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 8, 2007
    COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - JANUARY 8, 2007

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

    Host: Keith Olbermann

    Topics/Guests:

    • SURGE SUPRESSION: Dana Milbank; P.J. Crowley, Center for American Progress
    • JOE BIDEN ANNOUNCES: Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
    • LIFE ON MARS: Derrick Pitts

    The opening spiel started off in typical fashion, with Olby bellowing about justifications for the war, Joe Biden, Mars, internet videos, and "the best place to work". Tonight will answer the question: what's worse? A full hour of furious, intensive propaganda and spin? Or 60 minutes padded out with inane attempts at humor and tasteless dreck?

    MADMAN

    First was "Mister" Bush's surge, with clips from Sen Smith (R)--because he opposes the President, natch!--but no clips from supporters. Dana Milbank, sans splashy suits, offered the heretical opinion that Democrats would be "silly" to try to defund the war (exactly the course Olby has been hyping for weeks), but rebounded with talk of "true oversight". KO was miffed with Biden, who said there is no practical way for the Congress to take over the duties of Commander-in-Chief. Then Krazy Keith invoked Rule #1 to say that tapping Fred Fielding to replace Harriet Miers because his name "echoes of Watergate". No great thanks; only a "thank you".

    Leftist (but not identified as such) P.J. Crowley joined the party to say Bush's benchmarks won't work. So there. What's more, the mission is unclear (maybe because it hasn't been announce yet), and we have no business being there. It's not a surge, said nonpartisan Keith, it's "indentured servitude". Huh? Don't try to make sense out of it. It's OlbySpin. But KO explained it all when he wrapped the interview, saying it's like "conducting a war in the middle of Alice and Wonderland". O.K. A brief recap of the Somalia airstrike followed.

    #4 was Joe Biden, with lefty Alter. Clip of Biden saying he's going to be "the best Biden I can be", which should concern John Edwards, because he wanted to be Biden. Alter spoke of JFK, Biden's verbosity ("he talks too much"), and how he needs a "breakthrough". But he managed somehow to get the topic around to Iraq, and what a great opportunity for the country it will be to have Joe holding hearings (because of the "rubber stamp Congress", of course). That earned him great thanks.

    Then we got the Mars landing and possible life on the planet, complete with supposed-to-be-clever animation and "funny" voices. Mr Pitts lent some erudition to the host's wacky antics. The "top 3 soundbites" was particularly incestuous, running a clip from "Tucker" where MSNBC's own "experts" talked about Olby vs O'Reilly (rather misleadingly, since the clip of O'Reilly was from an segment that wasn't about Olby).

    The hard news continued with "the best employer in America" (per Forbes magazine, via recycled NBC reportage), Britney Spears, K-Fed, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, and seven minutes on some internet dancing video. In the Media Matters Minute, Sean Hannity (conservative) and Geraldo Rivera (Fox) were both attacked. Olby claimed that a new Hannity segment ("Enemy of the State") was a ripoff of his "worst person" bit. Yeah, right. The Geraldo smear was just a rewrite of the comments noted here.

    OLBY

    Dogs That Did Not Bark: Nothing about the Dallas restaurant catering to illegals by accepting pesos. Or Nancy Pelosi breaking another campaign promise. Or Hugo Chavez announcing that he is taking his country on the road to socialism. You'd think that the sentencing of someone implicated in the 9/11 attacks would be news--but not on OlbyPlanet. And the discredited sports guy continues to protect his party leaders; he has yet to report even one word about Sen Harry Reid's controversial bridge project. But the biggest dog that didn't bark is the absence of a retraction and apology for Olbermoronn's Friday night lie about Bill O'Reilly.

    NAME

    Olbermann's book The book that bears Olberman's name continues to rocket at amazon.com: it's now all the way up to #3,539; Mr Bill's "Culture Warrior" is #61. The OlbyTome slipped to #2,601 at Barnes & Noble; O'Reilly's book is #113 there, as well as being one of 2006's top ten best sellers. Friday's Hour of Spin: Bill O'Reilly beat our favorite discredited sports guy by nearly four to one, though Olby did eke out a second place finish in total viewers and in the critical, beloved, all-important, coveted "key demo". Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 2 [LOW]


    Posted by johnny dollar | Permalink | Comments (303) | | View blog reactions

    303 Comments

    Happy to say- there is finally peace again in OlbermannWatch land. After fnding some extra hanging chads he's worth nothing!

    http://www.coolwebtoys.com/_Toys/Poll/BigResults.aspx?ut=1e4ff390

    At least Olby was mature enough to accept responsibility for stinking up the NYC metro area today with gas. He stinks up the airwaves five days a week already. Olby the Spleen.

    Finally.....


    Something that all of the right wingers can appreciate about "Countdown".

    An underaged girl singing about her box.

    After all, 9 out of 10 republicans prefer their females under 18. We even had an admission a couple of weeks ago from one of the republican spin masters on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, that the reason he doesnt fawn over Brittany Spears any longer, is because she is too old.

    See, Joe used to hold her up as the sort of girl that all american girls should aspire to be. I guess that had as much to do with the fact that she was running around the country, supporting the republican agenda and its candidates for office. And the fact that she still LOOKED to be 12 years old,

    And now, that she looks a little older (over 18) he wants nothing to do with her. As a matter of fact, he continually tries to portray her as some sort os "Hollywierd " type. He has even started the same attitude towards Jessica Simpson, now that she doesnt look to be 12 or 13.

    Yep, now Keith has delivered something, that all of you right wingers should enjoy.

    BTW, 92% of all of the people busted in the NBC series, "To Catch a Predator", are republicans. Yep, clean cut police officers, ministers, golfers, NASCAR dads, etc etc .......

    He Olby! Where's my apology?

    Annon 9:12 did his typing from the Nudie Booth at Paris's Pleasure Dome because they have wi-fi access.

    annon insted of the just google it line could you give the class a web address please?

    Puck: I answered your post on the old board, and there were no 'cheap shots'!

    Happy to say- there is finally peace again in OlbermannWatch land. After fnding some extra hanging chads he's worth nothing!

    http://www.coolwebtoys.com/_Toys/Poll/BigResults.aspx?ut=1e4ff390


    Yep, a quick WHOIS of coolwebtoys shows a bunch of bogus info. A zip code in California, for a city in Tennesee, that doesnt exist, and an email address that doesnt respond. What are they trying to hide.

    BTW, submitting bogus info about who they are, is cause to have their Domain Name revoked, OOOPPs

    Anon said: "BTW, 92% of all the people busted in the NBS series, To "Catch a Predator" are republicans"....

    I certainly don't know if that true or not, but if it is, doesn't that prove NBC's "Liberal Bias"?

    I certainly don't know if that true or not, but if it is, doesn't that prove NBC's "Liberal Bias"?liber


    You BET, they have bias against CHILD MOLESTERS. So do I. You dont ?

    Do you have a problem with someone having a bias against child molesters?

    Scarborough had a debate about Oreilley blasting NBC for leaning left and DENIED the left leaning. But the best part was....

    One pundit pointed out that tonight on the NBC evening news they reported on the Bush revised war plan to be unveiled Wednesday. They had three experts to discuss it and all three were against it. He asked "is that unbiased news?"

    Scarborough and company replied- (I am not making this up)
    -Troop surge is not a popular, maybe they could not find one who approved it. (Was not joking)
    -Cited 12% of america is for the troop surge so perhaps this is one case that you don't represent the alternate side.

    It's this biased simple minded thinking from MSNBC and CNN that makes me turn to Foxnews for perspective.

    Foxnews for perspective.

    That is the funniest thing I have heard in forever. You should be on stage somewhere doing stand up.

    One more thing, that 12% that supports this "Surge", I wonder if their kids will be serving, I say that this is the perfect opportunity for all of the chicken hawks (neo-cons) to show that they REALLY support this war, and the troops.

    What the troops need in way of support MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, is someone to relieve them.

    Instead of the people that have already seen 3, 4, and sometimes 5 tours of duty, why wont some of these "SO Called" patriots go down to the recruiting stations and enlist. Or drag their kids down there.

    Maybe that is why we are now hearing the likes of Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews and all of the other right wingers starting to oppose this war and this president.

    Lighten up anon 10:08:

    Don't you something said in jest when you see it?

    Typical liberal- need to hear what you want from MSNBC and CNN. Other side is bad! Do you ever read past the sports section of your own paper? Your wasting brain cells.

    By the way- Matthews a rightwinger? You are dumber than you write. Do a little google search on his resume. He's about as rightwing as you are smart.

    Mike, so the jest is not that 92% of child molesters are Reps but that NSNBC is biased.

    Very, very funny.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Benson:

    Then I guess that means you would like to see more 'fringe' folks like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore being on these shows as well?

    After all, supporters for this troop 'surge' ARE pretty much a 'fringe' group (12% remember) these days.

    Scarborough was right!

    Benson, surely you forgot that part of that resume is worked for that Riech Wing icon Tip O'Neil.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Lighten up anon 10:08:

    Don't you something said in jest when you see it?
    --------------------------------------------------------


    I know when I see right wing propaganda


    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Mike at January 8, 2007 10:20 PM

    Typical liberal- need to hear what you want from MSNBC and CNN. Other side is bad! Do you ever read past the sports section of your own paper? Your wasting brain cells.

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

    You are accusing me of wasting brain cells ? that was funny too.

    For someone like you, that dreams about Bill O using your tonge as his own personal faloofa.

    the right wingers are the ones out of touch.

    12% of support for a surge. The support for the war to start with was near 70%. What happened ? Americans arent buying your spin and propaganda any more ? I will bet that it is a real slap in the face for you and your right winged buddies, to NOT BE BELIEVED about anything.


    Hell, Micheal Moore, Scott Ritter, and all of those people have MORE CREDIBILITY than you, FoxNews. the republicans in general, and more specifically than your president,

    Janet:

    I don't actually believe that 92% are Republicans figure. I think perverts are for the most part, apolitical!

    Mark Foley excepted.

    NBC's liberal bias is a little more debatable, although I would actually go along with the idea that NBC might lean a little to the left these days, but not to the extent O'Reilly is railing about.

    Thats good, Fox needs a little counterbalance!

    Anon, are you Mike or just one of the anons?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Janet:

    Anon 10:34 was me.

    Anon 10:31 sounded a little confused to me. Was he railing against ME, the liberal! I couldn't tell?

    Wow, 34 - 14 Florida at halftime!

    This is a year we really needed a playoff.

    In fact, I think I'll submit that idea to Keith for a possible "special comment"!

    By the way- Matthews a rightwinger? You are dumber than you write. Do a little google search on his resume. He's about as rightwing as you are smart.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    Resume ?
    I dont need to see his resume. I saw him, on the run up to the war, portray ANYONE that had questions about the case for war, or opposed the going to war, he portrayed everyone of them as "protesting the troops.

    There were hundreds of time, he posed questions in such a way. Why dont you google that sonny ?

    He also has been a real spin meister when it came to election time. Or when he talked about corruption in Washington.

    Whenever the question of corruption would come up, about the MANY cases and VAST amounts of money involved in the corruption by the republicans, matthews would bring up Rep. Jefferson from Louisiana. Talking about the money in the freezer.


    It is like child molesters getting caught, and wanting to equate it to someone having Adults only porno on the computer, its not the same thing, and they know it, but it is their best argument.

    Chris Matthews a right winger? You bet.

    And as far as the question of smart.

    do you still beleive....

    .. that there were WMDs in Iraq
    .. that the Iraqis welcomed us with flowers and candy
    .. that there was a link between Sadam and Al Quida
    .. that Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger.
    .. that Bush. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy et al did not lie


    Do you feel lucky, Well do you punk ? Answer these and show everyone just how smart you are.

    Remember, it is better to remain silent, and let everyone think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.


    BTW, did you resemble my comment about the cowards that WONT serve in the armed forces ? Is that what got your panties in a wad ?
    ------------------------------------------------------

    Mike, Anon @ 10:31 sounded as reasonable as most liberals at this site that I see.

    If you are not in total lockstep you are perverted. Not a reasonable position at all.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Mike, check out Anon @ 10:48. A true voice of reason and progress. Cowards, child molestors!

    No defense against that resoned argument.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Mike, Anon @ 10:31 sounded as reasonable as most liberals at this site that I see.

    If you are not in total lockstep you are perverted. Not a reasonable position at all.

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

    You mean like the goose-stepping neo-con nazis,

    The people that made a case for war, that proved to be a lie,

    The people that thought a war was a great idea, but WILL NOT serve..

    the ones that believe ANYTHING that Bill O, Bush, or anyone that AGREES with the right wing mantra.

    You mean those in lock step like that, Oh, but those are the people like YOU.

    And also the people, that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY agree are dishonest to the extreme.

    NBC is al jazeera at 30 rock.

    a despicle news organization. I hope al jazeera starts beaming olby's special comments in arabic.

    That will put this news organization in perspective. They hate bush.

    last time i checked Bush was commander in chief and Citizen Keith can't handle the truth.

    Anon @ 10:54, of course Dear. Whatever you say, Dear. You are always right, Dear. Please forgive for disputing my superiors, Dear. How uppity of me, Dear.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Johnny D:

    The Scarborough piece on Fox News was laughable tonite. Quick time video material.

    L.F.

    Janet:

    No sorry I don't claim that one! If I hear too many more 'liberals' like anon 10:48, or 10:54, for that matter, I'll have to start calling my own self a moderate.

    This is reproduced from the Geraldo olbermannwatch page from tonight...

    "wanted to know why NBC is always after FOX and him specifically"

    Of course nothing even close to this... & yada, yada, yada... KO sucks... & pull stuff out of the usual orafice.

    Posted by: johnny dollar at January 8, 2007 08:33 PM


    Well, well, well... If our wonderful host, Mr. Johnny FRAUD... The one who does all of our 'reviews' of the show? Wasn't paying close attention to the show!! At 8:33 this evening, when he/she/IT should have been watching KO 's show, he's busy splurting off more & more & YET MORE AGAIN BS about how KO is pulling stuff out of his ass...

    Typical, isn't it, Johnny FRAUD? LOL!!

    Mike, please DON'T DO THAT! Who on your side will I have to agree with at all.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Freechie said: Keith "can't handle the truth"..

    Last time I heard THAT phrase was in a movie. Jack Nicholson's character said that phrase to Tom cruise's charcter.

    Guess which one ended up in jail? LOL!

    Whatever happened to the right wing gung ho attitude ?

    Not ONE right winger is willing to step up and defend any of the questions I posed, so here we go again, we will try it one more time


    And as far as the question of smart.

    do you still beleive....

    .. that there were WMDs in Iraq
    .. that the Iraqis welcomed us with flowers and candy
    .. that there was a link between Sadam and Al Quida
    .. that Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger.
    .. that Bush. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy et al did not lie

    And there are MANY MANY more examples of LIES of the republicans and their propaganda machines at Fox MSNBC et al

    But arn't you're the same anon who didn't get the joke with my 10:01 post?

    Like I said, lighten up and maybe someone will talk to you.

    Mike, who knows? In any case, there is no answer that will satisfy his type short of self immolation.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    You mean like the goose-stepping neo-con nazis,

    The people that made a case for war, that proved to be a lie,

    The people that thought a war was a great idea, but WILL NOT serve..


    the ones that believe ANYTHING that Bill O, Bush, or anyone that AGREES with the right wing mantra.

    You mean those in lock step like that, Oh, but those are the people like YOU.

    And also the people, that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY agree are dishonest to the extreme.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 8, 2007 10:54 PM

    I love how the person who wrote these words, which have more than a ring of truth is laughed off by Janet as some kind of nut. The nuts are the people who look to the same people who f---ed up the country to the point we are in now for answers of what we should do next. It's way past time to argue if we should have went to war. It will never be past time to learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration. They are a course in courage in supporting a losing proposition. There are people here looking for any angle to hold Democrats accountable now that they have some power. When these people had Republicans in power all they did was go along for the ride down the cliff to a war that is THEIR legacy. Keep talking like you know what the f--- is going on.

    Damn Janet:

    ALL the other 'Liberals' on here tonight seem to have anger management issues tonight!

    Did I ever sound THAT angry? If so, I apologize!

    Rico are you out there? Or are you sitting in front of your TV with a long face like the rest of the Buckeye fans?

    You're Gator bait tonight my friend.

    ALL HAIL THE NATIONAL CHAMPION FLORIDA GATORS!!! CHOMP! CHOMP! CHOMP!

    Did I ever sound THAT angry? If so, I apologize!

    Posted by: Mike at January 8, 2007 11:31 PM

    If you aren't angry at the direction this country has been led down you are not paying enough attention. Civility is something that has been lacking the past few years between political parties but it is in fact the republicans who have tried succesfully to a great extent to paint Democrats into a corner of supporting them or being unpatriotic or worse. It is unpatriotic to me to not answer the insults that are presently disguised as leaders of our nation.

    "NBC is al jazeera at 30 rock. "

    Al Jazeera at 30 Rock? Could you not do better than that, Feechie?

    "a despicle news organization. I hope al jazeera starts beaming olby's special comments in arabic."

    As do I... Because Olby speaking arabic sounds like a funny idea to me... Do you not mean with Arabic subtitles? & is this so you can start watching it, or your mother?


    "That will put this news organization in perspective. They hate bush."

    Kinda like you hate Arabs, right, Feechie?


    last time i checked Bush was commander in chief"

    Really? I didn't realize that Bush was commander iin Chief... You'd better explain that to old Tumbleweed himself. I don't think he knew that he has the military under his control... lol

    "and Citizen Keith can't handle the truth."

    & exactly which 'truth' was it that you were referring to, Feechie?

    The truth about Tumbleweeds great military powers? Which are way TOO great!

    The truth about Tumbleweed's violations of our Constitution? Nah, couldn't be it, either!

    Oh, wait, i know: The truth about Tumbleweeds intelligence, (which is obviously meager?)

    Posted by: Little Feechie at January 8, 2007 10:55 PM


    On an interesting sidenot, though... So I was watching the KDKA (pittsburgh) News broadcast at 12:00 noon today, & I heard that Cheney was in the area today on another one of his famed 'hunting trips...' You know, the type where he fl;ies in on a 'Day off,' shoots some helpless birds that are provided for him to shoot, some small animals, & some friends (when available,) & the broadcast news show had EXACTLY TWO (2) lines on the Vice President's shooting last year of his huntiong partner Harry Whittington while huinting in Texas last year. EXACTLY TWO (2) lines of an approximately two (2) MINUTE long report...

    Isn't it SO NICE that America has COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN about our Vice President shooting a friend? What does the rRight Wing think of incidents like this? Just figured I'd ask for some more spin from you, Johnny FRAUD? Cee, maybe? Grim??? & how about you Cecilia? You certainly can't like Cheney shooting your relatives, can you?

    DP, TEMPER, TEMPER, TEMPER. My, aren't we self righteous.

    If you consider yourself infallible because you are not only in a majority, but in a 85% majority according to Bob, just remember that pre WWII Europe and the US had the same majority.

    I know what I am FOR and why. Do you? Other than that the Repubs screwed up and don't ask you to have a remedy, what do you want? I may have missed your comments laying out your solution and expected results. If so, I apologise. If not, please enlighten us all.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Donora:

    Yes, I've had my share of 'anger' over this, and I have shared it on this site, just ask Janet. But this all started when the anon you reinforced failed to understand a joke I made at 10:01 jabbing at BOR's attack on NBC news. He apparently thought my joke was "right wing propaganda".

    Be carefull what you walk into!

    Indierik:

    You're not going to let em run up the score, are you?

    I know what I am FOR and why. Do you? Other than that the Repubs screwed up and don't ask you to have a remedy, what do you want? I may have missed your comments laying out your solution and expected results. If so, I apologise. If not, please enlighten us all.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 8, 2007 11:43 PM

    No Janet, It is you that is self righteous. And Condecending. You know what you are for huh. What? For shutting up and not saying what I feel about a political party that has aleinated many of its own? You want only perfest sollutions offered by people who at least admit there is a problem to solve. What are you doing? Playing both sides of the fence most likely. What is your solution? Where do you stand when your not demanding to know where someone else stands? I stand for holding the people who despise my basic right to disagree with the current crop in the whitehouse to just as high of a standard of truth as they demand from me. It makes you feel high and mighty to dismiss criticisms by bringing up pre world war two Europe, as if that means jack shit to anyone. You offer no solution and condem others for being confused or unsure about the world. How in good concience you can sit back and defend your arogance against people who are looking for answers, and unlike you, are not full of their own piety is beyond me.

    Don't worry Mike, we didn't run up the score the way Coach Spurrier used to. I was at a Gator party, but I had to leave at halftime. I was too anxious to sit around in an overcrowded living room. I was fortunate to have been a student at UF when we were Natty Champs 10 years ago and it feels as good now.

    IT'S GREAT! TO BE! A FLORIDA GATOR!

    2006/07 NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!

    I need a drink, and I need to get too bed- my VP decided it would be a good idea to have a 8:00 AM meeting tomorrow. BAH!

    DOnora:

    I'm going to defend Janet a little here. We were having a little fun with someone going off on a tangent and then you jumped in with both feet without even knowing what was going on.

    Janet is one of the few posters on the other side who does so while consistently showing respect for the opposition's viewpoint in the process, and I respect her for that. Show a little respect for her and you will get it in return.

    That said, I pretty much personally agree with you're worldview, but you are coming on far too hard at the moment!

    Donora,

    When you hate being asked what "you are for" that is a pretty good sign that the only thing you are for is your right to be unhinged about conservatives, Republicans, and Christians.

    Mike,

    Let me say that I agree that Janet does show respect and is worth speaking with about anything. That is why I spoke "at" her probably more than with her. Sorry Janet. As far as jumping into a conversation without knowing the whole story? Guilty. Sorry Mike. Lets be honest about Janet being condecending though.

    Donora,

    When you hate being asked what "you are for" that is a pretty good sign that the only thing you are for is your right to be unhinged about conservatives, Republicans, and Christians.

    Posted by: Rico at January 9, 2007 12:10 AM

    I am a Christian Rico. That is one of the things that makes me "unhinged", the continual presumption that to not be Republican is to not be Christian. Conservitives? The more I read about the "real" ones, the more I respect them even if I am not one. Republicans? I have had enough of them to be honest. I am for holding people who want and crave power to a higher standard than the liers and cheats who run our country have been held to.

    We were having a little fun with someone going off on a tangent.


    first the tangent,, you mean that I am challenging the right wing propaganda, the "lockstep " version of the truth that you right wingers are so in love with.

    you bet I am, and I am having fun with it.

    As far as you "having fun". I seriously doubt that.

    You havent answered one question, you havent tried to dispute one fact that I have offered.

    and you damn sure havent answered the question, assertion, that those that wanted this war, those that lied,( from Bush all the way down to the good ole coolade drinkers here,) those that claimed that this war was to protect us, are NOT WILLING to fight this war.

    And as far as the CRIES for being reasonable, yeah, the right wingers were real reasonable with calling ANYONE that questioned or opposed this war, UnAmerican, or tried to say that those people were protesting against the troops.

    Yeah, I used the word COWARDS, and now I will use another.

    ANYONE that said that this country was in danger, anyone that said that we were sending troops to Iraq to protect America, anyone that said that we need to fight this war, and is not WILLING to fight this war, is a TRAITOR to this country, and their claims.

    There you go, TRAITORS. And if you resemble that remark, and your feelings are hurt, TOUGH.

    For years, republicans have tried to portray themselves as the patriotic tough guys, now we all see what mamby pamby panty waste they are, They talk real tough, but when it comes to standing up, THEY CUT and RUN.

    Mr. Pa, you come to a site like this looking for answers? I don't think so. You come here to vent your spleen. I can just imagine how any answer given would change your mind. And Mr. Anon- yes, I believe all 5 things you asked about. So sue me. In the fullness of time, we'll know who was right.

    Anon 12:19:

    Exactly who are you calling a "right winger"...ME????

    Some of the`REAL wingers on here are really gonna get a kick out of that one!

    I look for answers in many places, and I have been enlightend by many on this site, both right and left of me. Don't be so sure that someone who disagrees with you isn't learning from you. Only fat heads and dead men know all the answers they need. I have a slanted view of the world, as does everyone. I do keep my mind open and absolutley love this crazy ass site for some crazy reason. I still say, Keep up the good work you are doing Keith.

    Donora,

    I am sorry, but your response is entirely inadequate. You are just telling us what you are PO'ed about now. Or "unhinged", as I prefer to say. That is not being "for" anything. I ask the simplist of questions to all of you unhinged ones and I keep stumping the band. Very strange!

    DP, I don't want perfect solutions, because they are an impossibility. Playing both sides of what fence? I have laid out my position on this for months.

    I don't want you, or anyone else, to shut up. All I asked is for you to lay out what YOU think our country should do, why you think that and what do you think the outcome will be.

    To reiterate very briefly:

    1. Every major public figure and politician going back at least a decade made public statements indisdingishable from GWB et al re Iraq. They all saw the same data. Bush lied is OUT.

    2. With that in mind, Iraq is strategically placed in the Middle East. Look at a map.

    3. There is no negotiating with those whose bottom line is YOU and YOURS capitulation or death.

    4. There has been no successful terrorist attack on US soil, or its equivalent, since 911.

    5. Sophistry and speciousess aside, GWB is not the enemy our country confronts. We have met the enemy and IT IS NOT US.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    arthurize said ..

    And Mr. Anon- yes, I believe all 5 things you asked about. So sue me.

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


    No need to sue, I just wanted the others to see what a coolade drinker some of you are.

    Now the other right wingers were not about to answer those questions. Cowards to the end. But most of them still believe those things, and WILL NOT SAY SO.

    Americans, have discovered how ignorant and decietful the right wingers of this country are.

    That is just one of the reasons for the results of November. There was also their perversions, corruptions, etc etc...

    I guess all of those things are based in honesty or the lack thereof, but one thing is for sure, the open and public lies of the right wing, are being withdrawn to their little circle jerks, cause you cant find republicans running around running their mouths any more.

    Because MOST Americans dont believe their BS any more.

    Thing is, you just stepped out in front of the bus, when the rest of your buddies wouldnt. At least you have some guts.

    Arthurize:

    I'll bet you really felt 'crushed' when you "stepped out in front" of THAT runaway bus and took the hit for all the 'cowards'!

    I'm just kind of ashamed to admit that this fanatic is "kind of" on my side politically!...no, that couldn't be!

    Please believe me, were not all like that!

    Donora,

    I am sorry, but your response is entirely inadequate. You are just telling us what you are PO'ed about now. Or "unhinged", as I prefer to say. That is not being "for" anything. I ask the simplist of questions to all of you unhinged ones and I keep stumping the band. Very strange!

    Posted by: Rico at January 9, 2007 12:33 AM

    Bullshit! You are using the same tactic used by many on this site against the left. What are you for you ask while you say nothing yourself other than the same losing talking points you learn from eachother. I am for a day when the Iraq civil war is being fought by Iraqis. I am for Bin Ladens body being found. I am for a decent wage for a decent days work. I am for Democrats having the balls to show the entire country what a corrupted bunch of crooks and liars you have been supporting. I am for Rumsfield and Cheney being discredited forever by the history books as incompetant and stupid. I am for Wesley Clark as president. I am for universal health care. I am for a tax policy that doesn't allow corporate millionares to escape. I am for Fox news being more honest and saying that they are in fact the whitehouse press secretary. I am for sites like this that allow you to explain what the hell are you for.

    kooooo-koooooo

    Donora,

    Since you haven't even asked me what I am for there is no need for me to tell you. But the problem is still that you don't even understand the question.

    "What you are for" is a general question and requires a general answer. If you say "I am for Wesley Clark for president" that is not "what you are for", but is something that follows out of "what you are for". What you are for will be true 40 years from now, as well as today. I doubt that 40 years from now you will be supporting Wesley Clark for president. What's the eternal Mission Statement for Donora?

    4. There has been no successful terrorist attack on US soil, or its equivalent, since 911.

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 12:34 AM

    This is very true Janet. It is also true that over 3000 American servicemen have been killed, and some 20.000 injured, not to mention a whole shit load of dead defenseless human beings who are caught in the middle. Lets not pretend that Iraq hasn't made it easier to kill Americans than it was before 911. The idea that it is military men that are being killed delights the terrorists a lot more than blowing up a bunch of innocents. If, God forbid we are attacked again, what will your defense of Bush be then. Also, if a Democrat is president when this happens, will you forgive him the way the right overlooks the fact, and blames Clinton for 911. Will you blame Bush then?

    Since you haven't even asked me what I am for there is no need for me to tell you. But the problem is still that you don't even understand the question.
    Posted by: Rico at January 9, 2007 12:54 AM

    Like I said, you ask a question that you won't answer yourself. I understand that the idea of an eternal mission statement is pretty f---ing wacked Rico. What do you want me to say. Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men of goodwill. What the f--- else would I want. The difference between us is you probablt want a mushroom cloud first to prove you are right about your politics. I am not so full of myself to think I have an eternal mission statement. I have a wife, a dog, a house, a job to go to. I am a human being not an ideology.

    DP, you are the original sage for the left and those who disagree with you. Every thought and comment is born full blown and unique in your mind. Unlike us robots who march to whoever you disapprove of.

    Would you at least make an effort to NOT speak in sound bites? Such broad generalities are so tiresome.

    And you have not yet shared with us your conception of what we, as our country, should do and what you anticipate the outcome to be if we follow your plan?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    DP, everyday Americans going to work is the exact equivalent to you to volunteer soldiers. Those who disagree want 'mushroom clouds' to vindicate their lies and deceits. Socrates would have worshipped at your feet.

    Mike, DP belongs to you. Can't give her back. She is your albatross.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    And you have not yet shared with us your conception of what we, as our country, should do and what you anticipate the outcome to be if we follow your plan?

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 01:05 AM

    I love it. You don't get it yet do you Janet. The fact that people like you believe that you have the answers to what our country should do and what the outcome of your plan will be is the number one reason why I come here. I am not an elected official. No one is paying me to make the hard decisions of national security that have to be made. I have opinions about the decisions, and the people who are making them. Am I missing something? Have you and Rico solved the worlds issues and posted them so that we can look back years from now and say how right you are? I thinks it's called delusions of granduer or something like that. I say what I am for and then I get "well what are you for?". You don't know what to do. You think because someone else isn't as sure of their own righteousness as you that they are copping out. No Janet. It's called being honest with yourself. Stay the course? Waht does that mean Janet? Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here? What if more people are dying over there than would here? Support the troops? So you are for a tax just to do that? Or just yellow ribbons?

    Mike, DP belongs to you. Can't give her back. She is your albatross.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 01:19 AM

    Donora is a name of a town in western pa Janet. I am a man who used to live there. We are famous for being the city that had a bunch of people die in a smog in the forties, before I was born. Stan the Man Musial also was born there. I still live in what we call the Mon Valley by the Monongahela river.

    Greetings from San Diego. I can't believe Mike still isn't on here now...he usually is pontificating on OlbermannWatch until 3:00 in the morning...I guess work is really important to him if he has time to be on here 24/7 and way past bed time. That is, of course, if he has any "work" to go to at all.

    As for the surge, it's my belief that if we did this in the first place, the insurgency would have no momemtum. The key here, unfortunately, is to take on Al Sadr's thugs and end the militia influence once and for all. Of course, those who root against success (see: Mike/Bob) are hoping the surge is a disaster so they can play a game of "ha ha" on this board. Disgusting.

    As for the surge, it's my belief that if we did this in the first place, the insurgency would have no momemtum.

    Posted by: RedState at January 9, 2007 01:26 AM

    Your correct RedState. By not taking seriously the idea of occupying a foreign country with a full force, and the security needed by the innocent people in the midst of it all we trully f---ed up any chance of a democracy or influencing in a positive way the middle east. Who is responsible for that RedState?

    "Donora,

    When you hate being asked what "you are for" that is a pretty good sign that the only thing you are for is your right to be unhinged about conservatives, Republicans, and Christians.

    Posted by: Rico at January 9, 2007 12:10 AM

    I am a Christian Rico. That is one of the things that makes me "unhinged", the continual presumption that to not be Republican is to not be Christian. Conservitives? The more I read about the "real" ones, the more I respect them even if I am not one. Republicans? I have had enough of them to be honest. I am for holding people who want and crave power to a higher standard than the liers and cheats who run our country have been held to."

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 9, 2007 12:19 AM

    Donora,

    While I do not feel comfortable commenting on the first point of your post (As I am Jewish,) I must say that the remainder of the post was very good & was very refreshing to hear.

    The failure to disconnect the traditional "Conservative" thinking with the thinking of today's "neo-cons" & even more so with todays Republi/Fascist party is legion. It is unfair to Conservatives for someone, for instance, with Sharon's views on abortion, or Red Wolf's views on racism, to be compared with anything resembling that of Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, either of the Tafts or Teddy Roosevelt... Did all of you know, for instance, that Barry goldwater was against Abortion, & racism & pro-Homosexual rights?

    Do any of you remember when the Republican party was actually the party of individual rights, the party of small (& not just MEAN) government, as opposed to what it has become under Bush? When it actually had a 'Noble purpose?' When it was THE party of cicil rights, & NOT the party of David Duke, Fred Barnes, & Alan Keyes?

    There was ACTUALLY a time when the Republican party WASN'T actually the REPUBLI/FASCIST party it has become since Richard Nixon & his "southern Strategy" decided that the three R's of the current Republi/fascist party (the Redneck, the Racist & the Religious Right) would rule the Grand 'Ole Party.

    I just find it interesting that the Republifascists in this room, whom (I must presume) know the history of their movement, can even begin to connect themselves to the great body of thinkers (aforementioned) & still worship these great moral conquerors of our bodies & lives, President Tumbleweed & people like his chimps Rick Santorum, Dick Cheney, & Bill O'Reilly...

    Very Hypocritical, I'd say... no?

    RedState...How are you?

    I just KNEW I could count on you to take your customary mean spirited snipe at me and my so called motives, which once again, is a lie.

    It couldn't possibly be that I don't want to see another 1000 or so young American soldiers die for cynical Political reasons, could it?

    But hey, truth means nothing to you!

    DP, I apologise for using the femine pronoun re you.

    I will, therfore, correct my erroneous post.

    Mike, DP belongs to you. Can't give him back. He is your albatross.

    And, if he follows the general scheme of nature, that makes him an even bigger albatross.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Proud to be a liberal.

    Yesterday I stated that there weren't many republicans around these parts and you rightly pointed to Santurum as proof that there was some. In truth I think "they" think they are Republicans because of Cathlolics (of which I am one) being manipulated into voting strictly on the abortion issue. You don't suppose that people with money and a political agenda had something to do with the church becoming a propeganda tool for Republicanism do you?

    "5. Sophistry and speciousess aside, GWB is not the enemy our country confronts. We have met the enemy and IT IS NOT US.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 12:34 AM"

    I disagree, the enemy here is the same as the enemy there. It is a class of people who put religion before education, and in doing so substitute reason for group think. Both Islamists and evangelicals collectively try to impose their group think on the society they live in, as well as societies abroad.

    You, who hides behind the moniker of "grammie" are no wise person of years. Instead you are a pretender who likes to make opinions sound like statements of fact.

    You speak of this nation having not been attacked since 911 quite often, but conveniently leave out the 3000 Americans who died after 911 in Iraq. You do this because your group think is not about reason - only propaganda. Then you leave out the number of attacks that civilians in Iraq have endured since 911 because of an American made war there. It is as though you are not capable, in that trap shut pea brain of yours, of being able to consider the horror the people of Iraq have been through. An attack on Iraq some how less evil than an attack on America?

    You are about as far from being Christ-like as the Islamists are from being good Muslims.

    You see in each culture the seeds of evil hibernate until the conditions are just right for growth.

    Here you sow your seeds of deliberate ignorance.

    One day, God permitting, you will burn in the hell of your own making, just like the one the people of Iraq live in at the hands of people like you who grant the political will to the leaders who created their hell.

    Your ignorance is deliberately blind to the human value of the soldiers who die in Iraq and the people who live and die in Iraq.

    You are bad person and a bad American. Your kind is why so many people across this planet are learning to hate Americans with each passing day. Your ignorance is a liability to our democracy.

    You suck!

    "You don't suppose that people with money and a political agenda had something to do with the church becoming a propeganda tool for Republicanism do you?"

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 9, 2007 01:45 AM

    The Catholic Church & money connected? NEVER, DONORA... NEVER IN IT'S 1600+ YEAR HISTORY...

    ;-)

    LOL

    Goodnight all,

    &, of course,

    PEACE!!

    Finally....something to debate about..

    DEMOCRATS MAY DENY FUNDS FOR TROOP SURGE

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070109/D8MHHFG00.html

    After being very hopeful that the evening's comments would be free from religious bigotry or dehumanizing descriptions....alas...I get to Proud's post....."chimp."

    Well, perhaps there is tonight!

    Buffalo seems to know Grammie real well.

    "Here you sow your seeds of deliberate ignorance."

    For all you loons that think Olbermann is a deity... Here is an exchange from Imus in the morning. The morning MSNBC guy... from his own network... he's not liked

    Imus: You got to remember that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, and while we like them, they’re hideously insecure. Keith Olbermann’s got an audience of a couple hundred thousand people or even let’s say it’s a million, let’s be idiotically generous. I mean there’s no impact. I mean they get mentioned in the Huffington Post and Tom Shales gives them a shout once and awhile, and that’s it. They have no impact. I mean Keith had a book you couldn’t get arrested with it. I would have happy to help him and he never asked me. We could have made his book a best seller, but he couldn’t. He couldn’t and he can’t…so they’re, you know.

    Charles: Right. They have issues.

    Imus: … None of them like me anyway and they don’t want to get hammered, but I like them so…

    Charles: I mean it’s bigger than that.

    Imus: I mean…You know….I’ve been here a long time and Charles I’ve seen this freak parade forever, and I’ve seen them come through.

    Charles: And it continues.

    Imus: And they just keep coming through. They’re here a while and then they’re gone, you know? I can just give you one example after another, it’s just been been one…Some of them you like, some of them you don’t. Some of them you try to help, some of them you don’t. They don’t have the liberty that we have. And the reason they don’t is because they don’t take it. You have to take it. Nobody’s saying you can go ahead and do what you want, I just do what I want. If they don’t like it, they can go get somebody else. That’s always been my position. From day one, that’s always been my position. From Palm Dale to here, you don’t like it, get somebody else. It doesn’t make any difference to me.

    One thing Grammie ISN'T is ignorant.

    Comic Book Store Guy (Buffalo) needs to remember that people with particular differing opinions can also be well informed, but see the world very differently....This is how the reality-based, ADULT world functions!

    By the sound of Comic Book Store Guy's screed, Grammie is running the Iraq war from her Barcalounger!

    Lapdog and the Republicans are trying to bait the Democrats into a lose -lose situation.

    If they cut off funding, then whatever current disasters happen in Iraq(like what's been happening), they'll be accused of abandoning the troops, and causing the collapse.

    If they DON'T cut off funding they'll be accused of not following their own convictions of being against the war, and of being cowards.
    (Lapdog has been pounding out that point for days )
    And when the inevitable happens in Iraq of our soldiers continue to die b/c of being caught in the crossfire of this civil war, Bush/Cheney will hang THAT on the Democrats heads like an albatross.

    So in effect, Bush and the Republicans now have an out no matter what happens.
    Their failure in Iraq is going to be dumped at the foot of the doorstep of the democrats,,no matter what.
    This party always has excuses for their failures that they love to pin on everyone but themselves.

    When you listen to jingoistic chickenhawks like Lapdog( cee),you KNOW this is going to be their planned strategy.
    They never had a valid one in Iraq, but they most certainly have an "escape plan" from responsibility.

    Its called politics Bob, "So in effect, Bush and the Republicans now have an out no matter what happens."

    The Dems made the war the issue in the election so the public expects them to have ideas. Like it or not-you dems have been painted into a corner. You'll have to commit one way or the other and deal with the rewards or loses.

    Stop whining- when you ran on the issue- you'll be judged by the issue.

    Uh, professor, the simple fact that you do not want to be held accountable for the actions of your representatives is not MY problem.

    I said it before: I support President Bush and if he continues his foreign policy with the support of The Congress, I will expect success in stabalizing Iraq, over the next two years. If Bush's policies are stopped by a majority in The Congress then I expect a Vietnam like scenario in the next two years.

    I will quote the good from the story for your edification, professor:

    "The bill by Kennedy, D-Mass., is guaranteed to fuel the debate among lawmakers on how far they should go to try to force the president's hand on the unpopular war.

    "Under the Constitution, the president has broad war-making powers, while Congress controls spending. Democratic leaders have swiftly rejected any suggestion of withholding money from troops already in combat zones.

    "'The Congress has the power of the purse and what we are saying is before the president sends additional American troops into the civil war, the president has to come back to the Congress and get the authority for that deployment,' Kennedy said Tuesday on NBC's 'Today' show.

    "'The American people ought to have a voice and a vote and members of Congress should be held accountable. We ought to take this step and stop the surge,' Kennedy said.

    "In prepared remarks he was to deliver later Tuesday to the National Press Club, Kennedy said: 'The best immediate way to support our troops is by refusing to inject more and more of them into the cauldron of a civil war that can be resolved only by the people and government of Iraq.'

    "If brought to the floor by Democratic leaders, Kennedy's proposal would force Republicans to put themselves on record regarding the war for the first time since the Nov. 7 elections, when the GOP lost control of Congress to the Democrats in large part because of the war. Most Republicans say they back the president, or are at least willing to hear him out, but a few GOP moderates say there is no indication U.S. troops would make a difference. According to senators who attended the meeting Monday with the president, a promise to send more troops to Iraq would be conditioned on criteria met by the Iraqi government, such as reaching political deals on sharing the nation's oil resources and dispatching more of its own troops to Baghdad.

    "Bush told the senators that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suggested the plan when the two met in late November in Amman, Jordan. The senators said the president expressed confidence that the Iraqi government could meet certain milestones in exchange for additional U.S. support. But several of the senators remained skeptical.

    "'We've had these benchmarks before and to no avail,' Sen. Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, said after meeting with Bush. 'Why should we increase our exposure to risk?'

    "But whether Snowe and other GOP skeptics of Bush's plan, including Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon and Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, will agree to Kennedy's plan is doubtful.

    "'It would be a dishonorable thing for the Congress to budget away the bullets at a time when their commander in chief had ordered them to hold their place in the battlefront,' said Smith."

    Cee, you keep planning the strategy for us to RULE THE WORLD and I'll keep up my end in implementing it.

    They keep saying it, but they really don't believe it.

    Who would guess that kindly Marcus Welby, MD and Opie's Grammie could be so diabolical and powerfull.

    See you at the revival tent.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    I know those rabbit ears on your TV can't pick up the cable news shows, but I've also not heard anyone but L.Graham come on and support this new desperate policy.

    Wonder why !

    Putting MORE troops in the middle of a Civil War is recipe for disaster.
    Bush has said he's not losing the war on his watch, so he'll continue to send more troops to die and IN HIS WORDS " Let the next president deal with it."
    If that's not the words of a coward, shirking responsibility, I don't know what is.
    More and more republicans are abandoning this president every day( for reasons that seem to be lost on you) and when his plan (for salvaging his legacy) comes out on Wednesday, I'm sure more will follow suit.

    Lie alert-
    Can i have the link for this Bush quote-
    " Let the next president deal with it."

    Who would guess that kindly Marcus Welby, MD and Opie's Grammie could be so diabolical and powerfull.

    Marcus Welby cared about people and prevented them from dying, not encouraging a president to increase more death.
    Aunt Bee was a kind and intelligent woman.

    There appears to be no similarities whatsoever.

    The people that thought a war was a great idea, but WILL NOT serve..
    ====================================================
    Attention all Anon's and anyone else wanting to make this point.

    You do know that the military has strigent PHYSICAL requirements don't you? If you're over a certain age, weight, have prexisting medical conditions... etc you're not allowed to serve. So you might want to check to see if any of these people you're critisizing are even ELIGIBLE to serve, much less attempted to.

    The reason that George W. Bush insists that "victory" is achievable in Iraq is not because he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised. No, it's that his definition of "victory" is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and on-line. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read this. And the driving force behind his planned "surge" of American troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now ripening in his hand.

    At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve a new "hydrocarbon law" essentially drawn up by the Bush Administration and its UK lackey, the Independent on Sunday reports. The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," say the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new law. "It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." If the government's parliamentary majority prevails, the law should take effect in March.

    As the paper notes, the law will give Exxon, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come. This law has been in the works since the very beginning of the invasion – indeed, since months before the invasion, when the Bush Administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, the politically-wired oil servicing firm, to devise "contingency plans" for divvying up Iraq's oil after the attack. Once the deed was done, Carroll was made head of the American "advisory committee" overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land, as Joshua Holland of Alternet.com has chronicled in two remarkable reports on the backroom maneuvering over Iraq's oil: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil and The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil.

    Bush will make explicit the connection between the "surge" and the oil law when he reveals his "New Way Forward" on Wednesday, the New York Times reports. According to senior Bush minions talking up the plan for what is not a surge but a long-term escalation of urban warfare that the U.S. ground commander in Iraq says will likely last for years, Bush's new "stratergery" includes "benchmarks" that the natives must meet to keep in favor with their colonial master. One of the most prominent of these is the demand that Iraq "finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue."...


    DEMS PUSH TO IMPLEMENT REMAINING 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

    -- GOP Profit Shills Object To Cost; 5 Billion/Yr Price Tag; Amount Spent Weekly In Iraq Boondoggle --

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats are turning to national security for their first legislation in the new Congress: a bill to screen all cargo containers shipped to the U.S. and enact most remaining recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Just five days after taking control of Capitol Hill, Democrats planned to push the legislation through the House on Tuesday as part of the first 100 hours of action promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California. The House measure would also require screening of all air cargo, distribute more federal aid to states based on risk instead of population, provide money to improve emergency agencies` communications gear, and include steps aimed at preventing nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.


    No, professor, George Bush is trying to meet the commitment my country made to the Iraqi people when my country removed Saddam Hussein...

    That commitment was to leave a secure, representative government that included all the types of people in Iraq.

    The terrorists see this challenging commitment as an opportunity to advance their radical agenda towards achieving a pan-islamic Middle East, devoid of freedom and religious diversity. The tactics they use are for the expressed purpose of eroding public support for meeting the commitment because it is impossible for them to win militarily.

    George Bush is an honorable man who believes in doing what he can to keep promises. If reality imposes conditions even The President can no longer overcome then I gladly accept that reality.

    For you to out-of-hand dismiss his actions as purely political in nature is your right....but it is illogical, not supported by any facts and highly cynical.

    For you or anyone to behave soley because of your cynical distrust makes you no better than the people you condemn. Right is right, no matter what your opponent does....and if you feel it is right for us to be out of Iraq in the next 6 months, then you should be happy some Democrats are finally moving to accomplish it.

    I do not see that course of action as right and 100% support any decision Bush makes that comes from the advice he has received from his military advisors and the elected officials of Iraq. So far as I can read....many of these people see a benefit from an increase in troop levels. I await the specifics tomorrow night.

    Janet writes: "Cee, you keep planning the strategy for us to RULE THE WORLD and I'll keep up my end in implementing it."


    So you two are the rich Republicans paying off the pope!

    nice....

    Bob, you have gleefully stated dozens of times that the Dems won on an antiwar platform and had a mandate from the American people, 85% to be exact, to get us the hell out of Iraq. For the moment we'll leave aside your other claimed mandates.

    You campaigned and won on the antiwar mandate. Now you are testy because you won and those evil repubs are asking you how are you going to accomplish it, when and what you expect the outcome to be. And that corner you claim to occupy was forced on you in a Karl Rovian dirty trick.

    Bob, you and 85% of the American public are at the plate. So, what are you going to do? Get called out on strikes; bunt; pray for a walk; or if you don't get a hit or a homerun at least go down swinging.

    Chickenhawks indeed.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    You do know that the military has strigent PHYSICAL requirements don't you? If you're over a certain age, weight, have prexisting medical conditions... etc you're not allowed to serve. So you might want to check to see if any of these people you're critisizing are even ELIGIBLE to serve, much less attempted to.

    The military has weakened their requirements to the point of calling back 60 yr old national guard retirees to find more bodies for Bush's war.
    I know of such Guard members that got this unbelievable letter in the mail.

    The military is also looking the other way in taking in people with mental deficiencies for the very same reason I gave above.
    With that in mind, the chickenhawks on this site are prime choice quality candidates to be shipped over to Iraq.

    cee,

    Our country made no commitment. The only commitment made was the one Bush made to his oil company cronies. If Bush was committed to a stable Iraq, he wouldn't have left munitions dumps unguarded, nor would he have used chemical weapons on civilians, nor would he have disregarded the advice of actual military men.

    Why be ignorant?

    Also, the recruiting office is so disorganized and incompetent ( following in the grand Bush tradition) that they just sent out 275 letters to soldiers who have died or have been permanently injured requesting they re-up for military service.

    The truth usually puts the right wingers to shame.

    You made my day BK. I had a bet with myself that some lib would make a perceived serious comment. And you took it hook, line and sinker.

    I was just agreeing with you all.

    Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

    So, what else is new with you guys.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Lie alert-
    "would he have used chemical weapons on civilians"
    can we get a link here?

    George Bush is an honorable man who believes in doing what he can to keep promises.

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    For you to out-of-hand dismiss his actions as purely political ... is illogical, and not supported by any facts.

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    "Or Nancy Pelosi breaking another campaign promise."

    Johnny, don't be an idiot. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made a statement saying that they were taking the day so that the Representatives from Ohio and Florida (including House Minority Leader John Boehner) could watch the National College Football Championship.

    "There is a very important event happening Monday night, particularly for those who live
    in Ohio and Florida. In the spirit of comity, and I know if Maryland were playing, I would want to be accommodated and I want to accommodate my friend, Mr. Boehner," - Rep. Hoyer

    "And the discredited sports guy continues to protect his party leaders; he has yet to report even one word about Sen Harry Reid's controversial bridge project."

    Do you want to know how wrong you are about this?

    1) The projected bridge has been in the works for YEARS. At the moment, there is only ONE bridge connecting Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona, and it is only a 5-lane expressway.

    2) That road has become ensarled with even more traffic since U.S. 93 (which runs right over the Hoover Dam) was closed to all but passenger traffic after 9/11, forcing trucks and large vehicles to take this old bridge. It's as much as 30 miles out of their way to take this detour and makes congestion in Laughlin even worse.

    3) Reid's land is NOWHERE near the projected location of the new bridge.

    Ok Anon....IF Bush purposely bungled Iraq...it would have been necessary to have many others in on the plan...right?

    How many more? 20? 30? 40? 50?

    Who and at what levels? Would they have been career military men and women and/or all civilian political people?

    In any event, more than that brilliant Bush would have been needed to implement the plan to get Iraq into chaos.

    Please provide more than circumstantial evidence with regard to this conspiracy theory.

    Also, if you believe 9/11 was either hatched by Bush and The House of Saud OR Israel...let me know...because then I will simply stop discussing ANYTHING with you.

    Janet writes: "Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

    So, what else is new with you guys."

    Indeed.

    I've been on this site since the doors opened about three years ago and I used to think that you and Cee would lose your energy for any real issue debate with these guys.

    I'm starting to think I'm wrong. I think maybe you and Cee do have enough heart and soul to take over the world or at least the internet.

    Let's sum up.
    George Bush & the republicans launched a war with a country that didn't attack us.
    They said it would be a cakewalk.
    They botched the post war planning.
    They lied to us, and repeated said we are winning this war.
    Then lost in the elections, and came back with"We're not winning , we;re not losing"...
    proving they've been playing politics with our troops lives.
    Now that Iraq has deteriorated into a Civil War, Bush wants to send more troops in that mess to be killed.
    And then AKA Grammie( why she feels a need to write two names everytime she posts, is funny )
    plays games with :"You made my day BK. I had a bet with myself that some lib would make a perceived serious comment. And you took it hook, line and sinker".

    As if she HAS the upper hand in any debate on this war.
    So smug, so arrogant, so wrong.
    But that doesn't stop the old battleax from spouting her nonsense day in and day out.

    You supported a (Republican) policy on this war that has turned out to not only be wrong, but a disaster.

    Keep up the brilliant posts. We all need humor in our lives...and you provide that in spades.

    Also, if you believe 9/11 was either hatched by Bush and The House of Saud OR Israel...let me know...because then I will simply stop discussing ANYTHING with you.

    Here's one area ( the first) that I have to agree with Lapdog.

    To look at the record of Bush/Cheney, this incompetent gang that's been wrong about EVERYTHING in 6 years, could possibly mastermind a plot like 9/11, goes beyond the realm of rational thought.

    "Keep up the brilliant posts. We all need humor in our lives...and you provide that in spades."


    So true.

    Remember Chucky, we aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at you.

    Actually, Cecelia, I tend more towards a snicker.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie


    SECTARIAN REGRESSIVE HUKSTER HONES NEXT SHELL GAME SPEECH

    -- With 72% Disapproval Rating, Bumbling Decider Practices Delivering Old Lies With New Inflections --

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush has set Wednesday night for the unveiling of his new Iraq war plan which is certain to touch off a bruising battle with Congress over his expected proposal to dispatch more U.S. troops to Iraq. Democrats on Monday reiterated their pledge not to cut off money to ground troops, but were considering a range of other ideas to counter the Bush plan, including cutting off funding for private contractors who profit from reconstruction efforts. Democrats now have two factors working in their favor: majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, and more Republicans who would be willing to support a phased withdrawal. Recent polls have shown that 72 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush has handled Iraq.

    Anon (11:09),

    You DO recall the phosphorous attacks, do you not?

    Well, Bob, you got me. The ultimate in logic and reasoning: THE coup de grace, BATTLEAXE.

    I'm done for now. In lieu of flowers, please make a donation in my name the Republican National Committee.

    Au revoir.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Cracks me up that your views have been proven to be dead wrong, yet you still think, like Grammie,that you have the upper hand.

    Ceals discounts the rest of my post about how Bush (and she) has been wrong about everything.
    Keep laughing, Ceals, b/c there is nothing as funny as when some one laughs and the joke's on them.

    Mission Accomplished !

    or should I say, "Stay the Course" !


    I guess that means Bob won't be making a contribution to the RNC in my name.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Bob, still waiting for an answer to my comment @11:02 AM.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 11:02 AM

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 11:08 AM

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 11:43 AM

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 11:48 AM

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 11:51 AM

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 11:55 AM


    The bigger the a--hole, the wider its maw, and the more often it flatulates its name.

    JZ, you are too kind.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    JZ, you are too kind.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    But right on the money !

    Grammie must have some deep seated insecurity issues for her to feel that she needs to not only write her name once, but twice at the end of each inane post.

    The bigger the a--hole, the wider its maw, and the more often it flatulates its name.

    Perfectly said !

    The military has weakened their requirements to the point of calling back 60 yr old national guard retirees to find more bodies for Bush's war.
    I know of such Guard members that got this unbelievable letter in the mail.
    ...
    Also, the recruiting office is so disorganized and incompetent ( following in the grand Bush tradition) that they just sent out 275 letters to soldiers who have died or have been permanently injured requesting they re-up for military service.

    The truth usually puts the right wingers to shame.
    ====================================================
    What truth? That the government is woefully incompetent? "right-wingers" have been saying that for years. What's really your point? Have any of those cases you mentioned ACTUALLY served in Iraq?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The military is also looking the other way in taking in people with mental deficiencies for the very same reason I gave above.
    With that in mind, the chickenhawks on this site are prime choice quality candidates to be shipped over to Iraq.
    ==================================================
    On the one hand, it'd be great for them to call me back about serving... on the other, if I had to fight alongside a moron like you... well, the term "human shield" just gained a new appreciation for me.

    I think maybe you and Cee do have enough heart and soul to take over the world or at least the internet.

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 9, 2007 11:20 AM

    Like Bush took over Iraq and made it safe for democracy?

    If there was ever stone cold solid proof of Cecila's disconnect from reality, it's in the above statement !
    Delusional thinking gone wild !


    BUSH: WE HAVE PLENTY OF TROOPS FOR PLENTY OF WARS

    -- Joint Chiefs: Surge Means Imprudent Policy Reversal; Hurts Military, Recruiting, Retention --

    WASHINGTON -- The nation`s top military officials, expecting President Bush to order an increase in the size of the force in Iraq, have concluded that such a buildup would require them to reverse Pentagon policy and send the Army`s National Guard and Reserve units on lengthy second tours in Iraq. Under Pentagon policy, Guard and Reserve units have been limited to 24 months of mobilization for the Iraq war. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff have concluded that a significant troop buildup would require the Pentagon to send Guard and Reserve units for additional yearlong tours. In addition, National Guard leaders were skeptical of calls for additional combat tours, which they fear could hurt recruiting and retention.


    Like Bush took over Iraq and made it safe for theocracy.

    Janet and cee are still of the mind that they are just having fun shooting down all the left wing liberal posters with ease. It is no effect to try to persuade them of anything. They are probably related in some way.

    Paging Dr. Freud... or at least Dr. Phil.

    When it comes to the White House's latest "new approach" to Iraq, we are definitely entering "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" territory.

    The judgment behind it -- looking at the advice of military experts, and the unambiguous results of the November election, and deciding the proper response is to escalate our involvement in Iraq -- is straight out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

    Psychiatric literature defines delusional thinking as "false or irrational beliefs maintained despite clear evidence to the contrary."

    Sound like any commander-in-chief you know?

    Indeed, watching Sen. Lindsey Graham shill for the administration on Meet the Press this weekend, and hearing him state with utter conviction and a gleam in his eye, "We've got a new team on the ground. We're going to come up with a new strategy. The strategy is going to be designed to win," I couldn't help but think of the reports from psychiatrists who have treated patients with delusional personalities. The truly deranged are often so committed to their delusions, and so insistent, that part of your brain actually starts thinking: Hmm, maybe this person really is Napoleon! Maybe that woman really is a fried egg! Maybe the surge really will lead to victory in Iraq!

    Meanwhile, the other part of your brain -- the rational part -- is reminding you that, no, in fact, that person is not Napoleon or any part of a Denny's Grand Slam Breakfast. They are simply utterly insane.

    So now, as the president prepares to preempt Deal or No Deal to lay out his new plan for Iraq in prime time on Wednesday night (and wouldn't it be great if we could all collectively shout "No deal! No deal!!" at him through our TVs?), it might be useful to have a diagnostic checklist -- things we should to be looking for during the speech to help us evaluate where the president currently stands on the "I'm a fried egg" delusion continuum. (Hat tip to Dr. Bill Frist, who paved the way for such video-diagnoses.)

    Here are some of the key symptoms of "false or irrational beliefs maintained despite clear evidence to the contrary" we should be looking out for:

    Does he display clear indications of denial, continuing to use words like "victory," "win," and "stable democracy"? Does he avoid using the phrase "civil war"? When he repeatedly talks about "sacrifice" does he skip over the fact that this doesn't include me and you, and over 99 percent of Americans?

    Does he exhibit signs of the classic layman's definition of insanity: repeatedly doing the same thing but expecting a different result? Look to see if he trots out strategies that have already failed time and time again and acts like he expects them to have a different outcome. Be on particular alert for mentions of a new Baghdad security plan, and see if they are accompanied by any reference to the five previous such plans, all of which have failed to curb the chaos. And keep an eye open for even the slightest acknowledgment that throughout the war the military has repeatedly carried out troop surges of more than 20,000 and the bloodshed in Iraq has continued to increase.

    Does the patient -- I mean, the president -- demonstrate magical thinking, signs of a belief that merely wishing for something can make it so? For example, when he talks about sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq, does he acknowledge the reality that military commanders have told him they don't have the troops available to deploy more than 9,000 soldiers? Does he appear cognizant of the fact that in order to come up with even 20,000 troops the military would have to remobilize reserves, extend current tours of duty, give new units dangerously little time to train, shorten the amount of time between tours for troops returning home, and leave America even less able to deal with any new security threat?

    Does he continue to make the claim that we're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here...even though there isn't a shred of evidence that the war in Iraq has made us safer, and a great deal of evidence that it has, in fact, had the opposite effect?

    Does he continue to irrationally link the war in Iraq to 9/11, as Tony Snow did on Monday when he claimed the president "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war, but that the American people "don't want another September 11."

    Does he admit that the new top commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Odierno said that even with a troop surge, it could take another "two or three years" for our troops to get the upper hand in Iraq?

    Does he explain where the $100 billion in additional war funds he will be asking Congress for next month is going to come from, or do you get the sense that he believes it will come from the exact same place the additional troops will come from?

    Sadly, I think the diagnosis is inevitable. Nothing in Bush's history suggests otherwise. This will leave the rational treatment of the war in the hands of Dr. Reid, Dr. Pelosi, and their Congressional cohorts. The prescription? A straitjacket on the president's war funding requests.

    It's one thing to believe you're Napoleon. It's quite another to send more young people to die in your Waterloo.

    Beautifully and concisely written by the beautiful and intelligent Arianna Huffington

    Ok dumbasses, I challenge you to post some eloquent essays by ANY0NE that supports this march to Waterloo.

    Bushkill Falls, Pa

    I doubt that the deluded ones here will even get through half of your last post. It is too much for them to deal with. Delusional thinking is what keeps them getting up in the morning. Reality would destroy their reason for living, which is to spread delusion.

    Bob writes: "If there was ever stone cold solid proof of Cecila's disconnect from reality, it's in the above statement !
    Delusional thinking gone wild !"

    Chucks, has Iraq become your all-purpose excuse for being manical?

    Donoria Pa, anyone who believes that Catholics have crafted centuries old doctrine around payments from rich Republicans shouldn't be calling anyone delusional...

    "Ok dumbasses, I challenge you to post some eloquent essays by ANY0NE that supports this march to Waterloo."

    They won't because they can't.
    All the "dumbasses" do is tie themselves up into knots trying to defend the indefensible.

    wonder if Cecilia read Arianna's words, or is she too busy sniping at people to actually read anything?

    To call Arianna "intelligent" is the most reaching of all of today's posts. Bitter and biased is more like it.

    Does he explain where the $100 billion in additional war funds he will be asking Congress for next month is going to come from, or do you get the sense that he believes it will come from the exact same place the additional troops will come from?

    Bush will be asking Congress for the funds, it is up to Congress to say yes or no. If Bush asks for 100 billion and Congress approves the funding who is the dumbass.

    Cecilia and Grammie , bleeding and faultering from the truth arrows piercing their persona,try to remain unaffected by their wounds.

    From my unbiased view- Grannie and Cecillia have been kicking your ass. You look like OSU players...

    Donoria Pa, anyone who believes that Catholics have crafted centuries old doctrine around payments from rich Republicans shouldn't be calling anyone delusional...

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 9, 2007 12:58 PM

    No cecelia, that's not what i said. The idea that you can't take communion if you vote for a democrat who is pro-choice is a new thing. I reserve my right, as do most Catholics to vote my concience. There is no doubt in my mind that Republicans contributed large sums of money to the Catholic church in this country with the understanding that they would get a push from the church. The church has made a giant leap to the right wing in the last few years. Your delusional to believe otherwise.

    "They won't because they can't.
    All the "dumbasses" do is tie themselves up into knots trying to defend the indefensible"

    So one is a dumbass if one does not write an essay defending the Iraq War and one is a dumbass for trying to defend the "indefensible" by writing one.

    Have all you guys (Mike and Ensign Expendable excluded) taken a logic course taught by Bob?

    Again, I just don't know where Cee and Janet get their drive.

    To call Arianna "intelligent" is the most reaching of all of today's posts. Bitter and biased is more like it.

    What would you call Bush ?: a "great president" like Cee ?

    You got nothing.

    Arianna rocks !

    (AND IS 100% ACCURATE )

    which probably fueled your outrage to begin with.

    Americans are finally seeing through all the Bushit.
    Thank goodness most people are not as deluded and in denial of reality as the sectarian regressives herein.
    Here are the very latest CBS News Polls regarding Iraq (which the duped regressives herein will no doubt deny).

    WOULD A TROOP INCREASE TO BAGHDAD HELP STABILITY?
    Yes 35%
    No 55%

    HOW IS THE WAR GOING?
    Well 28%
    Badly 71%

    WAS REMOVING SADDAM WORTH IT?
    Yes 30%
    No 64%

    HAS THE IMPACT OF THE WAR BEEN MOSTLY?
    Negative 60%
    Positive 23%

    WHO IS WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ?
    The United States 17%
    Iraqi Resistance 16%
    Neither Side 62%

    CBS NEWS POLL
    The War in Iraq
    January 1-3, 2007

    When someone compares political debate to college football, you know that you've got a pretty shallow stream to cross...

    Anonymous (1:06), maybe you should offer something besides nothing...

    She doesn't afftect me... she is fringe. Posting Huffington is as bad as posting Coulter. They are both bitter people who need not be brought here. You are truly warped...

    Again, I just don't know where Cee and Janet get their drive.

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 9, 2007 01:09 PM

    It probably comes from having a mental disorder that doesn't let them know they are full of it.

    I am sure they get satisfaction from slapping down you simpletons. And you are too dumb to see it.

    She doesn't afftect me... she is fringe. Posting Huffington is as bad as posting Coulter. They are both bitter people who need not be brought here. You are truly warped...

    I am sure they get satisfaction from slapping down you simpletons. And you are too dumb to see it.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 9, 2007 01:13 PM

    And you are as dumb as them.

    DP- You have added nothing here for days accept insults. Try and say something that adds to the conversation rather than calling people dumb and mental. It shows why you are a Democrat. You are truly needy.

    Cee is a king of delusion. Janet just barely makes some sense. cecelia thinks she is above the rest of us all. It is a like a comedy team. The punch line is supporting this administration. The joke is on the ones who die for it. Pretty f---ing sad crew if you ask me.

    You are truly needy.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 9, 2007 01:18 PM

    What have you ever said. Who the f--- are you?

    Cecilia writes :So one is a dumbass if one does not write an essay defending the Iraq War and one is a dumbass for trying to defend the "indefensible" by writing one.

    So that's Cecelia's way of saying "I know no one is dumb enough to write an essay supporting this Waterloo."

    We hear ya Cecilia.

    Always wrong,never willing to admit it.

    Cecilia again:"Again, I just don't know where Cee and Janet get their drive."

    Where does Cecilia get her drive to continue to defend the indefensible?

    Oh I forgot, she doesn't want to go out on a limb and actually SUPPORT Bush's latest blunder, just throw barbs at people who do.

    Cecilia is as transparent as Bush's Iraq war "stratergery".


    Someone who recognizes one miserable son of a bitch- you are pathetic

    My, my. You sure get testy over such little inconsequential things. My signature signature. And such detailed discussions of the size and way I use body parts. And analysing my mental stability, or rather lack thereof, and my delusional ego.

    Ranks right up there with world peace. You boys sure can be proud. In a few comments you have eliminated one of the worst threats to man, Grammie.

    Whenever you kiddies get tired of analysing Cee, Cecelia and cee and congratulating each other I'll still be here.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Donora Pa writes "It probably comes from having a mental disorder that doesn't let them [Cee and Grammie] know they are full of it."

    And that would be giving you more time than you deserve.

    Must be catching...

    Posting Huffington is as bad as posting Coulter.

    The lunatic right speaks.

    Noooooooooooo Arianna speaks the truth( please show where she is wrong)
    She also speaks for 80% of Americans, which is obvious that you're not in that group.

    Coulter is a cerifiable nutcase that has been fired from almost every job she has every had.

    One job she was fired from :
    when she said," We should kill all the Middle East leaders and convert the people to Christianity"

    nuff said !

    I'll still be here.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 01:24 PM

    Yes you will Janet. And you will still be in support of a killing machine called the Bush administration.

    When the war is eventually over will you anti-war freaks crawl back into you holes? What will be your purpose then? Because it obviously consumes you.

    To those self described "reality-based," anti-faith elitist leftists who want mob rule to govern important policy and show this tact in their continued use of public opinion polling.....

    I would like your opinions on the following polls:

    Americans who believe in God: 92%

    Americans who believe in Heaven: 85%

    Americans who believe in miracles: 82%

    Americans who believe there is a Devil: 75%

    Americans who believe in ghosts: 32%

    Americans who believe in UFO's: 32%

    Americans who believe in reincarnation: 25%

    Americans who believe in astrology: 29%

    Americans who believe in angels: 81%

    Americans who believe in The Creation Story: 44%

    Americans who believe in Naturalistic Evolution: 10%

    IMHO, the wisdom on determining "right" and "wrong: based on opinion polls is a pretty dicey thing.

    In addition, historically, the elected leaders of our great nation pursued right and wrong policies with and without a plurality of support from the American people. Abortion is a great example.

    So was the right of women to vote.

    So was the ending of slavery in the south.

    Shall I go on?

    "Oh I forgot, she doesn't want to go out on a limb and actually SUPPORT Bush's latest blunder, just throw barbs at people who do."

    Bushkill, What barb have I thrown at you or anyone for not supporting the war in Iraq?

    One job she was fired from :
    when she said," We should kill all the Middle East leaders and convert the people to Christianity"

    nuff said !

    Posted by: Bushkill Falls, Pa at January 9, 2007 01:26 PM

    That is exactly what some people here want us to do, which is why they love Coulter, which is why they are dangerous to the direction of this country.

    Comparing Arianna to Coulter is like comparing a real doctor to Cee.

    like comparing Cecilia to a decisive person with a real opinion.

    "killing machine called the Bush Administration"

    Oy. I strongly suggest you read a copy of the
    Euston Manifesto.

    Just try it, please.

    Goggle it and you'll find it quite easily.

    The proof is in the pudding, folks.
    You wanna see who`s deluded and who`s not?
    You wann see who herein is full of shit and who is not?

    HOW IS THE WAR GOING?
    Well 28%
    Badly 71%

    WAS REMOVING SADDAM WORTH IT?
    Yes 30%
    No 64%

    If the war was going well, and if we hadn`t been lied into it, and lied through it -- by the nitwit decider and his foolhardy neocons, and the Irrational Right propagandists at FAUX, who maintained for years that things were going swell in Iraq, but it was the MSM skewing the reality -- we wouldn`t even be having this conversation.

    You wanna see what`s real truth and unreal Bushit?
    Just take a look at events on the ground.
    And in the polls.
    And at the ballot box.

    Cee,

    You post a lot of ideas that people supported and, upon reflection, eventually rejected...

    The American people have had time to reflect on the Iraq war and guess what they've decided. Thank you for finally agreeing with those of us on the left...

    War FREAK~!

    Janet writes: "and congratulating each other I'll still be here."

    There's a theory about that:

    The amount of time spent crowing and proclaiming oneself the victor in any argument, is inversely proportional to the amount of confidence genuinely felt.

    You wanna see what`s real truth and unreal Bushit?
    Just take a look at events on the ground.
    And in the polls.
    And at the ballot box.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 9, 2007 01:33 PM

    They only see what they want to see. It doesn't matter, they are in the right. It is nice to know though that the country is awake and no longer buying the bullshit.

    Dangerous, delusional AND maniaclly supporting a killing machine.

    Wow, I must be scary. At least you can use me to scare your kiddies if you need to.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Cee wouldn't tell the truth about this war and his president even if the death count rivaled the 58,000 like in Vietnam.

    The facts about his president and this war has totally discredited anything Cee says.

    "No cecelia, that's not what i said. The idea that you can't take communion if you vote for a democrat who is pro-choice is a new thing. I reserve my right, as do most Catholics to vote my concience. There is no doubt in my mind that Republicans contributed large sums of money to the Catholic church in this country with the understanding that they would get a push from the church. The church has made a giant leap to the right wing in the last few years. Your delusional to believe otherwise."

    First of all show me the link where the Pope has excommunicated Catholics who are pro-choice Democrats.

    You're reasoning is this and it's in error:

    The Catholic Church has certain beliefs about abortion and gay marriage.

    The Republican Party has a large contingency of voters who also hold those beliefs.

    Therefore the Republican Party has paid the Church to foster those beliefs.

    Has it occured to you that strictures against abortion and against homosexuality were part of Catholic doctrine long before there was a Republican Party?


    You wanna see what`s real truth and unreal Bushit?
    Just take a look at events on the ground.
    And in the polls.
    And at the ballot box.

    Posted by: Anonymous at January 9, 2007 01:33 PM

    They only see what they want to see. It doesn't matter, they are in the right. It is nice to know though that the country is awake and no longer buying the bullshit.

    speaking of delusion ...

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

    Now, before the wingnuts go off on their `Bush is NOT HITLER!` tirade, remember dumbshits:

    one ... need ... not ... cook ... jews ... to ... be ... fascist.
    promoting ... fascist ... ideals ... makes ... one ... fascist.
    fascist ... ideals ... like ... rendition ... torture ... and ... warrantless spying.

    -----------

    so if you`ve a mind to (Ha!) try speaking to the points the man makes in his assertions.

    -----------

    Former Reagan aide compares Bush to Hitler

    An economist who once served as President Reagan`s Assistant Secretary of the Treasury compares President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler in a column at the libertarian website Anti-war.com. `Bush is like Hitler,` Paul Craig Roberts writes in a column entitled The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?. `He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy. Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion,` Roberts continues. `In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin.`

    Anon- is that you Cindy Sheehan?

    Has it occured to you that strictures against abortion and against homosexuality were part of Catholic doctrine long before there was a Republican Party?

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 9, 2007 01:41 PM

    Yes it has cecelia. But the church was wise enough to know that Republicans had other issues that prevented the church from endorsing them, like the fact that they are materialistic and love capitalism above all else. The fact that no one has been excommumicated proves my point. It was a manipulation of doctrine to say you can't vote your concience, and it was inspired by money to the right churches and bishops.

    They only see what they want to see. It doesn't matter, they are in the right. It is nice to know though that the country is awake and no longer buying the bullshit.

    Posted by: codas at January 9, 2007 01:41 PM

    Hear hear Codas.We are mad as hell and not going to take any longer.
    America has risen from its slumber.

    How these "dumbasses" continue to support a party and president that has been wrong about everything from the war, to immigration to the environment to deficit spending to....the list goes on forever.

    How do they continue to show up here and embarrass themselves !

    What has Bush been "right " about ?

    Anon 1:29 spewed; "you anti-war freaks"!

    Given that choice, I think I'd much rather be an anti-war 'freak' than a pro war 'freak'.

    Just think about it for a minute anon: What does you're being "pro elective war" say about you and you're personal ethics?

    Supreme court justices- !

    The war is protecting your ass so you can blog your hate... how ironic!

    Mike, the point should be why does either position make one a freak.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Anon 1:52 says: "The war is protecting your as so you can blog your hate...how ironic!"

    Huh???

    Cecilia and Grammie , bleeding and faultering from the truth arrows piercing their persona,try to remain unaffected by their wounds.
    -------------
    From my unbiased view- Grannie and Cecillia have been kicking your ass. You look like OSU players...
    ====================================================
    "Thus was the contest concluded and each participant, though standing upon death's door, went away believing themselves the victor."

    Ok, that's not a specific quote, but I feel like I've read somewhere a tale that spoke of two combantants/contestants who struggled against each other, and though it was a tie (or mutual loss), they both thought they had won. Anyone recall an instance of this motif?

    DP, Mike, Bob, Codas-
    I went looking for a barb from Grannie Hawkins and found none. But you repeatedly throw slander her way. That's why no one listens to your rhetoric... because thats all it is- slander, talking points and hate... you are second rate people.

    "Yes it has cecelia. But the church was wise enough to know that Republicans had other issues that prevented the church from endorsing them, like the fact that they are materialistic and love capitalism above all else. The fact that no one has been excommumicated proves my point. It was a manipulation of doctrine to say you can't vote your concience, and it was inspired by money to the right churches and bishops."

    You're going to have to flesh this out a bit, because it sounds like you have shifted from saying the Church as a whole has been taking bribes from the Republican Party to believe what they have always believed anyway....

    to saying that it is SOME churches and bishops who are taking bribes from the RNC to not allow pro-choice parishioners to take communion (which IS excommunication) but then you say that NO one has been excommunicated!

    Janet:

    Exactly!

    "Yes it has cecelia. But the church was wise enough to know that Republicans had other issues that prevented the church from endorsing them, like the fact that they are materialistic and love capitalism above all else. The fact that no one has been excommumicated proves my point. It was a manipulation of doctrine to say you can't vote your concience, and it was inspired by money to the right churches and bishops."

    You're going to have to flesh this out a bit, because it sounds like you have shifted from saying the Church as a whole has been taking bribes from the Republican Party to believe what they have always believed anyway....

    to saying that it is SOME churches and bishops who are taking bribes from the RNC to not allow pro-choice parishioners to take communion (which IS excommunication) but then you say that NO one has been excommunicated!

    Nice to see some familiar names....and it's nice to see how the radical left embraces the fly-over country when it suits their political purposes but makes fun of their beliefs otherwise.

    Nonetheless....

    And I include you in that dubious group of elitists, codas, no matter how hard you try to make yourself an "everyman."

    And dear, deluded codas, I see EVERYTHING....I read newspapers, especially the rag NYT, I see the same polls cited above. I read liberal and conservative blogs. I watch Keith Olbermann at the MSNBC site and read his blog.....I enjoy political debate over important issues....So spare me your arrogant judgement that I see only what I want to see....I do not live in an echo chamber.

    The tangents Professor Honeydew and the rest of the left posting today want to take simply results in ignoring the most pressing issue....will we increase troops in Iraq or not.

    Go to the morning posts and see I TRIED to constructively engage in a debate on the two options before us:

    Bush's plan

    The evolving Democratic Congressional Leadership Plan that is starting to finally mention the best way to force US withdrawal: war fund cutting.


    Instead I either get a rehash of polls, hate speech about corporatists, rednecks and evangelicals or (my favorite topic), Grammie's icy veins. Why? Because finally, power has been achieved and requires a responsible action....and I think some are getting cold feet!

    Codas...what about this?...You want us out of Iraq based on moral arguments you have posted....Do you agree with Kennedy, perhaps even Kucinich? No trap here...I want an honest discussion.

    I will guarentee you Bush will not relent on his pursuit of a stable government in Iraq through military and political means....The left, who has clearly stated "NO" to continued military action, has no choice but to begin the process of either cutting the funding or removal of Bush and Cheney from office.

    I agree with The President's policy in Iraq and I have not wavered from my support despite the insults both to my intelligence and spirituality.

    So, it's up to you fine Americans to continue to work to change American foreign policy over the objections of the current executive.

    Stop the name calling, you have power now....it is silly to continue an political campaign when there are two years to reverse what you call a humanitarian disaster.

    Janet:

    Please answer anon 1:57: he says I "repeately throw slander" your way, and that makes me a "second rate" person!

    Do I do that to you? I'll accept wahtever you say.

    Here-Here-Cee... the hate from the both sides can be disgusting and unproductive. They feel they can insult you into submission. It lowers the moral bar and drowns out the message.

    Sorry mike- I think i lumped you in wrongly!

    Cecelia, it is all positional. The dems embraced the Catholic Church in the 80s when the Bishops Conference came out against RR re his stance on nuclear disarmament. Not so for Archbishop Hannan.

    The vote had one dissent, Archbishop Hannan of the New Orleans diocese. He was a revered and loved man by all his parishoners. He was a paratrooper chaplain in WWII and went from Normandy to Germany.

    He was stationed in Germany for several years, I think, and had a close up look at the Russians and experienced the liberation of the camps.

    In the 60s he was an advisor on Catholic matters to JFK.

    Us Catholics can be tricky. Never can tell where we wind up on the political spectrum.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    "Janet:

    Please answer anon 1:57: he says I "repeately throw slander" your way, and that makes me a "second rate" person!

    Do I do that to you? I'll accept wahtever you say.

    Posted by: Mike at January 9, 2007 02:11 PM"

    Anon, I notice you caught your own mistake. Mike is ABSOLUTELY not one of our ever charming and lovable humble posters who devote hours to ridiculing those who disagree.

    Anon, could you possibly come up with a moniker of some sort to help others with the confusion that results from so many anons. And who knows. You might get the added bonus of a few extra jeers tossed your way.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Actually i bounce in and out of anon. Too caustic at times. Its me Benson

    Janet,

    I am not in the slightest arguing that Catholics are members of the Republican Party to the extent that Christians who attend evangelical churches.

    Traditionally Catholics have been Democrats, certainly blue-collar Democrats who belong and support labor unions. I suspect that is still the case and that most members use birth control, support abortion, and continue to love their church and are still allowed to partake of all its sacraments.

    I posted this earlier and got no responses. Lots of comments on my personal shortcomings, or rather intellectual and moral depravity. But no answer.

    Bob, you have gleefully stated dozens of times that the Dems won on an antiwar platform and had a mandate from the American people, 85% to be exact, to get us the hell out of Iraq. For the moment we'll leave aside your other claimed mandates.

    You campaigned and won on the antiwar mandate. Now you are testy because you won and those evil repubs are asking you how are you going to accomplish it, when and what you expect the outcome to be. And that corner you claim to occupy was forced on you in a Karl Rovian dirty trick.

    Bob, you and 85% of the American public are at the plate. So, what are you going to do? Get called out on strikes; bunt; pray for a walk; or if you don't get a hit or a homerun at least go down swinging.

    Chickenhawks indeed.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at January 9, 2007 11:02 AM

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie


    SURGE BUYS TIME, WITH AMERICAN LIVES, FOR IRAQ TO SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE

    -- Opposed By Generals, Dems, Joint Chiefs, Voters; But OK With Big Oil, BushCO, Grand Oil Party --

    WASHINGTON -- Iraq`s massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament. The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972. The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil, as the law will operate through `production-sharing agreements` which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry among producers is state controlled.


    Cecelia, I understood your post. What is not to understand a reasonable person making a reasonable and valid point.

    I was simply pointing out that the Dems blow hot and cold on this subject. They embrace what is convenient at the time and heap scorn on what is inconvenient at the time. Shall we say opportunists.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    From CNN:

    [Senator Kennedy] emphasized his support for the forces currently in Iraq but said that bolstering troop levels is not an option for the war-torn nation. Kennedy has consistently said that Iraq, like Vietnam, requires a political solution rather than a military one.

    "It would compound the original misguided decision to invade Iraq. We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it," Kennedy added. "The best immediate way to support our troops is by refusing to inject more and more of them into the cauldron of a civil war that can be resolved only by the people and government of Iraq."

    Kennedy also said that the original mandate authorizing the Iraq war has expired because "the mission of our armed forces today in Iraq bears no resemblance whatever to the mission authorized by Congress."

    The Iraq War resolution "authorized a war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. But there were no WMDs to destroy. It authorized a war with Saddam Hussein. But today, Saddam is no more. It authorized a war because Saddam was allied with al Qaeda. But there was no alliance," Kennedy said.

    But Kennedy's vehement opposition to a troop surge is not shared by all of his fellow Democrats.


    ###
    My question is....Why is there not 100% support from Democrats regarding Kennedy's position?

    Someone help me out here.

    "The left, who has clearly stated "NO" to continued military action, has no choice but to begin the process of either cutting the funding or removal of Bush and Cheney from office."

    There is a third option, cee. Senator Ted Kennedy has submitted a bill that would continue to fund the troops that are stationed in Iraq (to prevent arguments that Dems are hanging troops out to dry) BUT preventing any funding for MORE troops without Congressional approval.

    The theory behind Senator Kennedy's bill is that the mission the troops are involved in now is not what was approved in the original AUMF in 2002 and thus requires re-authorization.

    Bill text here:

    http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/ARM07064_xml.pdf

    Janet writes "They embrace what is convenient at the time and heap scorn on what is inconvenient at the time. Shall we say opportunists."

    Janet, I'm sure John McCain can vouch for the truth in that.

    Never mind, cee. You found it.

    Anon 1:11 says about an earlier poster:

    "When someone compares political debate to college football, you know that you've got a pretty shallow stream to cross..."

    So, I guess if someone compared political debate to baseball "you know you've got a pretty shallow stream to cross" too, right?

    From a recent profile by Nation magazine:

    Olbermann credits sportscasting for his . . . approach. “In sports, if a center-fielder drops the fly ball, you can’t pretend he didn’t,” he says.

    Yeah, and when Krazy Keith gets caught lying by OW time after time, he can't pretend he didn't.

    "Americans who believe in The Creation Story: 44%

    Americans who believe in Naturalistic Evolution: 10%"

    Posted by: cee at January 9, 2007 01:29 PM

    Where did you get these facts, Cee? Because if 'Naturalistic Evolution' is in fact Darwinism (as you might suppose from the poll results you actually have produced,) then it tells me 3 things about this country:

    1) That this country is MUCH stupider than even I thought...

    2) That this netions schools need to start educating their citizens better...

    3) That the ENTIRE FUTURE of Western Civilization is now in question...

    "Americans who believe in The Creation Story: 44%

    Americans who believe in Naturalistic Evolution: 10%"

    Posted by: cee at January 9, 2007 01:29 PM

    Where did you get these facts, Cee? Because if 'Naturalistic Evolution' is in fact Darwinism (as you might suppose from the poll results you actually have produced,) then it tells me 3 things about this country:

    1) That this country is MUCH stupider than even I thought...

    2) That this netions schools need to start educating their citizens better...

    3) That the ENTIRE FUTURE of Western Civilization is now in question...

    Kennedys favorite phrase is, "we will cross that bridge when we get there".

    No matter the language EE, the President will request specific funds that cover expenses he projects for his policy as Commander-in-Chief.

    Kennedy can specifically push that the money not be used to increase troop numbers but the result is the same.....

    President Bush does not get the money for his policy.

    If a majority in The Congress agree and the funds are witheld, then so be it.

    "Senator Ted Kennedy has submitted a bill that would continue to fund the troops that are stationed in Iraq (to prevent arguments that Dems are hanging troops out to dry) BUT preventing any funding for MORE troops without Congressional approval."

    I love the way they phrase things. The majority of the Dems have always given Congressional approval to funding in the past.

    But I do understand they are trying to prevent Pres. Bush from funding an escalation without congress.

    But there is no talk of an immediate pull out or of defunding war.

    I'll bet there's no talk around here of holding Sen. Kennedy personally responsible for any troop who is killed in the intervening time.

    Like I have said, it's quite satisfying to know my views now reflect the stand of the Democratic leadership more than Bob's do! :D

    Deistic Evolution is a nice middle ground for me

    WHen a priest is distributing communion, he does not know the state of the person's soul. A person who publicly causes scandal to the church by obstinately refusing to adhere to church teachings is a different matter. (example- a group called Call to Action has been ex-communicated out west by a very strong bishop- the Vatican upheld the ex-communication. This was after many years of their antics- a brief way to describe it). The Church is very patient and will allow time for conversion of heart. Those who take communion while not in a state of grace do so to the peril of their own souls.

    Naturalistic evolution requires one to be an Atheist, so that is why the number is so low.

    There was a third catagory....God started it all but He allowed evolution to occur.....45%

    This was a poll done by gallop in 1999

    There is a more recent PEW poll....similar numbers and the questions are actually shown....

    http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118


    My question to you then....

    So why can I trust these people with foreign policy, Proud, if they believe in the "sky fairy" and Adam/Eve?

    Proud to drink the Kool-Aid,

    I'm not arguing against the theory of evolution, but most participants in Western Civilization...HAVE traditionally believed the Biblical version of the earth's orgin.

    We have and will continue to survive..

    Not that I'm saying YOU won't personally process that news and blow yet another and perhaps lethal screw loose.

    "But there is no talk of an immediate pull out or of defunding war."

    Because an immediate pullout would take 6 months and "defunding" the troops on the battlefield would be political suicide.

    Idealists want the war defunded and troops home tomorrow. REALISTS see that we can't do that, but we can cut off the surge and start looking for the exit so that we CAN get out safely.

    "If a majority in The Congress agree and the funds are witheld, then so be it.

    Posted by: cee at January 9, 2007 02:44 PM"


    Cee, you are definitely a pearl casted before swine.

    `Why is there not 100% support from Democrats regarding Kennedy`s position?`

    why should there be.
    Dems do not march in lockstep, storm trooper.
    it`s only people of your limited understanding,
    who feel that everything in life must be one way or the other.
    black and white.
    with us or against us.
    heaven or hell.
    that`s why, moron.
    the flawed values of false dualities.
    grossly simplistic false dualities.
    and that`s why people of your limited understanding
    have f---ed up iraq
    and everything else you lay a misunderstanding hand to.
    flawed values. failed policies. fiasco results.

    Ensign Expendable writes "Idealists want the war defunded and troops home tomorrow. REALISTS see that we can't do that, but we can cut off the surge and start looking for the exit so that we CAN get out safely."


    Give me the rhetoric of the realists over the idiotic idealists anytime...

    EE, I read the bill you mentioned. That is a legitimate option from a purely political point of view. And politics is what this is all about.

    The objection I have is that it doesn't go in either direction while ensuring a static situation. And it does tie the hands of both the CIC re any changes the military may want or a situation might necessitate.

    I would prefer an approach that moves us in one direction or the other. The Dems say they ran and won on an antiwar platform. And the only power they have to enact their promises is the power of the purse.

    Support the President or force him to follow their will.

    Whatever we face we will find out sooner rather then later if they keep their promises. And that can only be to the good if the law of unintended consequences takes over, as it always does whatever one does.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    the flawed values of false dualities.
    grossly simplistic false dualities.

    Not really into a yes or no voting? To simplistic?

    That is so true, Grammy. Make a choice. Support the President or get out. Dennis Kucinich is still stating that the money is there for the troops to get out. (he was on Cavuto). It seems to me that the new majority is really are afraid to get out and get the blame for the consequences. Everyone knows that if the troops leave there will be some chaos; the question is what degree of chaos. Murtha would have had things in motion for withdrawal were he voted in. He got very little support for majority leader. Maybe because of his baggage, but he has definitely been the most forceful voice in support of getting out.

    Did you call it or what, Cecelia....Anon at January 9, 2007 03:02 PM.....

    Look dude.....All I ask is for a clear policy....Bush's is clear....we will know what he wants after tomorrow's speech.

    Guess what....grey is not "clear"....fog is not clear....Nuance is fine for wine, food and poetry...but in matters of life and death....war and peace....Clarity of purpose is needed. IF you want a different policy than The Presidents....present one.

    There IS a simple duality here, anon, more troops or less troops. Where do you fall and how do you get there?

    The election gave the left the opportunity to enact their policy....take advantage!

    I fall with Bush, MORE troops....and The President will have a plan for this policy. The Congress can choose not to financially support and force his hand.

    `IF you want a different policy than The Presidents....present one.`

    When one is hitting oneself over the head with a hammer, simply stopping represents a sufficiently different policy.

    "So why can I trust these people with foreign policy, Proud, if they believe in the "sky fairy" and Adam/Eve?"

    Posted by: cee at January 9, 2007 02:54 PM


    I don't know... Why did you vote for President Tumbleweed?

    No, but seriously, I suppose that it is based on our individual human needs to reach out to a higher power.

    As an avowed liberal & also a Rabbi's son, i can tell you that the ned to believe in a higher power is somewhat controversial to me; It has always struck me as strange that we can BOTH believe in, for instance, the classical biblical story of creation & the facts of Darwinian Evolution. I have wrestled with this fact in my mind, & have come to the personal conclusion that G-d must have meant that he actually created all of htese things, but NOT in the Seven Day time period.

    That is MOST CERTAINLY not to say that this is the correct view, but, it most certainly makes more sense to me in regards to the proven Darwinian Facts that the Earth WAS NOT created in Seven Days, that the Earth is MUCH MORE than 2006 or 5767 years old, & that life DID exist before humankind.

    Where is this argument of mine going? Well, it speaks to me great volumes about a man if he continues to deny evolution & refuses to allow it to be taught in our school. it tells me that the man A) is VERY unintelligent, blind to reality, & continues to deny that reality in favor of an OPINION...

    Like People(?) like President Tumbleweed, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, or Senator Sam Brownbeck of Kansas would be characterized.

    So, I would say that, if they absolutely DO NOT believe in evolution, you CANNOT & SHOULD NOT trust them with your foreign policy, (& certainly not with your domestic policy.)

    "So why can I trust these people with foreign policy, Proud, if they believe in the "sky fairy" and Adam/Eve?"

    Posted by: cee at January 9, 2007 02:54 PM


    I don't know... Why did you vote for President Tumbleweed?

    No, but seriously, I suppose that it is based on our individual human needs to reach out to a higher power.

    As an avowed liberal & also a Rabbi's son, i can tell you that the ned to believe in a higher power is somewhat controversial to me; It has always struck me as strange that we can BOTH believe in, for instance, the classical biblical story of creation & the facts of Darwinian Evolution. I have wrestled with this fact in my mind, & have come to the personal conclusion that G-d must have meant that he actually created all of htese things, but NOT in the Seven Day time period.

    That is MOST CERTAINLY not to say that this is the correct view, but, it most certainly makes more sense to me in regards to the proven Darwinian Facts that the Earth WAS NOT created in Seven Days, that the Earth is MUCH MORE than 2006 or 5767 years old, & that life DID exist before humankind.

    Where is this argument of mine going? Well, it speaks to me great volumes about a man if he continues to deny evolution & refuses to allow it to be taught in our school. it tells me that the man A) is VERY unintelligent, blind to reality, & continues to deny that reality in favor of an OPINION...

    Like People(?) like President Tumbleweed, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, or Senator Sam Brownbeck of Kansas would be characterized.

    So, I would say that, if they absolutely DO NOT believe in evolution, you CANNOT & SHOULD NOT trust them with your foreign policy, (& certainly not with your domestic policy.)

    I am sorely disappointed. We have listened to ever louder, more insistent voices repeating that 85% of the country is unaminous in wanting us OUT OF IRAQ NOW.

    Now they have the opportunity and the power to do it, everything is changed on its head. They are divergent and don't march in lockstep like we do. They are not bound by those simplistic false dualities that we are trying to impose on them.

    They have to think about it some more and will come up with a multipronged plan that CHANGES NOTHING.

    Janet Hawkins
    AKA Grammie

    *** Sorry about reposting this part, but I feel that I had to clear up the BAD grammar, (& to avoid confusion...)

    It tells me that the man A) is VERY unintelligent, B) blind to reality, & C)continues to deny that reality in favor of an OPINION...

    more troops or less troops?

    less.

    --------

    how do you get there?

    phased withdrawal.
    implement Baker-Hamilton.

    --------

    Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, an architect of the U.S. war with Iraq in 1991, is advising the Bush administration to consider a phased withdrawal of some of the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

    Otherwise, Baker says, the United States risks being suspected of having an `imperial design` in the region.

    A protracted U.S. military presence in Iraq is probably unavoidable since attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces and on Iraqi security forces are likely to continue, Baker said Tuesday in a speech at Rice University in Houston.

    `Even under the best of circumstances, the new Iraqi government will remain extremely vulnerable to internal divisions and external meddling,` he said.

    Still, former President George H.W. Bush`s secretary of state said, `any appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of those in the Middle East who -- however wrongly -- suspect us of imperial design.`

    At the same time, Baker urged the Bush administration to call for a `good-faith effort` by the new Palestinian leadership to crack down on terror groups that target Israel and also `prevail upon Israel` to stop settlement activity in Palestinian areas during any peace talks.

    `We should serve, when necessary, as a direct participant in the talks, offering suggestions, brokering compromises and extending assurances,` Baker said.

    Above all, he said, the administration should make it `unambiguously clear` to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that his projected withdrawal from Gaza should not be part of a design to limit the Palestinians to enclaves.

    Seeking peace in the Middle East improves chances of achieving stability in Iraq, said Baker, who helped plan the Persian Gulf war that forced Iraq to reverse its annexation of Kuwait.

    `The road to peace doesn`t run just through Jerusalem or just through Baghdad,` he said. `That is a false choice. Today, it arguably runs through both.`


    Do you know what immediate withdrawal from Gaza and Baghdad does to the war against terrorism. Nobody does, but it is the most crucial component in our decision that we can not avoid or discard.

    By the way- does Kennedy's bill affect the constitution? It seems to put a restricition on the powers given to the executive branch. (Seriously wondering aloud as I am not familiar with the bill)

    Ok....Bush is not pursuing Baker's policy....What do you do about it?

    BushCO has been getting good advice, along with the bad, all along -- they have simply chosen to ignore it.
    (To further their asinine faith/fantasy/unreality based ideological doctrines).
    And look where that has gotten us.

    The State Department vehemently warned against invading Iraq in the first place. Ignored.

    The Pentagon had 10 years worth of plans
    for invading Iraq with the necessary coalition
    of 500,000 troops. (Powell Doctrine). Ignored.

    The State Department had 10 years worth of plans
    for winning the peace in a controlled occupation of Iraq. Ignored.

    The 9/11 commission advised countless homeland security measures
    that should have been implemented long ago. Ignored.

    James Baker`s advice printed above was from January 2005 (!). Ignored.

    Hamilton-Baker made many of the same suggestions. And plenty more. Ignored.

    ... just to name a few ...

    I repost this from last night looking for comments on it:
    _________________________________________________
    Donora,

    When you hate being asked what "you are for" that is a pretty good sign that the only thing you are for is your right to be unhinged about conservatives, Republicans, and Christians.

    Posted by: Rico at January 9, 2007 12:10 AM

    I am a Christian Rico. That is one of the things that makes me "unhinged", the continual presumption that to not be Republican is to not be Christian. Conservitives? The more I read about the "real" ones, the more I respect them even if I am not one. Republicans? I have had enough of them to be honest. I am for holding people who want and crave power to a higher standard than the liers and cheats who run our country have been held to."

    Posted by: Donora Pa at January 9, 2007 12:19 AM

    Donora,

    While I do not feel comfortable commenting on the first point of your post (As I am Jewish,) I must say that the remainder of the post was very good & was very refreshing to hear.

    The failure to disconnect the traditional "Conservative" thinking with the thinking of today's "neo-cons" & even more so with todays Republi/Fascist party is legion. It is unfair to Conservatives for someone, for instance, with Sharon's views on abortion, or Red Wolf's views on racism, to be compared with anything resembling that of Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, either of the Tafts or Teddy Roosevelt... Did all of you know, for instance, that Barry goldwater was against Abortion, & racism & pro-Homosexual rights?

    Do any of you remember when the Republican party was actually the party of individual rights, the party of small (& not just MEAN) government, as opposed to what it has become under Bush? When it actually had a 'Noble purpose?' When it was THE party of cicil rights, & NOT the party of David Duke, Fred Barnes, & Alan Keyes?

    There was ACTUALLY a time when the Republican party WASN'T actually the REPUBLI/FASCIST party it has become since Richard Nixon & his "southern Strategy" decided that the three R's of the current Republi/fascist party (the Redneck, the Racist & the Religious Right) would rule the Grand 'Ole Party.

    I just find it interesting that the Republifascists in this room, whom (I must presume) know the history of their movement, can even begin to connect themselves to the great body of thinkers (aforementioned) & still worship these great moral conquerors of our bodies & lives, President Tumbleweed & people like his chimps Rick Santorum, Dick Cheney, & Bill O'Reilly...

    Very Hypocritical, I'd say... no?

    Posted by: PROUD to be a LIBERAL at January 9, 2007 01:36 AM

    You see...kos is even starting to call for Congressional action by citing historical precident....

    December 1970. P.L. 91-652 — Supplemental Foreign Assistance Law. The Church-Cooper amendment prohibited the use of any funds for the introduction of U.S. troops to Cambodia or provide military advisors to Cambodian forces.

    December 1974. P.L. 93-559 — Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. The Congress established a personnel ceiling of 4000 Americans in Vietnam within six months of enactment and 3000 Americans within one year.

    June 1983. P.L. 98-43 — The Lebanon Emergency Assistance Act of 1983. The Congress required the president to return to seek statutory authorization if he sought to expand the size of the U.S. contingent of the Multinational Force in Lebanon.

    June 1984. P.L. 98-525 — The Defense Authorization Act. The Congress capped the end strength level of United States forces assigned to permanent duty in European NATO countries at 324,400.

    November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.

    I just find it funny that Geraldo called him a midget. Since when was 6'3" (isn't tht like 188 cm?) considered midget material? Geraldo's a delusional douchebag, and you don't have to be a liberal OR conservative to see that.

    I just find it funny that Geraldo called him a midget. Since when was 6'3" (isn't tht like 188 cm?) considered midget material? Geraldo's a delusional douchebag, and you don't have to be a liberal OR conservative to see that.

    But Olbermann's response to Geraldo's threats... Bring it- "I am 6 inches taller".... My money is on "the nose" all day long. He'd mop the floor with that softie!

    "But Olbermann's response to Geraldo's threats... Bring it- "I am 6 inches taller".... My money is on "the nose" all day long. He'd mop the floor with that softie!"

    Posted by: Benson at January 9, 2007 03:58 PM

    No way, Benson!! KO would kill the old man.. Send him back looking for Al Capones 'secret stash' again!

    Well, he actually said 7 inches, but that's apples and oranges. Of course you can never underestimate a shorty (they usually have latent anger issues and unnatural strength), but I don't see either as the scrapping type. It would probably be a lame fight either way :(

    Fact is- I think we all would love to see it...

    I'd certainly pay to see that on celebrity fight nights than the next butterball v. miny me fight, or the Holyfield v. Tyson XXVII fight, that's for certain fellows!! :-)

    Bring back Celebrity boxing for this main event. And to your dismay- its a Fox show which means-
    -Olbermann would go nowhere near it.
    -A Geraldo victory would be deemed a fixed fight

    Bring back Celebrity boxing for this main event. And to your dismay- its a Fox show which means-
    -Olbermann would go nowhere near it.
    -A Geraldo victory would be deemed a fixed fight

    Oh I don't know Geraldo fought Frank Stallone a few years ago and seriously got his ass kicked.

    We'll just move the fight to Folsom prison (where they hold CChuck Manson) & put it on ESPN, thta should make things more fair to both of them!

    lol

    Very few things we all agree on!

    We'll just move the fight to Folsom prison (where they hold CChuck Manson) & put it on ESPN, thta should make things more fair to both of them!

    lol

    "Olbermann, I served with Frank Stallone, I knew Frank Stallone, Frank Stallone was a friend of mine. Olbermann, you're no Frank Stallone."

    Hahaha, now I keep on imagining both of them doing the old-school bare knuckle boxing stance that Conan is fond of. LMAO.

    `Ok....Bush is not pursuing Baker`s policy....What do you do about it?`

    phased funding withdrawal
    (to force a phased troop withdrawal).

    (PHASED defunding -- in order to counteract the unreal irrational-right talking point that a withdrawal in funding means a withdraw in support for the troops.)

    whereas real lack of support for the troops is sending in 400K too few of them ... with inadequate armor ... and a poorly defined mission/implementation/exit-strategy.)

    You don't mean Governor Conan do you?

    Oh Lord, now I'm imagining a ghetto slap fight. 'Raldo would have to pop out his earrings first. I wouldn't put him past a low blow either. OK, this is wrong. I need a shower.

    And I meant Lord and Emperor Conan O'Brien (he's also my personal savior, I've accepted him into my life. Have you?). And he's a fellow Ginger! Gotta love it.

    The pre fight trash talk would be great.

    LOL - I knew you meant CObrien!

    `Ok....Bush is not pursuing Baker`s policy....What do you do about it?`

    -----------

    phased funding withdrawal
    to force a phased troop withdrawal
    to implement Baker-Hamilton.

    (PHASED defunding -- in order to counteract the unreal irrational-right talking point that a withdrawal in funding means withdrawing support for the troops.)

    whereas a real lack of support for the troops means sending in 400K too few of them ... based on false intelligence ... to attack the wrong country ... with inadequate armor ... and inadequate coalition ... and a lousy implementation ... and a poorly defined mission/exit-strategy.

    Another idea-
    UNDERCARD
    Trump - Rosie
    I may stake the purse!

    Another idea-
    UNDERCARD
    Trump - Rosie
    I may stake the purse!

    Posted by: Benson at January 9, 2007 04:28 PM

    Featuring as a second undercard...

    Scarborough v. oreilly....

    It will be the night of the "battle of the Big Mouths..."

    The ratings would be amazing... I would tailgate!

    PTBAL-
    You call your people- I'll call mine!
    Its good stuff

    Betwwen the two of us, Benson, we should get about 95% of the country on board...

    Betwwen the two of us, Benson, we should get about 95% of the country on board...

    Very funny stuff PTBAL

    See! We need to unite, not divide. Even if we're uniting over "celebrity boxing". Whatever it takes to save this country!

    Peace and love kids. Let the anchors fight it out for us.

    See! We need to unite, not divide. Even if we're uniting over "celebrity boxing". Whatever it takes to save this country!

    Peace and love kids. Let the anchors fight it out for us.
    ====================================================
    I want to put money on the "both mangled and killed" option (confused? see: http://grudge-match.com/History/barney-wesley.shtml)

    And good to see that we can all agree on Conan O'brien here as well. (I so want a shrieking racoon with a jetpack. Conan rulz!!!!)

    Yes, Conan is the man! If I visit NYC any time soon (hopefully if I go to college in NY), I will def. see him. And remember, peace and love, peace and love. LOL.


    RECIPE FOR DISASTER: HOW SECTARIAN REGRESSIVE IDEOLOGUES FUBARED THE WAR ON TERROR

    -- Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq --

    WASHINGTON -- The opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans. But first they had to pass muster with a Bush political appointee who screens prospective applicants for Defense Department posts. Applicants didn`t need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction, but they had to be loyal to the Bush administration. Did you vote for George W. Bush? Do you support the President`s war on terror? Do you support Roe v. Wade? Many of those chosen lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance was sent to reopen Baghdad`s stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neo-conservative commentator, along with a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children, were tapped to manage Iraq`s $13 billion budget -- though neither possessed a background in accounting. The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration`s gravest errors.


    P.J. Crowley: "So the real question is, is this Iraq government working the way it wants to? And I think it is, as opposed to being ineffective. And so, you know, it—there—the vision that Iraq has is not the vision that the United States has for the future."

    I think this is absolutely true and deserves a thorough debate. If this statement is true, all we are doing is helping the Shia government murder Sunni's, which is exactly what they want. Which means they have no intention of ever reaching any political compromise. Maybe the only way to get the Shia to compromise is threaten to leave them on their own. I'm guessing they wouldn't feel so tough without our help.

    “My staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,” Davis said. “It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.

    “The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.

    Anon (6:09)?? Who is Davis? & what's your point?

    http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=4

    Most likely will not be on Olbermann tonight.

    )OK, but what is the relevance to what we've been talking about, Anon?

    Yeah- who do you have?
    Rosie or Donald
    Olbermann or Geraldo
    OReilley or Scarborough
    Pick a side...

    MTV may have already have results on Celebrity Death Match. "Let's get it on!"

    Olbermann, I served with Frank Stallone, I knew Frank Stallone, Frank Stallone was a friend of mine. Olbermann, you're no Frank Stallone."


    Course in the brains dept. Olbermann will kill Geraldo

    Do you think Robot Chicken has pondered this?

    war in somalia is a crime!!!

    Bush will get more Americans killed!!!

    We have no right to be there!!!

    Conan O'Brien....that guy still on?

    I've seen everybody posting links today and it's not stuff I have'nt seen before.

    Let me give everybody a site to go to. Head on over to the New York Post, Find columnist Steve Dunleavy's story called "Bravest Advice" and read about Danny Swift. He was over there, he got blown up, he saw his buddies die. and read what he has to say. I'll listen to this guy before I'll listen to a bunch of people that think Conan O'Brien is some sort of talent.

    This brings it home in the question I've always had. We have the world's best military. Kool-aid-drinkers said we would get creamed in Afghanistan. Ran right through that country.

    Sadamn's elite guard would turn our Military into swiss cheese. Said the sheep while doing Kool-Aid-Bongs.

    Nope, like a hot knife through butter. Went straight to Baghdad. Then? did things get P.C.?
    Read Danny Swift, he answered my question pretty much.

    I'll use one quote from Danny;
    "For a start, let's forget cut and run- but also let's have the best military in the world allowed to perform like the best military in the world".

    Please read the whole article.

    If you don't agree with Danny. Thats cool, you e-mail Dunleavy or if you're in New York City go see Danny. He's back at work, at Ladder 43.

    I wouldn't look for Danny on that fair and balanced Countdown show.

    A bit of History, Geraldo fought Frank Stallone on Howard Stern's old show from Channel 9. Three rounds to a draw.

    I often wonder why very little comments address the troops' great morale. I plan to read the above as soon as I get the opportunity.

    "We have the world's best military. Kool-aid-drinkers said we would get creamed in Afghanistan. Ran right through that country."

    And then we did a piss-poor job on clean-up...

    http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/01/08/commanders_seek_more_forces_in_afghanistan/

    "Taliban forces, shattered and ejected from Afghanistan by the US military five years ago, are poised for a major offensive against US troops and undermanned NATO forces. This has prompted US commanders here to issue an urgent appeal for a new US Marine Corps battalion to reinforce the American positions...

    President Bush is expected to announce this week the dispatch of thousands of additional troops to Iraq as a stopgap measure. Such an order, Pentagon officials say, would strain the Army and Marine Corps as they man both wars.

    A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq...

    Despite the presence of about 30,000 NATO troops -- roughly 10 percent short of what its member nations had pledged to provide -- Taliban attacks on US, allied, and Afghan forces more than tripled in the past year, from 1,632 in 2005 to 5,388 in 2006, US officials say.

    Suicide bomb attacks increased from 18 in 2005 to 116 in 2006. Direct-fire attacks also more than tripled, from three per day in 2005 to more than 10 per day in 2006.

    With NATO unable or unwilling to stem the rising violence, the Taliban are pressing their advantage."

    Now, why am I wondering if the anon 7:21 post is from a Right Wing shill?

    Now, why am I wondering if the anon 7:21 post is from a Right Wing shill?

    Sounds like a liberal to me.

    Liberal?...I don't know...believe it or not, the war really never was a liberal/Conservative issue! How about anti - Iraq war?

    As for the 7:21 anon post, I personally believe it probably was from a right winger shill because most anti Iraq war folks don't think or talk like that...you people just THINK we do!

    In fact, most of us anti Iraq war people (the ones some of you call 'Liberals') feel that is exactly what we should have been using our military for all along....Going after Al Queda WHEREVER they were!

    Iraq was nothing but a huge distraction from that!

    Going after Al Queda WHEREVER they were!

    aren't they now in iraq?

    Say Puck:

    What did the "kool aid drinkers" say about fighting an insurgency door to door in their own country, in an urban environment?

    You and I have different recollections....I never heard any credible person who was against the Iraq invasion say our army would have much of a problem whipping Iraq's army...most criticism was ALWAYS about the eftermath of the invasion!

    Anon: Who led Al Queda to Iraq?

    Bingo....you win the prize....I believe WE did by invading them!

    To mike,

    i assure you i am no mindless sheep right winger. WHen will this administartion learn that you can't defeat "terror". Al queda is in every country. Should we be allowed to bomb every country. We need to sure up our own country and let the rest of the world (i.e. Iraq, Somalia)deal with their own problems.

    Anon: Who led Al Queda to Iraq?

    Bingo....you win the prize....I believe WE did by invading them!


    You guys are funny. Like i said, where is al queda NOW? We put them there. You're right. But guess what sunshine? They are still there.

    So if you belive your quote about "get Al queda whereveer they are", the day after we pull troops from Iraq and get back to the war on terror, we should revaluate where to go get al queda next. And what do you know, there in Iraq. Weeeell, Slap my ass and cal me shirley.

    Well, whoever you are, I strongly disagree with you. 911 gave us every right to go after Al Queda, wherever they were (at that time). Al Queda was 'our' problem.

    At the time, we pretty much had the co-operation of the majority of the world on that point.

    Invading and occupying Iraq changed everything!

    I love your logic anon 8:42:

    So who else should we invade and occupy so as to bring in Al Queda there as well? Can't any of you see that we played right into their hands with this occupation? It's exactly what they wanted of to do!

    As for Iraq today, Al Queda is a fairly small part of the insurgency, the Civil War we triggered, and the problem we face.

    Well, whoever you are, I strongly disagree with you. 911 gave us every right to go after Al Queda, wherever they were (at that time). Al Queda was 'our' problem.

    At the time, we pretty much had the co-operation of the majority of the world on that point.

    Invading and occupying Iraq changed everything!


    9/11, an event carried out by a small terrorist group, gave us the right to take out an entire country? How can you people be so easily manipulated by the right? The Taliban does not equal Al Queda. We had zero right. Al queda is in Indonisia. Do we have a right to topple them?

    9/11 was just a terrorist attack, a terrible one i admit. But we have had them before and we will have them again. It does not justify the "war on Terror" that has killed far more people than those attacks did.

    So who else should we invade and occupy so as to bring in Al Queda there as well?


    You tell me. Here is your EXACT quote. "In fact, most of us anti Iraq war people (the ones some of you call 'Liberals') feel that is exactly what we should have been using our military for all along....Going after Al Queda WHEREVER they were!"

    Going after Al Queda WHEREVER they were!"

    Going after Al Queda WHEREVER they were!"

    Going after Al Queda WHEREVER they were!"

    Going after Al Queda WHEREVER they were!"

    or by "were" do you mean you dont recognize any new fronts al queda choses to open. Boy golly, if thats the case, i hope they dont start one here.

    Can't any of you see that we played right into their hands with this occupation? It's exactly what they wanted of to do!

    yeah, we played right into their hands. We toppled a sunni government and gave power to the shites. Thats EXACTLY what al queda and Bin Laden were hoping for. Those al quedas sure do love shites.

    Anon 8:51:

    I....am sure as hell not being "manipulated by the right". We had every right to go into Afghanistan after Al Queda, and the Taliban who harbored them.

    Iraq was an entirely different story! If you are going to go around throwing out figures about how many have been killed in "the war on terror". you need to make the distinction between Iraq...and the TRUE war on terror.

    Anon, if you really believe what you are posting, then YOU are are part of the extreme fringe of the anti - war movement. I assure you most Americans, who are now very much against the IRAQ war, are not with you at all in your view that we should not have gone after ANYBODY.

    Please stop....you are just giving the pro - war crowd more ammunition to use against the left.

    "those Queda sure do love the Shites"....

    Yea, I agree they don't like each other.

    There goes your argument that Al Queda is "going to take over Iraq" if we leave.

    I....am sure as hell not being "manipulated by the right". We had every right to go into Afghanistan after Al Queda, and the Taliban who harbored them.

    Iraq was an entirely different story! If you are going to go around throwing out figures about how many have been killed in "the war on terror". you need to make the distinction between Iraq...and the TRUE war on terror.

    Anon, if you really believe what you are posting, then YOU are are part of the extreme fringe of the anti - war movement. I assure you most Americans, who are now very much against the IRAQ war, are not with you at all in your view that we should not have gone after ANYBODY.

    Please stop....you are just giving the pro - war crowd more ammunition to use against the left.

    WOW. I should stop speaking my opinion. Where have i heard that before? And i am differentiating between Iraq and Afganistan. Iraq was an unmeasurable atrocity, whereas Afganistan is just your garden variety atrocity. 9/11 was used by the bush administration to justify revenge against people who didn't even do it (the taliban). I am not saying the Taliban were good, but they sure as hell didn't carry out 9/11.

    And as for being on the fringe, it is appeasers like you who are the reason we are still in Iraq, Afganistan and now Somolia. If there were more people like me, we would be at peace. If that puts me on the "fringe", so be it.

    Anon 8:55:

    You kind of missed my point, but hey, I expect that!

    I think it was kinda stupid to invade an unaffiliated country in order to create a new 'front'.


    Yea, I agree they don't like each other.

    There goes your argument that Al Queda is "going to take over Iraq" if we leave.


    uh okay. I never said that, but i guess you are using Olbermann journalism, so i understand. Gotta make yourself sound right, facts be damned.

    And dont pawn it off, you said we played into al queda's hands in Iraq. Do your homework.

    Hey anon's, why won't you give yourselves names???? I don't have a clue whether I'm arguing with 2, 3, or even more people. It's easy, just type a 'name' in the top blank!

    Anon 9:05, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't give your opinion....I'm just saying fringe opinions like that give MORE amunition to the right wing posters on this very site who love to believe that ALL anti - Iraq people are as fringe as you are.

    Anon 8:55:

    You kind of missed my point, but hey, I expect that!

    I think it was kinda stupid to invade an unaffiliated country in order to create a new 'front'.


    Actually its genious. If you had to fight a terrible enemy, where better than the streets of your other terrible enemy. Pre-9/11, Saddam's Iraq was probably our greatest enemy in the world. So now we get to fight our new enemy, in the territory of our old one. Two birds, one big goddamn stone.

    Now instead of coming here to blow shit up, they go to baghdad. Its f---ing genious.

    Hey anon's, why won't you give yourselves names???? I don't have a clue whether I'm arguing with 2, 3, or even more people. It's easy, just type a 'name' in the top blank!

    Anon 9:05, no, I'm not saying you shouldn't give your opinion....I'm just saying fringe opinions like that give MORE amunition to the right wing posters on this very site who love to believe that ALL anti - Iraq people are as fringe as you are.


    sorry, i'll use this name. But If the pro-war idiots cant differentiate between my position and yours, thats teir own problem, not mine. If they think pro-peace is ammunition, they need to have their heads examined.

    Anon 9:13 said:

    "instead of coming here to blow shit up, they go to Baghdad".

    If you really believe that line, and I DON'T, then it's sounds a little selfish to me. Sacrifice the troops over there so we can keep going shopping over here!

    Actually its genious. If you had to fight a terrible enemy, where better than the streets of your other terrible enemy. Pre-9/11, Saddam's Iraq was probably our greatest enemy in the world. So now we get to fight our new enemy, in the territory of our old one. Two birds, one big goddamn stone.

    Now instead of coming here to blow shit up, they go to baghdad. Its f---ing genious.

    same guy here, i just want to wrap this all up. I dont disagree with the pullout. I just disagree with your reasoning on Iraq not being worth it. I totally support a pullout cause it will then leave Iraqi militias, bathists, Al queda, Insurgents to start killing eachother. We will have pitted our two greatest enemies, Iraq and Al queda, against eachother. Then we can just sit back and watch the show.

    You all probably think i am sick, but i think that is a really cool plan. gotta go.

    Thanks Lisa:

    I respect your opinion....it's mostly a matter of degrees.

    If you really believe that line, and I DON'T, then it's sounds a little selfish to me. Sacrifice the troops over there so we can keep going shopping over here!

    okay last post, then i GOTTA go (this is way too addictive). I do believe it. Its not so we can go shopping, it so they dont "blow stuff up here." As for sacrafising soldiers, i totally respect and admire those guys and dont want them to die. But i kinda see the whole point of inventing soldiers was to keep the civilians alive. If they die, it still awful, but if thats what there job takes, thats what it takes.

    I respect your opinion....it's mostly a matter of degrees.


    thanks. At least your willing to say that. most people i talk with just call me crazy.
    Why is peace such a dirty word? i don't get it.

    You all probably think i am sick, but i think that is a really cool plan. gotta go.


    You are by far the sickest human being i have ever met.

    You all probably think i am sick, but i think that is a really cool plan. gotta go.

    You are the sickest person i have ever met.

    why did my post dissapear and then come back?

    Lisa:

    This site acts funny. Thats why you see so many double posts. It appears your first post didn't 'take', so you do it again, and bingo...you have two posts.

    Traditionally Catholics have been Democrats, certainly blue-collar Democrats who belong and support labor unions. I suspect that is still the case and that most members use birth control, support abortion, and continue to love their church and are still allowed to partake of all its sacraments.

    Posted by: Cecelia at January 9, 2007 02:22 PM

    Yes Cecelia, That is the church I grew up in. Now don't get me wrong. I dont want, or expect the church tp pat me on the back and say,"Hey, do whatever you feel is right", that is not their role. I do think that far right crowd has been involved in and used what used to be considered a private matter between the parishoner, God, and the church to win votes that would legaslate church doctrine. They call people like me "Cafeteria Catholics" which is funny because they are the same, only they choose another menu.

    You deluded a--holes and your lying, deluded war criminal president are SOOOOO f---ed.
    Never before has a presidential address been so anticipated.
    Everyone knows Bush is a liar.
    72% of the people already disagree with whatever he`s going to say tonight.
    It`s going to be great fun watching that worthless piece of shit stammer through another pitiful charade.


    SECTARIAN REGRESSIVE HUKSTER HONES NEXT SHELL GAME SPEECH

    -- With 72% Disapproval Rating, Bumbling Decider Practices Delivering Old Lies With New Inflections --

    WASHINGTON -- President Bush has set Wednesday night for the unveiling of his new Iraq war plan which is certain to touch off a bruising battle with Congress over his expected proposal to dispatch more U.S. troops to Iraq. Democrats on Monday reiterated their pledge not to cut off money to ground troops, but were considering a range of other ideas to counter the Bush plan, including cutting off funding for private contractors who profit from reconstruction efforts. Democrats now have two factors working in their favor: majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, and more Republicans who would be willing to support a phased withdrawal. Recent polls have shown that 72 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Bush has handled Iraq.


    HANNITY THE WHORE...Flattery to Keith Olberman by copying his signature feature worst person in the world.
    Barry Sinrod

    Sean Hannity the talking Republican whore for the White House has decided that Keith Olbermann's worst person in the world segment which has included Hannity many many times is his new mantra in the form of Enemy of the state.

    He is quite the guy...

    Hannity's New TV Show Bestows A Weekly "Enemy Of The State" Award
    By Eric Kleefeld | bio
    Great Moments In Fox News Dept. Forget Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person In The World" contest — it's now been completely upstaged by a new Sunday contest on Fox: Sean Hannity's "Enemy of the State" award. Last night, Hannity's new Sunday night program aired for the first time, and from here on he'll award his "Enemy of the State" prize — a term originating with ancient Roman dictators placing bounties on rivals — on whatever red-state abortionist, anti-war activist, or run-of-the-mill Democrat who has attracted Hannity's ire that week. Imagine Hannity in that famous Twilight Zone episode, as the ranting Chancellor putting to death the old librarian portrayed by Burgess Meredith, and you'll get the idea. So who won the first "Enemy of the State" prize last night? To watch the segment and find out, view our YouTube here.


    Hey, Barry

    Poor Olby complained on Meltdown that Hannity was ripping him off by doing an "Enemy of the State" segment. Hmmmm, do you suppose that the concept of Olby's book (that unlike BOR's book, has now hit the bargain bin) might have been ripped off from someone else?

    http://www.amazon.com/110-People-Who-Screwing-America/dp/0060761296/sr=1-1/qid=1168396048/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1577955-0458045?ie=UTF8&s=books

    More Olby hypocrisy, no big surprise.

    By the way Barry, I see why you love Olbermann so much-- you're just like him. Your website professes that you are not partisan, but you come to this site and all your invective is reserved for conservatives. Non-partisan, my eye!