    You that build the death planes
    You that build the big bombs
    You that hide behind walls
    You that hide behind desks
    I just want you to know
    I can see through your masks

    You that never done nothin'
    But build to destroy
    You play with my world
    Like it's your little toy
    You put a gun in my hand
    And you hide from my eyes
    And you turn and run farther
    When the fast bullets fly

    Like Judas of old
    You lie and deceive
    A world war can be won
    You want me to believe
    But I see through your eyes
    And I see through your brain
    Like I see through the water
    That runs down my drain

    You fasten the triggers
    For the others to fire
    Then you set back and watch
    When the death count gets higher
    You hide in your mansion
    As young people's blood
    Flows out of their bodies
    And is buried in the mud

    You've thrown the worst fear
    That can ever be hurled
    Fear to bring children
    Into the world
    For threatening my baby
    Unborn and unnamed
    You ain't worth the blood
    That runs in your veins

    How much do I know
    To talk out of turn
    You might say that I'm young
    You might say I'm unlearned
    But there's one thing I know
    Though I'm younger than you
    Even Jesus would never
    Forgive what you do

    Let me ask you one question
    Is your money that good
    Will it buy you forgiveness
    Do you think that it could
    I think you will find
    When your death takes its toll
    All the money you made
    Will never buy back your soul

    And I hope that you die
    And your death'll come soon
    I will follow your casket
    In the pale afternoon
    And I'll watch while you're lowered
    Down to your deathbed
    And I'll stand o'er your grave
    'Til I'm sure that you're dead"

    Thank you Very Much, Mr. Zimmerman... I couldn't have put it better myself!

    Sing it, Bob ( Dylan)

    Sir Loin of Milquetoast....

    For Keith Olbermann, this is more than disagreement about policy or plans.....this is personal ad hominem attack. Previous to the "stupid," vitriole......

    "The former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Sen. John McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.

    If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.

    "Then there is the argument that to take any steps toward reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world. This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.

    "We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason.

    "We have now shown them that we will continue to do so."

    Then he uses, "stupid." Ok, let's back up.

    He accuses Mr. McCain for forgetting his Vietnam experience....Mr. McCain was a POW, not given Geneva Convention rights by his captors and saw the brutality of an enemy similar to the terrorists in Iraq. He was freed under the negotiations of a cease-fire North Vietnam later broke.....ushering in the defunding of the war and surrender/desertion of our South Vietnamese allies.

    I say.....good for you Mr. McCain for NOT forgetting the true history of Vietnam.

    Not facing a determined enemy leads to the logical conclusion Olbermann dismisses......but yet no one on the anti-war side EVER admits their activity also shows WEAKNESS to the enemy. They scream that people are calling them unpatriotic if they protest the war. In fact, Olbermann has had seperate Special Comments decrying the accuations that people like him are apologists, appeasers, cowards.

    Guess what, you are those things, Mr. Olbermann.

    And lastly, Loiny....."no good reason." Bull....

    There are many good reasons.......

    Help secure that the current democratically elected government will thrive and take over their own security.

    Have an ally in the Middle East that does not help OBL and other terrorist organizations as government policy.

    Thwart the rise in power of Iran and Syria.

    Stabalize an oil producer so that the price of oil does not go back up and have a negative impact on the world economy.

    Save those Iraqis (millions of them!) who bravely stood with the US to get Iraqi democracy from certain death under a radical islamic state that would result from our surrender.

    Avoid giving international terrorists a win against The United States of America that will embolden and re-enforce their tactics.

    Voice:

    Thanks for sharing the facts.

    However, South Korea is a flourishing democracy today and the North is floundering.

    That's my point.

    Was it worth it?
    Maybe you should ask some free , independent South Koreans today.

    LF

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    Did you think it was funny seeing Olbermann almost having a nervous breakdown last night. Red, shaking and on the verge of tears!

    Bob,
    Why do you look up to Olbermann. He almost had a nervous breakdown and cried. It was hysterical. Can't you guys get a better spokesman. He's nuts!
    He was shaking and his face was read. He's really unstable!

    Keith Olbermann is a microcosm of how we all feel
    ( those with a soul and a brain !)

    He is truly speaking for America and America is pissed and shaking with anger.

    Red Wolf..you truly are an idiot if you don't know this !

    In looking back over Olbermann's comment, I see that you have totally missed the point. He clearly said that the rationales pubcally given for the war are "stupid", but the actual motivations of our leaders in starting it were devilishly clever - venal, disingenuous, and clever. He finally spelled out what I have said from the start - that the entire thing is a ploy for money and power. Its the Military Industrial COmplex doing what Ike told us it would do - erode our liberties and moral basis in the pursuit of self-intensificaton.
    ==================================================
    Ah yes, I always love the military industrial complex's almost godlike abilities. Ignoring for a moment all the BENEFITS the MIC has given society at large (ever done research on how much tech rose from the military?), I'd really like to know how they are any different from groups like the EPA or OSHA... or any other group really that "work to erode our liberties". Or is eroding liberties ok when it's a group you approve of?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Cee would have loved the Vietnam War to continue to present day and overlap the Iraq War, and then have that one go on forever too with the AMerican casualites mounting in the hundreds of thousands.
    All the while waving his flag and crucifix and praising his "honorable " president for continuing the bloodshed.
    =================================================
    So I'm guessing all those people that were slaughtered when the US left were... what? expendable? not people? How very racist of you Bob.

    no, red wolf... I found it reasonable & touching... Here you have a man who is turning red becaue he disagrees with something done by an incompetent president... Bill O' turns red every night... & I do not think that we would ever read you criticizing bill O even if he pulled down his pants, pulled his small pecker out of his pants, & called it a wardrobe error... What's wrong with that, wolf?

    Save those Iraqis (millions of them!) who bravely stood with the US to get Iraqi democracy from certain death under a radical islamic state that would result from our surrender.

    Iraqis( those who survive) are leaving the country in the thousands and creating a horrible refugee situation in surrounding countries.

    Cee..you continue to spout platitudes and have no concept of reality.

    My opinion of cutting the funding in 1973 and the subsequent desertion of The South Vietanmese people is not a lone one.....

    "In the end, after two decades of flailing diplomacy on that tiny peninsula, Gerald Ford dealt with the aftermath: empty guarantees made to an ally, promises he could not keep and a 'peace with honor' that the congressional Watergate class would not enforce.

    "Years later Ford wrote a letter to the group of Marines who had evacuated the U.S. Embassy in Saigon. In it he said, 'April 1975 was indeed the cruelest month. The passage of time has not dulled the ache of those days, the saddest of my public life.'

    "But Ford became the savior to those lucky enough to escape the taking of Saigon by the North Vietnamese army. `I pray no American president is ever again faced with this grave option,' Ford said at a public forum on the legacy of the Vietnam War 25 years later. `I still grieve over those we were unable to rescue.' He added that he was thankful America was able to relocate 130,000 Vietnamese refugees (less than 1 percent of South Vietnam's population) and that `to do less would have added moral shame to humiliation.'

    "My family and those other blessed South Vietnamese found ourselves stuck in refugee camps across the United States. Outside the camps, public sentiment against Vietnamese refugees ran high, although at the time we did not feel it directly. The book on Vietnam had been closed for most Americans until the refugees arrived in unprecedented numbers. Only the Hungarian and Cuban refugee resettlements were of comparable scale. Newspapers portrayed the country as split on what to do with the refugees.

    "In a May 1975 article in the New York Times, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., commented that `barmaids, prostitutes and criminals' should be screened out as `excludable categories.' Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., `charged that the (Ford) administration had not informed Congress adequately about the number of refugees' -- as if anyone actually knew during the chaotic evacuation. `I think the Vietnamese are better off in Vietnam,' sniffed George McGovern in Newsweek.

    "At the time, unemployment in the United States hovered near double digits. Perhaps this had something to do with the anti-refugee emotion. In Larry Engelmann's `Tears Before the Rain: An Oral History of the Fall of South Vietnam,' Julia Vadala Taft, head of the interagency task force for refugee resettlement, recalled such opposition. `The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, was very concerned about refugees settling in his state. Brown even attempted to prevent planes carrying refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base near Sacramento. . . . The secretary of health and welfare, Mario Obledo, felt that this addition of a large minority group would be unwelcome in California. And he said that they already had a large population of Hispanics, Filipinos, blacks and other minorities.'

    The refugees were extremely fortunate. Our biggest supporter, outside of Taft, was the president of the United States. Even though he had described the Vietnam conflict as `a war that is finished as far as America is concerned,' Ford's attention was now focused on the refugees. In May 1975 he visited the camps, and soon after refugees began leaving to start new lives across America. The government wanted to disperse the refugees to spread the cost among many states and communities. By Christmas of that year, all refugee camps had been closed, and the refugees were resettled in every state.

    I am not aware of any other politicians, anti-war protesters, esteemed journalists or celebrities visiting Fort Chaffee, Ark., where my family was temporarily housed for two months. But Ford did.

    April 1975 was indeed the cruelest month for us. But thanks to President Ford's leadership, we experienced America's kindness and generosity during our darkest days. We owe him our deepest gratitude in remembrance.


    ###
    Read the whole article, you silly little liberals....

    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/16372782.htm

    These are the people YOUR party deserted in South Vietnam....you did not even want to help out the refugees afterward......just cut and run.

    Well, here we go again in Iraq....the radical left just wants to desert millions of people to radical terrorists who behead people who do not follow their religion.....nice legacy.

    The FACTS of how the liberal Democrats treated the South Vietnamese should make all take pause on what these same cowards want to do in Iraq.

    Where will Keith Olbermann, Loin, Professor Honeydew, Kurt, PROUD to be a LIBERAL, and the rest of their ilk be when their policy is implemented and there are millions of Iraqi refugees?.....Just where they are now and where people like them were in 1975......Sitting on their butts, doing nothing for their fellow man.

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    O'Reilly when he gets mad is still coherant. Olbermann goes on a rant and is shaking. I don't see O'Reilly shaking and almost crying. Olbermann is losing it. He almost had a nervous breakdown. It was hysterically funny. I was laughing! I mean this is a guy who lives on Central Park South, lives very good and is isolated from cobtrarian opinion. What's he angry about? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He's nobody to be angry! He has a great life. He has serious menatl issues.
    Look I don't honestly care about the Iraq war one way or another. I'm actually sick of it beacuse I hear all the Lefties constant whining about it.
    Even if we left Iraq, Olbermann would complain about something. He's a miserable individual.

    No Professor Honeydew....unlike you I know that people need to be helped in Iraq and deserting them is wrong, cruel and cowardly. It is a reality you just can't stomach.

    "h yes, I always love the military industrial complex's almost godlike abilities. Ignoring for a moment all the BENEFITS the MIC has given society at large (ever done research on how much tech rose from the military?), I'd really like to know how they are any different from groups like the EPA or OSHA... or any other group really that "work to erode our liberties". Or is eroding liberties ok when it's a group you approve of?"
    _________________________________________________

    maybe it's just me, grim, but I don't get your comparison here. The Environmental Protection Agency & the Occupational safety & Hazards administration are GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, WHOSE STATED PURPOSE is in trying to positively protect your lifestyle. You might disagree with their methods of getting there, but you cannot disagree that this is their purpose.

    The Military Industrial Complex is a unconfederated group of individuals & corporations whose generally accepted purpose is to kill people...

    If you are going to make a comparison, here's an idea; have it make sense. It makes it so much easier on the reader!

    Oh, Beef I also meant to post this quote for you from another board I saw:

    "So when LBJ esculated the Vietnam War, he was a war profiteer trading the blood of Americans for the almighty dollar? This also means that Clinton was a profiteer as well, you do remember Kosovo and the other little military adventures (Somolia) of his time. Ok, I'll go with that characterization."

    Everyone,
    Can we stick to Olbermann. He almost had a nercous Breakdown. One mor of these special comments and he'll be taken on live TV out on a stretcher. He also could've had a heart attack!


    DELLUDED DECIDER SEEKS SACRIFICER SURGE

    -- GOP Slogan Generator Suggests Accelerant For U.S. Troops Caught in Deadly Cross Fire --

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is expected to announce his new Iraq strategy, referred to as `surge and accelerate` by senior White House sources, in an address to the nation early next week. Last month, CNN reported that Bush was considering sending in as many as 40,000 soldiers. That would mean increasing troop levels to their highest point in the nearly four-year-old conflict to perhaps as many as 165,000. Other reports indicated the U.S. troop increase would be closer to 20,000, with additional Iraqi forces making up the remainder of the surge.


    Krazy Keith is the red-faced commie
    A coward that cries for his mommy
    His speshul komment was
    Stupid is as Keith does
    He'll fold like a slice of salami

    "O'Reilly when he gets mad is still coherant. Olbermann goes on a rant and is shaking. I don't see O'Reilly shaking and almost crying. Olbermann is losing it. He almost had a nervous breakdown. It was hysterically funny. I was laughing! I mean this is a guy who lives on Central Park South, lives very good and is isolated from cobtrarian opinion. What's he angry about? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He's nobody to be angry! He has a great life. He has serious menatl issues.
    Look I don't honestly care about the Iraq war one way or another. I'm actually sick of it beacuse I hear all the Lefties constant whining about it.
    Even if we left Iraq, Olbermann would complain about something. He's a miserable individual."

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 3, 2007 11:23 AM

    It would take a blind, republi-fascist moron like you to find humor in a man's justifiable indignation, red wolf.

    I don't care where he lives, nor do I care how much money he makes a year... It is just a matter of fact that this war in Iraq is a bad thing for this country, & he is only saying what he believes to be the truth about an incompetent resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... If you don't like it, fine... But to make fun of him for something as specious as the fact that his face turned red, or that he was about to cry, is both sad & ludicrous... sad, because it reflects on your (meager) ability to think, & ludicrous because it is so silly that you would take this out of his special comment.... Of all things that might be taken from it...

    "O'Reilly when he gets mad is still coherant. Olbermann goes on a rant and is shaking. I don't see O'Reilly shaking and almost crying. Olbermann is losing it. He almost had a nervous breakdown. It was hysterically funny. I was laughing! I mean this is a guy who lives on Central Park South, lives very good and is isolated from cobtrarian opinion. What's he angry about? He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He's nobody to be angry! He has a great life. He has serious menatl issues.
    Look I don't honestly care about the Iraq war one way or another. I'm actually sick of it beacuse I hear all the Lefties constant whining about it.
    Even if we left Iraq, Olbermann would complain about something. He's a miserable individual."

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 3, 2007 11:23 AM

    It would take a blind, republi-fascist moron like you to find humor in a man's justifiable indignation, red wolf.

    I don't care where he lives, nor do I care how much money he makes a year... It is just a matter of fact that this war in Iraq is a bad thing for this country, & he is only saying what he believes to be the truth about an incompetent resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... If you don't like it, fine... But to make fun of him for something as specious as the fact that his face turned red, or that he was about to cry, is both sad & ludicrous... sad, because it reflects on your (meager) ability to think, & ludicrous because it is so silly that you would take this out of his special comment.... Of all things that might be taken from it...

    I agree Red Wolf.....Olbermann and his supporters here are becoming unglued because their ideology leads to consequences they have to rationalize away. The cognitive dissonance regarding the real base and self-centered motivations of their opinions can only last so long until their heads threaten to explode!

    I am going to have to get more than basic cable so that I can see Olbermann's craziness, not just read about it.

    Clinton said we would be in Kosovo for 1 year.

    Amazing what the lefties forget.

    "Where will Keith Olbermann, Loin, Professor Honeydew, Kurt, PROUD to be a LIBERAL, and the rest of their ilk be when their policy is implemented and there are millions of Iraqi refugees?"

    Doing more than the current Administration, which is doing everything possible to DENY Iraqi refugees entry into the U.S.

    We blow their country to hell and gone, and then when they come here looking for a better life, we slam the door in their faces. Nice.

    "Krazy Keith is the red-faced commie
    A coward that cries for his mommy
    His speshul komment was
    Stupid is as Keith does
    He'll fold like a slice of salami"

    Posted by: merkle923 at January 3, 2007 11:37 AM

    This is the intelligence of the anti-keith crowd today... Turning to little ditty's & rhymes, sarcastically worrying about Keith's physical health, but unable to make a good charge against Keith... THIS MIGHT BE BECAUSE THE LOGIC BEHIND HIS SPECIAL COMMENT WAS TOO GOOD FOR ALL OF YOU DITTO-HEADS!!

    No Professor Honeydew....unlike you I know that people need to be helped in Iraq and deserting them is wrong, cruel and cowardly. It is a reality you just can't stomach.

    Thanks to Bush, there are no victories here.
    It will be horrible if we stay and (possibly )horrible if we leave.
    Many even in the military feel if the USA leaves the region( with the largest embassy in the world being built there...we ain't leaving )
    much of the violence will lessen.

    Cee waves his flag on any US aggression and then says we can't leave and desert the poor people after we've ruined their country.

    Nice .


    Such a patriot.

    So who are you going to sacrifice in your family Cee?
    If your kids aren't military age yet, if the Iraq War isn't still going on at that time, I'm sure you'll support another military excursion somewhere in the world.
    So who will it be, Cee?
    Your son(s) ? daughter(s)?
    Which ones are you willing to give up for the most recent or current war ?

    And if they don't want to fight and die...will you be calling them cowards and secular humanists.


    Or are just other people's children supposed to die in the wars you support ?

    I bet after living with their father, Cee's kids will see thru his right wing propaganda and bullshit ,and turn out to be left wing liberals.
    Wouldn't that be poetic justice !!!

    And if any of my points don't make you wince and realize what a hypocrite you really are, check out Bob Dylan's Master of War again..(posted above )just for a little more dose of realism.

    PussyKeith does not have the balls to get any opposing views on his show.

    That makes him extra deplorable.
    How NBC allows this to happen is beyond me...

    Cee says ,"I agree Red Wolf.....Olbermann and his supporters here are becoming unglued because their ideology leads to consequences they have to rationalize away"

    Olbermann and his supporters make up the 85% of Americans who disapprove of Bush's policies.
    If the facts about this war don't get to the brain dead here,this one should make a dent.

    And Cee...you're a physician( supposedly) and don't have basic cable that includes MSNBC?
    Just how cheap are you ?

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    There was no logic behind Keith's ranting. His delusipns on detention centers and war profiteering were paranoia at best sedition at worst. The only reason he did this special comments was to get his ratings higher. He could give 2 cents on the soldiers fighting the war.
    I'm not a supporter on the surge unless there's a specific goal. That wasn't the point of his rant. He attacked Bush, Republicans, McCain, Companies that supply the military and for the 1st time Democrats! He was incoherenat and w literally almost had a breakdown. It was the funniest thing I ever saw!
    He was skain, face was red and was on the verge of tears. It was funny. I'm laughing at work thinking about it right now. I spoke to a co-worker who's a Liberal and she admotted that it was funny band she thought he was going to have a stroke! It was the funniest shit I've seen in years! LOL! Great TV!

    PussyKeith does not have the balls to get any opposing views on his show.

    That makes him extra deplorable.
    How NBC allows this to happen is beyond me...

    What opposing views ?
    The talking heads can't find anyone who support this war anymore!
    Other than tools like Hannity and Limbaugh, no one is going to go on national TV and state they support Bush's policies !

    Members of Bush's own party are abandoning him like a stampede out of the corral.
    You're funny !

    Just how uninformed are you Little Frenchie ?


    Cee wrote: "I agree Red Wolf.....Olbermann and his supporters here are becoming unglued because their ideology leads to consequences they have to rationalize away. The cognitive dissonance regarding the real base and self-centered motivations of their opinions can only last so long until their heads threaten to explode!"


    Wow Cee! you used cognitive dissonace in a sentence. And only a few posts after Sir Loin. Perhaps you can say 'I know you are but what am I?" in your next rebuttal.


    Sir Loin Wrote: "You 15% can just impotently writhe in the pain of lonely cognitive dissonance."

    Bob,
    At this point I want out of Iraq since we're not fighting with any aims or goals. Plus all the Leftists whining and bitching about Iraq has made me sick and want this war to end. I wonder what the Left would bitch about next?
    What will Olbermann have a nervous breakdown about with no Iraq war?

    Bob,
    At this point I want out of Iraq since we're not fighting with any aims or goals. Plus all the Leftists whining and bitching about Iraq has made me sick and want this war to end. I wonder what the Left would bitch about next?
    What will Olbermann have a nervous breakdown about with no Iraq war?

    Um.....PROUD to be a LIBERAL, look at my posts.....the legacy of your forbearers is stark and destructive. Mr. Olbermann's arument is WEAK.

    Keith Olbermann's lack of historical knowledge is humorous, especially with this line.....

    "If what is reported is true -- if your decision is made and the "sacrifice" is ordered -- take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning -- Gerald Ford:

    "Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision."

    Yep, when the Democratic congress forced inhumane pragmatism onto the good President Ford, that was just wonderful.

    There will be more to come.....

    Red Wolf:"He was skain, face was red and was on the verge of tears. It was funny."

    Red Wolf probably laughs at the tears of Gold Star Mothers too.Probably supports Bush's ban on showing the flag draped coffins on TV, coming home from Iraq.

    Red Wolf reveals who he truly is on this site....

    and it ain't pretty.

    If you are going to make a comparison, here's an idea; have it make sense. It makes it so much easier on the reader!
    =================================================
    Alot of the 'sense' will also depend upon the reader's POV. I'm sure some of the conservatives on this site immediately got my point (did any of you? let's hear it for p2bl). But I'll try to help you comprehend an alternate POV here:

    First, I want to continue with my method of taking your post backwards by bringing up what you said...
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The Military Industrial Complex is a unconfederated group of individuals & corporations whose generally accepted purpose is to kill people...
    =================================================
    Just keep that in the back of your mind a moment as we read what you said then...

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    maybe it's just me, grim, but I don't get your comparison here. The Environmental Protection Agency & the Occupational safety & Hazards administration are GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, WHOSE STATED PURPOSE is in trying to positively protect your lifestyle. You might disagree with their methods of getting there, but you cannot disagree that this is their purpose.
    ==================================================
    Well some can also point out that the MIC is also trying to protect my lifestyle. (I assume you meant "positively protect" as redundant, if there is such a thing as "negatively protect" you'll have to explain that POV to me.)

    Second of all, most conservatives are more scared about government agencies than private corporations. (thus your capitalization of those 2 words doesn't really mean much to this POV) For corporations, citizens can topple in a heartbeat by "cutting their funding" (aka Boycott).

    I won't deny that some of them have undoubtedly had a positive impact on our lives, but then so has the MIC. And their general purpose is to kill OTHER people, but they also develop a whole host of tech to protect our soldiers and preserve their lives.

    My ultimate point is that almost any point (good or bad) anyone makes about the MIC can also be made about any other group involved in washington, even ones that you're in favor of.

    Just something to keep in perspective.

    (and for fun, never forget the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition:
    34. War is good for business.
    35. Peace is good for business
    )

    Bob,
    My little cousin is in Iraq and so are 3 of his friends. Does Keith have any relatives ther? I think not. That being said, he needs mantal health. I've rarely seen anyone have a nervous breakdown on TV. It was funny!

    What will Olbermann have a nervous breakdown about with no Iraq war?

    How about the massive debt, Bush's neanderthal policies on global warming, no sane health care policy in this country, prescription drugs becoming unaffordable for the average American,
    his failed No Child Left Behind policy,
    how New Orleans is still floundering and the fraud that has permitted to run wild,
    Need I go on ?

    Red Wolf...an idiot without a clue !

    KK, you are dead right on one thing. This is serious, serious stuff. I quote you :

    "And his solution is to send more and more troops into a ridiculous quagmire of lies, deceptions and mismanagement he has created. From whence do these men and women come? Is Dubya down in the War Room late at night in his pajamas moving around divisions which don't exist? Does he have a bottle of Bourbon in hand? Is his willingness to sentence more of our troops to a needless but certain death or maiming insanity? Paranoia? Hubris?....... we have the wild look in Dubya's eyes, the hair sticking straight out or going all over the place and the paranoic stoop and sagging. It is all beginning to seem apocalyptic.
    Posted by: Kurt Kissel at January 3, 2007 10:53 AM"

    Unfortunately, you have convinced me of your own precarious hold on reality, or if you prefer, insanity, paranoia or the gentler hubris.

    I understand now why you are so enamored of KO.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "The only reason he did this special comments was to get his ratings higher."

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 3, 2007 11:58 AM

    Do you really think so, Red wolf? I mean, it's not like he makes his living on TV or anything... So why would he want to get his ratings higher?

    You really do make it almost too easy to argue with you folks... I mean, seriously...

    lol

    How about the massive debt, Bush's neanderthal policies on global warming, no sane health care policy in this country, prescription drugs becoming unaffordable for the average American,
    his failed No Child Left Behind policy,
    how New Orleans is still floundering and the fraud that has permitted to run wild,
    Need I go on ?
    ==================================================
    I was trying to think about how to reply to Bob here (mostly where to begin and how to keep it under 100 pages) when I realized... Rich Lowry already had this morning.
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2VkOGExMDA5ODc4NWE2MTU4YTY1ODFhYWQxN2E0OGU=
    "As the nation mourns the late President Gerald Ford, the muses of history must be smiling. They have proven again that their wisdom eclipses that of contemporary opinion-makers who lack the clarifying benefit of time.

    With time, everything we thought we once knew about Gerry Ford has come untrue. He wasn’t a corrupt tool of Richard Nixon pardoning away his predecessor’s crimes in exchange for the presidency. He wasn’t a failure. And he wasn’t clumsy or stupid. All of these judgments were once part of the conventional wisdom about Ford, a conventional wisdom that dissolved as his presidency became more distant, and thus easier to see clearly.
    ...
    This is why a president has to have longer vistas than the latest polls or what fills newspaper columns ever day. Seeming mistakes can be vindicated, widely held perceptions can reverse themselves and losing causes can come to seem noble. When President George W. Bush eulogized Ford, his voice seemed to have added force when he talked of how Ford’s maligned-at-the-time presidency has taken on a different aspect today. That has to be a comfort for an embattled president struggling at the low ebb of his popularity.

    Will Bush eventually enjoy a Ford-like revival? Only the muses of history know."

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL spewed: "This is the intelligence of the anti-keith crowd today... Turning to little ditty's & rhymes..."

    FYI, it's called a limerick. There is a complete collection of Olby Limericks on this site for your perusal. Have fun.

    Always good to hear from Grammie and have her ice water vein mentality on display.

    She would have made a good soldier, in Nazi Germany.

    Blind loyalty to the Fuehrer and no problem with executing his orders...
    and probably with a smile to boot !
    That's our dear ole Grammie !

    PROUD to be a LIBERAL,
    Did you think it was funny seeing Olbermann almost having a nervous breakdown last night. Red, shaking and on the verge of tears!

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 3, 2007 11:06 AM


    I don’t think it is funny. There must be something else going on with him. Maybe the coverage of President Ford’s funeral, the death of 3,000 soldiers, and a long no-special-comment vacation. He is a passionate man and he cares just about everything, won’t let things go easy. It tells from his writings. I sincerely hope everything goes well to him.

    I am a kind of surprise the death of President’s Ford touched so many people for he had just been in the office for a such short period of time. He did accomplished a lot during his era. When there is no campaign and election, all we saw was a decent citizen sitting in the Oval Office to do his job. I am tired of campaign and election, all we see are those phony people raising their arms to show off their victory. After that, leaving the platform, they go on party on our tax money expenses and said who cares. I do respect President Ford, he did save this country from a very difficult time.

    We all have different opinions on the war. I think this war has to fight in a matter of time. This war goes on without a strategy and people are wondering what these soldiers died for. We certainly cannot just pull our troops out for the sake of the security at home here and Iraq is now so vulnerable surrounding by those powerful wealthy countries which are looking for an opportunity to invade and occupy. Iraq is a piece of land full of oil resources. It likes adding more fuel to a burning fire. There are so many issues this administration has to sort through before making any decision. Adding more troops is not only for the sake of the security of Iraq but also for the security of our troops.

    Bob, I just found out that you and I are related through some distant cousins.

    I nominate you as the bravest and smartest member my family ever produced. Those guys in the military will just love having you join them. I bet they elect you point man everywhere they go :).

    Let us know where you wind up.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Hi Bob, time for a new id...

    "If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr. McCain has departed from reality."

    Only a piece of shit would suggest that McCain has forgotten Vietnam.

    PTBAL, I accept your implied challenge.:

    " But to make fun of him for something as specious as the fact that his face turned red, or that he was about to cry, is both sad & ludicrous... sad, because it reflects on your (meager) ability to think, & ludicrous because it is so silly that you would take this out of his special comment.... Of all things that might be taken from it...

    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 3, 2007 11:39 AM"

    Before ridiculing others, first check out that voice of reason KK. Red face meet hair sticking out.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Will Bush eventually enjoy a Ford-like revival? Only the muses of history know."

    With the (partial) list I produced, and his handling of the Iraq War...ain't likely.

    With your logic...can a Saddam Hussein revival be far behind ?

    How you can look at the failed policies of George Bush and think he could be vindicated...is beyond me !


    On the first page of a high school history book in 2077 about the Bush presidency, it will undoubtedly mention that he and his minions thought the Iraq war would be a cakewalk.
    And then go downhill from there.

    If any of our top scientists are correct, the history book will also lament and question why Bush refused to do anything about global warming ( with the US being the largest producer of fossil fuels) when the facts were staring him in the face.

    Grannie, who is KK?

    Bob- The mere fact that is called "Global Warming" and not "US Warming" should show you that its a world issue not a local issue.

    Bob, I just found out that you and I are related through some distant cousins.

    Grammie lives in some kind of fantasy world.

    Old gal is really losing it.

    With the rapidly downward slope of the president and party she blindly supports, I understand why.

    Bob- The mere fact that is called "Global Warming" and not "US Warming" should show you that its a world issue not a local issue.

    Of course it is...and your point is....??????

    That we shouldn't take any action in this country?

    With the fact that the US is the largest producer of fossil fuels in the world ( as previously mentioned) and that every leader has a responsibility to something about it...and many are( not Bush)....speaks volumes of just another of his many failures and bad policies.

    It took Teddy Kennedy over 30 years to admit that Ford was right with the pardon and did so only after Ford was dead.

    Obviously, his brain had been soaking in booze during the Ford years.

    Teddy, we don't care that you were wrong.
    You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

    LF

    Hi Bob, time for a new id...

    Posted by: Blindrat at January 3, 2007 12:26 PM

    I could never be as clever as you with your moniker, BLINDRAT.

    With the (partial) list I produced, and his handling of the Iraq War...ain't likely.

    With your logic...can a Saddam Hussein revival be far behind ?
    =================================================
    Well... considering all the leftists that have said lately that Iraq was better off under Saddam... (were you one of them? I sometimes confuse you and beef) Seems to be true.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    How you can look at the failed policies of George Bush and think he could be vindicated...is beyond me !

    On the first page of a high school history book in 2077 about the Bush presidency, it will undoubtedly mention that he and his minions thought the Iraq war would be a cakewalk.
    And then go downhill from there.
    ==================================================
    The war WAS a cakewalk. It's the clean up that's tough. I mean, how easy was cleaning up Japan and Germany after we beat the tar out of them?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    If any of our top scientists are correct, the history book will also lament and question why Bush refused to do anything about global warming ( with the US being the largest producer of fossil fuels) when the facts were staring him in the face.
    ==================================================
    that's a big 'if'. Though according to them, isn't there supposed to be a complete lack of people to read those history text books in the future?

    And let me point out that it's because of tech and a lot of the things "causing" global warming that we enjoy pretty comfortable lives today. Were Bush to implement some of these recommendations, you're not going to save lives, simply transfer the cause of death and the targets. Namely the poor because they're the ones who would suffer most from some of these policies.

    Thus, if we're going to die from global warming or die from poverty, which would you prefer?

    Grammie,
    Did you see Olbermann's Special Nervous breakdown last night. It was funny as heel. I just re-watched it and almost fell out of my seat.
    Either he's a great actor or he really almost had a nervous breakdown!

    Bobbo- Clinton wouldn't sign either- for the same reasons.

    PTBAL, KK is the acronym I use for Kurt Kissel. You can read his full post @ 10:53 AM or my response to him @ 12:13 PM.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I thought last night that we would hear:
    They're coming to take me away ha ha he he ho ho!

    To Red Wolf:

    You keep referring to KO's "special comment" and making refences to "mental breakdowns, unstable, etc.". Yes, Red, that'a what happens when you get very passionate about something. That's an example of how passionate I am personally over this national tragedy as well. I'm glad he's doing this.....we need SOMEBODY doing this!

    On the subject of "mental instability", try looking at your own president if you want to find something to REALLY worry about. I am seriously wondering about HIS mental stability, and have been since before the 2004 election!

    Kurt Kassel:

    What a GREAT post you made at 10:57! Very few are actually talking about the issue of the president's own mental stability, but I have personally been concerned about this since well before the 2004 elections. I was surprised more Americans weren't worried about this at that time.

    Just imagine what national nightmares this man can STILL drag us into if he really is having, or does have a mental breakdown in office! To me, that is a very scary thought!

    To Grim:

    I was wondering when someone on this board was going to make the connection between Ford's belated legacy and a potential revised legacy for Bush. I certainly thought about that possibility earlier this weekend.

    But I think the odds of Bush having a positive legacy from a historical perspective are indeed very slim. While his pardon was controversial, I don't recall it creating the extremely deep anger and division that Bush's actions have caused. Ford's legacy was one of peace, stability, and calming down a troubled nation. Bush's legacy is just the opposite. We sorely needed a man of Ford's competence during 911, and the aftermath!

    Mike,
    Come on you want to see someone have a nervous breakdown on TV. Honestly I don't blame you, it was funny as hell. Olbermann lives in a little isolated world and is wealthy. What's he angry about? He has no relatives (unlike me) in Iraq.
    Look my point is that Olbermann almost broke down yesterday.
    Mike how's your life? Good I hope. So what're you mad about?
    Comeon Life's too short to get upset.
    Olbermann if he continues these rants will be in a mental hospital. How long before he starts hiding under his desk. I really wish the Left had a better spokesman than Olbermann. An articulate sane person who keeps his cool and makes valid points. Not conspiring paronai bordering on mental insanity. He's nuts!

    Oooohh- KeithO is on now - unscripted... updates of blunders and slants pending!

    Olby loves to quote works of fiction...
    I guess he's turning into Howard Beal...

    He must have had the oxygen mask under the desk last night. What a Kook.

    I hope there are more speshul comments on the way...

    he's on the lunatic fringe.

    There's a rubber room a Creedmoor waiting for Citizen Keith.

    LF

    Red Wolf: Wow, what questions! You and I clearly live on different planets!

    Lets see; "whats he so mad about"? That's the easiest question i can think of to answer, but I don't think you are going to grasp the answer!
    - 3000 American soldiers dead for no apparent reason.
    - 20,000 American wounded, many who will require care for the rest of their lives....and who do you think is going to pay for this? That's right, you, me, and our children!
    - Our nation stuck in another quaqmire with no end in sight being led by a possible lunatic.

    That's just a few of the things HE is actually talking about, but I could list some others that concern me personally.

    How is my life right now; Just fine thank you! That's a question that only seems to have relevance to folks such as yourself. MY personal life has little or nothing to do with the national suicide that seems to be in progress right now, but it may have a lot to do with our children's future personal lives.

    If you can't look at the tragedy that is going on in Iraq and get passionate about it, then there is something wrong with YOU!

    "Olbermann and supporters here are unglued because their ideology leads to consequences they have to rationalize away."

    - - - - -

    Rationalized Ideologue Consequences:

    Torture
    Rendition
    Secret Prisons
    Habeas Corpus
    War Profiteering
    Weakened Military
    Bin Laden At Large
    Trillion-Dollar Waste
    Bungled War-On-Terror
    Warrantless Surveillance
    Squandered Global Goodwill
    3,000+ Dead Soldiers
    22,000+ Wounded Soldiers
    100,000+ Dead Civilians

    Mike:

    We could have used your defeatest attitude at Normandy.

    Talk to the woman in Iraq that are no longer in the rape rooms.

    Talk to the Kurds too...who were gassed.

    LF

    "Under the current Democratic schedule, the Sept. 11 measure would be followed by a vote on increasing the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over two years. Next would come legislation expanding embryonic stem cell research that was vetoed last year by Mr. Bush. Democrats would then move to eliminate a prohibition on federal officials’ negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices for those enrolled in the Medicare drug program.

    After that, Democrats are planning to take up a proposal to cut the interest rate on federally subsidized student loans to 3.4 percent from 6.8 percent. Lastly, Democrats hope to wind up on Jan. 18 with legislation that seeks to make sure that oil companies pay adequate royalties on disputed leases, rolls back some industry subsidies from a recent energy bill and creates a renewable energy reserve to try to spur investment in new technologies and conservation"

    And I thought the election was a statement about a change in course for Iraq. Not even mentioned by the Dems for the first 100 hours, must not be important enough. Where is the special comment??

    PTBAL, KK is the acronym I use for Kurt Kissel. And, surprisingly, Mike appears to be an acolyte of his.

    Mike, are you saying that you are glad that someone else has finally voiced this suspicion you have and you are pleased to see KK articulate this fear for you.

    What particular proof did KK state that persuaded you to praise him? Bourbon bottle? Roaming? Hair, sticking out or whatever? Or was it that 'paranoic' Hitler like stoop?

    Or could it be that you, and so many others, started out with the 'fact' that GWB was stupid and evil. And everything he does is SAE, which only proves that he is SAE, which only proves that everything he does is SAE.

    Ergo, if he can't see this about himself, he MUST BE CRAZY.

    And, lets not forget the corrollary. Those who willfully refuse to recognise all this are also stupid, evil and crazy.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "Talk to the Kurds too...who were gassed."

    Careful, Little Feechie. Need I remind you who sold the "starter kit" for chemical weapons to Saddam back in the 80's?

    More about the Ford legacy (since Mike was so respectful of President Ford yesterday, I would like to continue in his steps)....

    His letter to "The Fall of Saigon Marines"

    http://www.fallofsaigon.org/ford.htm

    A great and compassionate man who was handed defeat and surrender to deal with from the representative branch of our government....The Democratic Party Majority Congress.

    Good bye, Mr. Ford.

    One last shot at the liberals who care about people (sarcasm)....

    WaPo 12/28/06

    "One day during that dark period, I walked into the Oval Office and showed Ford an Associated Press story reporting that the House had rejected a bill providing funds to help resettle hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees who would probably be targets of imprisonment and execution by the victorious North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. I'd never heard Ford curse before, but he did that day when he read the story.

    "He undertook a public lobbying campaign, including visits to refugee camps in Arkansas and Florida, which turned around public and congressional opposition to helping the refugees. It was his greatest display of moral leadership."

    Yes, you liberals REALLY care about people (sarcasm). It is interesting the radicals posting today are silent about their history with opressed people and refugees. Keith Olbermann, the 4 Million/year debutant, must be proud of your ignorance of history.

    Any comments about liberal Jerry Brown's attitude towards the Vietnam refugees?

    Any comments about liberal Joe Biden's attitude towards the Vietnam refugees?

    How about that young Hillary Clinton?....Was she too busy crucifying Richard Nixon to notice millions of people now faced with re-education and opression?

    What were you doing, Mike?

    To Grim:

    I was wondering when someone on this board was going to make the connection between Ford's belated legacy and a potential revised legacy for Bush. I certainly thought about that possibility earlier this weekend.

    But I think the odds of Bush having a positive legacy from a historical perspective are indeed very slim. While his pardon was controversial, I don't recall it creating the extremely deep anger and division that Bush's actions have caused. Ford's legacy was one of peace, stability, and calming down a troubled nation. Bush's legacy is just the opposite. We sorely needed a man of Ford's competence during 911, and the aftermath!
    ==================================================
    Mike, your comment really made me laugh.

    The whole point is that we CANNOT know what history will make of Bush. I find any attempts (mostly among leftists but I've seen some rightists make the same mistake) to claim what bush's place in history will be to be the highest form of comedy.

    There are thousands of roads and events between us and then when all shall become "history". Trying to say now what Bush's record will be is the height of arrogance.

    The ultimate point of my post is "wait a see." Right... left... no matter where you stand on Bush, I'm sure we'll all be wrong. It's best we try and have some humility regarding history's judgements.

    Not use on his own people EE! It was meant for the Iranians

    "Talk to the Kurds too...who were gassed."

    Careful, Little Feechie. Need I remind you who sold the "starter kit" for chemical weapons to Saddam back in the 80's?
    ====================================================
    Who EE? I assume you're talking about US?

    If so, isn't that another reason for us to go to war in Iraq? To correct the mistake we made in the 80s?

    "If so, isn't that another reason for us to go to war in Iraq? To correct the mistake we made in the 80s?"

    I thought that was part of the reason the FIRST Persian Gulf War was fought - to eject Saddam from Kuwait and to make up for giving him all that help during the Iran-Iraq war.

    Mike,
    My cousin is in Iraq. My attitude is hey wars happen. That's history. There'll be wars 100 years from now. There's nothing Olby, you and I can do about it. Honestly I'm sick of Iraq. Hearing people bitch and whine about it is annoying. We should leave so Al-Qaeda, Sunnis, Shiites, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia can all kill each other. If you think Iraq is a human tragedy now wait until we leave.
    Look the fact is none of this affects my life, your life and especially Olbermann's life directly. Honestly, it could affect me since my cousin isd ther. But if he stayed here, he would've been in jailes or died on the streets anyway. Better he dies fighting Muslims than fellow Amereicans.

    Mike,
    Just admitt it watching Olbermann almost have a nervous breakdown was funny! His shakes, red face and tears was the best reality TV I've seen. Could he really be upset that he's not gonna get his 4 Million dollars from MSNBC?
    He crazy, get a better spokesman!

    Keith O is side-saddle to Matthews... And it is OBVIOUS that Chris Mathews thinks Keith is a pompous bufoon who has little to add to the Ford funeral. Quite an awkward odd couple.

    Grim, although it should be said, I'm afraid that very few, if any, will understand the truth of historical perspective. And you will be buried under an avanlanche of disdain.

    History has certainly proved that 'fact' that virtually every German believed was true. A thousand years sure did go by fast.

    I don't know what judgment history will make. Nor do I know who will be judging. I only know that we will all be judged, all will have made mistakes and the overall judgment can go either way.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I thought that was part of the reason the FIRST Persian Gulf War was fought - to eject Saddam from Kuwait and to make up for giving him all that help during the Iran-Iraq war.
    ====================================================
    You and I are in agreement EE. If only Bush1 had finished the job and toppled Saddam that first time, we might have been spared all this no?

    It's obvious that Matthews, Gregory, Mitchell, Williams don't want to be seen with KO.

    He's a lunatic and they know it.

    So the show should be Countdown to Mental Meltdown! Lol! It's hysterical to see someone's mental health almost collapse. Didn't he admitt that he used to see a shrink? Well he needs help!

    So the show should be Countdown to Mental Meltdown! Lol! It's hysterical to see someone's mental health almost collapse. Didn't he admitt that he used to see a shrink? Well he needs help!
    ===================================================
    Wolf, even I'm a little offended by that and think it's in low taste and tacky.

    I mean, you do want to try and be better than Olbermann right? Or any of the other people here that like to fret over Bush's supposed "mental illness".

    EE, don't you think that was rather glib.

    I guess you subscribe to the adage that Reagan was responsible for Al Quaeda because the US helped defeat the Russian aggression.

    National interests, power, alliances and enemies remain the same for you. At which point in history does that start?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Challenger Grim,
    So do you think he's almost really had a breakdown or was it an act? Either way I was cracking up at Olbermann. It was great comedy!

    Hey Olbermann is on MSNBC on right now! Does this mean he recovered from last night's near collapse. He sounds low key so that means his he's on his meds!

    First , let me say I am for ending this war, bringing the troops home as quickly as possible. Having said that, I find Keith Olbermann to be a fatuous windbig, ego crazed, with a demented view of his own importance. Keith Olbermann could not carry Murrows filthy ashtray. Many non Bush supporters, such as myself are appalled by Olbermann and his drama queen tactics.

    There are thousands of roads and events between us and then when all shall become "history". Trying to say now what Bush's record will be is the height of arrogance.

    Is it arrogant to say that Bush's Katrina response debacle won't be treated kindly in the future ?
    Or do you think there is enough spin in the world to show Bush remaining on vacation those first crucial days and his gutting of FEMA and the cronyism involved as a brave and bold move ?

    Will massive debt be considered a sound economic policy in the future ?

    Will the fact that there are more poor people in this country each of the last 6 years be a positive step for providing them motivation for "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps "?

    Will the billions in tax breaks to the already filthy rich oil companies be considered a "small step for man a giant leap for mankind"?

    Will phrases like "Is our children learning" spark new ground breaking comedy series ?

    Will the "intellect" of George Bush encourage future generations of illiterates to seek public office?

    You're right, only time will tell !

    Grim:

    Laugh all you want but I think it IS possible to play the odds a little in predicting a legacy.

    I know I risk being accused of making a hysterical and unfair comparison if I make this analogy, but Hitler's legacy has not changed one iota in my lifetime, which began only 6 years after his ended.

    NO, I'm am by NO means actually comparing Bush to Hitler, Hitler was infinitely worse and he truly was a an evil man, unlike Bush, who is just monumentally incompetent...I was just trying to make a point about negative legacies.

    The main difference between you and I is that you still are willing to entertain positive thoughts towards this man, unlike myself, and yes, I realize that we are both biased!

    Bob,
    How's your personal life?

    I'm almost having a breakdown (laughing that is) reading your so called blogging. If you right wingers have nothing better to do than watch Keith even though you are all too brainwashed to understand his insight...I mean it's not like I waste my time watching Fox News and Bill O'...I wouldn't even think about it, and then after sitting infront of the brainwash box you go to a site like this and talk about it. You all are pretty pathetic.
    Your all holding on to a nightmare of an administration as your almighty savior, and confusing party loyalty with patriotism. Wake up and smell the coffee this country is many times the worse for wear since MR.Bush took office and you are all going to go down with him wether you like it or not.

    Grim, I have to make one exception to the historical perspective rule.

    The verdict is in on Bob.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Red Wolf says: "Hey my cousin is in Iraq, my attitude is that wars happen"!

    How cavalier of you! It's good to know that you are making such a tremendous 'personal' sacrifice through your 'cousin'!

    Guess what ole' buddy, wars DON'T just 'happen'. Men CREATE wars....usually very stupid men! It's our collective job to try to keep these stupid men out of power, or in check.

    Amen, Alex FJ: You said it better than I could!


    WITH RUBBER STAMP CONGRESS GONE, LAME SCHMUCK CONCEIVES BIPARTISANSHIP

    -- Lip Serves Balanced Budget; Re-Peddles 9/11; Decries GOP-Perfected Pork --

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush, facing a Democratic-controlled Congress for the first time, is urging lawmakers to work with his administration and warning that "political statements" in the form of legislation would result in a stalemate. "Together, we have a chance to serve the American people by solving the complex problems that many don't expect us to tackle, let alone solve, in the partisan environment of today's Washington," Bush wrote in a guest column for The Wall Street Journal posted on the newspaper's Web site Tuesday night.


    You young people should learn that name calling is juvenile and will not win any debates.
    To start with, go to this site to read the president's reasons for attacking Iraq: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021007-8.html WMD are but one reason for the attack. Not one of you, nor K.Olberman, has the knowledge OR THE RESPONSIBILITY of crafting foreign policy in time of war. Mistakes will always be made, but the strategy behind the Iraq attack was THEORETICALLY a valid one. 1) Easily eliminate a despicable, murderous dictator who promotes terrorism., 2) Establish a democracy in two centrally located Mideast countries to buffer the growing Islamic threat., 3) Eliminate two of the training bases of the terrorists., 4) Prevent a possible united califate of Iran and Iraq (and possibly Syria). The success of these goals would have done much to lesson Mideast tensions and terrorist threats. The strategy was honorable but difficult.

    Nixon saw his legacy restored to him more or less in tact and his reputation as a foreign affairs expert bar none acknowledged. Only time will tell what Bush's reputation will be 20, 30 years from now.

    Mike,
    There's nothing you can do about wars. What if Iran starts their apocolyptic Mahdi war? What can you do about that? What if China starts a war. What can you do about that. Look shit happens. Look you have a right to be upset about Iraq, but honestly if it doesn't affect you personally why get bent out of shape on it?
    I hope you don't have a nervous breakdown like Olbermann almost did. Life is to short enjoy.
    Life's a bitch and then you die!

    Grammie:

    No, I don't think I'm being glib - I think that we supported Saddam when it suited our interests (containing Iran) and then reversed course when he used the help we gave him in that endeavor to attack and occupy Kuwait.

    And Red Wolf, I find your current "humor" distasteful and disrespectful.

    I love how keith started his spiel talking about how bush has wrongly sacraficed American soildiers. While that may be ture seeing as we should not have gone there in the first place, doesn't keith relize that in order to save American lives we will have to sacrafice Iraqi lives? If we pull out it will be nothing but death and destruction across Iraq, and dont give me that crap about how there already is, because you goddamn well know it would be a thousand times worse when Shittes begin massivly exterminating Sunnis and then turn on eachother in the subsequent power grab. American soldiers are, regretably, the thin line between slow and deadly progress, and absolute chaos.

    It sickens me that the same people who cry for the children of Darfur are more than willing to throw Iraqi children to the dogs. It is unexcusable how the right have failed thus far in Iraq, but it is absolutly UNFORGIVABLE how left-wingers now wish to make Iraq pay the price for our failures. As Colin Powell said, "We broke it", and now we must pay the price. It is our responsibility.

    Those on the left may feel as though they can allieviate themselves from this responsibility by calling it "Bush's War", as Korea was "Truman's War". But remember, Get rid of Bush, and Iraqis will still be dying. Get rid of Republicans, and Iraqis will still be dying. Pull out the troops, and Iraqis will still be dying, only now they will be dying for nothing. Not for a government, nor for a hopeful future. They will be dying only to perserve thousands of years of ethnic hatred and to perserve a status quo that has made that region of the world the hotbed for violence and atrocity that it is to this day.

    I truly hope bush calls for heavy sacrafice, for too long we have treated this war like a nuisance and ignored the real sacrafices that need to be made to help Iraq. Iraq needs more money, more infrastructure, more equipment for its soldiers, more of our soldiers, and just an overall greater commitment from America. Call it "Bush's war" if you want, but remember that it was the United States of America that invaded Iraq, and its about damn time we started acting like it. Those lives in Iraq are on us. That blood is on us and we owe it to Iraqis to give them everything we can to try and make it better regardless of the cost. We started this war; "we broke it"; its on us. We can not throw those people to the dogs by CHOOSING failure. We must either succeed, or have failure thrust upon us. Either way, we will have done our best.

    Sacrafice, Kieth. We owe them that much.

    I love how keith started his spiel talking about how bush has wrongly sacraficed American soildiers. While that may be ture seeing as we should not have gone there in the first place, doesn't keith relize that in order to save American lives we will have to sacrafice Iraqi lives? If we pull out it will be nothing but death and destruction across Iraq, and dont give me that crap about how there already is, because you goddamn well know it would be a thousand times worse when Shittes begin massivly exterminating Sunnis and then turn on eachother in the subsequent power grab. American soldiers are, regretably, the thin line between slow and deadly progress, and absolute chaos.

    It sickens me that the same people who cry for the children of Darfur are more than willing to throw Iraqi children to the dogs. It is unexcusable how the right have failed thus far in Iraq, but it is absolutly UNFORGIVABLE how left-wingers now wish to make Iraq pay the price for our failures. As Colin Powell said, "We broke it", and now we must pay the price. It is our responsibility.

    Those on the left may feel as though they can allieviate themselves from this responsibility by calling it "Bush's War", as Korea was "Truman's War". But remember, Get rid of Bush, and Iraqis will still be dying. Get rid of Republicans, and Iraqis will still be dying. Pull out the troops, and Iraqis will still be dying, only now they will be dying for nothing. Not for a government, nor for a hopeful future. They will be dying only to perserve thousands of years of ethnic hatred and to perserve a status quo that has made that region of the world the hotbed for violence and atrocity that it is to this day.

    I truly hope bush calls for heavy sacrafice, for too long we have treated this war like a nuisance and ignored the real sacrafices that need to be made to help Iraq. Iraq needs more money, more infrastructure, more equipment for its soldiers, more of our soldiers, and just an overall greater commitment from America. Call it "Bush's war" if you want, but remember that it was the United States of America that invaded Iraq, and its about damn time we started acting like it. Those lives in Iraq are on us. That blood is on us and we owe it to Iraqis to give them everything we can to try and make it better regardless of the cost. We started this war; "we broke it"; its on us. We can not throw those people to the dogs by CHOOSING failure. We must either succeed, or have failure thrust upon us. Either way, we will have done our best.

    Sacrafice, Kieth. We owe them that much.

    The verdict is in on Bob.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    As is for yourself ,my dear ole Grammie.

    The absolutely absurb decisions and leadership of your fuehrer, George W. Bush is either completely lost on you, or you are lost in the ozone.( our ever depleting ozone layer that is )

    Kind like your ever depleting chances of Bush ever being considered anything but a cruel incompetent joke in future generations.

    It must be tough to be a Bush loyalist these days.
    The group keeps dwindling down to almost nothing,where people who you probably once respected are now castigating him which leaves you in a quandry that totally puzzles you.

    No wonder you come here for solace and kindred spirits .
    The few, the proud, the 15% !
    The Bush loyalists !

    Kind of cute, but sad !

    Is it arrogant to say that Bush's Katrina response debacle won't be treated kindly in the future ?
    Or do you think there is enough spin in the world to show Bush remaining on vacation those first crucial days and his gutting of FEMA and the cronyism involved as a brave and bold move ?
    ================================================
    I dunno Bob. Some other states besides LA were hit by the hurricane and they all had the same federal government. They also haven't been doing too bad either (i mean, things are still in bad shape but not like LA). I'm like so many other people, "what should have Bush done?" (ok, other than the FEMA appointment - that was a bad move) Overules a democrat state governor and taken over things there? Then I guess we'd all have something new to outrage over. The point is, there is a LOT of blame to go around for the hurricane. I doubt all of it will settle on Bush.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Will the fact that there are more poor people in this country each of the last 6 years be a positive step for providing them motivation for "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps "?
    =================================================
    Now this I have to ask you about Bob. Is there more poor people by comparison of raw numbers or by a percentage of total population? Remember our country just recently hit record highs as far as total population goes, which would mean by that reasoning, I would bet that there have been more rich people these last 6 years. Also, how much of that accounts for immigration (legal and not)? Seems to me that a great influx of poor people from exterior places (that bush has no control over) would tilt those numbers a bit.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Will the billions in tax breaks to the already filthy rich oil companies be considered a "small step for man a giant leap for mankind"?
    =================================================
    Since it probably reduced gas prices and allowed more poor people and those on fixed incomes to fill up their car... maybe.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Will phrases like "Is our children learning" spark new ground breaking comedy series ?
    =================================================
    I don't even know what your point is here.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Will the "intellect" of George Bush encourage future generations of illiterates to seek public office?
    =================================================
    How exactly is he illiterate if he graduated college? Also, if you want to keep pushing the claim that he's a bible thumper, you have to keep in mind that would mean he has to be able to READ the bible. Keep your own points straight please.

    Oh, and can you tell me which US presidents did NOT have a college education?

    Hawkeye Guy,
    Great post.

    Ensign Expendable,
    What's distasteful and disrespectful about what I said? He really almost did have a nervous breakdown. I've re watched it 4 times and clearly he's losing control and it was hysterical! He obviously has anger problems needs help.
    I think a hug will help! Katy Tur where are you?
    He really needs help he was shaking, running out of breath, face red which indicates high blood pressure and almost in tears. It's great reality TV.

    Bob,

    Your fatuous (look it up) and sniveling query about who would go to fight from some of the families of the commenters here leads me to respond. My younger brother has fought in this war in Ramadi (returned this year). Also, between my father and all three of his sons, we now have four separate combat tours and an expeditionary tour (one step below committed combat) under our belts (mixed in a current 75+ years of military service and counting). Now, the fact is that all of us returned from those tours, so we're fortunate. But, the fact is that we did serve and did go whether or not we wanted to. Why? We all felt that it was our duty as citizens of this great country. So quit being so snarky and self serving with your commentary about this issue, especially if you personally haven't served in our military in a wartime setting. Too many people on here would simply ask whether you had the fortitude to do national meaningful service for your countrymen. Most of those serving now believe that what they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely necessary for the long term national interests and security of our country. Maybe they are just that much more prescient than are you. I certainly do not believe that they are patsies or mere tools, and they don't see it that way either.

    Fortunately, none in my family had to go to combat during our previous Commander in Chief's tenure -- thank God for that. Frankly, not many soldiers (including me) had any respect at all for him as a man or as the President - but we would have gone to war, because it was our responsibility and duty to do so (see above about service to the country) (as so many of my fellow soldiers did in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc - and none of those countries had even the potential to be detrimental to our national security). I know of many soldiers who tore up their certificates of retirement from the military simply because it was signed by President Clinton.

    Mike,

    Except for a shared name, we clearly do not agree on much given your screeds above. First, you talk about 3000 wasted lives. Did you personally know any of those persons killed? Unless you did and they personally told you they felt their lives were going to be wasted, then you have no idea whether their lives were wasted. So get off of your mem about there being no apparent reason for their deaths. Only history will bear that out and from what we all see form a lot of what is written about in history, it's all from the perspective of the winner. As for me, I will take my cue from my brother (see above). He never waivered in telling me he felt his tour there was absolutely necessary, that he saw great honor in being there to aid in the mission. In fact, he specifically reenlisted there (and our reenlistment rates for units in combat are impressively high) knowing full well that it could mean he is deployed yet again. By the way, many of our wounded personnel are also quite capable of caring for themselves and do not desire any assistance. Why? Because they have ingrained in them the concepts and thoughts that they are responsible citizens determined to be independent. Maybe there are too many of us who in the long run are more "able bodied" than they will be, but I guarantee you they are better prepared for life than far too many of their fellow citizens. Learn from that, please! Bottom line about this is: Do NOT pretend that you can speak for any of these military members or their families (as you've intimated in your putrid commentary). You cannot. You don't have the foundation or the right, regardless of any rights to free speech you have. That goes for you, too, Bob! Bye now.

    Bob,

    Your fatuous (look it up) and sniveling query about who would go to fight from some of the families of the commenters here leads me to respond. My younger brother has fought in this war in Ramadi (returned this year). Also, between my father and all three of his sons, we now have four separate combat tours and an expeditionary tour (one step below committed combat) under our belts (mixed in a current 75+ years of military service and counting). Now, the fact is that all of us returned from those tours, so we're fortunate. But, the fact is that we did serve and did go whether or not we wanted to. Why? We all felt that it was our duty as citizens of this great country. So quit being so snarky and self serving with your commentary about this issue, especially if you personally haven't served in our military in a wartime setting. Too many people on here would simply ask whether you had the fortitude to do national meaningful service for your countrymen. Most of those serving now believe that what they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely necessary for the long term national interests and security of our country. Maybe they are just that much more prescient than are you. I certainly do not believe that they are patsies or mere tools, and they don't see it that way either.

    Fortunately, none in my family had to go to combat during our previous Commander in Chief's tenure -- thank God for that. Frankly, not many soldiers (including me) had any respect at all for him as a man or as the President - but we would have gone to war, because it was our responsibility and duty to do so (see above about service to the country) (as so many of my fellow soldiers did in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc - and none of those countries had even the potential to be detrimental to our national security). I know of many soldiers who tore up their certificates of retirement from the military simply because it was signed by President Clinton.

    Mike,

    Except for a shared name, we clearly do not agree on much given your screeds above. First, you talk about 3000 wasted lives. Did you personally know any of those persons killed? Unless you did and they personally told you they felt their lives were going to be wasted, then you have no idea whether their lives were wasted. So get off of your mem about there being no apparent reason for their deaths. Only history will bear that out and from what we all see form a lot of what is written about in history, it's all from the perspective of the winner. As for me, I will take my cue from my brother (see above). He never waivered in telling me he felt his tour there was absolutely necessary, that he saw great honor in being there to aid in the mission. In fact, he specifically reenlisted there (and our reenlistment rates for units in combat are impressively high) knowing full well that it could mean he is deployed yet again. By the way, many of our wounded personnel are also quite capable of caring for themselves and do not desire any assistance. Why? Because they have ingrained in them the concepts and thoughts that they are responsible citizens determined to be independent. Maybe there are too many of us who in the long run are more "able bodied" than they will be, but I guarantee you they are better prepared for life than far too many of their fellow citizens. Learn from that, please! Bottom line about this is: Do NOT pretend that you can speak for any of these military members or their families (as you've intimated in your putrid commentary). You cannot. You don't have the foundation or the right, regardless of any rights to free speech you have. That goes for you, too, Bob! Bye now.

    Bob,

    Your fatuous (look it up) and sniveling query about who would go to fight from some of the families of the commenters here leads me to respond. My younger brother has fought in this war in Ramadi (returned this year). Also, between my father and all three of his sons, we now have four separate combat tours and an expeditionary tour (one step below committed combat) under our belts (mixed in a current 75+ years of military service and counting). Now, the fact is that all of us returned from those tours, so we're fortunate. But, the fact is that we did serve and did go whether or not we wanted to. Why? We all felt that it was our duty as citizens of this great country. So quit being so snarky and self serving with your commentary about this issue, especially if you personally haven't served in our military in a wartime setting. Too many people on here would simply ask whether you had the fortitude to do national meaningful service for your countrymen. Most of those serving now believe that what they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely necessary for the long term national interests and security of our country. Maybe they are just that much more prescient than are you. I certainly do not believe that they are patsies or mere tools, and they don't see it that way either.

    Fortunately, none in my family had to go to combat during our previous Commander in Chief's tenure -- thank God for that. Frankly, not many soldiers (including me) had any respect at all for him as a man or as the President - but we would have gone to war, because it was our responsibility and duty to do so (see above about service to the country) (as so many of my fellow soldiers did in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc - and none of those countries had even the potential to be detrimental to our national security). I know of many soldiers who tore up their certificates of retirement from the military simply because it was signed by President Clinton.

    Mike,

    Except for a shared name, we clearly do not agree on much given your screeds above. First, you talk about 3000 wasted lives. Did you personally know any of those persons killed? Unless you did and they personally told you they felt their lives were going to be wasted, then you have no idea whether their lives were wasted. So get off of your mem about there being no apparent reason for their deaths. Only history will bear that out and from what we all see form a lot of what is written about in history, it's all from the perspective of the winner. As for me, I will take my cue from my brother (see above). He never waivered in telling me he felt his tour there was absolutely necessary, that he saw great honor in being there to aid in the mission. In fact, he specifically reenlisted there (and our reenlistment rates for units in combat are impressively high) knowing full well that it could mean he is deployed yet again. By the way, many of our wounded personnel are also quite capable of caring for themselves and do not desire any assistance. Why? Because they have ingrained in them the concepts and thoughts that they are responsible citizens determined to be independent. Maybe there are too many of us who in the long run are more "able bodied" than they will be, but I guarantee you they are better prepared for life than far too many of their fellow citizens. Learn from that, please! Bottom line about this is: Do NOT pretend that you can speak for any of these military members or their families (as you've intimated in your putrid commentary). You cannot. You don't have the foundation or the right, regardless of any rights to free speech you have. That goes for you, too, Bob! Bye now.

    Well said, respectful and true, Hawkeye Guy.

    Bob,

    Your fatuous (look it up) and sniveling query about who would go to fight from some of the families of the commenters here leads me to respond. My younger brother has fought in this war in Ramadi (returned this year). Also, between my father and all three of his sons, we now have four separate combat tours and an expeditionary tour (one step below committed combat) under our belts (mixed in a current 75+ years of military service and counting). Now, the fact is that all of us returned from those tours, so we're fortunate. But, the fact is that we did serve and did go whether or not we wanted to. Why? We all felt that it was our duty as citizens of this great country. So quit being so snarky and self serving with your commentary about this issue, especially if you personally haven't served in our military in a wartime setting. Too many people on here would simply ask whether you had the fortitude to do national meaningful service for your countrymen. Most of those serving now believe that what they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely necessary for the long term national interests and security of our country. Maybe they are just that much more prescient than are you. I certainly do not believe that they are patsies or mere tools, and they don't see it that way either.

    Fortunately, none in my family had to go to combat during our previous Commander in Chief's tenure -- thank God for that. Frankly, not many soldiers (including me) had any respect at all for him as a man or as the President - but we would have gone to war, because it was our responsibility and duty to do so (see above about service to the country) (as so many of my fellow soldiers did in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc - and none of those countries had even the potential to be detrimental to our national security). I know of many soldiers who tore up their certificates of retirement from the military simply because it was signed by President Clinton.

    Mike,

    Except for a shared name, we clearly do not agree on much given your screeds above. First, you talk about 3000 wasted lives. Did you personally know any of those persons killed? Unless you did and they personally told you they felt their lives were going to be wasted, then you have no idea whether their lives were wasted. So get off of your mem about there being no apparent reason for their deaths. Only history will bear that out and from what we all see form a lot of what is written about in history, it's all from the perspective of the winner. As for me, I will take my cue from my brother (see above). He never waivered in telling me he felt his tour there was absolutely necessary, that he saw great honor in being there to aid in the mission. In fact, he specifically reenlisted there (and our reenlistment rates for units in combat are impressively high) knowing full well that it could mean he is deployed yet again. By the way, many of our wounded personnel are also quite capable of caring for themselves and do not desire any assistance. Why? Because they have ingrained in them the concepts and thoughts that they are responsible citizens determined to be independent. Maybe there are too many of us who in the long run are more "able bodied" than they will be, but I guarantee you they are better prepared for life than far too many of their fellow citizens. Learn from that, please! Bottom line about this is: Do NOT pretend that you can speak for any of these military members or their families (as you've intimated in your putrid commentary). You cannot. You don't have the foundation or the right, regardless of any rights to free speech you have. That goes for you, too, Bob! Bye now.

    Keith had better be careful. Those performance enhancing drugs he's rumored to take can cause stokes, heart attacks, etc. Got to keep up with the young missy you know. And Keith looks like he's never said no to an all-you can eat buffet line either. I don't think he's in the best of shape. It would be rather amusing to see him keel over dead in the middle of one of his rants. I guess then he could be a martyr to the cause huh? None of his small-brained fans seems to have figured out that this whole Special Comment crap is so he can position himself very carefull re his salary negotions. If the network balks or refuses to resign him, he can claim he was a "political victim" of sorts. He's such a predictable bastard.

    Bob,

    Your fatuous (look it up) and sniveling query about who would go to fight from some of the families of the commenters here leads me to respond. My younger brother has fought in this war in Ramadi (returned this year). Also, between my father and all three of his sons, we now have four separate combat tours and an expeditionary tour (one step below committed combat) under our belts (mixed in a current 75+ years of military service and counting). Now, the fact is that all of us returned from those tours, so we're fortunate. But, the fact is that we did serve and did go whether or not we wanted to. Why? We all felt that it was our duty as citizens of this great country. So quit being so snarky and self serving with your commentary about this issue, especially if you personally haven't served in our military in a wartime setting. Too many people on here would simply ask whether you had the fortitude to do national meaningful service for your countrymen. Most of those serving now believe that what they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely necessary for the long term national interests and security of our country. Maybe they are just that much more prescient than are you. I certainly do not believe that they are patsies or mere tools, and they don't see it that way either.

    Fortunately, none in my family had to go to combat during our previous Commander in Chief's tenure -- thank God for that. Frankly, not many soldiers (including me) had any respect at all for him as a man or as the President - but we would have gone to war, because it was our responsibility and duty to do so (see above about service to the country) (as so many of my fellow soldiers did in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc - and none of those countries had even the potential to be detrimental to our national security). I know of many soldiers who tore up their certificates of retirement from the military simply because it was signed by President Clinton.

    Mike,

    Except for a shared name, we clearly do not agree on much given your screeds above. First, you talk about 3000 wasted lives. Did you personally know any of those persons killed? Unless you did and they personally told you they felt their lives were going to be wasted, then you have no idea whether their lives were wasted. So get off of your mem about there being no apparent reason for their deaths. Only history will bear that out and from what we all see form a lot of what is written about in history, it's all from the perspective of the winner. As for me, I will take my cue from my brother (see above). He never waivered in telling me he felt his tour there was absolutely necessary, that he saw great honor in being there to aid in the mission. In fact, he specifically reenlisted there (and our reenlistment rates for units in combat are impressively high) knowing full well that it could mean he is deployed yet again. By the way, many of our wounded personnel are also quite capable of caring for themselves and do not desire any assistance. Why? Because they have ingrained in them the concepts and thoughts that they are responsible citizens determined to be independent. Maybe there are too many of us who in the long run are more "able bodied" than they will be, but I guarantee you they are better prepared for life than far too many of their fellow citizens. Learn from that, please! Bottom line about this is: Do NOT pretend that you can speak for any of these military members or their families (as you've intimated in your putrid commentary). You cannot. You don't have the foundation or the right, regardless of any rights to free speech you have. That goes for you, too, Bob! Bye now.

    Hawkeye, I certainly respect your point of view, and you objectivity, but how can you make the case that our staying, and continuing to TRY to do the right thing is going to have a positive outcome?

    I don't think we really have a CLUE how this is going to turn out, whether we stay, or whether we leave. It odds almost seems like a toss up. Most of the predictions have turned out wrong so far, especially the ones from the right.

    MikeWat,
    I just wanted to commend and salute you and say thanks to you and yours for what you've done for all of us citizens.

    If you ever need a friend, I'll certainly do what I can to pay back even a fraction of what I owe any of you.

    Well said, respectful and true, Hawkeye Guy.

    Mike, I'm happy to see that you are back to believing GWB is incompetent and not the 'crazy' with spiked hair.

    I disagree with you about historical perspective and when it is validated. You have missed the point entirely.

    Churchill saw Hitler for what he was years before WWII and was despised to the point that he was pelted with rotten vegetables during a speech he made at Oxford in the 1930s about the danger Hitler posed. The overwhelming consensus on him was that he was a war monger. That consensus changed 180 degrees and has settled into he is one of, if not the, greatest leader of the twentieth century and many other centuries.

    Simultaneously, Hitler was the recipient of an approving or, at worse, a benign opinion from the world.

    And what do you think the overwhelming judgment of the German people were in the early years of the war. If anyone had stated that history would judge him and them the way we have what do you think the response would have been.

    Like you, I am not comparing GWB, Churchill or Hitler. I am also not saying that you will come out on the wrong side of history and I will be on the right one. I am rephrasing the point in recent historical terms.

    World history is full of fools, villians, heroes and those who follow them being known for what they are only later.

    To not realize this is the height of hubris.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Look, I know you people dislike Olbermann, but to hope that he DIES on the air or suffers some sort of MENTAL BREAKDOWN? That's beyond the pale.

    And it's not like he's the first commentator to get his ire up. How quickly we forget Anderson Cooper and Shepard Smith getting red-faced and blasting people over Hurricane Katrina clean up. Were they "on the verge of nervous breakdowns"?

    Nixon saw his legacy restored to him more or less in tact .

    Brandon is still nipping at the egg nog.
    Who restored Nixon's legacy ?
    That's a good one !

    In the words of the great writer,Hunter S. Thompson:
    "Let there be no mistake in the history books about Richard Nixon.He was an evil man--evil in a way that only those who believe in the physical reality of the Devil can understand it. He was utterly without ethics or morals or any bedrock sense of decency. Nobody trusted him--except maybe the Stalinist Chinese, and honest historians will remember him mainly as a rat who kept scrambling to get back on the ship.
    He was more like Sammy Glick than Winston Churchill. He was a cheap crook and a merciless war criminal who bombed more people to death in Laos and Cambodia than the U.S. Army lost in all of World War II, and he denied it to the day of his death. When students at Kent State University, in Ohio, protested the bombing, he connived to have them attacked and slain by troops from the National Guard.
    Just look who Nixon picked as his VP. Spiro Agnew was the Joey Buttafuoco of the Nixon administration, and Hoover was its Caligula. They were brutal, brain-damaged degenerates worse than any hit man out of The Godfather, yet they were the men Richard Nixon trusted most. Together they defined his Presidency.
    He has poisoned our water forever. Nixon will be remembered as a classic case of a smart man shitting in his own nest. But he also shit in our nests, and that was the crime that history will burn on his memory like a brand. By disgracing and degrading the Presidency of the United States, by fleeing the White House like a diseased cur, Richard Nixon broke the heart of the American Dream."

    Brandon and the revisionists!
    Too damn funny !

    We should wish no ill will towards Citizen Keith.
    He's 100% entertainment value.

    I hope NBC pays him 4 million. Then he can buy a bigger wood-chipper to destroy this once-proud news organization.

    EE...

    I want no harm to come to Keith Olbermann.....

    He is the true persona of all that is wrong in the world.

    This is the first time a liberal is true to his world-view on national TV, and is a a silly, emotional and pathetic demagogue at the same time!

    Phil Donahue was too wishy-washy. Good replacement, MSNBC.....perhaps he is worth 4 mil.

    I gotta change my vote!

    It is always good to have a real source, like Olbermann, with whom I would disagree with 99.5% of the time.

    If you guys really want to see a breakdown I've got the mother of all breakdowns! As far as I can see Keith is composing himself quite well considering MR.Bush wants to send 20K plus troops up for ritual sacrifice down in the devils den that he built in Iraq. But anyways here is the MOTHER of all BREAKDOWNS! Get out your tissue paper cause you'll be laughing so hard you WILL be tearing up!www.youtube.com/results?search_type=related&search_query=George%20Bush%20Jeb%

    MikeW:

    Did you think posting your same very long post 4 times was going to quadruple it's effect?

    I have a little perspective on your point. I was in the military during Vietnam, and I STRONGLY believed in that cause at that time. I defended that war every bit as hard as Cee is defending this one right now. I continued to defend the Vietnam War for years after it ended. Trouble is, I was wrong!

    By the luck of the draw, I never was sent to Vietnam, but if I had, I would have still believed very strongly in the 'cause'. I was young, and I was very naive! At the time, I would have told you that my dying for that cause would be a noble thing. Trouble is, I would have been wrong!

    Don't try to tell me that many of these soldiers who now believe, or believed strongly in the cause now are always going to feel that way....IF they live!

    I too feel a great debt of gratitude to these men's sacrifice. They did all they were asked to do, and more, for their country! It was never their call to make policy, however incompetent the leadership that made that policy was. It WAS OUR collective call as Americans to choose competent leadership, and that is where we failed them!

    Yes, I CAN make a personal judgement about wasted lives!

    mike at 3:02

    I have no idea how it is going to turn out either. For all i know we might keep throwing lives and money at the situation for years only to see the government fall apart and Shite militias grow so large they force us to abandon Iraq entirely. Its possible. But at least is only a possibility, 1 out of a million other different ways things could go.

    But i also know that we leave, there are virtually no possibilities. No chance. It will either be a war that rages for years and turns the country into an uninhabited wasteland like Afganistan. Or some Cleric and his militia will capture enough power and kill enough people to take over Iraq, and it will basically be bact to what it was for years, only now with a Shite Theocracy instead of a Sunni Dictatorship.

    Mike, this is an honest question and i mean no hostility, but dont you think we at least owe them the opportunity? Do you really think we can just abandon them? I mean, sure, they have not done as well as we would like, but christ, look at the situation. Bombs and murder everyday. I thik they deserve a little slack.

    "but the strategy behind the Iraq attack was THEORETICALLY a valid one ... The strategy was honorable but difficult."

    . . . . .

    nonsense.
    the foolish/unfeasible neocon wetdream of forcibly democratizing iraq
    was opposed by all but a select few in washington for nearly two decades.
    it was a lousy idea from start to finish,
    in spite of its botched implementation by the bush administration.


    "During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies" at arms length, preventing them from getting the U.S. into serious trouble by selling their long-derided idea of invading and occupying Iraq to forcibly install a Middle East democracy."

    EE, if I read response correctly, you and I are in perfect agreement that the world is not a static place. Powerbases, alliances and national interests change.

    That was why your response that we took care of that in Gulf War One struck me as glib. I have never heard that idea advanced. Nor does does it make sense.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    It is always good to have a real source, like Olbermann, with whom I would disagree with 99.5% of the time.

    Thank's for the % Cee.
    This confirms that you are WRONG 99.5% of the time.
    I "misunderestimated" you...as your favorite president would say.
    I only thought you were 95% full of shit.
    Thanks for clarifying !

    Hawkeye:

    Yes, that is the really tough question, and that is clearly why no almost one in Congress really wants to stick their neck out right now.

    Truth is, we just don't know if our continued presence is going to help or hurt. Many of us fear that 'abandoning' Iraq now will be immoral, and that IS a noble point of view.

    On the other side of the coin, what if we can't stop the deterioration? What if our presence is only making it worse?

    Will we be able we hold our head up and honestly say that sacrificing the additional lives was worth it....if it turns out badly anyway? Can we make that case to the families left behind?

    No the decision is not an easy one, but I know what decision I would make!

    Mike...

    I think the other Mike was a first time poster who encountered the ever presenting http: error and thought his post was lost....and refreshed....give him a break.....

    And please consider his advice.....I hope Sir Loin of Milquetoast reads it as well and stops with the self-rightous misuse of the troops as rhetorical weapon.

    "Yes, I CAN make a personal judgement about wasted lives!" And the liberals always claim the right is only judgemental!

    Hawkeye and Mike Wat, well said. You both speak for me.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Did anyone else out there watch PBS's Frontline last night?
    The Dark Side was shown.
    It clearly shows timelines and details of how Cheney has manipulated this administration from day 1 into invading Iraq.
    It was a little like watching the film "Groundhog Day" in the sense that one had to live the last 6 years all over again.
    Scary stuff, but well worth watching.
    We still have this sack of sh*t sitting in the Senate, ready to twist arms or cast deciding votes on every issue.
    Watch closely when he's called to testify in the Scooter case. He'll most likely use executive privilege to get around being sworn in, but will still lie his ass off.
    At one point in this documentrary, he is sitting in the background, as usual, as Bush does the talking. When Bush mentions the aluminum tubes fiasco, Cheney blushes from his fat neck all the way up his bald head. He knew what he was doing.
    Now he must be made accountable.
    Both of them do.
    Impeach now.

    Just came across this site.
    Lots of different opinions.Here's mine:
    There can be only personal reasons for the surge of troops in Iraq - saving George from further embarrassment. People in the know believe his plan won't work, but he will continue to send troops to the sacrificial hill of Iraq to demonstrate that he is trying.
    The miserable failure cannot disguise that he is a miserable failure, however, and the thought of a presidential funeral for him one day makes me sick. He should go down in ignominy, obscurity, exile and in prison!

    To think there are still people defending this madman does not give me much confidence in the future of our country.

    Oh, Keith Olbermann speaks for me, and many other Americans too.
    Thank God there is a voice of reason on the MSM these days.

    Ensign Expendable,
    Cooper and Smith were in the thick of things during the Katrina debacle. Olbermann is sitting a nice studio and goes home to his girl in his Central Park South studio. He's never visited Iraq or visit returning troops.
    He's just has anger problems and needs help. That being said he was hysterical to watch! LOL!

    Marie,
    This isn't a Bush site. This is an Olbermann site. Last night Olbermann almost had a nervous breakdown. It was the best reality show ever. A person almoist menatlly cracking! It was classic and one of TV's funniest moments!


    MUSLIM CONGRESSMAN TO BE SWORN IN USING THOMAS JEFFERSON'S KORAN

    -- White House Declares Thomas Jefferson "Terrorist Organization", Flip-Flopper, Democrat --

    WASHINGTON -- Representative-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values. Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an all-American provenance. When sworn into office, the new Minnesota congressman will hold a copy of the Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson.


    Impeach a man on a blush? You are crazier than you sound!

    Mike at 3:30

    "On the other side of the coin, what if we can't stop the deterioration? What if our presence is only making it worse?

    If we can't stop the deterioration, then we can't stop it. Simple as that. But seeing as we CAUSED that deteroriation, it seems to me that we should exhaust every effort to stop it until we have nothing left. If we fail, then we fail. But at least we will have tried to do the right thing.
    In my opinion (for what thats worth), We are no where near having had sacraficed too much. The 3,002 lives we have lost cannot be marginalized, but the loss of non-civilian, expertly trained, volunteer soldiers does not equate to the massive civilian loss of life experienced either in Iraq now, under Saddam's rule, and especialy if we pull out.

    As for our presence making it worse, i recognize that some of the insurgency and Al Queda are there to get Americans. But these indiscriminate bombings in town squares and the finding of dozens of murdered bodies poured out on the streets everyday in Baghdad tells me that American soldiers, while still dying at high rates, are not even the PRIMARY targets anymore. These militias and insurgent groups have turned on eachother, it it seems clear that any decrease in violence associated with American withdrawel would be far outwieghed by the increase in sectarian violence.
    How long would it take before one of these militias (some of which are tens of thousands strong that and could rival or even best the iraqi army) marched into the Green Zone. That government would not last a day without American support.

    Thank's for the % Cee.
    This confirms that you are WRONG 99.5% of the time.
    I "misunderestimated" you...as your favorite president would say.
    I only thought you were 95% full of shit.
    Thanks for clarifying !
    =================================================
    Wait, so Bob, you're saying that Olbermann is right 100% of the time????

    ANY idiot ought to know that's not true, that's not even possible. Which goes to prove that either 1. you lack in basic intelligence, 2. you are a victim of your own pride/hubris and/or 3. you are in fact Keith Olbermann. Which of course would mean that 1 and 2 also apply.

    "A person almoist menatlly cracking! It was classic and one of TV's funniest moments!"

    Stop. Just stop. You are not funny. THIS SUBJECT is not funny.

    My mother had a nervous breakdown. It nearly cost her her job and her marriage. It is not something to make light of, you pompous ass.

    Stop. Just stop. You are not funny. THIS SUBJECT is not funny.

    My mother had a nervous breakdown. It nearly cost her her job and her marriage. It is not something to make light of, you pompous ass.
    ===================================================
    EE and I can agree on something. That isn't funny RW and you really should stop.

    I think your name is not funny and offensive.

    Ensign Expendable,
    Sorry about you Mom. It's not funny you're right. But with Olbermann it is. He insults and mocks others. He act holier than thou. So it was funny to see hime almost breaking down. He acts like he's perfect and to see his weaknesses was great. If Olbermann had a complete breakdown had to get help there would be no pitty from me.
    But last was funny. I'm gonna watch it again for a great laugh.
    Here at work there are people eho are anti-Iraq war. But they agree with me. They wish there vwas a better spokesman. Not a stressed out menatlly unstable clutz who veins are about to burst. The fact is the site is call Olbermann watch. It's here because of Olbermann's antics.
    Start your own site call Bush watch. Hell I'll even post there attacking Bush too!
    My focus here is on Olbermann. He's crazy and I hope he gets professional help. He needs it.

    Actually there is one thing I want to clarify Red Wolf. The breakdown would be funny if it was VERY obviously an act. Pretend moral outrage is rather funny.

    However, whatever else I might say about keith (only being able to watch him on You Tube mostly) I will say that I doubt his outrage fake.

    I think your name is not funny and offensive.
    ===================================================
    Why? Did you die in the line of duty for captain kirk?

    lol sorry, but the first time I saw EE's name, I thought it really was supposed to be a jab/homage to the old Star Trek series. If it is, there's at least something he/she and I can agree on. =D

    Challenger Grim,
    I think he's just mad at the world. He attacks and demans people. He has anger problems. I really don't think he's faking it. It's just funny to watch him breaking down on TV. I mean if you have a point to make, keep your composure.
    He has issues, that's why he used to hide under his desk and stay in his bathtub. It was just great tv. You don't see a nervous breakdown too often.

    "lol sorry, but the first time I saw EE's name, I thought it really was supposed to be a jab/homage to the old Star Trek series."

    It's an homage. And it's better than Ensign Cannonfodder or Ensign Insignificant, don't ya think?

    New segemet on Countdown tonight:
    "The Worst Breakdown in the World!"

    One more Special Comment and he'll end up in Bellvue wrapped in a blanket claiming he's Napoleon!

    Everyone is still talking about BREAKDOWNS... Has anyone taken the time to see a REAL BREAKDOWN? Take a look at this www.youtube.com/results?search_type=related&search_query=George%20Bush%20Jeb%
    As far as I can tell ole Poppy seems pretty upset about the Bush empire toppling like a house of cards ecspecially after Jebs revelation of "having no future in politics"
    Gee I wonder why Jeb would say such a thing...maybe because he can actually see what is going on and summise that Mr.G.W. Bush has fu**ed up so royaly that it won't be till one of the Bush twins have a illegitament son w/ a Saudi sheik that they will be able to buy themselves on to a school board somewhere...hehe

    Red Wolf:

    Have you noticed that you are being criticized for your many insensitive remarks by BOTH the pro - KO crowd AND the anti - Olbermann crowd?

    Don't you think it might be time for you to take a look at yourself, and what you are saying?

    Alex F. J,
    This is Olbermann watch not Bush watch. Can't you get it? Start a Bush watch site. That said Bush breaking down is different. He doesn't insult people personally and it was out of sadness. Olber is a hateful and angry man.Therefore if he breaksdown it's only fitting!

    "It's an homage. And it's better than Ensign Cannonfodder or Ensign Insignificant, don't ya think?"

    Personally, i have no problem with your handle.

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    Everyone is still talking about BREAKDOWNS... Has anyone taken the time to see a REAL BREAKDOWN? Take a look at this www.youtube.com/results?search_type=related&search_query=George%20Bush%20Jeb%
    As far as I can tell ole Poppy seems pretty upset about the Bush empire toppling like a house of cards ecspecially after Jebs revelation of `having no future in politics`
    Gee I wonder why Jeb would say such a thing...maybe because he can actually see what is going on and summise that Mr.G.W. Bush has fu**ed up so royaly that it won`t be till one of the Bush twins have a illegitament son w/ a Saudi sheik that they will be able to buy themselves on to a school board somewhere...hehe

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! POST OF THE DAY Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    "lol sorry, but the first time I saw EE's name, I thought it really was supposed to be a jab/homage to the old Star Trek series."

    It's an homage. And it's better than Ensign Cannonfodder or Ensign Insignificant, don't ya think?
    =================================================
    ROTFL yes in deed EE. And I will say, calling yourself "red shirt" would probably only get you confused with the other Red ____ people on this site.

    Good to see left and right can agree on something.
    Star Trek rules. =D (though I have to ask, has anyone gone back and rewatched the dominion war segment of DS9 nowadays?)

    I think there is a lot of truth in political cartoons. Sometimes they even can change the course of history , as in the case of
    Thomas Nast. His biting wit was generally focused on political corruption, and was instrumental in the downfall of Boss Tweed. It was said his caricature of Boss Tweed was used by the officials of Vigo, Spain when Tweed fled justice there. They were able to arrest Tweed using one of Nast's cartoons. In general he was well known in his time for his political cartoons supporting American Indians, Chinese Americans and advocating abolition of slavery.
    Obviously , he was a liberal.
    I'm sure if this was 1872, Cee would say that Boss Tweed was the most honorable man he had ever known and that Nast was a coward and a secular humanist.
    Anyway, there was an excellent political cartoon in my local newspaper today.
    2006, represented by a wise old man was talking to 2007, represented by an impressionable young boy.
    The dialogue went like this :
    2007: OK. What's in store for me ?
    2006:A lot of keen analytical deductive reasoning!
    For example: soccer is football. God is still a Republican. Hillary is presidential material.
    Evolution is scientific hearsay. A paper trail for E-voting isn't needed.
    Global warming is a myth.The US can win a magnificent victory in Iraq.
    2007: I can't do this !
    2006: You'll get used to it !

    Such is the state of our world !

    It's always heartening to see the clear-sighted eloquence of "lefties" in contrast to the bumbling rhetoric of mind-numb "righties".

    A toast to having a brain. May our president find his someday.

    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!!

    Comparing Olbermann and Thomas Nast is a strecth. Nast fought for justice. Olbermann is a hack on the verge of a nervous breakdown!. Olbermann isn't a humanists. He attacks and insults. He could care less about the troops or you and I!

    It's always heartening to see the clear-sighted eloquence of "lefties" in contrast to the bumbling rhetoric of mind-numb "righties".

    A toast to having a brain. May our president find his someday.

    ((((((Clinking glasses))))))

    Clinking glass,
    That will be Olbermann falling on live TV after having a nervous breakdown

    "Comparing Olbermann and Thomas Nast is a strecth. Nast fought for justice. Olbermann is a hack on the verge of a nervous breakdown!."

    Red Wolf, Show me where I compared Thomas Nast to Keith Olbermann.

    I used to teach mentally retarded children. Even amoung themselves they had their own pecking order where they would diss the slower ones as "flicked".( two syllables )

    Red Wolf, you is "flicked " !

    "I'm sure if this was 1872, Cee would say that Boss Tweed was the most honorable man he had ever known and that Nast was a coward and a secular humanist."

    This is olbermann watch. Instead of defending Olbermann you guys attack Bush. Start Bush watch. Stick to Keith " Nervous Breakdown" Olbermann!

    Red Wolf continues to be "flicked"

    "This is olbermann watch. Instead of defending Olbermann you guys attack Bush. Start Bush watch. Stick to Keith " Nervous Breakdown" Olbermann!

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 3, 2007 05:18 PM"

    Yea you guys stick to attacking one man who by all accounts from the "I'm here to join a gang" crowd, is an insignificant failure. I mean after all KO didn't succeed at getting the republicans booted out of office last November.

    sssllloop! (head pops out of ass) Huh? Who controls Congress?


    Show me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of shit!

    A radio right wing talk-show entertainer whose earlier statements that he "may" have to assassinate members of Congress if the wrong people were elected Nov. 7 now has set a timetable for those killings.

    In a statement on his website, Hal Turner noted that a newspaper has reported that a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens is expected to be enacted in January, when the Democratic Party takes control of the U.S. Senate and House.

    "ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO INTRODUCES, CO-SPONSORS OR VOTES IN FAVOR OF ANY SUCH AMNESTY WILL BE DECLARED A DOMESTIC ENEMY AND WILL BE CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR ASSASSINATION," Turner posted on his website.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Wed Jan 3, 5:32 AM ET

    VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in "mass killing" late in 2007.


    "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."


    WELCOME TO THE RIGHT WING INSANE ASYLUM.

    RED WOLF FITS RIGHT IN !

    Dude you can't come in here and hate on Bush. Dude you is so dumb. Oblerannm alwost had a hart attak. Uhh... I drank to much beers. Olb is not a good news dude. Respect hte flag. Stay off nukes. Oreelly for prez!


    `3000+ GIs Died For Nothing ... Actually, Less Than Nothing ... To Make America LESS Safe` at January 3, 2007 04:41 PM


    * * * * *


    au contraire mon ami, our eventual 3-5K squandered GIs will not have died in vain.


    * * * * *


    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.


    Aren't the Neocons the bad guys from Transformers?

    Global warming is a myth.
    ==================================================
    Oh yay! I was hoping that Bob would bring up global warming. Check out some of this info I found earlier today:

    From the New York Times:
    “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age” - 9/18/1924
    “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776;
    Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” - 3/27/1933
    “Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable” - 5/21/1975
    “Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming” - 12/27/2005

    From Time Magazine
    “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age.” - 9/10/1923
    “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” - 1/2/1939
    “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” - 6/24/1974
    “[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming
    is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible. “ - 4/9/2001

    Let's look at past predictions shall we?
    "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age" -New York Times 10/7/1912

    "The possibility of another Ice Age already having started… is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak." -Los Angeles Times 6/28/1923

    "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out
    Canada." -Chicago Tribune 8/9/1923

    "We must be just teetering on an ice age which some relatively mild geologic action would be sufficient to start going." -The Atlantic Dec, 1932

    "The Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two." -New York Times 2/20/1969

    "There is very important climatic change going on right now… It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving." -Fortune Magazine Feb. 1974

    "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the “very extraordinary period of warmth” that preceded it.
    ...
    The temperature has already fallen back
    some 0.6 degrees, and shows no sign of
    reversal." -Science News 3/1/1975

    "But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetimes." -Internation Wildlife July-Aug 1975

    What is the point? Simply that for almost a hundred years now the press have been warning us about the globe cooling, then warming, then cooling again only to be warning about warming AGAIN.

    So tell me Bob, if all these folks were wrong 3 out of the last 4 times, why in the world should I believe them this fourth time? What makes this time so different?

    So, Pat Robertson strikes again!

    "Keith had better be careful. Those performance enhancing drugs he's rumored to take can cause stokes, heart attacks, etc. Got to keep up with the young missy you know. And Keith looks like he's never said no to an all-you can eat buffet line either. I don't think he's in the best of shape. It would be rather amusing to see him keel over dead in the middle of one of his rants. I guess then he could be a martyr to the cause huh? None of his small-brained fans seems to have figured out that this whole Special Comment crap is so he can position himself very carefull re his salary negotions. If the network balks or refuses to resign him, he can claim he was a "political victim" of sorts. He's such a predictable bastard.

    Posted by: Keith's a Fraud at January 3, 2007 03:01 PM"

    Who in their right mind would want to identify with this kind of a person? This is 6th grade playground ad-hom sophomoric name calling about a person who makes zero decisions on how our nation is ran.

    I imagine this person thinks this kind of name calling holds significance simply because he thinks KO is more significant than the people who run this nation. This is the only way I can make sense of this kind of crap. The rest of you KO haters are identical in your motivations. You ignore the elephant in the room and stand on chairs over the mouse beneath your feet.

    You really have got to stop putting KO on such a pedestal, he ain't that significant!

    Show me home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you a house full of shit!

    Pat Robertson can strike as many times as he likes. The only thig that is imparitive is that he be accurate. Remember when Pat Robertson stated that there would be like a tsunami striking America... then the exactg opposite had happened --- a heat wave. With that logic to guide us, there will probably be peace in the Sudan (the opposite of Pat Robertson's latest message).

    So tell me Bob, if all these folks were wrong 3 out of the last 4 times, why in the world should I believe them this fourth time? What makes this time so different?

    Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 3, 2007 05:40 PM

    So, Pat Robertson strikes again!

    Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2007 05:43 PM

    So then the science of 80 years ago is more reliable than it is today? Is that like saying the religion of 80 years ago is more reliable today?

    When was the last time you looked up the definition of science?

    Show me home...

    So tell me Bob, if all these folks were wrong 3 out of the last 4 times, why in the world should I believe them this fourth time? What makes this time so different?

    Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 3, 2007 05:40 PM

    So, Pat Robertson strikes again!

    Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2007 05:43 PM

    So then the science of 80 years ago is more reliable than it is today? Is that like saying the religion of 80 years ago is more reliable today?

    When was the last time you looked up the definition of science?

    Show me home...

    God and science can walk hand-in-hand, though...

    Red Wolf, we understand that you deperately want to rant about Olbermann, and his so called "nervous breakdowns", but if conversations on this board were limited to that, instead of WHAT HE IS ACTUALLY COMMENTING ABOUT, then you and just a few others who are obsessed with a TV personality would pretty much have this board to yourselves!

    That's true, Mike. Even you realize it is impossible to defend the hypocrisy and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann.

    ***************************************************************************************************************************************

    Bush: A National Disaster, An International Disgrace

    Add to that a much-deserved laughing-stock as well:
    Saturday Night Live, Colbert Report, Daily Show, Leno, Letterman, Conan O`Brian , Craig Ferguson, you-name-it.

    BushyWushy has already been well ensconced in the public record as a tragic, lying, joke of a brain dead loser.
    (along with his congregation of corrupt/dumbshit supporters, of course)

    An entire Onion devoted to all things BushCO! WayTooFunny.
    http://www.theonion.com/content/

    Let the Bush historical legacy begin!

    ***************************************************************************************************************************************

    Walt Disney... Edwin Hubble... Bill Clinton... yeah --- geniouses do not have mental breakdowns every once in a while.

    So then the science of 80 years ago is more reliable than it is today? Is that like saying the religion of 80 years ago is more reliable today?

    When was the last time you looked up the definition of science?
    ==================================================
    When did you? So in about a decade when we're being warned about the next ice age, will that be the excuse then?

    Do you even know about the boy that cried wolf? I mean, really, sience improves in 80 years and the best that comes of it is... repeating what came before that was then reversed that is now back to what they said that second time...

    Anyone else noticing how so many on the left treat global warming the way so many on the right treat religion? Of course, when a religion or faith reverses/contradicts itself, people like Bob enjoy harping all over that in order to prove that it's false.

    But of course, it's completely a different thing when it's THEIR religion being contradicted/reversed isn't it?

    Ice Age? Ice-ages need ice bergs. By then... there would be no more ice bergs to float into bays ...

    Also, science can not be a religion, since there is no universal book for science.

    "Red Wolf, we understand that you desperately want to rant about Olbermann, and his so called "nervous breakdowns", but if conversations on this board were limited to that, instead of WHAT HE IS ACTUALLY COMMENTING ABOUT, then you and just a few others who are obsessed with a TV personality would pretty much have this board to yourselves!

    Posted by: Mike at January 3, 2007 05:54 PM"

    Redwolwfin's repetitative projection of KO having a nervous breakdown is nothing more than him thinking this is a crack in the wall. "I smell fear" is what he trying to say. But it is a creation of his and the other wanks who like to gang bang ad-hom style. The only crack that is wide enough to drive a truck through is the one that happened last Nov 7th.

    Show me a home...

    "the hypocrisy and lies of the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann."

    blah, blah, blah.
    you need a new schtick, JohnnyHoller.
    you just keep playin' that same old, piece-of-shit-for-brains violin
    while Iraq burns our national interests to the ground.

    One more thing. Somebody cited Hal Turner as a "radio talk show host". Nope... Hal Turner is on the interet --- ONLY !!! no radio what so ever !

    One more thing. Somebody cited Hal Turner as a "radio talk show host". Nope... Hal Turner is on the interet --- ONLY !!! no radio what so ever !

    Ice Age? Ice-ages need ice bergs. By then... there would be no more ice bergs to float into bays ...
    ===================================================
    Ummm... not sure what your point was sir, but yeah, ice bergs and glaciers are used both times, their advancement/receding being used to justify whatever the Climate Doom of the Month (CDM) is.

    The boston daily globe in 1923 talked about how "...the advance of glaciers in the last 70 years would indicate." [the next ice age]

    Or what about Ponte who, in his book "The Cooling" warned, "The rapid advance of some glaciers has treatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China and the Soviet Union."

    I feel so sorry for those glaciers. Whether they come or go... we're doomed either way. Maybe we should just nuke all the chuncks of ice eh?

    "When was the last time you looked up the definition of science?
    ==================================================
    When did you? So in about a decade when we're being warned about the next ice age, will that be the excuse then?

    Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 3, 2007 05:59 PM"

    You are such a dim wit. Listen you idiotic fool. More than a decade ago global warming was being predicted. The following ten years marked the hottest and driest years in this nation's recorded history. The severity of hurricanes were exactly the same, the most severe ever recorded in any ten year period.

    Your use of failed predictions from the past as a way to predict the future of scientific predictions is not scientific. You are too f---ing stupid to understand this. Simply put, science is an evolving method of making and testing predictions - the more it evolves the more accurate it gets.

    Now if you are going to sit here and tell this audience of computer users that science has not evolved since the 1930's then what in the hell are you posting to and reading this screen with? A crystal ball?

    You are a typical rightwing religo-nut case with zero understanding of science!

    Show me a home...

    You know... I must say... Al Gore seems like a more warranted professor on this subjest. I should say nothing right now.

    So then the science of 80 years ago is more reliable than it is today? Is that like saying the religion of 80 years ago is more reliable today?
    ================================================
    One other thing I forgot to point out. In the 20s we're warned about cooling.

    In the 50-60s we're warned about warming. Undoubtedly the science then was better than it was 30 years ago right?

    Then come the 70s when once again, we're on the verge of a new ice age. But the science is better than it was 10-20 years ago, no?

    Then today, we're being told of impending doom by warming though of course, the science must still be better right?

    And no one else seems to notice this is too much like a psychic who keeps crying after too many failed predictions: "No, i'll get it right this time, I promise."

    Again, my problem with this human-caused warming is the same that scientists have with creationism: there seems to be no way to prove it false. (hey look, something else this seems to have in common with religion)

    Also, science can not be a religion, since there is no universal book for science.

    Posted by: Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker] in Technicolor at January 3, 2007 06:04 PM

    Exactly, science is a method for acquiring knowledge it is not a belief system. All beliefs have a foundation based in reason, it just so happens that science is the best basis for acquiring the reason used to formulate beliefs.


    Show me a home...

    Is there a God behinnd science If there is, then science is a religion. Science can not even be called a belief. Science, the closest that it can come to, is a theory.

    The Creationist Grim wrote:

    "In the 50-60s we're warned about warming. Undoubtedly the science then was better than it was 30 years ago right?

    Then come the 70s when once again, we're on the verge of a new ice age. But the science is better than it was 10-20 years ago, no?

    Then today, we're being told of impending doom by warming though of course, the science must still be better right?Posted by: Challenger Grim at January 3, 2007 06:17 PM"

    One more time fool:

    More than a decade ago global warming was being predicted. The following ten years marked the hottest and driest years in this nation's recorded history. The severity of hurricanes were exactly the same, the most severe ever recorded in any ten year period.

    Your use of failed predictions from the past as a way to predict the future of scientific predictions is not scientific. You are too f---ing stupid to understand this. Simply put, science is an evolving method of making and testing predictions - the more it evolves the more accurate it gets.

    Now if you are going to sit here and tell this audience of computer users that science has not evolved since the 1930's then what in the hell are you posting to and reading this screen with? A crystal ball?

    You are a typical rightwing religo-nut case with zero understanding of science!

    Show me a home...

    Hey Grim,

    You want Creationism try this:

    Man has a biological instinct to do for the self - selfishness.

    Man struggles to control this predisposition to worship himself.

    What does man do? He invents a god in his image and proceeds to worship him.

    I call this idiotic, you call it religion.

    What religions on this earth have the longest history of killing millions of people? Yep you guessed it the religions that worship an image of a man - Christians and Muslims.

    How's that for reason?

    Show me a home...

    Buffalo S***: As for the devil ?

    Buffalo S***: As for the devil ?

    Posted by: Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker] in Technicolor at January 3, 2007 06:34 PM

    Exactly, the devil too is mad in man's image. The idea of god granting the devil the privilege to live for eternity with power of all who dwell in his "kingdom" is purely an anthropomorphic
    model and design.

    Show me a home...

    (you forgot to put that in)

    hey Grim...do you realize how stupid you sound when you try to debate whether global warming is happening ?

    Why is it only the wing nuts are in complete denial over this issue?

    Bob,
    You have to attack me because Olbermann is indefensible.
    I don't claim to be right all the time. Nor do I claim to be holier than thou. Olbermann does. He attacks people personally and claims he's always right. When he's wrong he never apologizes. He's a hypocrite. He does what he deplores his opponents of doing, being divisive. He's also an intellectual coward. he never has dissenting views or debats. He's staright up pussy.
    That's why I don't respect him. Also Bob, I haven't atatcked you persionally. Don't atatck me.

    Mike,
    If you have ever read my posts, I'm not a Bush fan. that eing said, I don't respect Olbermann. He's a hypocrite and doesn't know what he's talking about. The shots he took on McCain is ridiculous. McCain know about Military strategy more than Olbermann does. Olbermann is a sports guy not a military analyst. He's also a paranoid.
    He comes up with conspiracy theories and can't back them up. He's an angry man.

    BS, I agree that science has advanced and will continue to advance. The more we know and develope technology the more we will be able to learn.

    That is why I have two questions that so far no one I've posed it to has given me an answer other than a brush off.

    The computer models that have been used to predict Global Climate Change have never passed a test of their accuracy.

    When applied using the known facts that the program uses the predictions never predict the known outcomes. If we can not account for the known with this science upon what do you base your certainty that they will be accurate this one time in predicting the catatrosphic end of mankind?

    The factors that affect GLOBAL CLIMATE must be enormous. Upon what do you base your conviction that science has not only identified each factor but has also been able to assign each one its proper weight and knows what each will affect in the future?

    The earth has been through many climate changes. At one time the entire earth was encased in ice. There have been far warmer periods in earth's history interspersed with ice ages. In fact, the last ice age, called The Little Chill, just ended in the late 19th, beginning 20th century.

    Would you at least consider that the best course might be to not demonize those who are not already converted and encourage the free and open study to learn more? Would you consider that we should devote resources to studying how to best survive ANY Global Climate Change that might occur? Study and develope flora and fauna that can thrive if the climate drastically changes? Study and try to develope plans to logistically deal with possible food shortages and population migrations that might be thrust upon us.

    Or, do you want to charge full steam ahead without regard to human disruption and suffering while we may not even know what is happening and how much influence man has on the climate.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    The computer models that have been used to predict Global Climate Change have never passed a test of their accuracy.

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

    You mean highly capable meterologic equipment?

    Lame ass... ONE THING I AM SURE- EVERYONE- both Olbyloons and Neocons - are tired of your lame "Show me a home..." Give it a rest and come up with something witty.

    "Who in their right mind would want to identify with this kind of a person? This is 6th grade playground ad-hom sophomoric name calling about a person who makes zero decisions on how our nation is ran. I imagine this person thinks this kind of name calling holds significance simply because he thinks KO is more significant than the people who run this nation. This is the only way I can make sense of this kind of crap. The rest of you KO haters are identical in your motivations. You ignore the elephant in the room and stand on chairs over the mouse beneath your feet. You really have got to stop putting KO on such a pedestal, he ain't that significant!"

    Excuse me dear but you're the one who took all that time to defend him on this message board. Now tell me, what does that say about YOU?

    I agree KO is impotent, in more ways than one. But it's so fun insulting him and even much more fun insulting his idiotic fans.

    No, I don't mean meterological equipment. I asked you several reasonable questions. I must be mistaken and have bought into the myth that only those on the right hold deeply held religious articles of faith.

    Sorry. My mistake. I never question other's faith because by its nature it is not open to logical debate.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "I must be mistaken and have bought into the myth that only those on the right hold deeply held [sic] religious articles of faith"

    =================================================

    I have no problem with other people's beliefs. The only problem is that now-a-days, some people find the need to mix in beliefs with politics. For some odd reason, they go as far to mix in zealism with the climate. Sorry people, pollution from the chemicals that is supposed to be miles and miles below the surface of the planet and blasted out from automobiles and smokestacks can do no good. Even if the ratio is of man-made numbers. Not to mention all of the overpopulation issues. Lots of that, you know.

    Would you at least consider that the best course might be to not demonize those who are not already converted and encourage the free and open study to learn more?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 3, 2007 06:45 PM"
    ================================================================
    Already not converted? That would be a tiny fraction of people who adopt the beliefs of Christian based radio talk shows hosts. The number of people in the field of science in question who are already converted are more than 99%.

    So when you pretend to be open minded about this issue why not try considering that you are closed minded to the most obvious factor - those who matter the most (scientists in this field of study) believe we are in the midst of global warming and they believe this to be man caused.

    Not one of you pretenders would ever dare to list this small fact when you pretend to know what you are talking about.

    Show me a home...

    Buffalo Shit,
    What are you angry about? Is your life bad? Cheer up you only live once!

    he never has dissenting views or debats. He's staright up pussy.
    That's why I don't respect him. Also Bob, I haven't atatcked you persionally. Don't atatck me.

    Hey Red Wolf....First of all, too much egg nog , or too little attention paid in school ?

    2nd...It's real hard to get "dissenting" views of George Bush's policies.Most reasonable people disagree with them....and the Ann Coulter's of the world have all but disappeared from cable talking heads shows....except from Fox News, but that's the name of that tune !
    You're not going to get republican members of Congress to come on national TV and support a war that only 15% of Americans support.It was reported last night that it will be tough to even get 18 out of 49 Congressmen to back Bush on any "surge" proposals.
    Do yourself ( and us) a favor and educate yourself ...just a little before you come to this site.
    Suggestion: since you're an avid viewer of Olbermann's, stay tuned after his show and watch Scarborough Country.He usually has pretty interesting guests and Scarborough is a conservative.
    Usually the conservative National Review is represented and they all are aghast over Bush's policies too.

    It's hard not to "attack " you when you demonstrate such idiocy when you talk about Olbermann.
    Since you appear to be such a "sensitive " bloke, I'll TRY not to attack your idiocy.

    "I agree KO is impotent, in more ways than one. But it's so fun insulting him and even much more fun insulting his idiotic fans.

    Posted by: KAF at January 3, 2007 06:50 PM"

    So which is it? Is KO so "impotent" that he can be ignored like all the other info-tainment talking heads you all choose to ignore or is he this giant you all make him out to be?

    Saying it is "fun" insulting is for children. Grown ups insult for emphasis on a point of contention. You have made your point clear and it is not about "fun" it is about KO and how bad he is. This doesn't jive with "impotent" this all about bringing down a person of significance.

    Those of us who call Bush a bad person don't contradict ourselves by calling him insignificant or impotent at the same time. That's because we are not 6th grade idiots like you!

    Show me a home where the buffalo roam and I'll show you house full of shit!

    being an atheist is not enough. You also have to be a complete dick to everyone who doesn't think like you.

    Honestly, i dont believe in god either, but i hate athiests because they are suprisingly intolerant. THey see themselves as the ultimate intellects because they think there superior minds have allowed them to escape the shackles of religion and all those who still believe are mindless sheep.

    WOW!! You come to the conclusion something is not ture and now you are instantly smarter than everyone else. I agree, when i found out santa wasn't real, my IQ jumped like 60 points.

    "Buffalo Shit,
    What are you angry about? Is your life bad? Cheer up you only live once!

    Posted by: Red Wolf at January 3, 2007 07:09 PM"

    I am not angry friend, I am a zeolot just like you!

    Now I know it is a new year and everyone is going to make an effort to be nice so I will say this nicely:

    Show me a home,
    where the buffalo roam,
    and I'll show you a house
    full of shit!

    He's impotent figuratively and literally. But he's also an insult to journalism which is why it's such fun pointing that out to those of you who think he's the coming (as if he could) of Edward R. Murrow.

    And you want simplistic? Go over to the KO fanboards. There you can read all about their masturbation fantasies about Olbermann. One even posted explicit details about her fantasy concerning sex with KO in a shower. LOL. I don't know what's more pathetic, him or his fans. But my oh my you seem mighty determined to defend poor little impotent Keith. You must not think he's got the goods to defend himself. And you know what? You'd be right about that.

    Crack Head Bob,
    The gloves are off. You're an angry fool. You must be a lonely miserable person. Obviously you're an angry clown. No wonder you like Olbermann. He reminds you of the miserable fool you are. Hey your Islamic buddies in Somolia have been defeated by Ethiopia. Maybe that's why you and Olbermann are upset. Your buddies lost there!

    Yeah, these people are hypocrites. Keith Olbermann is "impotant", "collaborating with terrorists","having a breakdown", "Krazy", vain, "paranoid" (something that Bill O' Reilly is not), and doing bad in the ratings (yet he is vain). Give me a break!

    "being an atheist is not enough. You also have to be a complete dick to everyone who doesn't think like you.

    Honestly, i dont believe in god either, but i hate athiests because they are suprisingly intolerant. THey see themselves as the ultimate intellects because they think there superior minds have allowed them to escape the shackles of religion and all those who still believe are mindless sheep.

    WOW!! You come to the conclusion something is not ture and now you are instantly smarter than everyone else. I agree, when i found out santa wasn't real, my IQ jumped like 60 points.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 3, 2007 07:18 PM"

    Talk about making assumptions about people, tell me IQ jumper where I made the smallest hint of not believing in God? You equate the rejection of worshipping an image of man as being an atheist. This tells us all how narrow your thinking is. Then from this totally false premise you launch a tirade of condemnation on how I evaluate people who are not atheists.

    You just slipped in my shit!

    One thing Grammie and the Grim Challenger won't ever admit.The reason you don't see global warming debates on TV.
    The answer:The anti global warming people( when you can find them) are too embarrassed to come on TV and state their opinions.
    ( for obvious reasons)

    that special comment was shameful. To call American soldiers sacrafice shameful is one of the worst things i have ever heard. I wish his special comments would have someone retort and that person would read hawkeyeguys post at 2:47. That summed it up for me.

    That always sums it up for you.

    "You must not think he's got the goods to defend himself. And you know what? You'd be right about that.

    Posted by: Keith's a Fraud at January 3, 2007 07:20 PM"


    Defend himself against what? You? Like you are some kind of an adversary? You are really starting to be entertaining now. But the shower stuff, that takes the cake. Who in the hell would bring such things up? Who was it that said, "I think he duth protest too much"?

    What's that you're standing in? Ewww...!

    You equate the rejection of worshipping an image of man as being an atheist. This tells us all how narrow your thinking is.
    =================================================

    My thinking is narrow, huh? Your right, Atheists dont believe people who dont think like them are dumber. They just believe their thinking is "narrower". I will correct it in the future.

    Keith Olbermann found his happy place. Some peopl just want to destroy it.

    Buffalo Shit,
    What are you mad about. Is your life bad?

    There is no longer a debate on global warming or what is causing it( except with the wing nuts at this site)
    The question is what we're going to do about it, especially since we have a president who is more concerned with angering Big Oil than being concerned about the health of planet earth.

    Many countries have already adopted "green "policies and started to reduce co2 emissions.
    This can actually be a money making proposition and not a drain on the economy as some have projected.

    As usual, the USA, thanks to the Republicans, is falling behind the rest of the world in instituting these new "green" policies.

    "You equate the rejection of worshipping an image of man as being an atheist. This tells us all how narrow your thinking is.
    =================================================

    My thinking is narrow, huh? Your right, Atheists dont believe people who dont think like them are dumber. They just believe their thinking is "narrower". I will correct it in the future.
    Posted by: Anonymous at January 3, 2007 07:33 PM"

    So I will take it that you are conceding that you have lost this one by declining to indicate when and where I claimed to be an atheist or even hinted at it. Then you reiterate the false claim that I have indicated I was an atheist.

    Now you are laying in my shit. Let me know when you need a hand up.

    Show me a home...

    Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker],
    Olbermann is destroying himself. His blood was his face, he was shaking and was on the verge of tears. He almost broke down. It was hysterical TV!

    "As usual, the USA, thanks to the Republicans, is falling behind the rest of the world in instituting these new "green" policies.

    Posted by: Bob at January 3, 2007 07:37 PM"

    That is for a simple reason. In the past before the Green Revolution was as popular the evangelicals pooh-poohed environmentalism as foolish arguing that the bible says God intends to destroy the earth any ways.

    Today anything like evolution or global warming is challenged by them simply because they are still back in the times of the Scopes Trial in their mentality.

    The idea of having Science being considered above a book written with just the mere claim that God guided their writing, is not acceptable to them.

    Mere claims are fragile things so off to court they go with the creationism crap. This and environmentalism is all about denying the complexity of God's work.

    As I have always said, Evolution glorifies the complexity of God's work, Creationism reduces it to a single stroke of the artists brush.

    Now show me that home...

    "Olbermann Watch [Us Bicker],
    Olbermann is destroying himself. His blood was his face, he was shaking and was on the verge of tears. He almost broke down. It was hysterical TV!


    Posted by: Red Wold at January 3, 2007 07:38 PM"

    Such infatuation Red Wold, are sure you aren't looking too closely at his face and his feelings?

    You said his blood was in his face. He was blushing? Were you?

    Show it to me!

    "Today anything like evolution or global warming is challenged by them simply because they are still back in the times of the Scopes Trial in their mentality."

    You seem to be laying the blame for global warming on Christians. Is this just American Christians or Christians around the world??

    ""Today anything like evolution or global warming is challenged by them simply because they are still back in the times of the Scopes Trial in their mentality."

    You seem to be laying the blame for global warming on Christians. Is this just American Christians or Christians around the world??

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 3, 2007 07:54 PM"

    Are you on some kind of mind altering drug? Tell me where I equated macro carbon emissions with Christianity? Your feeble mind see the word Christian in a discussion and you equate that with "blaming" Christians?

    This is delusional at best.

    What is that your standing in?

    Interesting that you self-righteous, right wing idealogues get more and more shrill the less and less of you there are. When Bush got elected, the only good thing I could say about it was that if we're lucky he will be so bad that the backlash against the extreme right be so strong and deep that we'll never see their ugly heads and greedy souls again... Keep up the good work.. the more peeple you alienate... the better off we all are.

    Interesting that you self-righteous, right wing idealogues get more and more shrill the less and less of you there are. When Bush got elected, the only good thing I could say about it was that if we're lucky he will be so bad that the backlash against the extreme right be so strong and deep that we'll never see their ugly heads and greedy souls again... Keep up the good work.. the more peeple you alienate... the better off we all are.

    "Keep up the good work.. the more peeple you alienate... the better off we all are.

    Posted by: wovoka at January 3, 2007 08:03 PM"

    Imagine them all standing in muddy field up to their ankles in buffalo shit.

    This where they roam.

    don't be so quick to let "christians" off the hook... Me own sainted mother,(god rest her soul), was so sure that the rapture was coming so soon that it didn't matter what happened here on earth. To say nothing of the rising axis of evil: the christian right/ capitalism and "democracy"... i.e the god given right to unbridled self determination and deliberate ignorance.

    more like up to their ankles in blood and bleached bones...

    more like up to their ankles in blood and bleached bones...

    As usual, the USA, thanks to the Republicans, is falling behind the rest of the world in instituting these new "green" policies.

    Posted by: Bob at January 3, 2007 07:37 PM"

    That is for a simple reason. In the past before the Green Revolution was as popular the evangelicals pooh-poohed environmentalism as foolish arguing that the bible says God intends to destroy the earth any ways.

    Why do you bring up Christians in the global warming debate. Maybe it is not to blame Christians for global warming. Maybe it is just to mock Christians and their belief in the bible. Why not mock Jews and Muslims also?


    more like up to their ankles in blood and bleached bones...

    "...and deliberate ignorance.

    Posted by: wovova at January 3, 2007 08:10 PM"

    You have touched a significant point here.

    Once in an American history class I asked the teacher how could the people of the south love their children and then go out and enslave a whole race of people?

    The teacher said that when a large number of people are all participating in an evil they abandon their own personal identity and adopt the group identity.

    This is the nerve that people like Carl Rove touch upon when they are seeking to lead large numbers of people down a path of deliberate ignorance. Define an evil as necessary for the group and then get the individual to embrace or be rejected by said group.

    This is what right-wingers are all about. Thinking for themselves is too risky when they are living in fear of not having a group to fit into.

    they roam and wander

    Muslims are peace loving people. They've done nothing to harm the enviornment.

    the christians have nothing to worry about..go ahead and destroy the planet... God told Pat Robinson the end will soon be upon us..

    "Why do you bring up Christians in the global warming debate. Maybe it is not to blame Christians for global warming. Maybe it is just to mock Christians and their belief in the bible. Why not mock Jews and Muslims also?

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 3, 2007 08:14 PM"

    Again you ignore the content of my posts. I clearly defined Muslims as equals to Christians for they share the history of death and destruction as well as terrorism that Christianity does. They both, as I have pointed out, worship an image of a man.

    Jews do not prostilitize and they do not worship an image of a man.

    Buddha said, "I am not a god, if you worship me you only worship yourself."

    What more be said?

    Show it to me!

    Sadly, the posting of sexual fantasies about Olbermann runs rampant on his "fan" boards, one in particular. The still-single in their 40/50's women (read: ass-ugly) who inhabit those boards are apparently too mentally ill to hold down a day job given their 24/7 presence on such sites. They hang on Keith's every word. They boast of watching Countdown on it's original air and in its repeat at midnight. They tape every show and then watch it again the next day while waiting for the next show to air. They tape and transcribe the radio show religiously. They speak glowingly of their Keith-library.

    They seem to labor under the delusion he actually seem to believe he believes the bullshit (your favorite word) he spouts and that even more amusingly, he actually cares about them.

    They were just positively grief-stricken when he confirmed he was dating a teenager. Seems they thought Keith was waiting just for them so they could take each other's mutual virginity.

    Yes, they think he's a God among men. And what could be more foolish than that? You better not let them hear you say you think he's not significant. They think he's PERFECT and will seek out and destroy anyone who dares suggest he might be a wee bit human.

    They spend their free time (and that's all these poor pathetic creatures have really) dreaming up cologne names for him, him being such a big "celeb" and all, they think he's a virtual goldmine of possible endorsement deals.

    They thought he needed to be on the cover of GQ. They want him to launch his own clothing line because they think he's so "well-dressed", etc. They think he's next in line to host the CBS Evening News. Or run for President.

    In their case, the word "fanatical" certainly applies. Lunactic is probably too generous a word to describe them. And you speak to me about bullshit? You have NO idea. Or maybe you do. Yeah, you probably do. Bullshitting is what Olbermann does best. And his poor, fanatical, deluded, none-too-bright fans lick it up like it was caviar.

    Hey bullshit boy. It's Karl with a K. If you're going to throw out accusations about someone don't you think you better learn how to spell their name first?

    "Muslims are peace loving people. They've done nothing to harm the enviornment.

    Posted by: wovoka at January 3, 2007 08:21 PM"

    Since the first humans formed a society they wrestled with the problem of being both man and beast. Being an animal that instinctively worships himself. Then man invents a god in his image and worships him.

    Of the largest religions on this earth. Christians and Muslims worship an image of a man. Then proceeds to demonstrate a long history of death and destruction in their god's name.

    The history of terrorism by Christians is as long as Muslims. The Age of Enlightenment was missed by the Muslims while the Church changed policy on how to control the masses.

    Today that system is alive and well in the religious right and their involvement in this nation's political power structure.

    No Muslim nation has ever known freedom because of the use of terror. Today democracy in this nation as it's greatest risk because of Christianity being blended into our political process. Despite the warnings to prevent this by our fore fathers.

    You're home


    I read a great quote by Bertrand Russell something to the effect that ...

    "the problem with large democracies is that they tend to elect stupid people in the mistaken belief that thay are more trustworthy than the intelligent ones..."

    Wow! who is this new guy buffalo s**t?

    Is he a guy thats into brown shower videos?

    Or some 14 year old thats getting a woody because he can write s**t on his posts?

    Either way just more proof that the "Tin Foil Hat Crowd" will dip into anything no matter how stinky to prove how off the wall they are!

    Nice to see Cindy Sheesham at the capital today. Was C. Clark Kissinger with her? You know that guy Cindy hangs around with from the Communist Party(They use a different name) out of San Francisco. I'm soo glad she was there disrupting the Democratic press conference. We need to make sure that she stays connected to B.S.'s party. When she's not down having a party with Hugo Chavez.

    Wait Buffalo S**t......B.S........Damm we don't need to go any farther with this guy.

    And why does he want to see a house full of s**t?

    Well thats easy too, Let's buy him a very used Port-O-Potty for his Birthday. Then he can swim in it. I guess.

    Think about it folks, I guy named Buffalo S**t wants you to clean up you're act while he lives in a house full off s**t.......Think about it.

    Bicker Boy writes Keith has found his happy place.

    Is that the bathtub, or under the desk?

    Thats okay, after he loses this job it will be under the bridge. Or maybe B.S. can slop him some space at his Port-O-Potty!

    Wait I think Buffalo S**t is a phony! Well, if he is one of Keith's sheep. Then shouldn't he be Sheep S**t? Oh what the hell B.S. if you want to be S**t you can be any kind of s**t you want to be.

    Because here at Olbermannwatch we believe in free speech or in you're case FREE S**T!

    A guy thats into s**t likes Keith.

    Does Katie know about this?

    "Hey bullshit boy. It's Karl with a K. If you're going to throw out accusations about someone don't you think you better learn how to spell their name first?

    Posted by: Brandon at January 3, 2007 08:36 PM"

    So then that's it? That's all you can come up with from you lurking lair?

    I think their must be a spell checking site with a shortage. (hint: site)

    You're standing in my shit Brandy!

    "Sadly, the posting of sexual fantasies about Olbermann runs rampant on his "fan" boards, one in particular. The still-single in their 40/50's women (read: ass-ugly) who inhabit those boards are apparently too mentally ill to hold down a day job given their 24/7 presence on such sites.

    Posted for RedWolf"

    Yes that is you Redwolf, Now you are really getting into the sexual indulgence. You are really a piece of work my friend.

    You are home!

    by the way... the post referencing muslims was not mine.. on to the point...after reading Puck's post...I'd have to revise Mr. Russell's quote and, once and for all, sadly accept the fact that stupid people vote for stupid people.

    Buffalo Shit,
    what do I have to do with the posting you mentioned. The only thing I've talked about is how funny it was to see Olbermann close to a break down!

    Red, don't take it personally. You see, Olbermann's fans aren't very bright. They're constantly playing guessing games about the identity of those who aren't quite as uh, enthralled with Keith as they are. And they are just horrid guessers. They seem to think that there can only be ONE of us in this world who possibly can't see him for the genius they believe him to be. So therefore, we all have to be the same person. They just can't seem to explain how it is that if Olbermann was as popular as they seem to THINK he is, why he's not hauling in a couple of million of viewers a night. And how alas could this many people detest him? My question is how could they possibly like him and think he's the God they've built him up to be, but common sense and Olbermann fanatics do not alas, go hand in hand. You have to feel a bit sorry for them. Like this newest one, who appears to have some Tourette's like syndrome which makes them think that screaming out bullshit as if they were a three-year old or a parrott who has learned a new, favorite word. They're not as clever as half as they think they are. Much like Olbermann himself.

    KK, do you think BS's (how apropo) hair sticks up in spikes? I do.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Red, don't take it personally. You see, Olbermann's fans aren't very bright.
    Posted by: Keith's fans are Shitty at January 3, 2007 08:54 PM
    ______________________________________________
    Funny, I thot that Olbermann's fans are supposed to be the "elite intellectual liberals". You can't have it both ways, you intelligent devil you, "keith's fans are Shitty".

    "Wow! who is this new guy buffalo s**t?

    "Is he a guy thats into brown shower videos?

    Or some 14 year old thats getting a woody because he can write s**t on his posts?

    Either way just more proof that the "Tin Foil Hat Crowd" will dip into anything no matter how stinky to prove how off the wall they are!

    Posted by: puck at January 3, 2007 08:40 PM" --

    It looks like K-fed is back. I thought he was banned from this page.

    These kinds of sexually loaded expressions are K-fed's signiture crap. (no pun intended)

    A very frustrated person indeed.

    Sorry RedWolf, my mistake this was the fool that posted that other garbage. You never know who is using 2 or 3 names. I look at the style and some of you are showing your colors very clearly. Makes no difference though, I address the content, we are all anons here.

    Puck is one twisted dirtball. Where'd you park your Camero tonight? Up on blocks of course!

    Bullshit boy/girl is the perfect example of Olbermann's typical fanatical fan. I rest my case concerning their overwhelming lack of common sense and good old-fashioned intelligence. No wonder they think Olbermann is a genius. I guess next to them a pile of shit would be. And that is exactly what bullshit boy/girl is full of which is why he's so darn fond of screaming the word out in every post.

    typically, this blog has degenerated to it's lowest commomn denominator---the IQ level of those posting the dumbest commentaries. C U

    Yes the Olbermann fans are a low IQ group to be sure. If they were a bit smarter, perhaps they'd see the massive con artist and actor he truly is. But that's why there is Olbermannwatch to educate them!

    "I rest my case concerning their overwhelming lack of common sense and good old-fashioned intelligence."

    Written by the multiple name using chicken"

    A true sign losing your "case" is when you can't identify yourself with a consistant moniker.

    You're running out of steam and failing misserable to even get your peanut gallery going.

    Try harder.

    Show me a home...

    "I rest my case concerning their overwhelming lack of common sense and good old-fashioned intelligence."

    Written by the multiple name using chicken"

    A true sign losing your "case" is when you can't identify yourself with a consistant moniker.

    You're running out of steam and failing miserable to even get your peanut gallery going.

    Try harder.

    Show me a home...

    "Yes the Olbermann fans are a low IQ group to be sure. If they were a bit smarter, perhaps they'd see the massive con artist and actor he truly is. But that's why there is Olbermannwatch to educate them!

    Posted by: Keith's a Fraud at January 3, 2007 09:13 PM"

    That's better now you are using your usual moniker again. Nothing hiding like a pussy with all these multiple names.

    Now you're home!

    Is he a guy thats into brown shower videos?
    Well thats easy too, Let's buy him a very used Port-O-Potty for his Birthday. Then he can swim in it. I guess.
    Bicker Boy writes Keith has found his happy place.

    Is that the bathtub, or under the desk?

    Thats okay, after he loses this job it will be under the bridge. Or maybe B.S. can slop him some space at his Port-O-Potty!
    A guy thats into s**t likes Keith.

    Does Katie know about this?

    Posted by: puck at January 3, 2007 08:40 PM
    ________________________________________
    Uh, I don't remember anyone mentioning "brown showers" until you interjected it. I doubt that the sane people here have ever thot of "brown showers" until you drew the term out of your own consciousness. As for the rest of your tweaker's rant, puck: & YOU think that Liberals are "off the wall"?????
    muwahhhhhhahahahahhaha
    The anti-Olbermann assortment on this blog only prove how ignorant, how uninformed, & how lacking in the ability to assimilate & analyze data
    that the DistantRight are. Fortunately, they seem to be shrinking back into their caves, as their numbers lessen, & the more intelligent of conservatives make their presence known---along with Liberal Christians, who are pushing the lunatic RRW christianists back into the darkness, as well.


    After reading all of the hatred for the past several hours...MikeW's post needs re-posting....especially since Professor Honeydew (Bob) seems to choose to ignore the sensable advice....

    "Bob,

    "Your fatuous (look it up) and sniveling query about who would go to fight from some of the families of the commenters here leads me to respond. My younger brother has fought in this war in Ramadi (returned this year). Also, between my father and all three of his sons, we now have four separate combat tours and an expeditionary tour (one step below committed combat) under our belts (mixed in a current 75+ years of military service and counting). Now, the fact is that all of us returned from those tours, so we're fortunate. But, the fact is that we did serve and did go whether or not we wanted to. Why? We all felt that it was our duty as citizens of this great country. So quit being so snarky and self serving with your commentary about this issue, especially if you personally haven't served in our military in a wartime setting. Too many people on here would simply ask whether you had the fortitude to do national meaningful service for your countrymen. Most of those serving now believe that what they are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is absolutely necessary for the long term national interests and security of our country. Maybe they are just that much more prescient than are you. I certainly do not believe that they are patsies or mere tools, and they don't see it that way either.

    "Fortunately, none in my family had to go to combat during our previous Commander in Chief's tenure -- thank God for that. Frankly, not many soldiers (including me) had any respect at all for him as a man or as the President - but we would have gone to war, because it was our responsibility and duty to do so (see above about service to the country) (as so many of my fellow soldiers did in Kosovo, Bosnia, etc - and none of those countries had even the potential to be detrimental to our national security). I know of many soldiers who tore up their certificates of retirement from the military simply because it was signed by President Clinton.

    "Mike,

    "Except for a shared name, we clearly do not agree on much given your screeds above. First, you talk about 3000 wasted lives. Did you personally know any of those persons killed? Unless you did and they personally told you they felt their lives were going to be wasted, then you have no idea whether their lives were wasted. So get off of your mem about there being no apparent reason for their deaths. Only history will bear that out and from what we all see form a lot of what is written about in history, it's all from the perspective of the winner. As for me, I will take my cue from my brother (see above). He never waivered in telling me he felt his tour there was absolutely necessary, that he saw great honor in being there to aid in the mission. In fact, he specifically reenlisted there (and our reenlistment rates for units in combat are impressively high) knowing full well that it could mean he is deployed yet again. By the way, many of our wounded personnel are also quite capable of caring for themselves and do not desire any assistance. Why? Because they have ingrained in them the concepts and thoughts that they are responsible citizens determined to be independent. Maybe there are too many of us who in the long run are more "able bodied" than they will be, but I guarantee you they are better prepared for life than far too many of their fellow citizens. Learn from that, please! Bottom line about this is: Do NOT pretend that you can speak for any of these military members or their families (as you've intimated in your putrid commentary). You cannot. You don't have the foundation or the right, regardless of any rights to free speech you have. That goes for you, too, Bob! Bye now."

    Olbermann would never speak the way he did last night if there were men and women who are serving our great nation in Iraq sitting in his studio....

    It's the same idea I was taught....Don't say something unless you would say it in front of your own mother....Well, I guess this comment board woiuld be pretty blank if the leftist cowards followed this rule but replaced "mother," with "Marine."

    That's it for me....good night cowards.

    PS....if Sir Loin of Milquetoast even tries to pull the "chickenhawk" stuff again....I will re-post MikeW's eloquence every time...Thanks Mike, where ever you are. God Bless America.

    But I'm not now nor have I ever been Red Wolf.

    Really you Olbyloons need to stop your multiple personality disorder persecution theory You seem to think we're ALL one person. We aren't. But you can't wrap your mind around that can you? Yes, facts are scary things. Like the fact that Cox gets more hits a day than the Olby fan sites put together.

    Oh well, no one really wants to read those hideous masturbation/sex fantasies about Olby anyway. And I guess that's what really burns you up. That others don't share your passion for Keith, or want to read all about the hot time you dreamed you had with him in the shower.

    I'm sure Cox will be glad to confirm that I am NOT Red Wolf. But don't pat yourself there on the back too hard for figuring out I'm the one throwing the shit right back at you this evening. It wasn't as if I made any attempt to hide it. The fact you think I'm Wolf though is very much amusing to me, but then you Olbyloons are so very entertaining. Particularly when you're wrong which is, of course, always.

    Oh, and P.S.? You might want to try a laxative dear, it seems you've got quite the constipation problem the way you keep throwing the word shit out.

    Their LIVES weren't "wasted", cee. Their DEATHS were a Waste. They were sacrificed for NOTHING.
    Nothing more than the zealousness of a pathological, spoiled brat of a snotty rich kid who wanted to out-do his daddy in being President...whose psychotic nature drove him to believe that he was "The Decider".....the one great man who'd leave the greatest legacy ever for a once-great nation. And all his insanity has done is to WASTE the blood & treasure of the country, & to bring him to the legacy of "The Worst President in History".
    Good-night, cee. May God & history bring you to see the errors in your thinking.

    "... (more grable) Well, I guess this comment board woiuld be pretty blank if the leftist cowards followed this rule but replaced "mother," with "Marine."

    Posted by: cee at January 3, 2007 09:27 PM"

    That's funny I don't recall anyone posting here on the right claiming to be a Marine. You think maybe they would be, but because they actually think the nonsense you gargle about the troops with that big flag wrapped around you, is total bullshit, they would never come here and stand anywhere near you!

    Show me home...

    "Oh, and P.S.? You might want to try a laxative dear, it seems you've got quite the constipation problem the way you keep throwing the word shit out.

    Posted by: No shit Sherlock at January 3, 2007 09:28 PM"

    Take breath Mr Hiding-his-moniker, This web should be getting more hits. It's great page serving this nation well. I can't think of better display of dirtball ignorance any where on the web. The tactics used by you righties are crying out with frustration. From your tirades about Keith mixed with sexual frustrations to your grotesque depictions of women on the other pages that like Keith. I wonder what Cee thinks of that?

    You're a piece of work, er ah a chip of work.

    Show me a home...

    And you're just full of Shit, shit. Kinda like Olbermann. No, JUST like Olbermann. he must be so proud.

    Yo, idiot Buffalo.....

    Mike served our great country and many in his family served.....read the post you stupid bigot.

    I know you would not be so bold if you had to talk this way in front of real people.....Oh that's right.....people like Buffalo sit in their parent's basements all day long on the computer dreaming of a real life.

    New name for Buffalo.......Simpson's Comic Book Guy!

    "And you're just full of Shit, shit. Kinda like Olbermann. No, JUST like Olbermann. he must be so proud.

    Posted by: brandon at January 3, 2007 09:51 PM"

    And yet another name to go by. Now we are getting somewhere. You and cee are clearly not the same person, at least we can cee that!

    Show me a home
    where the buffalo roam,
    and I'll show you
    a house full of shit.

    How many times have you masturbated to tonight's edition of Countdown? All done posting tonight's pornographic fantasies of Olbermann on your little internet fan site for the evening? Shouldn't you be transcribing a radio show or something? Or are you still trying to think up cologne names for his "scent"? I've got one for you: Eau Du Bullshit. That's what he's full of. That's what you are full of, that and utter desperation.

    "Yo, idiot Buffalo.....

    Mike served our great country and many in his family served.....read the post you stupid bigot.

    Posted by: cee at January 3, 2007 10:01 PM"

    You say this as though his presence here somehow transfer to you the service you speak of. Like it was yours.

    This is so typical of the posers who stick the ribbons on their SUV's that our soldiers are dying for - for the oil they run on.

    Nothing you ever write here has even come close to demonstrating you give a shit about the troops. You may claim it, that anyone can do. But talk is cheap - it takes money to buy whiskey and cigarettes.

    The people that demonstrate they care about our troops are the ones who challenge the policies of an administration that talks a big talk about our troops and then undercuts the funding for the programs our vets and their families depend on.

    Now show me a home... cuz you are full of shit!

    "How many times have you masturbated to tonight's edition of Countdown? All done posting tonight's pornographic fantasies of Olbermann on your little internet fan site for the evening? Shouldn't you be transcribing a radio show or something? Or are you still trying to think up cologne names for his "scent"? I've got one for you: Eau Du Bullshit. That's what he's full of. That's what you are full of, that and utter desperation.

    Posted by: So tell us Shitface at January 3, 2007 10:41 PM"

    Man you are really giving me my props here tonight. "pornographic fantasies" You are one consistent frustrated person.

    I am so flattered that you openly and unashamedly resort to hiding your moniker out of fear of being pegged with your shameful tributes to my prowess.

    You know who I am and you would say so but out of fear of losing even more you can't even make a guess.

    Who runs the show now?

    Now you're standing in up to your ankles.

    sing along now...

    Show me a home...

    Big deal Shit, I've been accused of far worse than being someone I'm not here at Owatch. And since I've spent a lot of time studying the Olbermann/lib websites, let me tell you it's absolutely true that some of the crazier ones have posted explicit fantasies starring Olbermann. And yes, they really do believe he's perfect in every way and beyond being questioned. They will hear no discussion of any flaw whatsoever Olbermann might possess or any mistake/lie he's told. Kinda funny behavior for self-proclaimed liberals huh? Guess that whole freedom of speech thing doesn't apply when Olbermann is concerned. And yes, they think they are all minature versions of Sherlock Holmes too, even offering to provide Olby with "evidence" of who was bad-mouthing him so he could prosecute the offenders. I guess it's never occured to them you can't sue someone for telling the truth. And I became convinced a long time ago that they are the ones who really use multiple monikers to post their praises & defenses of Olby here because there are so many of us and so few of them.

    Let's be clear here, not only do I not care "who" you are, let me assure you that you are not nor will you ever be anyone who is worth more than the shit under my shoes. This is another of the grand delusions of the Olbermann fan. You actually believe that others should know who you are and that you are somehow "important". I guess becuase there are so few of you that you think everyone should KNOW you, but the truth is no one really gives a shit about you nor ever has or ever will. It's why you latched on to such a loser like Olbermann, you thought he was pathetic enough he'd pay attention to you and "know" who you were for once in your miserable, pathetic lives. And it must be so frustrating that not only doesn't he know who you are or care about you but that we don't either. But I'm in a good mood tonight, so let me give you credit for admitting what you are (shit) and what you'll always be (shit). And let me give Olbermann extra credit for having the balls to demand $4 mil a year for spreading his bullshit to the likes of his shitty fans who eat it up like it was candy. And as you go off to your shitty minimum wage job at the likes of Wal-Mart or the local Speedy Quick gas station each day, you can delight in knowing you're Olby's most important fan, because you're his ONLY fan.

    Who runs the show? I don't know but isn't being an Olbermann fan sort of like being a band member on the Titanic?

    "Who runs the show? I don't know but isn't being an Olbermann fan sort of like being a band member on the Titanic?

    Posted by: Brandon at January 3, 2007 11:31 PM"

    - Yep, just as long as you are referring to this page.
    ===========================================

    "Let's be clear here, not only do I not care "who" you are, let me assure you that you are not nor will you ever be anyone who is worth more than the shit under my shoes. This is another of the grand delusions of the Olbermann fan. You actually believe that others should know who you are and that you are somehow "important". "

    Umm dude, you are really slippin in the shit. The Buffalo has ruled you - schooled you - and fooled you.

    The more you try with your 6th grade crap the more you show your inferiority. But that is all you are capable of because you're and idiot.

    The only "importance" I have here is what you give me, fool!

    It is the exact same thing you do with KO. You simultaneously deny significance while giving it. Your f---ing stupid man. You are the best.

    (whistling)
    Show me a home...


    "Big deal Shit, I've been accused of far worse than being someone I'm not here at Owatch. And since I've spent a lot of time studying the Olbermann/lib websites, let me tell you it's absolutely true that some of the crazier ones have posted explicit fantasies starring Olbermann... (and you want to talk about this?)

    ...And I became convinced a long time ago that they are the ones who really use multiple monikers to post their praises & defenses of Olby here because there are so many of us and so few of them.

    Posted by: Brandon at January 3, 2007 11:08 PM"

    Brandon, Brandon, Brandon... "crazier ones"?

    Why did you stop taking your medication? What kind of a psycho would rant and rave about women who love Keith Olbermann? (if only they would love you)

    I know I am not the only one to tell you this but dude - you got no f---ing life. Some of us come to pages like this to find people exactly like you but we are hoping they are capable and sane. You are not. You're easy and frail.

    So get back on your medication, give it 7 to 10 days so you can assimilate to it. Stay on it and you may find a way out of this hell you are trapped in. And for god sake don't believe that critically fixating on a man you singled out in the media will change you for the better. It won't help you with the women you love to hate for rejecting you.

    Talk to someone at the crisis counseling center in your neighborhood. Go for a walk (not in the rain, pet a dog, but for god sake never try to play with the Buffalo!

    (chips drop - plop plop)

    Comic Book Store Guy (Buffalo):

    Live in your delusions of supporting the troops while your rhetoric energizes the enemy.

    Those who opposed The Civil War rioted in the streets, killing the benefactors of the conflict...the African-American, because there was death in honorable war....they were the same character you are....a swearing, lazy do-nothing coward who only feeds off the society, contributing nothing tangable.

    Same with the "Better Red thn Dead" crowd of the 1930's....."Why should I go to Europe or The Pacific when those people never attacked us?" The Japanese are a loons...they won't amount to anything dangerous.

    And same with the dirty, smelly and corrupt left of the 60's and 70's who cared more about their own lazy butts than anyone else in humanity.

    It is NONE of your business what I do personally....I tell you what I choose to, you hypocrite. Who do you think you are?....Keith Olbermann?

    Honestly, Comic Book Store Guy.....you REALLY need to work on some kind of humane soul instead of accepting the template "good person" manufactured by the elite left...for sale and under warranty!.....

    "Just say x, y, z and voila....you care about people!"

    And the cursing is just such a wonderful bonus that, I am sure, comes from your addiction to sitting on your stained couch watching shows like SOUTH PARK, while munching on your 3rd bag of prok rinds.

    G' Day.

    Hopefully the thorazine has kicked in and Buffalo Bill/Billie has been locked away again by the staff of the "home". But I suppose we should thank them for providing an insight into the lack of sanity that passes for a mind of the Olbyloon.

    hey Grim...do you realize how stupid you sound when you try to debate whether global warming is happening ?

    Why is it only the wing nuts are in complete denial over this issue?
    =================================================
    Bob, I'm going to TRY and explain this one more time...
    1) I do NOT deny that the globe isn't warming. I have no doubt it's warming. Temperature goes up, it will probably go down at some point and then go up again. I'd be far more concerned if the global temperature was static.
    2) What I DO have a problem with is two things (the 2nd will follow this). My first problem is the assumption that we humans are the cause or major force of this warming.
    3) My second problem with it is the doomsday scenarios. Science has gotten better over the years but the predictions haven't changed. And no one finds this odd? For almost a 100 years now we've heard nothing but how we're teetering on the brink of global catastrophe and extinction of the species. Hmm... checking... seems we're still around.

    Yeah, the globe is warming up at the moment but you know what? WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT and it's NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    One thing Grammie and the Grim Challenger won't ever admit.The reason you don't see global warming debates on TV.
    The answer:The anti global warming people( when you can find them) are too embarrassed to come on TV and state their opinions.
    ( for obvious reasons)
    =================================================
    Riiiiight. Good thing you're not a professor of the hard sciences with that reasoning. I mean after all, it couldn't have anything to do with say... well I'll just quote CBS reporter Scott Pelley:
    "If I do an interview with [holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier? ...There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible."
    And yes, he was answering questions in regards to the media coverage of global warming.

    So you're wrong. The answer is: few people will LET them come onto TV to state their views. Else by your logic, any conservative doesn't come onto Keith Olbermann because they're "too embarassed" (whereas I think we can all admit, the REAL reason is that they are not invited).

    Oh, and please let me know which school you teach at so I can be sure to send any kids I have to a BETTER one. (or at least one with more intelligent and competent teachers)

    Oh poor deluded Bullshit. You're off your meds again aren't you dear? How else could you believe that anyone here envies Olbermann in the least? What's there to envy? Someone who has talked his way out of every job he's ever had? Someone who looks 57 when they're 47? Someone who appears to be carrying two uniroyal tires around his midsection and a spare in his ass? Someone who is so color-blind he can't put together a color-coordinated outfit? Someone reliant on tawdry emails to fans and cheap wine in hotel rooms to seduce a woman (with viagra on the side)? Only the most deluded of middle-aged women would find that package attractive. Oh, and yes, the occasional 20-something up and comer who doesn't mind being rewarded with Prada and Marc Jacobs in lieu of other physical considerations. It is very apparent from Olbermann's latest $4 million dollar pay demand that true love doesn't come cheap. But I digress.

    I also don't envy Olbermann's fan base. You have people suffering with obvious mentally diminished capabilities. They actually believe what Olbermann says is true! They really think he's being attacked when someone points out one of his lies, falsehoods, his bias, or his revionist history at work What's more, they seem compeled to "protect" him. I could have sworn that was the job of his agent, his PR person, his lawyers, etc. But that's jsut one more sign of their mental illnesses at work here: they and they alone think they can "save" him. They can't. No one can. And nothing you say here can change the truth about him or his fans. Insult us all you want, you already have. But you can't change the truth. That will always stand.

    Now if you are going to sit here and tell this audience of computer users that science has not evolved since the 1930's then what in the hell are you posting to and reading this screen with? A crystal ball?

    You are a typical rightwing religo-nut case with zero understanding of science!
    ==================================================
    Wow BS... where to begin....
    Oh, do you remember one of the most famous predictions made about computers? How by the 90s they should weigh just under one ton. Yeah, my point is, when it comes to predictions, no matter how good science is, it's almost ALWAYS wrong. Why? A basic tenant that scientists need to keep in mind: "What is discovered today, will be false by tomorrow."

    Now your other stuff...
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    More than a decade ago global warming was being predicted. The following ten years marked the hottest and driest years in this nation's recorded history. The severity of hurricanes were exactly the same, the most severe ever recorded in any ten year period.
    ==================================================
    Oh yeah, and how about 2006 where there were far LESS huricanes and of even LESS severity than they predicted? Oh, and I suppose that an increase of technology in being able to find and detect and gather more detailed data about hurricanes have had NO impact on these records either right? That's akin to saying that germs increased in number and serverity within ten years of the invention of the microscope. I hope you can figure out the fallacy there, if not, ask and I'll spell it out for you.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Hey Grim,

    You want Creationism try this:

    Man has a biological instinct to do for the self - selfishness.

    Man struggles to control this predisposition to worship himself.

    What does man do? He invents a god in his image and proceeds to worship him.

    I call this idiotic, you call it religion.

    What religions on this earth have the longest history of killing millions of people? Yep you guessed it the religions that worship an image of a man - Christians and Muslims.

    How's that for reason?
    ==================================================
    How's that? Extremely faulty. For one, I'm trying to figure out where you came up with the idea I'm a creationist. I myself posted above:
    "Again, my problem with this human-caused warming is the same that scientists have with creationism: there seems to be no way to prove it false. (hey look, something else this seems to have in common with religion)"
    So let me see if I understand your reasoning. I STATE that I have a problem with a hypothesis because there is no way for it to be invalidated, therefore, I must support another hypothesis that also cannot be invalidated because I mentioned in the post. ...Seriously, how do some of your heads NOT explode? I mean, is your mind just so simple it opperates on a rudimentary word association? Or does it just operate one "gee, this person disagrees with me on one thing, therefore he must disagree with me on EVERYthing else". Otherwise, I feel no need to answer your question since it had nothing to do with my other posts.

    Challenger Grim has an interesting take on science. Growing up I remember reading about glaciers that were thousands of years old.

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html

    *shrug* Pull out your hypothetical statements from the 20's and wave them around all you like. Reality's got a tad of a bias where warming's concerned.

    Lunchbreak, I'm confused on what your point was...

    Unless you didn't read what I said to Bob earlier:
    '1) I do NOT deny that the globe isn't warming. I have no doubt it's warming. Temperature goes up, it will probably go down at some point and then go up again. I'd be far more concerned if the global temperature was static.
    2) What I DO have a problem with is two things (the 2nd will follow this). My first problem is the assumption that we humans are the cause or major force of this warming.
    3) My second problem with it is the doomsday scenarios. Science has gotten better over the years but the predictions haven't changed. And no one finds this odd? For almost a 100 years now we've heard nothing but how we're teetering on the brink of global catastrophe and extinction of the species. Hmm... checking... seems we're still around.'

    So again, what was your point?

    The only point I really had to make was that it's one thing to cite fallable scientific predictions as useless hoopla and another thing to witness thousand year old glaciers and ice floes melt in your lifetime. The two events do not reconcile.

    Your other points seem naive. You don't think the fact that our world population has tripled since the great depression has had an impact on the environment? You don't grasp the implications of increased demand for resources as a significant factor in the ecology of our planet? It shouldn't take an engineering degree to ascertain that there is a tipping point at which the rate of consumption outstrips the rate of production to such a degree that entire system degrades instead of remaining in the natural sin curve. Furthermore, the 'tipping point' is something that should be seriously considered: While there is a natural cycle to climate change, you can only bend a system so far before it breaks.

    For almost a 100 years now we've heard nothing but how we're teetering on the brink of global catastrophe and extinction of the species. Hmm... checking... seems we're still around.'

    Never invest in the stock market, as any advisor will tell you that past returns are no guarentee of future performance.

    The only point I really had to make was that it's one thing to cite fallable scientific predictions as useless hoopla and another thing to witness thousand year old glaciers and ice floes melt in your lifetime. The two events do not reconcile.
    ==================================================
    ? You think glaciers have never melted before? How many do you think vanished during the first global warming scare? And what is the alternative? In both global cooling scares we were warned about glaciers "encroaching" upon civilization. Here's a fact: Glaciers don't really impact human civilization except in a negative way. If they grow, that's less habitable area we can utilize and that's also more fresh water that people can't use. So considering the rather hostile (to us) nature of glaciers, why should I care if they fade?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Your other points seem naive. You don't think the fact that our world population has tripled since the great depression has had an impact on the environment? You don't grasp the implications of increased demand for resources as a significant factor in the ecology of our planet? It shouldn't take an engineering degree to ascertain that there is a tipping point at which the rate of consumption outstrips the rate of production to such a degree that entire system degrades instead of remaining in the natural sin curve. Furthermore, the 'tipping point' is something that should be seriously considered: While there is a natural cycle to climate change, you can only bend a system so far before it breaks.
    ==================================================
    hmm.... i seem to recall a prior prediction of when human population would outstrip resources. When was that supposed to happen? Oh right, in the 80s.
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTdlZTVkM2Y0OWQyYzJiZWEwMzA0ZDg2OThmNjI2YjU=
    "Because people are, in the words of Julian Simon, “the ultimate resource.” Given the right policies, intellectual and economic productivity trumps biological reproductivity. “Between 1820 and 1992,” Ronald Bailey writes in Earth Report 2000, “world population quintupled even as the world’s economies grew 40-fold.” Productivity matters more than other statistical measures because it demonstrates we’re doing more with less. That’s why, for example, starvation is a political disaster, not a natural one. There’s literally too much food in the world. There’s also plenty of land left. You could move the entire world population inside medium-sized homes and they’d all fit inside Texas, yielding a population density similar to that of Paris."

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Never invest in the stock market, as any advisor will tell you that past returns are no guarentee of future performance.
    =================================================
    Right, but I bet an advisor would say to avoid investing in something that has had past failures right? Again, this all comes off to me as nothing more than a sad pyschic who's been wrong over and over and over and is crying "I'll get it right this time, I promise!"

    Again, please answer me, what would it take for the hypothesis to be disproven? Is it even possible for even the TINIEST fragment of the science to be wrong?

    You're thinking in basic arithmetic while rate calculations are differential equations. The rate of change is what is startling about the glacier's melt; Glaciers that survived severe draughts and several warm periods between ice ages have disappeared. The rapidity of the climate change results in the accumulated rain patterns shifting and prevailing currents being redirected. This has all happened before, but not this quickly.

    This should confer the obvious point but I'll write it on the board just to make it clear; The further you bend a system without breaking it, the harder it springs in an effort to get back to a comfortable 'center'. This is true in all natural systems (and in many ways true of the stock market) and while there is always change to the mean as time progresses, greater positive deviance from the statistical mean goes hand in hand with powerful negative deviance.

    Doomsday is going to happen, by natural or unnatural causes, eventually. Only an idiot would argue that fact. However, "Doomsday" (in quotes) may well happen within our lifetime - not due to the earth shattering or buckling or running out of natural resources, but due to the climate springing back in an effort to combat the current heat trend (which is inarguably worse than any in recorded history) resulting in more powerful natural disasters.

    Even with all of the above, I'm still amazed at your comment that humanity is not primarily responsible for the warming trend. The natural producers of carbon dioxide are animal respiration, volcanic eruption, oceanic diffusion, and decay. None of those producers has surged in output recently, and yet our CO2 levels have jumped 100ppm (more than 40%) in the last hundred years over any previously recorded value. It doesn't take an advanced degree to ascertain what factor would have created a larger jump in CO2 concentration than any in recored history. It might take one to explain to people that the really worrisome number is not the value, but the rate of change.

    "And you know Krazy Keith is going to ignore Jamilgate."

    Read it and weep, sir:

    "The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.

    Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.

    The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque." - Editor and Publisher

    Lunchbreak, although you didn't address me you are the first person who has made a reasonable effort to persuade with reasonble responses to this debate.

    The following is a copy of a post I made a month or two back that enscapulates my view of Global Climate Change.

    I would be glad to see your response if you are so inclined. I am not a scientist nor an expert, but I really do believe we are approaching this potential problem in all the wrong ways>

    "The warnings of impending doom due to Global Warming and Global Cooling have filp flopped with dizzying regularity every 20 - 30 years for the last century and a half. And they always overlap while the scientific community is gearing up to change the method of the destruction of life on earth.

    [I read your comment about the tripling of the population but I don't see that being so influential as to override all other considerstions that affect this]

    Remember the oil well fires set by Saddam in Kuwait. All the screeching warnings of the drastic effect it would have on the world's weather. Didn't happen. The computer models were wrong. It was based on the particulates from the fires circling the globe. All I saw in the MSM was that they didn't get high enough. No explanation why, just didn't.

    However, there are well documented examples in the modern era of natural events affecting global weather patterns. From: Astonomical Society of the Pacific.

    "The year 1816 is still known to scientists and historians as "eighteen hundred and froze to death" or the "year without a summer." It was the locus of a period of natural ecological destruction not soon to be forgotten. During that year, the Northern Hemisphere was slammed with the effects of at least two abnormal but natural phenomena. These events were mysterious at the time, and even today they are not well understood.

    First, 1816 marked the midpoint of one of the Sun's extended periods of low magnetic activity, called the Dalton Minimum. This particular minimum lasted from about 1795 to the 1820s. It resembled the earlier Maunder Minimum (about 1645-1715) that was responsible for at least 70 years of abnormally cold weather in the Northern Hemisphere. The Maunder Minimum interval is sandwiched within an even better known cool period known as the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about the 14th through 19th centuries"

    Science still can't definitely explain the Little Ice Age in the last half of the last millenium or any of the embedded smaller variations.

    If science can not explain that which happened in the recent past, what do you base your belief on that they can predict the future?"

    "We now have a situation more analagous to Galileo and the Church. Any scientist who questions the methodologies or predictions of the faithful is branded a heretic.

    You don't have a modicum of doubt that this supposedly monolithic scientific community could be wrong. And in this current climate we will grind any dissenter into the dust and never see any new evidence that will be vital to our future survival.

    I think we should spend money on preparing for this possible Argamedden. But not where you seem to want to spend it. On disaster preparedness for any likely global climate change. Research in food crops and animals so that we will have available to us flora and fauna that can thrive in conditions that are not pvevalent on the earth now. This type of preparation is far more flexible and covers all the bases."

    "The factors that affect GLOBAL CLIMATE must be enormous. Upon what do you base your conviction that science has not only identified each factor but has also been able to assign each one its proper weight and knows what each will affect in the future?

    The earth has been through many climate changes. At one time the entire earth was encased in ice. There have been far warmer periods in earth's history interspersed with ice ages. In fact, the last ice age, called The Little Chill, just ended in the late 19th, beginning 20th century.

    Would you at least consider that the best course might be to not demonize those who are not already converted and encourage the free and open study to learn more? Would you consider that we should devote resources to studying how to best survive ANY Global Climate Change that might occur? Study and develope flora and fauna that can thrive if the climate drastically changes? Study and try to develope plans to logistically deal with possible food shortages and population migrations that might be thrust upon us."

    This is probably a bit disjointed and repetitive but I've stated and restated essentially my position so many times without getting any response but ridicule.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Grammie,

    I welcome discussion with open minds. Open minds should know the difference between widely publicized but unsupported theories (see below) and widely unpublicized but well supported theories.

    "Remember the oil well fires set by Saddam in Kuwait. All the screeching warnings of the drastic effect it would have on the world's weather. Didn't happen. The computer models were wrong. It was based on the particulates from the fires circling the globe. All I saw in the MSM was that they didn't get high enough. No explanation why, just didn't." (your quote)

    I'm fairly sure that you are referring to Carl Sagan's on-the-spot debate on Nightline. Emergencies and kooky theories are 'sexy' Grammie; they sell, and it is why they get air time. It comes as no surprise to me that the typical rebuttal to any global warming argument is, "but all these others didn't happen, so of course this one is wrong!" ... there's no sense of context when you are constantly inundated with oddball theories because their media value is far greater than their scientific support. I shouldn't need to explain how great an advantage the information age is (incidentally, if you refute a doomsday theory in the 1920's, do you think you get the same press as the doomsday theorist? How about if you are the five hundredth person to refute their theory?) and how such a recent innovation has made scientific consensus easier to achieve.

    Speaking of scientific consensus, I shouldn't have to bring up that the organizations who have signed documents supporting global warming far outnumber the individual scientists who do not support it, yet they get roughly equal airtime by the media, but I will bring it up, because I believe an open mind should take this into consideration when they get the majority of their information about global warming from the media and not scientific journals.

    I don't have too much more to address in your initial post Grammie because it was not originally intended for me, but I'll touch on these points again:

    1) There is a natural cycle to warming and cooling periods on the earth, and it is a cycle with more variables that we can possibly understand at this point. Flares, meteors/comets, gravitational forces are all 'natural' factors. The cycle is widely accepted if not fully understood.

    2) The majority of the scientific community specializing in climate has agreed that humanity has had a large impact on global warming over the past hundred years, and while they disagree over specific causes and effects, they have already come to a consensus on the severity of the phenominon.

    3) A minority disagrees, and get far more attention from the media than their market share.

    Open minds stay open because they take pains to consider the context of assertions, not blindly accept or reject them. If you get nothing else out of my argument, understand that the rate of increase in CO2 levels in the last hundred years is alarming because it means that we've edged, nay, plunged over a tipping point.

    ya right guys - HAHAHA
    Olberman got upset about Americans dying
    what a P*SSY!
    the Iraq war is AWESOME!
    We finally got to finish was Bush Sr. started
    And NO SHAKY CRYING DEEPLY CONVICTED RANT against Bush Jr. is going to keep us from KICKING A$$.

    Rumsfeld has done a good job too.
    He got to shake hands with Sadam back in the 80's -- RAD!!!

    Anyway - yah Olberman doesn't have a leg to Stand On.
    The Iraq war is a success and the President is infallible!


    "Open minds stay open because they take pains to consider the context of assertions, not blindly accept or reject them. If you get nothing else out of my argument, understand that the rate of increase in CO2 levels in the last hundred years is alarming because it means that we've edged, nay, plunged over a tipping point.


    Posted by: Lunchbreak at January 4, 2007 08:28 PM"

    A very patient argument you've made here Lunchbreak:

    "organizations who have signed documents supporting global warming far outnumber the individual scientists who do not support it, yet they get roughly equal airtime by the media..."

    But I think you lost her well before she got this far into your response. Your giving way to much benefit of the doubt here if you think the regulars on the right, of whom Ms Hawkin's is a committed part of, would ever acknowledge the quantitative value of opinion within the scientific communities, let alone social or political debate.

    It ain't gonna happen!

    The denial of global warming is nothing more than an extension of evolution denial. It is the rejection of science itself. Evangelicals will tell you that the bible says the earth must be destroyed before Jesus returns. This is why they are so alienated from progressive values. This is why they shun real science and why they stand behind Bush.

    Look around, these nut jobs have been predicting "the end is near" every time their is strife in the middle east. When Bush went into Iraq they figuratively started packing their bags for heaven, leaving the destroyed planet to the children of tomorrow.

    There is no other group in our nation so morally corrupt than those who anticipate the destruction of the earth.

    This is not sprituallity, it is cult mentality that says "f--- stewardship all I care about is never not dying".


    Show me a home...

    You can laugh at him for getting a little bent out of shape, but everything he said was true and on-the-money.

    History will not only be unkind to Bush, it will be cold and merciless. He will achieve the lowest approval rating of any president in history, and he will lead our nation to the brink of ruin.

    He treats the lives of troops as a trivial cost for his personal ambitions, and there is good evidence that the man is mentally (yes, mentally) challenged.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkQcnDCjyuQ

    Thanks LB for being a calm and reasonable person for discussion. It is nice to talk with someone else not totally scientificly illerate on these boards now and then. anyway, onto your points (and you'll notice I just took 2 of your posts and put them in here):
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    This should confer the obvious point but I'll write it on the board just to make it clear; The further you bend a system without breaking it, the harder it springs in an effort to get back to a comfortable 'center'. This is true in all natural systems (and in many ways true of the stock market) and while there is always change to the mean as time progresses, greater positive deviance from the statistical mean goes hand in hand with powerful negative deviance.
    ==================================================
    Very true. However there's one problem I have with that. "What is the mean?" See below...

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Doomsday is going to happen, by natural or unnatural causes, eventually. Only an idiot would argue that fact. However, "Doomsday" (in quotes) may well happen within our lifetime - not due to the earth shattering or buckling or running out of natural resources, but due to the climate springing back in an effort to combat the current heat trend (which is inarguably worse than any in recorded history) resulting in more powerful natural disasters.
    ==================================================
    Ah, you yourself have now state the catch and nicely summed up my chief problem with all this with 2 simple words: "recorded history." How much of the sum total life span of the earth does "recorded history" cover? It's been so very recently we've really begun to be able to record global temperatures. Everything else is guesswork. (unless you can tell me how many hurricanes and how severe they were back in 20 AD). 2nd of all, you speak of "powerful natural disasters". I just wish to point out 1) What exactly is a weak natural disaster? Your term seems to be redundant. and 2) How many major extinction events and global catastrophes have happened in the earth's history? I mean there was THE ice age. The last I've heard there's been 5 major extinction events in the past before (the dinosaurs being the most famous). So... I have to wonder, did the dinosaurs play some major role in global cooling/warming?

    Are you starting to see my point? So many like to talk about this "mean" average of climate when... well looking at what we currently know about the earth's past, the "mean" seems to be nothing more than chaos and... well anything that CAN happen. And that's also assuming we're ignoring the earth's first global set up (under which life arose) which would put today's warming to shame. Dare I ask how the calculations go if we include that?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Even with all of the above, I'm still amazed at your comment that humanity is not primarily responsible for the warming trend. The natural producers of carbon dioxide are animal respiration, volcanic eruption, oceanic diffusion, and decay. None of those producers has surged in output recently, and yet our CO2 levels have jumped 100ppm (more than 40%) in the last hundred years over any previously recorded value. It doesn't take an advanced degree to ascertain what factor would have created a larger jump in CO2 concentration than any in recored history. It might take one to explain to people that the really worrisome number is not the value, but the rate of change.
    ==================================================
    Some points on this.
    1) The MAJORITY of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. CO2 is the runner up, but even still it's a pretty small component.
    2) See above for my comment on recorded history. So we know it's climbed in the last 100 years. What about well before recorded history? And again, I'm assuming we're leaving out the starting point of earth whose atmosphere contained a FAR higher concentration of CO2 than today.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Open minds stay open because they take pains to consider the context of assertions, not blindly accept or reject them. If you get nothing else out of my argument, understand that the rate of increase in CO2 levels in the last hundred years is alarming because it means that we've edged, nay, plunged over a tipping point.
    ==================================================
    Couple more things:
    1) How come people tell me "keep an open mind" when apparently they have a problem with me keeping an open mind and finding problems and difficulties with the current theories on global climate. Do you really want me to have an 'open mind' or do you want me to just accept your dogma about what's happening right now. I mean, really, does anyone else see the irony about someone advocating you "keep an open mind" as they tell you to stop critisizing something? (i thought critism was the definition of having an open mind)
    2) I was taking your post seriously right up until another two words: "tipping point." Know why? Because as I posted way up there earlier, we've "plunged over the tipping point" (and yes, that EXACT phrase has been used) about 4 times at LEAST in the last hundred years as well. Forget for a moment the essence of the debate and just look at that statement from an outside perspective. Heck imagine it was ANYTHING else that used that phrase (in fact, as BS pointed out, I think some religions HAVE used that phrase), and ask yourself how seriously you would take them.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    1) There is a natural cycle to warming and cooling periods on the earth, and it is a cycle with more variables that we can possibly understand at this point. Flares, meteors/comets, gravitational forces are all 'natural' factors. The cycle is widely accepted if not fully understood.
    ==================================================
    Wait... so the natural cycle has more variables than we can possibly understand, yet you are absolutely CERTAIN that just ONE of those variables (Humans) are having a drastic effect upon all the others or even in SPITE of all the others.

    ...I'm sorry you just contradicted yourself. Please explain to me which of your statements is the lie.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    2) The majority of the scientific community specializing in climate has agreed that humanity has had a large impact on global warming over the past hundred years, and while they disagree over specific causes and effects, they have already come to a consensus on the severity of the phenominon.
    ==================================================
    See above. And as I was trying to explain in my first few posts on this page, the community has had a consensus on the severity of the phenomenon whether it's warming OR cooling. Or to put it another way, no matter what crisis has faced humanity for the past several years, there's always been a scientific consensus on how "severe" it is.

    Now tell me, who does this NOT raise alarm bells for?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    3) A minority disagrees, and get far more attention from the media than their market share.
    ==================================================
    See above on history repeating itself.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Look around, these nut jobs have been predicting "the end is near" every time their is strife in the middle east. When Bush went into Iraq they figuratively started packing their bags for heaven, leaving the destroyed planet to the children of tomorrow.
    ==================================================
    The above is from BS and I'm sorry, but this just cracks me up. So you believe that some claiming a religious "end is near" are somehow worse than those claiming a climate "end is near". This ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of irony. See what I said up above about how many treat human-centered global warming as a religion.

    Challenger Grim, WOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

    You have my gratitude for articulating and giving a basis for what I believe about the doom and gloom self proclaimed monolithic true religion of Global Warming crowd.

    If I truly believed, as they say they do, that the earth and mankind will come to a horrible end early in this century I don't think I would be wasting my time defending KO from me and thinking up new insults about me and others.

    Again, thank you.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    If I truly believed, as they say they do, that the earth and mankind will come to a horrible end early in this century I don't think I would be wasting my time defending KO from me and thinking up new insults about me and others.
    ==================================================
    Grammie, I should point out that Lunchbox is right, someday it will all be wiped out. If for no other reason than the sun expanding into a red giant and consuming the inner solar system (make your own penultimate global warming joke there).

    C.S. Lewis once pointed out that the latest generations seem to have difficulty realizing the utter pointlessness of life that our ancestors did not. The fact is, a lot of the alarmists are right (though not how they believe): Humanity is ALWAYS teetering on the brink of destruction. The entirety of the universe is pretty damn hostile to life period. Eventually every living thing will become extinct, it's just a fact of reality.

    Now here you get into philosophy more than science but the question does remain, what do we do about this depressing fact? Some say we struggle as hard as we can to stave off this inevitability. I say we just accept that it will happen and do what we can to leave a positive impact on this little rock in the time we have. Who knows, we might even be able to strike out into the universe and spread out beyond this little sphere of a solar system. Just some things to think about.

    Addressing a few points after skimming;

    "More powerful" natural disasters are self explanatory. Hurricanes gain force when surface temperatures of ocean water are higher. Greater temperature differences due to changes in wind patterns and precipitation, leading to greater floods and monsoons/tornadoes of higher velocity. Your argument pretty much seems to be with the definition of the word "disaster" instead of the objective analysis, while the scientific community is more interested in classifying the difference between a tropical storm and a cat 5 hurricane.

    RE CO2 concentrations "What about well before recorded history?" ...
    NOAA's been using ice core samples (with trapped air pockets) as a measure of ancient atmospheric gas concentrations and have mapped the previous 450,000 years out. Their findings have been correlated with data from other ice core samples in other parts of the world. Does it conclusively lead us to the triassic period? No. Does it give us an accurate picture of the natural order of the last several hundred thousand years? Yes. Air pockets from even older times have been captured in various vehicles which do point to increased CO2 levels and warmer climes in ancient eras... but the CO2 levels at those 'livable' times were far below what our CO2 levels will reach in just a few decades at our current rate of increase.

    "The MAJORITY of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. CO2 is the runner up, but even still it's a pretty small component."
    Once again, you're thinking in terms of arithmetic. CO2 is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of our atmosphere, less than four hundred parts per million. The rate of change in the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere outstrips the rate of change in the water vapor in our atmosphere by a fantastically large number. The impact of carbon dioxide on the greenhouse effect is well understood. The simple concept here is that the system can only remove so much CO2 per year (it can remove literally billions of times more water vapor!) and the additional CO2 increases the amount of the water vapor by contributing to global temperature increases along with all it's other documented effects. Think Rate.

    "How come people tell me "keep an open mind" when apparently they have a problem with me keeping an open mind and finding problems and difficulties with the current theories on global climate."
    I responded initially to your comments on various theories from the 20's-80's that haven't been born out and therefore the work of present day scientists are equally unsound. You picked them up (from popular media sources!) as the standard for scientific inquiry into global warming, which reveals an uncomplex mind with no thought for context. Did you do any followup research into any of those articles to see what the community of scientists reactions were? Science will always question itself, by nature, but the media cares about disaster theories because they make good news, not because they're good science. When you have a number of organizations worldwide agreeing that global warming is at least in part a direct result of human machinations and releasing joint statements of fact, you're in a different arena than the press junket. Note that I as "at least in part" out of habitual observence to scientific inquiry and the unknown, not because I have doubts about the magnitude of humanity's impact.

    "I was taking your post seriously right up until another two words: "tipping point.""
    It's always great to not be taken seriously, to have one's words cherry picked and phrases twisted so that the reader can arrive at some falacious conclusion. I'm concerned about the 'tipping point' because I'm concerned with the rate of change in our CO2 levels. We've had historic cycles of CO2 levels, but never as high as we are now, and we're going into another of the hottest years on record on the tail end of a string of the hottest years on record. We're seeing weather extremes with more frequency. It doesn't take a serious mind to understand these facts, but deriding a concerted global message on global warming by explaining it away as bullhooey with an article about scattered collection of press clippings on various scientists' theories on the next ice age (from almost a hundred years ago, to boot) is not the reaction of a serious mind. I'm not surprised you didn't take me seriously.

    "Wait... so the natural cycle has more variables than we can possibly understand, yet you are absolutely CERTAIN that just ONE of those variables (Humans) are having a drastic effect upon all the others or even in SPITE of all the others.
    ...I'm sorry you just contradicted yourself. Please explain to me which of your statements is the lie."

    None of MY statements were lies (you've misrepresented them, but no surprise) but you've gone and oversimplified them and robbed them of context. Bravo, open mind. The first stated that there is a natural cycle, and that there are more variables to it than we can possibly comprehend at this time. At no point did it suggest that we have a poor understanding of the cycle (to the contrary, we have a rather good one!) or of the key (and contextually significant!) variables, just as we disregard the effect of the moon's gravity on a baseball pitch and don't factor extra-solar radiation spikes into our assumptions for atmospheric absorption. The second statement pointed out that the global community of scientists has already come to a conclusion on the topic of CO2 emission repurcussions. The two statements do not contradict, you just aren't reading carefully. (Perhaps I should have eschewed the first statement but it is habit (and good practice!) to frame all the variables in a system you are discussing)

    To borrow a quote from Sun Tzu, "Peasents live in the present, and complainers in the past, but the warlord must live in the future." ... We've outstripped the world's ability to absorb CO2 and the rate of change is upward, not downward. Increased CO2 has global repercussions, and has also shown that, at least in the short term, creates positive feedback by diminishing the world's ability even further to absorb CO2. These are facts that have already been agreed on by the global community of scientists, and yet get reported as theoretical alongside individual naysayers. Your articles above can be summed up in your statement:

    "What is the point? Simply that for almost a hundred years now the press have been warning us about the globe cooling, then warming, then cooling again only to be warning about warming AGAIN."

    I'd recommend that you stop using the press as your golden standard for scientific inquiry and do some genuine research. They get paid for shock value, not sound theory. Have a great weekend.

    `The DENIAL of global warming is nothing more than an extension of evolution DENIAL. It is the rejection of science itself. Evangelicals will tell you that the bible says the earth must be destroyed before Jesus returns. This is why they are so alienated from PROGRESSIVE values. This is why they shun real science and why they stand behind Bush. This is not sprituallity, it is cult mentality that says `f--- stewardship all I care about is never not dying`.


    denial.
    you hit the nail right on the head.
    the essence of religion is denial.
    denial of death.
    poor little babies, can`t handle being dead forever.
    so let`s make up a fairy tale to avoid it.

    once you take that tragic first step of denying
    just so you can embrace a fairy tale
    just so you can avoid death
    you`re f---ed.

    because it leads to the denial of many other realities
    in favor of fantasy-based (faith-based) beliefs.

    denied realities such as
    evolution
    science
    homosexuality
    inalienably equal rights for women
    inalienably equal rights for non-whites
    inalienably equal rights for gays.
    all sorts of things
    which have been denied
    by fear-of-death based religious morons for ages.

    denied realities such as
    global warming
    and denied realities such as
    the facts on the ground
    in places like iraq and new orleans
    and in terry schiavo's shriveled brain

    and that is called being REGRESSIVE
    instead of being progressive
    (progress ... get it?)
    (evolving ... get it?)
    (learning from experience ... get it?)
    which is why the radical right
    is so loathsome of progressives.
    because progressives are a threat
    to the radical right's regressive belief system
    which they desperately cling to
    to avoid death.
    poor little babies,
    walking around with a child's deluded misunderstanding
    of the way reality really works.

    and now you can clearly see
    just how f---ed up things can get
    when you let someone with a child's misunderstanding
    and a child's sense of denial
    run the most powerful country in the world.

    "More powerful" natural disasters are self explanatory. Hurricanes gain force when surface temperatures of ocean water are higher. Greater temperature differences due to changes in wind patterns and precipitation, leading to greater floods and monsoons/tornadoes of higher velocity. Your argument pretty much seems to be with the definition of the word "disaster" instead of the objective analysis, while the scientific community is more interested in classifying the difference between a tropical storm and a cat 5 hurricane.
    ==================================================
    I do understand about the different categories of hurricanes, storms and tornados. I also understand that 1) our detection and clasification of them has inproved significantly over the last several years and 2) that we definitely don't have a good basis of comparison for them. Again, I use the example: Imagine scientists started warning about an "explosion" of increase in the number of and deadliness of germs when the microscope had only been invented about... five years beforehand. Now would you be more inclined to believe them at their word, or keep in mind that discovery of germs was recent and thus all data flooding in will be "unprecedented" and "record-setting." To sum up, I haven't heard or found enough studies that acknowledge and account for the advancement of human tech and the resulting increase in data that would throw off any records unless ajusted for.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    RE CO2 concentrations "What about well before recorded history?" ...
    NOAA's been using ice core samples (with trapped air pockets) as a measure of ancient atmospheric gas concentrations and have mapped the previous 450,000 years out. Their findings have been correlated with data from other ice core samples in other parts of the world. Does it conclusively lead us to the triassic period? No. Does it give us an accurate picture of the natural order of the last several hundred thousand years? Yes. Air pockets from even older times have been captured in various vehicles which do point to increased CO2 levels and warmer climes in ancient eras... but the CO2 levels at those 'livable' times were far below what our CO2 levels will reach in just a few decades at our current rate of increase.
    ==================================================
    I do appreciate you finally explaining to me what "ice cores" are. I had heard about them a lot but had no real explination on what exact method they involved. Although glancing at Wikipedia, this graph doesn't seem to show that great of a variation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Once again, you're thinking in terms of arithmetic. CO2 is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of our atmosphere, less than four hundred parts per million. The rate of change in the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere outstrips the rate of change in the water vapor in our atmosphere by a fantastically large number. The impact of carbon dioxide on the greenhouse effect is well understood. The simple concept here is that the system can only remove so much CO2 per year (it can remove literally billions of times more water vapor!) and the additional CO2 increases the amount of the water vapor by contributing to global temperature increases along with all it's other documented effects. Think Rate.
    ==================================================
    True, but I've also heard that co2 has a maximum threshold. That it reaches a point where a continual increase of co2 will result in an eventual flatline of absorbtion (or at least, a very shallow increase) rather than a constant rate. (at the very least, I thought that was the case with almost any gas, what's the word on this?)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I responded initially to your comments on various theories from the 20's-80's that haven't been born out and therefore the work of present day scientists are equally unsound. You picked them up (from popular media sources!) as the standard for scientific inquiry into global warming, which reveals an uncomplex mind with no thought for context. Did you do any followup research into any of those articles to see what the community of scientists reactions were? Science will always question itself, by nature, but the media cares about disaster theories because they make good news, not because they're good science. When you have a number of organizations worldwide agreeing that global warming is at least in part a direct result of human machinations and releasing joint statements of fact, you're in a different arena than the press junket. Note that I as "at least in part" out of habitual observence to scientific inquiry and the unknown, not because I have doubts about the magnitude of humanity's impact.
    =================================================
    So far from the records I've noted, it was also true back then that scientists from different places around the world did agree. In fact, wouldn't there be more reason to believe hypothesis X if it was stated independently by various scientists around the world than if a group released the hypothesis as a single unit no? Let me know what more information you'd like on some of the past science findings and I'll try to post that info for you (just obviously didn't want to get TOO long winded).

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    It's always great to not be taken seriously, to have one's words cherry picked and phrases twisted so that the reader can arrive at some falacious conclusion. I'm concerned about the 'tipping point' because I'm concerned with the rate of change in our CO2 levels. We've had historic cycles of CO2 levels, but never as high as we are now, and we're going into another of the hottest years on record on the tail end of a string of the hottest years on record. We're seeing weather extremes with more frequency. It doesn't take a serious mind to understand these facts, but deriding a concerted global message on global warming by explaining it away as bullhooey with an article about scattered collection of press clippings on various scientists' theories on the next ice age (from almost a hundred years ago, to boot) is not the reaction of a serious mind. I'm not surprised you didn't take me seriously.
    =================================================
    I see you are as guilty of the same crime as what you accuse me of. You'll notice that chiefly what I posted was that it's ALWAYS changed. First it was cooling a hundred years ago. THEN it was warming. THEN it was cooling again till about 30 years ago, now we're back to warming. If it was one consistent claim of cooling, I wouldn't think much of it, but the fact that global warming has been predicted before...
    “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.” -Los Angeles Times 3/11/1929 (sound familiar?)
    Meteorologist J. B. Kincer published a document showing that out of 21 winters examined from 1912-33 in Washington, D.C., 18 were warmer than normal and all of the past 13 were mild.
    In fact, someone made a claim that man was heating up the planet with carbon dioxide emission back in 1938. He was a british amateur meteorologist named G.S. Callender. The only difference between then and now was he said, "[the change] is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power."
    Then the New York Times said "we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century" on Aug 10th 1952.
    Polar explorer Col. Bernt Bachen said in Feb, 20, 1969, “the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two.”
    Again, any explination why I'm experiencing such a sense of deja vu?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    None of MY statements were lies (you've misrepresented them, but no surprise) but you've gone and oversimplified them and robbed them of context. Bravo, open mind. The first stated that there is a natural cycle, and that there are more variables to it than we can possibly comprehend at this time. At no point did it suggest that we have a poor understanding of the cycle (to the contrary, we have a rather good one!) or of the key (and contextually significant!) variables, just as we disregard the effect of the moon's gravity on a baseball pitch and don't factor extra-solar radiation spikes into our assumptions for atmospheric absorption. The second statement pointed out that the global community of scientists has already come to a conclusion on the topic of CO2 emission repurcussions. The two statements do not contradict, you just aren't reading carefully. (Perhaps I should have eschewed the first statement but it is habit (and good practice!) to frame all the variables in a system you are discussing)
    =================================================
    Ah, actually I think your statment would have been better put if you said, "we understand most (or all) of the major variables of the climate system but do not yet know all the minor ones." Now I do gladly retract my statement that you have better clarified your statement.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    To borrow a quote from Sun Tzu, "Peasents live in the present, and complainers in the past, but the warlord must live in the future." ... We've outstripped the world's ability to absorb CO2 and the rate of change is upward, not downward. Increased CO2 has global repercussions, and has also shown that, at least in the short term, creates positive feedback by diminishing the world's ability even further to absorb CO2. These are facts that have already been agreed on by the global community of scientists, and yet get reported as theoretical alongside individual naysayers.
    =================================================
    My previous posts were pointing out what was agreed upon by the global community of scientists throughOUT the years. But again, if you are as truly a student of science as you appear to be (and I do salute you), then you must know that what we're so certain about today... will probably be invalidated tomorrow ('tomorrow' being used as a stretch term, not litterally). And I am curious, what is the position of the earth's first state in all of this? I mean I am assuming that we still haven't reached the co2 concentration of those ancient days. Which means that the earth HAD to be able to absorb those levels at some point. Unless you're stating that we're going to rush things back to that point, at which deal, we all die out, then the earth restablizes and everything starts over. (evolution round 2!!! lol =) Oh, and I've also heard some things about how the sun appears to be outputting more heat lately than what's been observed before. Have you heard anything on this or seen studies that at least account for this possibility and try to factor it out?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'd recommend that you stop using the press as your golden standard for scientific inquiry and do some genuine research. They get paid for shock value, not sound theory. Have a great weekend.
    ==================================================
    I will DEFINITELY agree with you there. However, scientists are not immune from that either. Who do you think gets research funding? A scientist that predicts minor global changes or one that predicts great disasters that will happen at any moment? (of course, those that predict minor changes seem only able to get funding from the private sector at which point, they are then accused of being coporate lapdogs) It seems like a vicious cycle no? Environmental groups and scientists in general can only get public funding if they claim the impending destruction of the world, otherwise they have to get private funding at which point they are immediately accused of corruption etc.

    I will admit, I work more with computers and biology than climate (you definitely have more info than me on that) but I do know that research methods and funding are pretty much the same across the board. Surely you and I can at least agree that there are quite a few scientists that get paid based upon the "shock value" they can come up with.

    Grim, I completely agree that someday it will all be wiped out. I am not a scientist but nothing I have seen yet convinces me that in this time we have advanced to such a point to have such an impact on the world. And we absolutely have not advanced to the point that we have the knowledge to figure it all out and correct it.

    My statement was directed to those who do BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that they know what will happen, what is causing it, and what we have to do to correct it.

    If I believed as they do this would not be what I would be doing.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I appreciate the reference to C.S. Lewis, Grim.

    He's a particular favorite of mine.

    If you haven't read The Problem of Pain, I can't recommend it enough.

    You science guys are great and I can follow the general trend of the arguments.

    But, how many of you are there? I debate with my peers. And yes, lunchbreak, I do go on the internet and read when the subject comes up. You will notice that I included an excerpt from the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. I am not capable of reading research protocol and details and deciphering it. But neither does that mean I am not capable of forming an opinion based on the best info available to me.

    You declined to respond because I addressed the points to others. But, as I mentioned, it pretty much sums up my position. And the following is the typical response:

    "But I think you lost her... Your giving way to much benefit of the doubt...Ms Hawkin's ...would ever acknowledge the quantitative value of opinion within the scientific communities, let alone social or political debate.

    The denial of global warming is ...an extension...denial. It is the rejection of science itself. Evangelicals ...are so alienated from progressive values...they shun real science....these nut jobs have been predicting "the end is near" every time their is strife in the middle east. When Bush went into Iraq they figuratively started packing their bags for heaven.it is cult mentality that says "f--- stewardship all I care about is never not dying"."

    This typifies the response. So scientific and instructive. You admonished me to not follow the MSM. Upon what do you think the above sentiment is based. Pure science?

    I will rephrase my basic questions.

    1. What group is using what model that accurately verified prior Global Climate Changes from the Little Ice Age? Or any other recent past? To what degree of accuracy?

    2. What group claims that they have identified every factor involved and its proportionate weight in GCW? Upon what do they base this assertion?

    3. Should all inquiry into GCC be restricted to Global Warming?

    4. Should we be studying all possible future changes and ways to ameliorate the consequences to man?

    I have likened the current climate (no pun) in certain respects to Galileo and the church. To no avail. GCC appears to be the new religion. No heresy allowed.

    Look forward to hearing from you,

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I appreciate the reference to C.S. Lewis, Grim.

    He's a particular favorite of mine.

    If you haven't read The Problem of Pain, I can't recommend it enough.
    ==================================================
    Ms, It is a smaller list of what I have NOT read of his works than what I have. I do appreciate his style of writing (though I think the Great Divorce is probably my favorite of his works).

    Challenger,

    The Great Divorce is a wonderful book, indeed!